We understand what it feels to face foreclosure. We understand the pressure of doing SOMETHING to address the situation. That is why we see to it that our team will satisfy your questions and needs regarding foreclosure. We’ve been part of the Better Business Bureau and have an “A” rating. So far, we are doing great in this craft. Ryan Wessels, our agent that has specialized in St Louis Short Sales and foreclosure rescue for more than five years, has proven his clients with the best means for foreclosure rescue and short sale services around.

Mr. Wessels is an asset of our team. He is a holder of various industry citations, such as a prestigious SFR certification in short sales and foreclosures given out by the National Association of Realtors. This certification had only been handed to select St. Louis short sale agents. His armour is his decade of experience as a short sale and a licensed real estate agent, dealing with the biggest lenders such as American Home Mortgage Servicing, Citi Mortgage, and J.P. Morgan Chase Bank.

As an alumnus of respected Jesuit institutions—St. Louis University High School and Rockhurst University in Kansas City—Ryan believes that education is the best way to empower his clients in the short sale setting. Educating his clients is crucial so that they will be able to keep going and cope with the stress associated with the insane situation called foreclosure.

Past clients have been commending Ryan for his creative energy, attitude, professionalism, and expertise. For them, these traits are extremely helpful to handling short sale in the most professional way possible. He is hands-on when it comes to following the whole process. For him, every client has a story to tell. They should be treated with utmost respect and regard for years they spent in their respective homes. This principle, coupled with efficiency, gets the job done in an amazingly short amount of time.

The thousands of distressed St. Louis homeowners who have found themselves upside down and threatened of losing their homes have created a lush atmosphere for scamsters and opportunists. But don’t worry, there are people in the business who uphold the values of integrity and dependability. Whether you are in need of a St. Louis short sale help, or you just owe more on your house than what it’s actually worth, Ryan Wessels and the STLForeclosureExpert.com is perfect for you!

A recent survey indicates that most Americans (58 percent or 6 out of 10) want the government to do something about short sales and the prevention of additional foreclosures. They want the federal government to take direct action in response to rising foreclosure rates, compared to only 34 percent who say the government should let the housing industry fix its own problems.

As an alternative to foreclosure, St. Louis short sales is aimed to lessen additional fees and costs to both the creditor and borrower, and it has the added benefit of being far better on the credit score of a homeowner than a foreclosure does. There had been prevalent short sales around towns in Missouri.

President Barrack Obama said in his State of the Union address that his administration is making a plan in order for homeowners to be able to turn their mortgages into more inexpensive terms.

Research shows that when unemployment rates soars or when the house market looms, many people react emotionally. A financial system that does not fully empower people economically indirectly results to depression. This means that people are less likely to go to the gym, eat balanced diet, or do the necessary things to keep themselves in good shape. In addition, many of those who expressed feelings of hopelessness also found that they were drugs and consuming alcohol more.

Monetary security is very closely linked to psychological health. Without money to pay mortgages, there is an increase in general feelings of discontent with life’s situations. All of these concerns can be connected with suicidal tendencies and aggressive behavior.

If you are obligated to pay your mortgages, it is very important to save as much money as you can. Don’t take on more debt, or spend a lot of money on something that you don’t need. Don’t just have four months of money in your savings. Have three months of food as well. Eat from your stash and use the food money to pay your dues. Obviously, it could make a big difference in whether you have a house or not.

It’s not actually surprising for a person to demand the government to fix the housing crisis in the country. Given that previous government programs failed to significantly help those facing foreclosure, St. Louis foreclosure experts assert that only a sincere program will definitely improve the lives of the people.

Visit http://SaveMyMID.org for more information on Mortgage interest tax deduction.

Don’t forget, if you need to find a real estate agent that specializes in foreclosure visit our sit.

So what does this mean for landlords?

Well there is the risk that their tenants won’t be able to pay the rent, leaving them in an equally difficult financial situation. What’s more, with the high level of unemployment and redundancies landlords may find it harder to get new tenants who can afford the rent. With no income from rent and overheads from bills such as landlord insurance and utilities, landlords could find themselves in a very precarious situation.

