Borrowers taking part in the Obama administration’s mortgage modification program are being hit with “partial payment” notifications in their credit reports. This damages the borrower’s credit even though the borrower may never have been late in payments. For more information, see the NY Times “bucks” blog dated January 5, 2010.
Fannie Mae and Fannie Mac currently flag any mortgage loan application where the applicant disputes something on a credit report. As reported in the AARP Bulletin, that’s causing denials for applicants, no matter the strength of their qualifications.
Loan officers report that many flagged applications get put on hold or simply denied.
“Some of these underwriters … won’t process a loan” with the notation “consumer disputes this item,” says Eddie Johansson, president of Credit Security Group,a credit services company in Texas.
The law is clear that a consumer has the right to dispute any inaccuracy on his or her credit report. The Equal Credit Opportunity Act prohibits discrimination against anyone for exercising a right under the FCRA.
For their part, both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac say having a credit dispute alone should not prohibit a consumer from getting a loan approved.
pThis is a new topic for me. I have a client that I have Pre-Approved for a home loan that has been looking at properties with his Realtorreg;. The last offer fell out of escrow, because the home didn’t appraise to the contract price. NOW….My client’s REALTORreg; is trying to sell her own personal property to him. I’m lost…../p
pQuestions…../p
p1.) Wouldn’t this be considered an Arm’s Length Transaction?/p
p2.) Is this action acceptable under the REALTORreg; Code of Conduct?/p
p3.) I would imagine it would need to be disclosed..Correct?/p
p4.) Would another REALTORreg; in the office (or the Broker of Record) be better off taking the listing or representing the client?/p
pTo me, it seems illegal and a conflict of interest, when the seller is seeking the highest selling price and the buyer is looking to pay as little as possible for the home./p
pWhat say you Rainers?/p
pIt’s been a while since I’ve been in the rain it it feels nice to feel it upon my facenbsp; 
/p
Banks and other creditors commonly extend credit based on your credit score. Your score is based on such factors as late payments, missed payments, number of open accounts, length of one’s overall credit history, actual amount of available credit used and negative occurrences such as charge-offs and bankruptcy.
FICO, a company that created credit scoring, has long kept its exact formula secret. Until Thursday, FICO revealed only broad categories of factors influencing the score, but not the number of points at stake for consumers who fail to pay as agreed. The “damage points” information will be made available through its myFICO.com Web site starting this weekend.
FICO’s information shows that bankruptcy does the most serious damage to a credit score (up to 240 points), followed by foreclosure (up to 160 points) while maxing out a credit card has the least numerical impact (as few as 10 points).
Those with good or excellent credit — so-called prime borrowers — put more points at risk with each mistake. For example, someone with an average credit score of 680 who pays a bill 30 days late will see a drop of 60 to 80 points. But for someone with an excellent credit score — 780 — that same delinquency can send a FICO score tumbling by 90 to 100 points.
Consumers are being bombarded with “free” offers for credit reports and credit scores, but there is usually a catch. The consumer may find the free report means being subscribed to requires monthly charges unless he or she remembers to opt out. Or in order to get a free report, there is a fee for the credit score. More ways Experian, TU and Equifax make money.
However, www.creditkarma.com really does offer a free credit score. The only catch, and it is not much of one, is a lot of advertising. The advertising seems easy to ignore. There is a fair amount of information on credit reporting and Credit Karma promises never to share your information.
George Washington once said:
Discipline is the soul of an army. It makes small numbers formidable; procures success to the weak, and esteem to all.
