Home Loan Countrywide Service Financing Realtors Buyers

CLICK HERE ->->->-> https://shurll.com/2t5bR9

These conservative arguments should be treated with skepticism. The evidence shows that the usual targets of the conservative attack did not play a significant role in the housing and financial crisis. Government policies that make it more affordable to buy a home were not responsible for the crisis. In fact, consumers who already had mortgages and who had built up equity in their homes were more likely to be targeted for predatory subprime loans than first-time homebuyers.6

In the early 2000s, the government and GSE share of the mortgage market began to decline as the purely private securitization market, called the private label securities market, or PLS, expanded. During this period, there was a dramatic expansion of mortgage lending, a large portion of which was in subprime loans with predatory features.21 The majority of this mortgage lending was existing homeowners refinancing, with many believing that they were taking advantage of lower interest rates to extract home equity. Instead, they often were exposed to complex and risky products that quickly became unaffordable when economic conditions changed.22 Linked with the expansion of predatory lending and the growth of the PLS market was the repackaging of these risky loans into complicated products through which the same assets were sold multiple times throughout the financial system.

The HomeChoice Second Mortgage program is a Downpayment Assistance Program for low- to-moderate income people with a disability or who have a family member with a disability living with them and qualify for Home Advantage first mortgage loan program. A 1.00% interest rate on the Downpayment Assistance loan program for first-time homebuyers (borrowers who haven't owned and occupied their primary residence in the past three years). If you buy in a targeted area you do not have to be a first-time homebuyer.

Whether you are considering owner financing, or just need another lending source for homes in your community, we can help! We have loan origination platforms and servicing platforms for community owners.

CountryPlace Mortgage is the nation's premier lender for manufactured, modular, and mobile homes. We offer a one-time close construction loan for new homes. We make financing or refinancing your home simple and easy. If you own a manufactured or mobile home, or are thinking about purchasing a new or existing home, Countryplace Mortgage should be your lender of choice. We can finance your manufactured or mobile home whether it's tied to the land or in a mobile home park.

Founded in 1995, Countryplace Mortgage is a direct lender with both Fannie Mae and FHA. That means that we can offer you the most competitive rates, with down payments as low as 3.5%. When financing a manufactured, mobile, or modular home, it is important that you are working with a mortgage professional that understands these unique properties. Whether it's a chattel (home-only), land/home package, or construction loan we have the expertise to help you navigate today's challenging mortgage process. Many of our Loan Officers have several years experience originating manufactured and mobile home loans.

The Quarterly Housing Affordability Index measures whether or not a typical family qualifies for a mortgage loan on a typical home at the national and regional levels based on quarterly price and income data, as well as a look at affordability conditions for first time buyers.

State and local DPAs often require formal mortgage applications and place constraints on home buyer financing. Sometimes, states require buyers to use specific higher-cost mortgages or mortgage lenders which offset or negate the down payment assistance program benefits.

She will offer a variety of home-financing options to customers, including Conventional and Government loans, both fixed and variable products. Angie will primarily serve customers in Springfield, Longmeadow, East Longmeadow, Wilbraham, and Hampden but can originate mortgages in the state of Massachusetts.

