Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Barbara J. Rice on July 13, 2010 at 12:22pm

No. But there were so many variables with this short sale it's hard to know if the P-note was the deciding factor; although it certainly gave the homeowner some leverage. :-)

Paul Kuriatnyk said:

Barbara,
Have you ever received one of those second approvals without the seller signing a P-note?

Barbara J. Rice said:

negotiator?groupUrl=bankofamericashortsales&commentId=3468065%3AComment%3A37571&xg_source=msg_com_forum#3468065Comment37571">

There was a P-note paid to the MI company for MI that BofA purchased.
I'm in Nevada. My understanding is the lien holders may pursue the deficiency for up to 6 years after a short sale if the deficiency wasn't waived. If I were a lawyer I would use the file name of "nodef" just the way you suggested and twist it around enough so collection would be questionable. :-)

Steve Marx said:

Barbara,

Great post! Thanks so much for attaching the letters! Did the sellers take a P-Note on the second letter?

Notice in the bottom right corner the letter reads "no def", no deficiency.

Talk to an attorney because I have had several tell me in my state that unless they specifically reserve their right to pursue a deficiency, the short payoff acceptance with out specific reservation creates enough ambiguity that the rest of the debt may not be collectible. Better off getting the waive the right to deficiency language but this letter is a small miracle. Great job! I am really curious though if there was a P-Note on that deal?

Thanks!


Barbara J. Rice said:

I'm attempting to attach the two documents that show a BofA approval WITH the deficiency language and one WITHOUT. As I noted before though, even though the langugage is removed is does not release the deficiency. See the attachment. The first document is WITH the language is the second is WITHOUT.

Barbara J. Rice said:

Yes, I will provide a copy (sans client info) within 24 hours. It was a big deal for my client (even though I told him it didn't extinguish the deficiency) so we just kept badgering BofA. ALSO, I was working with a high-level negotiator so she probably had a little more wiggle room than most.

Steve Marx said:

I'm in with Paul. I want to see one. I do not think that BOA will make the change. This is a huge issue that people in my area have been trying to deal with for a while now. Any other lender, no problem. BOA, big problem. We handle our BOA short sale completely differently because of this single issue.




Paul Kuriatnyk said:

Jeff,
Would you be able to post a copy of one of those approval letters with the deficiency verbiage removed? I am curious to see one without it... I have been told that they do not exist. Would also love to hear how you got them to remove it.
Thanks a million
-Paul

Jeff Payne said:

the last 3 that I closed had the language removed......

Barbara J. Rice said:

Al: I've done a number of BofA short sales and they will NOT change the language. Period. The best success I had was they deleted the deficiency language but that doesn't remove their right to pursue. BoA's verbal position (no, they won't put it in writing) is that they reserve the right to go after the deficiency but they don't intend to pursue unless they determine there was fraud committed in the course of the short sale. Good luck.

Permalink Reply by Jerry A. Ringo on July 13, 2010 at 3:35pm

Uhh, you are out of luck! BOA will not remove that language, and would rather foreclose than remove it. My experience has been that if a promissory note is not a condition prior to approval, none will be asked for.

As for raising hell, please don't try it at Short Sale Support. Getting blamed by agents and yelled at as a proxy for BOA is simple abuse on the part of the screaming agents.

If the seller isn't going to agree, you'd be best off to pursue other properties and let this one die.

Sorry

Permalink Reply by Bob Seliski on July 17, 2010 at 3:46am

I have had luck in getting the deficiency removed. Here is how it went:
1. BOA when asked, said the mortgage insurance company, AIG was the one who was requiring the language.
2. I asked for the AIG contact info. Called them and found out that in fact they approved our sale with NO strings attached.
3. Went back to BOA and confronted them with this and gave them the contact info and the person at AIG I spoke with.
4. After two weeks of not giving up and accepting their stock answers, it was escalated to higher dept.
5. They finally acknowledged there was no requirement from AIG and we got the approval letter with the language removed.
The lesson to be learned:
The negotiators are the gatekeepers. When you do not get the answers you need, you must press on beyond them BUT do so with kindness. You attack the negotiator, you're dead in the water.

Permalink Reply by Barbara J. Rice on July 17, 2010 at 6:41am

Good job getting the language removed. It doesn't release the deficiency but it does make a grey area.
I did get ONE full release of the deficiency from BofA (yes, actual language that released the deficiency!); it arrived Wednesday. However, the seller is a senior citizen with no income and the spouse had recently passed away. It would appear BofA DOES have a heart! :-)

Bob Seliski said:

I have had luck in getting the deficiency removed. Here is how it went:
1. BOA when asked, said the mortgage insurance company, AIG was the one who was requiring the language.
2. I asked for the AIG contact info. Called them and found out that in fact they approved our sale with NO strings attached.
3. Went back to BOA and confronted them with this and gave them the contact info and the person at AIG I spoke with.
4. After two weeks of not giving up and accepting their stock answers, it was escalated to higher dept.
5. They finally acknowledged there was no requirement from AIG and we got the approval letter with the language removed.
The lesson to be learned:
The negotiators are the gatekeepers. When you do not get the answers you need, you must press on beyond them BUT do so with kindness. You attack the negotiator, you're dead in the water.

Permalink Reply by Al Goldin on July 18, 2010 at 7:11am

Very helpful info- thanx

Barbara J. Rice said:

Good job getting the language removed. It doesn't release the deficiency but it does make a grey area.
I did get ONE full release of the deficiency from BofA (yes, actual language that released the deficiency!); it arrived Wednesday. However, the seller is a senior citizen with no income and the spouse had recently passed away. It would appear BofA DOES have a heart! :-)

Bob Seliski said:

I have had luck in getting the deficiency removed. Here is how it went:
1. BOA when asked, said the mortgage insurance company, AIG was the one who was requiring the language.
2. I asked for the AIG contact info. Called them and found out that in fact they approved our sale with NO strings attached.
3. Went back to BOA and confronted them with this and gave them the contact info and the person at AIG I spoke with.
4. After two weeks of not giving up and accepting their stock answers, it was escalated to higher dept.
5. They finally acknowledged there was no requirement from AIG and we got the approval letter with the language removed.
The lesson to be learned:
The negotiators are the gatekeepers. When you do not get the answers you need, you must press on beyond them BUT do so with kindness. You attack the negotiator, you're dead in the water.

Permalink Reply by Jeff Payne on July 18, 2010 at 8:57am

Jerry, I have had the verbage removed several times, I will post the approvals tomorrow when I get to the offce

Jerry A. Ringo said:

Uhh, you are out of luck! BOA will not remove that language, and would rather foreclose than remove it. My experience has been that if a promissory note is not a condition prior to approval, none will be asked for.

As for raising hell, please don't try it at Short Sale Support. Getting blamed by agents and yelled at as a proxy for BOA is simple abuse on the part of the screaming agents.

If the seller isn't going to agree, you'd be best off to pursue other properties and let this one die.

Sorry

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page