Subscribe: Comments on: AZ Rep. Seel Drops Amendment Requiring Pre-Foreclosure Chain of Title, 2 Days After Servicer Grants Principal Reduc
http://mandelman.ml-implode.com/comments/feed/
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade B rated
Language:
Tags:
called  check  clearing house  client  cover  don  electronic check  electronic  firm  law  mandelman  matt  people  rutledge  united 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Comments on: AZ Rep. Seel Drops Amendment Requiring Pre-Foreclosure Chain of Title, 2 Days After Servicer Grants Principal Reduc

Comments for Mandelman Matters



I'm here . . . Let the Games Begin.



Last Build Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 05:32:21 +0000

 



Comment on Matt Padilla… Again? Matt, Matt, Matt… by Mandelman

Sun, 19 Jul 2009 05:32:21 +0000

Well, I understand what you're saying, but in this case I'm not so sure it's what it appears to be. For example, this client was not a client of Sean Rutledge's, he was a client of the firm and was calling the firm's managing partner. The firm has a record of how many times he called to ask questions of his attorney and was provided with answers. He first called Mr. Rutlledge to complain that the electronic check that he authorized had been sent through twice and Sean explained that had nothing to do with United Law, it was simply the standard practice of the clearing house when processing an electronic check. It never cleared, as he called the day after he authorized it to stop payment, but the clearing house sent it through again. He told Mr. Rutledge that he was going to complain to the Bar Association and Mr. Rutledge said that it was his right to do so, but that the firm had not sent anything through twice and has no control over the clearing house that processes electronic checks. Then the client called Mr. Rutledge maybe a dozen times over a two week period while Sean was traveling, and each time was offered another partner and refused. Then he pulled the paramedic stunt, which is against the law, by the way, as is lying about authorizing an electronic check. This client was only a client of the firm for a week, between the end of December and January 3rd. Look... I'm not saying that I don't understand people being freaked out about hiring a firm to help them with a loan modification... with the confusion caused by the government and the scams that are out there, it's a mess. I'm just saying that this particular case seems incredibly weak. It makes no sense that a firm the size of United, a firm that offers so many other areas of law, that they would accept a retainer of $1750 and then do nothing or not refund it. There are real problem companies out there... does this instance really rise to the level of being a problem? The man received his refund 72 hours after signing the standard release of liability that all firms require when a client no longer wants to be represented. And when the Bar started to investigate, the man had received his money two months before. I know you think I attacked Matt unfairly, and perhaps you think that I defend loan modification firms in all cases, but it's not true. First of all, I've actually helped to get scam firms closed down. I've helped at least a dozen people get their money back, and I'd be happy to help put anyone away that ripped off a homeowner. I just don't think that the government has done anyone a service by saying that they're all scams, when they clearly aren't. I don't think telling people that they can handle things themselves, when they clearly cannot in many cases. And I think Matt, as the Orange County Register mortgage expert, should be a voice that helps people find their way through that maze... and he hasn't. So, just like you find it acceptable that the United client used the paramedic ruse to get Mr. Rutledge on the phone, I went after Matt to get a reaction. He's ignored so many calls from ML-Implode I couldn't possibly count. After my response to his column, he got in touch with Aaron and Randall right away... to say that he didn't like me attacking him. And for the record... I don't claim to be balanced... I am an editorialist that is pro homeowner every time.



Comment on Matt Padilla… Again? Matt, Matt, Matt… by Mandelman

Sun, 19 Jul 2009 05:11:30 +0000

Thanks for saying that, rdulecki... I really appreciate it. Did you by any chance get a chance to read my cover story in the July issue of The Niche Report on HVCC? You can find it at http://www.thenichereport.com, scroll down on the left and click on the July cover. Check out the illustration on the cover, which was drawn by my partner, Richard Taylor, and the story starts on page 16. It's about the new HVCC rules governing appraisals, and the only thing I know less about than mortgages, are appraisals, so I was just wondering what others thought of the article. Glad to have you reading Mandelman Matters, and I hope you'll spread the word. I also write a monthly column in The Niche Report on the very last page of the magazine, called Bringing Up the Rear. Each month I bring up a new rear... this month the rear in question is Sheila Bair of the FDIC.