Bank of America announced recently that it is halting foreclosure actions in 23 states, including New York, due to some all too apparent irregularities with many of their pending actions. This step is a tacit admission, if not an outright acknowledgment, that they many of their actions are fatally flawed. Of course, they are not alone with this problem as many banks are guilty of having attorneys who cut corners in their foreclosure actions.
Where I find fault with B of A is that one large and troubling exception that they have carved out is for cases where they already have a judgment and are thus on the verge of consummating their foreclosure action and selling the property. This glaring exception calls into question Bank of America’s sincerity about actually addressing improprieties of their foreclosure actions.
Indeed, if B of A were sincere about doing so, then the first actions that they would have stayed would be the very cases that they have carved out. Why wouldn't they first stop the actions where a homeowner is about to lose their home instead of making them absolutely ineligible? These stayed actions should then be thoroughly and honestly reviewed internally by B of A to determine if they were commenced and prosecuted properly. If so, they should continue. If not, they should discontinue the action and either start their case anew or work out a loan modification or some other arrangement with the borrower. That seems like the only sensible course of action.
To put in clearer terms, I would use the analogy of a state that halts its pending prosecutions due to certain irregularities with the conduct of police officers. However, they carve out an exception for anyone on death row whose cases will not be reviewed. It makes absolutely no sense and is actually the opposite of what good logic and common sense would dictate.