DS News

31 » VISIT US ONLINE @ DSNEWS.COM problem. However, the legislature went too far in imposing these costly obligations on banks and servicers where they played no role in the borrower's default or abandonment, and especially where the parties' contract imposes no such obligations. Additionally, the legislature seized this opportunity to make wholesale changes to New York foreclosure law, all in favor of delinquent borrowers. ey imposed new pre- foreclosure notice requirements, broadened protections for borrowers under the court- supervised mediation process, and revised New York's civil procedure law to allow borrowers to litigate foreclosures well after their time to do so had expired. e result? Longer and more expensive foreclosures. e law also imposes unreasonable deadlines on servicers, and in some cases, no explanation of what happens if these deadlines aren't met. Ultimately, we're dealing with a situation where judges have difficulty interpreting the law, which leads New York's vast foreclosure defense bar to use the poorly written statute as fodder to prolong foreclosures indefinitely. Among the most troubling aspects of the new law is the borrower's blanket extension to contest the foreclosure after initially choosing to default. is de facto invitation to litigate from the legislature, which is encouraged by the courts, has greatly increased the number of contested foreclosures over the past 15 months. Mind you, we're not seeing an increase in legitimate disputes—just an increase in litigation. It's simply more paper, more court resources, and increased foreclosure delays and expenses. Servicers have been forced to dedicate resources to combat increasingly frivolous litigation, caused by politicians with little knowledge of the realities of the situation. You cited unethical defense counsel as one of the most significant challenges you face when working in the area of foreclosure law. Could you expand upon this? It's an unfortunate reality that a small percentage of lawyers in every field, in every part of the country, will practice with suspect ethics. My background is in civil litigation, both inside the foreclosure realm and outside, though for the past several years, I've exclusively litigated on behalf of mortgage servicers. In comparing adversaries in these different types of litigation, I'm sorry to say that the foreclosure defense bar, on the whole, consistently falls short in this department. You see the same defense firms employing the same frivolous, guerrilla tactics to frustrate the court process, which, as mentioned above, is without regard to the actual merits of the action. is exists in other fields of law, but it's nowhere near as prevalent as in foreclosure defense. With the exception of a few individuals and firms, the defense bar's goals seem to be delay, obfuscation, and gamesmanship—not putting forth a meritorious defense, and not settlement, unless it is on unreasonable terms. It's simply, 'How long can we play this game and twist the law and exploit the court system?' is is an unfortunate and often frustrating approach to law, one you don't see in other types of civil litigation. What do you wish more people understood about your job or your industry? I wish banks were treated more justly and portrayed more accurately. Detractors, unfortunately, come in all shapes and sizes, from your next-door neighbor to the judges, politicians, and sensationalist media that drive public discourse. ey ignore the fact that a borrower and his bank share a contractual relationship, one where the parties agreed in advance as to how to resolve the matter in the unfortunate event the loan goes into default. Instead, they concentrate their energies, and venom, on the fall-out for a borrower who cannot fulfill his contractual promises. ese facts are lost on most. Also forgotten is the fact that banks work behind the scenes, far from the limelight, to keep people in their homes. Foreclosure is almost always a last resort. On a personal level, I believe in a borrower's and bank's right to contract; in our system of mortgage lending and homeownership; that people should keep their promises, and when circumstances make that impossible, that courts should follow the path the parties chose for themselves, as laid out by contract. My job is to protect the bargained-for rights of banks and mortgage loan servicers by enforcing the mortgage contracts that underpin our national policy favoring homeownership. I believe this is good, principled work, and I'm proud to represent the banks that make up this firm's THE LEADER IN DEFAULT SERVICING NEWS Help shape the next issue of DS News. Drop us a line at Editor@DSNews.com. "We're not seeing an increase in legitimate disputes—just an increase in litigation. … Servicers have been forced to dedicate resources to combat increasingly frivolous litigation, caused by politicians with little knowledge of the realities of the situation."

• Cover