BACKGROUNDPlaintiff, JaredW. Beschel ("Beschel"), is an attorney admitted to practice law in the courts of the State of NewYork. His firm is Plaintiff, Jared W. Beschel & Associates, P.C. ("PC"), a domestic professionallegal corporation. The PC's practice is devoted principally to the representation of institutionalmortgagees, real estate sellers and purchasers, title insurance carriers and agencies, mortgagebrokers and real estate brokers.Countrywide is a mortgage lender. Grippo is a branch manager and mortgage loanapplication underwriter at Countrywide's Uniondale office. DiPalo and Elsner are also mortgageloan application underwriters in that same office.Beschel and PC were on Countrywide's list of approved legal counsel and also haddealings with Countrywide as legal counsel representing sellers and purchasers of real estate.Plaintiffs allege that their relationship with Defendants was on good terms until "Defendants,without reason or excuse, suddenly then embarked on a secret, evil, malicious, wicked, culpable,actionable, despicable and wholly unjustified course of wrongful conduct cruelly designed toinjure plaintiffs in plaintiffs' trade and profession." (Complaint ¶ 20). Plaintiffs assert thatDefendants began to publish directly or indirectly to clients that Plaintiffs were shadypractitioners', "participate in fraudulent loans'" and that dealing with Plaintiffs is "bad business".(Complaint ¶ 21). Thereafter, Defendants repeatedly stated that anyone doing business withPlaintiffs will not be approved to do business with Defendants and that any loan applicationconnected to Plaintiffs would be rejected.Plaintiffs commenced this action alleging the following causes of action: (1)permanent injunction on Defendants' conduct; (2) mandatory injunction requiring Defendants totake action to remedy the damage caused; (3) defamation; (4) tortious interference with contract;and (5) tortious interference with business relations.Defendants argue that the defamation claim is not pled with particularity; theirstatements are protected speech as opinion statements and not fact and are thus not actionable;the causes of action for injunctions are unconstitutional; and the tortious interference causes ofaction fail to state a claim.In opposition to the motion and in support of Plaintiffs' application for the motion tobe converted to a CPLR 3212 motion in his favor (see footnote 2, infra) Beschelmaintains that, in early 2005, he was contacted by DiPalo concerning a transaction involving thesale of property, located at 94-22 32nd Avenue, East Elmhurst, New York, in which the PC hadrepresented Countrywide as the lender. The borrower on that transaction, Mario Lazo ("Lazo"),purchased a home for another party without Plaintiffs' knowledge and Lazo assigned the home tothat other person after the closing.Plaintiffs maintain that they had no knowledge of this scheme. During a telephoneconversation between Beschel and DiPalo concerning the Lazo file, DiPalo [*2]informed Beschel that Plaintiffs would not be representingCountrywide in the future. In an attempt to rectify the situation, Beschel called Lazo's attorneywho arranged to have title transferred back to Lazo. Upon receipt of the title documentsconfirming that Lazo was again the title owner to the property, Beschel forwarded the documentsto Countrywide. Despite Plaintiffs' efforts, Plaintiffs were barred from representing Countrywideafter the Lazo incident.In July 2008, Plaintiffs, during the course of representing two buyers of cooperativeapartments, for which Countrywide was to provide the funding, found out that Countrywide hadestablished a policy excluding them from representing any parties involved in aCountrywide-funded real estate transaction. On July 22, 2008, an employee of the PC, MarieRogers ("Rogers"), received an email from the mortgage broker who was involved with bothdeals, Antonio Gagliardi ("Gagliardi"), asking for her to call him. Gagliardi informed Rogers thatCountrywide refused to close on either co-op transaction as long as Plaintiffs represented thebuyers. Plaintiffs, through Gagliardi's staff, were informed that Countrywide's position was thatBeschel was no longer approved as a settlement agent or to work on any of Countrywide's loan inany capacity. Supposedly this directive came from Grippo. Given the situation, Plaintiffswithdrew as attorney of record for both purchasers since Countrywide would not provide thefunds for either loan if Plaintiffs remained counsel for either of the buyers.On July 24, 2008, Beschel called Grippo and recorded the conversation. Grippoinformed Beschel that Diaz had given the direction not to use Plaintiffs and that no loans wouldbe closed if Plaintiffs were involved in the deal.Following the conversation with Grippo, Beschel contacted Diaz and recorded thatconversation as well. Diaz confirmed that Countrywide's policy was that "we essentially canchoose whom to [do] business with and whom not to and we're simply choosing not to do anytype of business relationships or continue a business relationship with you with the company."When specifically asked about situations in which he would represent a buyer in a real estatetransaction funded by Countrywide, he was informed that, based on past transactions,Countrywide would not engage in any further transactions involving Plaintiffs in any capacity.Plaintiffs argue that since the Long Island mortgage lending business is controlled bya small group of mortgage brokers and Countrywide is the principal lender in the region thatCountrywide's "notice" to brokers that it will not do business with Plaintiffs can effectively putPlaintiffs out of business. Plaintiffs opine that "the clearly-implied message is that (Plaintiffs)have done something so horrible and unprofessional that Countrywide fear harm just by doingbusiness with our clients."In reply, Defendants raise the argument that the individual Defendants, Grippo,Elsner and DiPalo, should be dismissed from this suit as Plaintiffs make no allegations that anyof these three individuals committed a tort against the Plaintiffs [FN1]. They also argue that Plaintiffs' purportedcross-motion seeking to convert Defendants' notice of a [*3]CPLR 3211 motion into a CPLR 3212 motion in favor of Plaintiffsis inappropriate for Plaintiffs' failure to serve a notice of cross-motion and that issue has yet to bejoined [FN2].Defendants also note that with respect to the Lazo closing, Countrywide disbursedfunds to Plaintiffs' special mortgage trust account in the amount of $426,308.80 on December 14,2004. These funds were reimbursed to Countrywide on December 30, 2004 by Plaintiffs. Anadditional reimbursement in the same amount was made by Plaintiffs to Countrywide. OnFebruary 11, 2005, DiPalo inquired of Plaintiffs about the status of the Lazo closing and wasinformed that Lazo borrowed money from Continental Capital and not Countrywide. EventuallyBeschel called DiPalo to state that he had disbursed the Countrywide funds on Lazo's behalf topurchase the East Elmhurst property and that any return of the funds to Countrywide was anerror. In response, Countrywide transferred $426,308.80 back to Plaintiffs. 2b1af7f3a8