Statute of frauds and modification

– Statute of Frauds, Modification of Loan Documents – An
agreement to modify a note secured by a deed of trust must be in
writing signed by the party to be charged, or it is barred by the
statute of frauds.  Secrest v. Security Nat. Mortg. Loan Trust 2002-2,
167 Cal. App. 4th 544, 552-553 (2008). Oh yes but what about the exceptions.

Performance of the contract like if you will provide all you personal financial information

we (the lender)  will postpone the Trustee sale. You provide the information they foreclose anyway.

Unknown's avatar

Author: timothymccandless

I have spent most of my professional life helping people who were being taken advantage of by systems they did not fully understand. As an attorney, I represented consumers against predatory lending practices and worked in elder law protecting seniors from fraud. My family lost $239,145 to identity theft, which became the foundation for my seniorgard.onlime and deepened my commitment to financial education. Since 2008, I have maintained a blog at timothymccandless.wordpress.com providing free financial education. Not behind a paywall. Free, because financial literacy should not cost money. I trade with real money using the exact strategy described in this book. My current positions: Pfizer at $16,480 deployed generating $77,900 per year net. Verizon at $29,260 deployed generating $51,000 per year net. Combined: 293% annualized pace. These are my only active positions. Not cherry-picked.

One thought on “Statute of frauds and modification”

  1. Hi,

    Is there a difference between fed and state court outcome?

    FRCP 17 where the party bringing the action has to be a real party in interest?

    Also, Im curious if what most people are doing wrong is not going after general contract law duty of good faith and fair dealing. Per Auerbach v Great W Bank 1999.

    should we also being going after the fact that lenders put people in loan mods with no intention of ever modifying as in a 12 month loan mod then a permanent mod that is 60% of the gross income.

    Tila violations, and one of my clinets the nod has Wamu, who is no longer in business, but the lender on the final mod was Chase, then in the answer to my qwr Chase said the note was sold to WMMSC and held by many investors. If so, why would Chase be the named lender on the mod? I think it was so that the owners would sign and in doing so would transfer owner ship to Chase which was not perfected.

    JoAnna Jensen
    The lenders are doing us wrong or is it the securitization contract

    Reply

Leave a comment