Letter of Instructions to the Captains of the Virginia Regiments [July 29, 1759]. The advocates of consumer rights, viewing the resources of defense firms and corporate defendants, can relate to the trepidation felt by the out-numbered and out-gunned Continental Army. Because of that disparity in resources, Consumer Attorneys of California (”CAOC”) consolidates the voices of consumer attorneys throughout the state to (1) preserve and protect the constitutional right to trial by jury for all consumers, (2) champion the cause of those who deserve redress for injury to person or property, (3) encourage and promote changes to California law by legislative, initiative or court action, (4) oppose injustice in existing or contemplated legislation, (5) correct harsh, unjust and oppressive legislation or judicial decisions, (6) advance the common law and promote the public good through the civil justice system and concerted efforts to secure safe products, a safe workplace, a clean environment, and quality health care, (7) uphold the honor, integrity and dignity of the legal profession by encouraging mutual support and cooperation among members, (8) promote the highest standards of professional conduct, and (9) inspire excellence in advocacy. This post is a multi-blog effort to inform consumer attorneys about CAOC’s value and encourage participation in CAOC through membership.
CAOC works tirelessly to protect or advance those causes of import to consumers and their attorneys in California. Often those efforts, though valuable, receive little fanfare. For example, CAOC recently sponsored SB 510, which affects the re-sale of what are known as “structured settlements,” in which victims receive financial compensation over a period of time for medical expenses and basic living needs, as determined by a jury. Before SB 510 was signed by the Governor, Courts expressed frustration at their inability to prevent the sale of structured settlements on terms that might ultimately lead to long-term financial hardship for the victim. Now, SB 510 gives judges the information they need to make a reasoned decision about the propriety of a structured settlement sale.
Measures like CAOC-sponsored SB 510 help protect the most vulnerable members of our society and ask for nothing in return. They exemplify the spirit of CAOC. However, CAOC is only as effective in its mission as its membership allows it to be. When consumer attorneys join the ranks of CAOC, its voice gains in power and clarity. But if consumer advocates sit on the sidelines, hoping to benefit from the work of others, CAOC is stretched thin, and we are all at risk as a result.
Now, consumer advocate bloggers from across the state are combining their voices to call upon each and every lawyer and firm that regularly represents plaintiffs to join CAOC, thereby strengthening the consumer’s first line of defense. The blogs participating in this unified call to action are:
The Complex Litigator (H. Scott Leviant)
The UCL Practitioner (Kimberly Kralowec)
Bailey Class Action Daily (Matt Bailey)
California Employee Rights Blog (James J. Peters)
An Appeal to Reason (Donna Bader)
California Personal Injury and Insurance Blog (Jonathan G. Stein)
California Debt Blog (Jonathan G. Stein)
TrialLawyerTips.com (Mitch Jackson and Lisa Wilson)
California Injury Blog (John Bisnar)
San Diego Injury Lawyer Blog (Ross A. Jurewitz)
San Diego Car Accident Lawyer Blog (Ross Jurewitz
San Diego Injury Accident Lawyer Blog (Ross A. Jurewitz)
California Nursing Home Abuse Lawyer Blog (Walton Law Firm LLP)
San Diego Injury Law Blog (Walton Law Firm LLP)
California Personal Injury Law Blog (Norman Gregory Fernandez)
Biker Lawyer Blog (Norman Gregory Fernandez)
California Credit Law (Mark F. Anderson, Carol Brewer & Andy Ogilvie)
Lemon Law Blog (Mark F. Anderson, Carol Brewer & Andy Ogilvie)
Show your support of consumers’ rights by joining and supporting CAOC. Together we can make an impact that we cannot make alone.
While Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-Los Angeles) called today’s signing of several water bills “historic,” several San Francisco leaders and environmentalists object to the water deal and believe that it is more of a 19th Century solution to a current day problem.
“This water package is a bad deal for San Francisco and the Bay-Delta ecosystem,” said Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco), who voted against the water bills. “Not only does it ignore San Francisco’s conservation efforts, it threatens our long-standing water rights. While San Francisco should contribute to the solution, a water deal should not be at such a high expense for our city’s residents or jeopardize our state’s environment.”
“This water package lacks an effective mechanism to bring about real environmental change or water conservation, and will likely result in another layer of bureaucracy and more litigation,” said Yee. “This water package unfairly burdens those who can least afford it. It is wrong to finance this water deal almost entirely through general obligation bonds, which will only result in further cuts to our state’s safety net.”
