Foreclosure Proceedings in Violation of Due Process?
If you're behind on your mortgage payments, worrying about adjusting mortgage rates, or struggling to keep your home, you know that foreclosure is no picnic. You probably assume, though, that it's legal—but is it?
Maryland resident Joyce Griffin has reason to believe that the recent foreclosure of her home violated her right to due process, according to the Public Citizen. And, though she lost an initial trial over the matter, she's in the process of appealing that decision—and she has a lot of support.
When Griffin's fiancé died, she wanted to remove his name from their housing documents, so she contacted her lender, the now-defunct Ameriquest, according to reports. But, instead of simply removing her fiancé's name, Ameriquest apparently convinced her to refinance her loan to a riskier, adjustable rate.
Griffin believes she was tricked.
As a single mother, Griffin was reportedly unable to pay her mortgage once it reset to a much higher monthly rate. Her home went into foreclosure and was sold at auction—but, reports the Citizen, Griffin didn't know there was any problem until her house's new owner tacked a notice to her front door!
Griffin lost her case asserting that Ameriquest's policy went against her right to due process, but Public Citizen and Civil Justice Inc., two public-rights groups, have agreed to appeal the decision, according to sources.
Lawyers for the two groups have allegedly found cases in which judges ruled that companies attempting to enact foreclosure proceedings are required to provide additional notices when mailed notices are returned unopened. In Griffin's case, no attempt was made to contact her beyond letters sent in ordinary mail.
The letters sent by Ameriquest, according to the Citizen, came in uncertified mail, were not seen by Griffin, and were ultimately returned to the post office. Maryland law insists that any action that removes someone's life, liberty, or property must include a minimum of notice of that event AND the opportunity for a hearing.
Griffin, apparently, received neither.
Her case illustrates an interesting and frightening occurrence. Small lending companies like Ameriquest that offer mostly risky, subprime loans designed to make quick money can pose a double threat to borrowers.
Not only do borrowers risk an inability to pay the quickly-resetting mortgage payments that are part of such loans, but these less-reputable companies may employ less-reputable foreclosure agencies, and corners may be cut.
Not to mention the company could go out of business when the market goes sour.
Had Griffin's case been anything but home foreclosure—a small-claims case, a property tax foreclosure, a federal tax foreclosure, or an eviction—the company would have been required to both send her notices through the mail and post them on her door, reports the Citizen.
Sources indicate that the lawyers involved with the foreclosure proceedings claimed their actions were perfectly legal, but Griffin wasn't convinced. Neither, it seems, was the Maryland Home Preservation Task Force, which is allegedly taking steps to eliminate unjust foreclosure practices like the ones that blindsided Joyce Griffin.
Often, people wait too long to ask for help with their home payments, and end up in foreclosure. If you need help, or if you believe foreclosure proceedings used for your house were unfair, speak up. Contact a lawyer or take advantage of the free national hotline (1-888-995-HOPE) designed to help people facing foreclosure.