There are however 2 options: 1, landlords could lower their rent charges to attract new tenants and decrease the risk of losing rent. However, this means getting less money from the house and taking a loss. 2, alternatively landlords could look to sell the property.

As a landlord it may be better to short sell the property rather than risk not receiving any money for the property whatsoever. It is a straight forward, quick and easy option that could protect you from potential heavy losses and the risk of mounting debt or even foreclosure on the house.

Author – Matthew Read

Perhaps you have been told HAMP can help you out.

This following article was posted on the Wall Street Journal on February 7th, 2011 and it rings true as far as how effective HAMP has been for homeowners facing foreclosure:

Giving Hamp the Hook

Treasury’s mortgage foreclosure relief program is a bust.

Proposing cuts to housing programs has never been politically popular, so maybe it’s a sign of the times that Ohio’s Jim Jordan and other Republicans are floating a bill to terminate the Obama Administration’s Home Affordable Modification Program, or Hamp. Or maybe, just maybe, this latest waste of taxpayer money is so egregious that the bill’s sponsors figure even Democrats can get on board. Let us hope.

Hamp was launched in 2009 to reward mortgage servicers for modifying contracts and borrowers for staying current on their payments. The goal was to help three to four million homeowners avoid foreclosure. Yet two years later, the number of applications cancelled has exceeded those approved, and some homeowners have been forced into foreclosure while awaiting a decision.

Hamp was flawed from its inception. If the last few decades of public housing policy have taught anything, it’s that programs to keep people in homes they can’t afford is a bad idea—and, in any case, bureaucrats are terrible managers. Treasury administered Hamp but contracted day-to-day oversight to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The launch was rushed and the rules for loan modifications were repeatedly changed.

One year into the program, more than one million borrowers had entered trial modifications, swamping mortgage servicers. Seventy-eight percent of borrowers were already in default before starting the trial, according to Treasury data released last week. Many loans weren’t viable from the beginning and wouldn’t benefit even from the low interest rates facilitated by the Federal Reserve.

The numbers bear that out. According to Treasury data, 792,529 trial and permanent Hamp home loan modifications have been cancelled, compared to 521,630 homeowners who have had their mortgages “permanently modified.” Applications for Hamp modifications are now slowing markedly. The Congressional Oversight Panel estimated last month that on current trends Hamp will prevent at most 700,000 to 800,000 foreclosures.

Meantime, private mortgage servicers—who can price risk more accurately—have outstripped Hamp. The Hope Now coalition estimates that last year non-Hamp modifications totaled about 1.2 million loans. That’s about double what Hamp has done over the same period. Treasury claims that Hamp redefault rates are less than those of the private sector, but that is hard to verify because borrowers who drop out of Hamp in the trial period aren’t counted in the redefault statistics.

The Obama Administration nonetheless keeps hawking Hamp, and last month Treasury’s Timothy Massad told Congress that “helping over 500,000 people enter into permanent modification, people who would otherwise be thrown out of their homes” are “dollars well spent.” Hamp is funded through the Troubled Asset Relief Program and has spent $840 million of the $29.9 billion allocated to the Making Home Affordable Program, most of which is for Hamp.

That’s not persuasive to Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general for Tarp, who last month noted Treasury’s “astonishing silence” and refusal to “provide an estimate, goal, or projection of the total number of permanent modifications it expects to complete and maintain.” It’s hard to know if money is “well spent” if you don’t know what defines success.

If you measure success by the housing market, Hamp has failed miserably. According to RealtyTrac, 2.9 million homes received foreclosure filings in 2010, up from 2.8 million in 2009 and 2.3 million in 2008. The bellwether Case-Shiller home price index is falling again. Hamp is one more artificial prop to a housing market that will recover faster if foreclosures are allowed to proceed more rapidly and the homes are resold. By all means give Hamp the hook.

February 18th, 2009   By Peter G. Miller

Filed Under: Featured

With mortgage practices under fire on Capitol Hill and across the country, a federal court decision in Cleveland is now proving more important each day: Homeowners can’t be foreclosed unless mortgage owners actually go to court and prove they have the right to call the loan.

At first this may seem unimportant. After all, when a home is financed doesn’t a lender own the loan? And if a borrower doesn’t pay shouldn’t the lender have a right to foreclose?