“Many legislators voted for this policy package without even knowing what it said or what changes had been made,” said Jennifer Clary of Clean Water Action. “We appreciate legislators like Senator Yee, who stood up to the pressure to vote blindly on a package that falls so far short of a Delta fix. Some are calling this a victory, but the policy package passed this week is more form than substance. It’s mind-boggling that the Legislature and the Governor would approve a pork-laden $11 billion general obligation bond as we are facing yet another General Fund shortfall.”
“Today’s action looks like more of the same from Governor Schwarzenegger,” said Sierra Club California Senior Advocate Jim Metropulos. “It’s sad in this day and age that we have to continue to discuss whether expensive, cumbersome dams and canals are the right solution for California’s water troubles. We don’t need 19th-century solutions to today’s problems.”Several water agencies, environmental organizations, and labor unions opposed all or parts of the water deal including the Sierra Club, SEIU, Planning and Conservation League, Restore the Delta, Friends of the River, East Bay Municipal Utility District, Clean Water Action, Environmental Justice Coalition for Water, and the Northern California Water Association.
In addition to Senator Yee, several San Francisco leaders also publicly opposed the water bills including Board of Supervisors President David Chiu, Supervisors David Campos, Eric Mar, John Avalos, Chris Daly, and Ross Mirkarimi, and City College Trustee John Rizzo.
“I am disappointed that this water package does not produce more sustainable outcomes nor provide the reliable and resilient water resources needed to support a healthy California public, environment, and economy,” said Yee.
By Art Pulaski Executive Secretary-Treasurer
California Labor Federation
Last night’s vote in the House of Representatives to pass the Affordable Health Care for America Act was a victory for all California families and an historic milestone on the road to meaningful health care reform.
“The entire California Democratic delegation stood with working families to vote for reform despite months of intense pressure and millions of dollars from the insurance industry and right-wing zealots to preserve the status quo. The California votes propelled the House to victory, putting us closer to health care reform than we’ve been in a half-century. These representatives showed courage in the face adversity, siding with the millions of California families who have inadequate health coverage, no coverage at all or can’t afford the skyrocketing costs of care.
We thank Speaker Pelosi for her leadership and each and every member of the California delegation who supported this critical reform, which would cover 96 percent of California’s 6 million uninsured, control costs and improve coverage for all families. They did what our elected representatives should do – they acted in the best interests of the families in their district by honoring their commitment to stand with the middle class. Our state’s Republican representatives should be ashamed for caving to pressure from insurance CEOs. Their votes against reform reveal whose side they’re really on.
While last night’s victory was an important milestone, the battle for comprehensive health reform is far from over. California’s working families will stand with our Democratic representatives and continue to be on the front lines in the fight for reform until the job is finished.
Art Pulaski is Executive Secretary-Treasurer of the California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO, which represents 2.1 million members of 1,200 manufacturing, service, construction, and public sector unions.
By Anthony Wright
Executive Director of Health Access California
Earlier tonight, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R.3962, a historic comprehensive health reform proposal, by a vote of 220-215.
We thank ALL of California’s Democratic Congressional Representatives for voting for this desperately needed comprehensive health reform. Given California’s health crisis, it’s appropriate that the House of Representatives, led by Californians like Speaker Pelosi, Chairmen Miller, Waxman, and Stark, and many others, took the lead in crafting this historic bill.
The bill would provide stability and security for those who have coverage, and that would extend affordable coverage to those who don’t. Californians are concerned that coverage won’t be there for them when they need it, and this bill provides our families with much needed security from financial ruin.
Californians have a particular interest in this vote. California has more uninsured, a higher cost-of-living, more denials of coverage for pre-existing conditions, and fewer workers offered on-the-job coverage.The House bill would help people keep their on-the-job coverage and expand our safety net. It would provide consumer protections against insurance company abuses, and provide the choice of a public health insurance option.
This is the equivalent of passing Social Security or the minimum wage in the 1930s, or the passage of Medicare or civil rights legislation in the 1960s.
