Comment

Comment by Cathy McAlister on May 17, 2011 at 10:52am

BofA may foreclose on May 17th, and I know for a fact that this one is in error.  There is a problem with the service notice to an old d/t that is not reconveyed.  BofA did not service this lender notice and with with it's spaghetti like departments seems committed to not wanting to know.

 

Trying to get this information through to BofA has been a challenge.  We have an approval in hand - expires today.   There is a foreclosure on Monday the 21st and BofA SS will not extend UNTIL the foreclosure date while they wait to see if the foreclosure is completed.  Why in the world would you just sit and wait?

 

We have a good short sale transaction as to buyer, seller and terms.  There are two problems.  A second "Key Bank" has been very slow to respond.  But, there is also an old 2nd loan that is now sitting in first position.  It was never reconveyed.  In California, lenders are required to provide service to all existing d/t's of record regardless.    This old lender is not showing on the owner's service notices and therefore this could be considered an "error in service" and could subject the lender to starting the foreclosure over from the beginning.  We are not looking for that - just sufficient time to clear the title.

 

What is interesting is trying to get anyone at BofA to understand this information.   Every single department from Short-Sale, Foreclosure and Recon Trust department says they are not allowed to do anything, it is responsibility of XYZ department.   Short Sale says it needs to come from the investor, but they won't divulge who that is (we already know FNMA); foreclosure department said they cannot do anything and would not place the information into the system - as everything goes through their foreclosure company REO Trans.  We called REO Trans - spoke with the call center and are now directed to fax a request to their legal department.    What do you want to bet that won't go anywhere either.

 

BofA - if you are listening.  Contact me.  I believe you have an erroneous foreclosure on a technical error.   The seller's attorney is looking at this.  Why not give an extension instead and let the transaction close smoothly, instead of saying that from a rear-view mirror. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comment by Amaryllis Rodriguez on May 10, 2011 at 5:37am

There are ways around DUAL AGENT.  CONNECTICUT IS A DUAL AGENT STATE!!! KEY WORD SINGLE AGENT, NOT AGENCY.

Comment by Julia Huntsman, 562-896-2609 on May 10, 2011 at 5:14am

Has anyone had experience with a FNMA HAFA short sale thru Bank of America where sellers have possibly been away from property longer than 90 days? Did FNMA not change on that when Treasury rules did change?

Comment by Jeff Payne on May 6, 2011 at 2:32am

Good stuff Jim. Thanks for sharing

Comment by Jim Hale on May 5, 2011 at 12:12pm

Jeff -

NEWS FLASH:
I just revisited the BofA short sale site for agents. The Realtor / Broker Listing Agent Certification, a page associated with that new BofA short sale addendum has been changed-  since I wrote a post here a few days ago. The site now says the addendum will apply only to "select" short sales initiated after April 4.

And the following sentence has been deleted since my post:

8. Brokers’ acknowledge and agree that there are no Dual Representation. Dual Representation is defined as a single agent representing both the Buyer and the Seller in the transaction giving rise to the underlying Purchase Contract.

 

So it looks like the no dual agency restriction is gone.

 

BTW:  A call taker at the SS customer care number told me today, after checking with a supervisor, the "select" short sales really means those that are FANNY and FREDDIE loans.

Comment by Jeff Payne on May 5, 2011 at 11:15am

Jim, yes it was after 4/4.  I don't have a relationship with the buyer, for that  matter I don't have one with the seller.  has anyone had a sale denied because they had the buyer and the seller?

Comment by Jim Hale on May 5, 2011 at 5:45am

Jeff, But my question really is:  Was that transaction initiated in Equator before or after April 4?

And:  Why would BofA treat transaction brokers any differently under this new addendum?  Their beef is not with agency.  The beef is with listing agents having business ties with buyers.

Comment by Jeff Payne on May 5, 2011 at 4:57am

Jim, Bank of Americas addednum has verbage about dual agency, in Florida we are not dual agents, we are transaction brokers.  I have one in the process right now with no issues of me being a transaction broker, they are proceeding as normal and have agreed to pay 5% on that one.

Comment by Jim Hale on May 5, 2011 at 4:19am

BofA's new bank addendum for short sales (as published on their website and discussed elsewhere here in SSS), for all sales initiated after April 4, prohibits double-ending. Does anyone know something to the contrary?

 

I believe you when you say they just approved a double-end commission at 4 or even above.  But do you have any that have been initiated after April 4 on which you have received such approvals....or even gotten to the negotiation phase?

 

I would love to hear about it, if you do.

Comment by Jeff Payne on May 5, 2011 at 2:29am

Kemp, I have double sided many BofA deals and got paid 6%, the lowest I have ever been paid by them is 5% but more often I get paid 6%

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 158
• 159
• 160
• 161
• 162
• …
• 353
• Next ›
• Page