Oh, I agree with you. I just explained how I see this may be done. I might be mistaken, but I don’t see how this could be done from a “lender’s side” precisely for the reasons you stated in your previous post. A bank would use either its employee or, if they choose to go with an outside agency, hire a law firm. And I don’t think this is an “investor” described in the OP.
So the only other way is to work from a “borrower’s side”. And of course, all the state laws and regulations should be taken into consideration.
What you’re probably referring to is when an investor, or anybody for that matter, negotiates with the bank in the owner’s behalf a payment in exchange for deed in lieu. And then gets a portion of the payment for this service.
Posted by JT-IN on September 13, 2009 at 05:27:20:
They either use in-house employees, known as the Loss Mitigation Dept, or hire an Atty if they use contract labor.
To hire a contractor that is a non-Atty could raise some potential legal issues, as well as liability that most lenders aren’t going to risk… The liability comes in when the Lender provides specific detailed info about the borrower, and IF the contractor engages in any inappropriate action, the Lender can be responsible for such indescretions.
This area is quite an easy area to have an unknowledgable contractor violate Fair Debt Collection laws. I doubt you will find what you seek for the above reasons.
Posted by JT-IN on September 13, 2009 at 20:07:56:
Could be… but that relationship is in representation of the borrower not the lender. Big diff from what the OP described. Also, those relationships are under fire in nearly every state by recent legislation. Most states limit that type of representation to lawyers, while others that do permit laymen to offer the service limit payment amounts that can be charged. Most allow NO up front pymts or fees be charged either.
Posted by Bill H on September 13, 2009 at 15:22:09:
PLUS, in order to have an outside contractor, attorney, etc. do the negotiating…the lender would have to have the home owner execute a release of information or they will be in violation of the privacy act…and…nobody wants to go there, either.