This is not the end of the process, but it moves the process forward. The Senate should take quick action the conference committee to meld the two bills can start its work can begin as soon as possible.
We will look to conference committee to change the one unfortunate development from today’s debate, which was the adoption of the Stupak anti-abortion amendment. The main bill had already prohibited federal funds to be used for abortion. The amendment provides for an unwarranted extension that would place anti-abortion restrictions on private plans offered in the new health insurance exchange. While over 190 Democrats voted against the amendment, it’s unfortunate that over 60 Democrats–including California Representatives Joe Baca, Dennis Cardoza, and Jim Costa–joined all Republicans in voting for this amendment. This issue needs to be fixed in conference.
Aside from the abortion issue, the House bill is a very good bill–and superior to the Senate versions, especially on key issues like affordability, employer responsibility, the public health insurance option, inclusivity, the bargaining power of the exchange, limits on out-of-pocket costs, financing, and several other issues.
So there’s a lot of work to do, but let’s remember the importance of this vote. It moves the process forward. And this process has now moved farther than any other previous effort in over 100 years of effort, with an entire body of Congress endorsing a proposal. Let’s keep the focus on passing reform, while working to make the reform better.
Health Access California is a statewide health care consumer advocacy coalition of over 200 groups. This article has also been published on the Health Access Weblog.
By Traci Sheehan
Executive Director
Planning and Conservation League
In the wee hours of Wednesday morning, while most Californians were sound asleep, the state legislature passed a package of bills and a bond that rewards bad actors instead of solving the water needs of real people and the environment. A corner piece of the new deal is a budget-busting $11.1 billion bond headed for next November’s ballot.
During the water package’s development, the Planning and Conservation League had insisted that any solution focus on reducing reliance on an already over-allocated Delta and require dedicated in-stream flows through the Delta and the San Francisco Bay for endangered and threatened fish populations.
The package missed the mark on both fronts. Instead of guaranteeing the flows that species in the Delta need to recover, the package provides no regulatory assurance that the water will be there. Even the legislators’ own staff analyzed this portion of the bill as unenforceable. This will only worsen the fishery collapse and may lead to even more restrictions on water supply exports from the Delta.
Of the $11 billion borrowing plan, three billion is slated to fund new water storage projects. This pot of money contains rigged criteria to ensure funding for new dam projects.
While the Governor has indicated he will sign them, it is important to note that several legislators pushed for stronger reform and took a stand to protect the environment and smart water solutions. Senators Lois Wolk (D-Davis), Mark DeSaulnier (D-Antioch), Ellen Corbett (D-San Leandro), Leland Yee (D-San Francisco) and Loni Hancock (D-Oakland); along with, Assembly members Joan Buchanan (D-San Ramon), Mariko Yamada (D-Davis) and Alyson Huber (D-Lodi) led the charge.Others stood up to vote no on the deficiencies in this package: Wesley Chesbro (D-Eureka), Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco), Joel Anderson (R-La Mesa), Dave Cox (R-Fair Oaks), Jeff Denham (R-Merced), Jim Beall (D-San Jose), Bill Berryhill (R-Stockton), Chuck DeVore (R-Irvine), Noreen Evans (D-Santa Rosa), Paul Fong (D-Mountain View), Ted Gaines (R-Roseville), Mary Hayashi (D-Hayward), Dave Jones (D-Sacramento), Stephen Knight (R-Lancaster), Dan Logue (R-Chico), Jeff Miller (R-Orange), William Monning (D-Santa Cruz), Roger Niello (R-Sacramento), Ira Ruskin (D-Redwood City), Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley), Sandre Swanson (D-Oakland), Tom Torlakson (D-Martinez). All of these members deserve our thanks.
In the end, the original goal of substantive water reform did not come through in this package. The fragile Delta ecosystem and California’s water future remain at risk.
Traci Sheehan is the Executive Director of the Planning and Conservation League, a statewide, nonprofit lobbying organization. For more than thirty years, PCL has fought to develop a body of environmental laws in California that is the best in the United States. PCL staff review virtually every environmental bill that comes before the California Legislature each year. It has testified in support or opposition of thousands of bills to strengthen California’s environmental laws and fight off rollbacks of environmental protections.