It turns out that the first question is not so simple. A large proportion of the institutions that we see as “lenders” don’t actually own the loans they make. Instead, they create loans and then sell them to issuers. The issuers package the loans to create mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and those securities are then sold to investors worldwide. The investors, in turn, are represented by a trustee.

That means, according to ruling by federal judge Christopher Boyko of the U.S. District Court in Ohio, that many foreclosures cannot proceed because the actual loan owners are not the lenders that originally issued the loans — even though the names of those original note holders continue to appear in official records.

SEE ATTACHED FILE FOR BOYKO

Boyko 2007 Foreclosure Decision — Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Steele, 2008 WL 111227

Missouri Court Weighs In on ‘Show Me the Note’

By Wendell Sherk, Missouri Attorney on Mar 17, 2009 in Foreclosure Defense, Foreclosure Process

A Missouri appellate court concluded that a mortgage lender would not have standing to appear in court unless it could prove it was the true owner of the loan.  Once again, old fashioned legal rules are getting in the way of convenience for the lending industry.

A mortgage typically consists of two separate documents:  A Note and a Deed of Trust.  The Note says how much you owe, to whom, what the payment and interest rate terms are, and what happens if you fail to pay properly.  The Deed of Trust is what grants the lender a lien on the property which secures the payment of the Note — and what gives the lender the right to take the property if you don’t pay.  Most states require a Deed of Trust to be publicly recorded in order to give a lender a higher lien on the property as against other lenders, if any.  But the rules often do not require a Note to be recorded — or the assignments of the Notes or Deeds of Trust that happen all the time.  So the public record often shows the original lender, but not any of the subsequent owners of the loan.

The Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District concluded this month that a lender ought to be able to prove it is owed the money that was not paid before it can go to court to claim a right in the property.  In the particular case, the court was dealing with a common mortgage practice:  Assigning the Deed of Trust to MERS for safe-keeping while assigning the Note –the right to collect the money — to a securitized trust, ultimately owned by various investors.   However, the “chain” of assignments of the Note typically is not so easy to follow.  The original lender is usually still listed on the Note and the assignments of the Note to other banks or servicers is either not traceable — or was never technically completed because the first assignment left the the assignee/recipient blank (called an “assignment in blank”).

For those of us who have had the sad occasion to deal with multiple mortgage servicers claiming to be entitled to payment on the same loan documents — and most bankruptcy lawyers eventually have this journey through the Looking Glass experience — one can only say, “It’s about time!”

The Missouri court concluded, based on a long tradition in state law, that the Note controls everything and the holder of a bare Deed of Trust is without power to do anything against the property.  And in order to appear in court based on the Note, the party must actually prove they are properly entitled to the Note through a purchase or assignment of the loan.  In other words, “because I said so” is not good enough.  This is in line with what has happened elsewhere nationally.

Ironically of course this case evolved not from a foreclosure — most foreclosures in Missouri are “non-judicial,” meaning they take place without the court ever being involved — but rather from a fight between an investor who bought a property at a delinquent tax sale and the mortgage lender.  It is an odd twist of fate that a vulture investor would have a greater right to force a mortgage lender to prove they are entitled to pursue a home than the actual homeowner.  This is a critical flaw of the entire “non-judicial” foreclosure process used in many states today.

FEDERAL CASE

Did your house sale go smoothly once you began working with Ryan?

Very much so. 

How would you rate your experience with Ryan?  Why?

If on a scale of 1 to 10 he would be a 15.  He is not only very courteous and considerate but he is a very compassionate person; he understands that when going through a short sale it is most likely not by choice and everyone has a story.  In our case we had owned our home for 20 years, raised our family in it and had many memories.  He patiently listened and then told us how the procedure would work.  He was very professional yet so caring.  He was also very efficient and got the job done in an amazingly short amount of time.  Even the woman who handled our closing was surprised.

Would you ever work with Ryan in the future?

Hopefully only to purchase a home but most definitely yes! 

Would you recommend Ryan to any friends?  Why?

Absolutely, I already have.

Additional comments?

Among the many other wonderful qualities I already mentioned about Ryan I would also like to say he is a young man of great integrity.  I feel this is why he is so successful in what he does because he is honest, caring and efficient.