Shore Bank, like other lenders, has come under scrutiny from borrowers who have been denied loan modification assistance. Many borrowers who have been denied for assistance claim that they meet all of the requirements for a modification but that their lender didn’t agree. While different factors affect the chances of a person’s loan modification application, no one can argue that there will always be borrowers in the lending industry who simply fall through the cracks. These are the borrowers who more than deserve for a loan modification but are still denied assistance based on different reasons.
Before approaching mortgage litigation with Shore Bank, the borrower should make sure that they have a solid argument. Taking a lender to court out of spite is not a good idea if they can show good cause for the denial. An experienced foreclosure attorney can review the facts of a borrower’s case and determine whether or not the borrower has a legitimate grievance that requires the attention of the courts.
Once Shore Bank realizes that they are being called to court, the borrower (or more appropriately, their attorney) should be ready for a phone call. This phone call may not come, in which case the trial will move forward, but if it does come, good news may be on the horizon for the borrower. In many instances, lenders will attempt to avoid mortgage litigation in order to avoid court costs and bad press, making the possibility for an out of court settlement offer a very good possibility. Should Shore Bank offer their borrower an out of court settlement, the borrower should discuss the offer with their attorney before agreeing to the offer. The attorney will be able to tell whether or not the offer is any good and whether or not the borrower should take the offer or continue to pursue litigation. As a side note, borrowers who are unrepresented by legal counsel may be offered an out of court settlement, but it will not normally be as high as settlements offered to borrowers represented by attorneys. Borrowers shouldn’t forget that lenders are still in the business of making money and preventing losses, after all.
Before walking into a court room, the borrower should have as much evidence to offer in their defense as possible, including copies of pay stubs, bills, bank statements, etc. Anything that can show the judge that the borrower is actually in need of a modification and that the borrower actually qualifies for the modification should be taken to be used as evidence. The results of a forensic mortgage loan audit an also be presented as evidence, since any evidence of predatory and/or illegal lending practices will offer more of a reason as to why the lender should modify the loan in question. Had it not been for predatory and/or illegal lending practices, who’s to say that the borrower never would have run into their inability to make their monthly payments on time and in full? An attorney or a third party recommended by an attorney should be used to conduct the loan audit. This will cut down on the chance of being scammed by someone willing to take the borrower’s money while only claiming to have reviewed the mortgage contract and returning with negative findings.