In this Democratic weekly address, Assemblymembers Anna Caballero (D-Salinas) and Jared Huffman (D-San Rafael) discuss historic legislation passed by the Legislature this week to solve California’s water crisis.
You may listen in English or Spanish. The transcript is below.
Transcript:
Hello, this is Assemblymember Jared Huffman, Chair of the Assembly’s Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee.
This week California took an historic step towards ending the water crisis that has plagued our economy and environment for far too long.
The Legislature passed a comprehensive bill package that will rescue the struggling Sacramento-San Joaquin river delta, the heart of our state’s water system, and improve statewide water supply reliability.
The package also includes critical policy reforms to bring California water management into the 21st century, including the most sweeping water conservation program in the state’s history, the state’s first ever ground water monitoring requirement and increased resources and enforcement tools to crack down on illegal water diversions in order to protect legal users of water and the environment.
Recognizing the growing possibility of the collapse of the Delta and the affect that will have on the West Coast’s most important estuary and on communities, farms, and industries throughout the state that depend on the Delta, a broad coalition of Californians came together to back the ambitious goals this legislation seeks to achieve.
And we’ll achieve those goals in a way that won’t harm the state’s budget in this recession.
The package puts a bond on next year’s ballot. If approved by the voters it would represent the largest investment California has ever made in modern, cost-effective water supply strategies like water use efficiency, recycling and ground water clean up. And, also an unprecedented investment in restoring the Delta. This sustained long term blueprint for water supply and ecosystem investments is carefully crafted to work with California’s current fiscal constraints. Bond sales and debt service would be phased in over several years, with no more than half the bonds sold before 2015.
Additionally, this effort will be guided by a critical oversight structure; ensuring decisions are made in a transparent, science based-way that meets the needs of the Delta’s ecosystem as well as our need for a more reliable water supply.
The plan ensures we’ll have increased storage capacity so that our water needs are met in dry years.
I’m proud Speaker Karen Bass tasked Assemblymember Anna Caballero and me to help lead negotiations that ultimately did harness strong support for this critical recovery plan.
My coastal district, with its salmon fisheries shut down for the unprecedented second consecutive year and Assemblymember Caballero with her Salinas Valley district and its struggling farms: these are just two examples of regions desperately waiting for the solutions we set in motion this week.
Indeed making sure this package addresses the needs of all Californians was the only way, and also the right way, to move our entire state toward recovery.
This has been Assemblymember Jared Huffman, thank you for listening.
La Asambleísta Caballero habla sobre el Histórico Acuerdo para Resolver la Crisis del Agua en California
Asambleísta Caballero Destaca Los Nuevos Fondos Federales Para La Infraestructura Hídrica De California En el mensaje radial semanal Demócrata, la asambleísta Anna Caballero (D-Salinas) habla sobre el histórico acuerdo legislativo aprobado esta semana para resolver la crisis del agua en California.
Hola, les saluda la Asambleísta Anna Caballero.
Está semana, hicimos historia al pasar un bono de agua que va a resolver la crisis de agua en California.
La Legislatura, con un voto bipartidista, aprobó un paquete de medidas que ayudarán a recuperar el sistema del río Delta, Sacramento y San Juaquin.
Durante los últimos años, la crisis del agua en California ha afectado a miles dé tierras y ha dejado a cientos de campesinos sin empleo. Los problemas de distribución y la falta de conservación empeoraron la crisis del agua.
Nuestras comunidades, la agricultura y negocios podrían ser afectados si el río Delta colapsa.
El bono de agua es de un poco más de once mil millones de dólares, y con estos fondos podremos crear programas de conservación y controlar cuánta agua se usa. Además, implementáremos leyes que prohíban el uso de agua ilegalmente. Vamos a reciclár y limpiar el agua de contaminantes para que pueda ser utilizada.
Necesitamos de su ayuda. Esté bono de agua solo entrará en efecto si es aprobado por los votantes de California. El bono de agua estará en la boleta electoral en las próximas elecciones.
El delta necesita recuperarse y con su voto lo lograremos. Recuerde, que el futuro de nuestro estado está en sus manos.
Los problemas económicos por los que pasamos son difíciles, y le aseguro que no afectara a nuestro presupuesto estatal. Hay que invertir por salvar el agua en California, y solo lo lograremos si ustedes aprueban el bono de agua. Solo así iniciaremos proyectos para almacenar agua durante la temporada de lluvias y luego utilizarla durante años de sequía.
Además, ayudaremos al ecosistema del Delta y tendremos la tecnología más avanzada para poder distribuir el agua.
Estoy orgullosa del trabajo que logramos juntó a la presidenta de la Asamblea Karen Bass y el Asambleísta Jared Huffman.
Esté bono de agua tiene las piezas necesarias para llevar a California por el camino correcto, y con su ayuda nuestro estado estará rumbo a la recuperación.
Gracias por su atención, les saluda la Asambleísta Anna Caballero.
By Robert Cruickshank
With Gavin Newsom dropping out of the governor’s race and leaving Jerry Brown as the only Democratic candidate, speculation was sure to rise about Senator Dianne Feinstein and whether she would seek to avenge her narrow 1990 defeat and run for governor in 2010. Sure, most observers don’t think she’d do it, but until she flatly denies it, the chatter will continue.
And it’s going to continue after the AP caught up with her and asked her about the governor’s race. She didn’t rule it out, but made it obvious that she’s primarily in it for the attention:
Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Thursday she will base a decision on whether to run for California governor next year largely on the solutions the announced candidates put forward to deal with the state’s fiscal problems….
“What does affect it is watching to see what precise programs are put forward by various candidates to handle what is a very serious structural budget deficit in this state,” Feinstein said. “It’s of major consequence and California is in considerable distress, and there have to be reforms.”
Feinstein said she would take a close look at candidates’ dedication to enacting their proposals as well as their ability to develop enough support to enact the changes.
There’s really only one way to read this: she’s going to endorse Jerry Brown, say he meets her standards, and wait to do so until a moment when it will be of maximum benefit to Brown.
Feinstein and Brown are good friends. She officiated his wedding in 2005, and speaking as someone who’s officiated a wedding himself, one of the last things I’d do is challenge the groom in a race for the state’s top office. Feinstein also will likely be loath to give up her Senate seniority, which is likely to become even more important in the coming years. Ironically, a loss of Democratic seats in the Senate would make DiFi even more powerful and important than she is now, as she’s seen as a bipartisan dealmaker.
For those and other reasons, it seems unlikely that DiFi wants to run for governor. Instead she’s teasing the media, enjoying the attention she gets. As the interview made clear:
When asked if she had the patience to deal with a state Legislature that has often been described as dysfunctional, she replied: “That’s a very good question. It shall be unanswered for the moment.”
The reason “it shall be unanswered for the moment” is because she doesn’t want to give up the attention she gets out of being seen as a possible candidate. And the “for the moment” statement seems to reinforce the argument I laid out above, that she isn’t going to run, and is going to endorse Brown at some moment in the spring of 2010.
California Democrats who think a contested primary is good for the party and good for the ultimate nominee are going to have to keep looking for another candidate - it ain’t gonna be DiFi. And thank god for it. As uncertain I am about whether Jerry Brown would be the right person to lead California out of our present crisis, I am completely certain Dianne Feinstein would be the wrong person. Let’s hope she decides to retire in 2012 and trouble us no more.
Robert Cruickshank is a historian, activist, and teacher living in Monterey. He is a contributing editor at Calitics.com and works for the Courage Campaign, in addition to teaching political science at Monterey Peninsula College. Currently he is completing his Ph.D. dissertation in US history, on progressive politics in San Francisco in the 1960s and 1970s. A native Californian, he was raised in Orange County and educated at UC Berkeley.
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Jan | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
| 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | |||
