FTC Mars Advance Fees On Loan Mods

FTC Moves to Protect Homeowners With New MARS Rule – Regulates Loan Modificati...
Page 1 of 17
Tuesday 23rd November
•
• Home
• RSS feed
•
• Home
• Nice Things
• In The Niche Report
• IN THE NEWS
• Trusted Attorneys
• Bumper Stickers
• Order Confirmation
• SUBSCRIBE
• CONTACT
Home » FTC Moves to Protect Homeowners With New MARS Rule – Regulates Loan
Modifications Nationwide
FTC Moves to Protect Homeowners With New

MARS Rule – Regulates Loan Modifications
Nationwide
6
tweets
retweet
http://mandelman.ml-implode.com/2010/11/ftc-moves-to-protect-homeowners-with-new-... 11/23/2010
FTC Moves to Protect Homeowners With New MARS Rule – Regulates Loan Modificati... Page 2 of 17
Formally, it’s called Title 16 – Code of Federal Regulations, Part 322, for Mortgage Assistance Relief
Services. Informally, it’s called MARS. And for mortgage brokers engaged in helping homeowners
obtain loan modifications, it’s pretty much the end of the line… nationwide.
Attorneys, however, are largely exempted from the new rule.
The Final Rule therefore permits attorneys who provide MARS as part of their
provision of legal services to collect advance fees if, in compliance with applicable state
laws and licensing regulations, the attorney deposits such payments into a client trust
account and draws on them as work is performed.
In fact, in California specifically, where there is already a state law governing advance fees, known as
SB 94, lawyers will see very little change when the new FTC rule takes effect at the end of this
calendar year. The new rule allows lawyers to accept an advance fee, but mandates that the amounts
be placed in the attorney’s trust account and only withdrawn as earned, and that does represent a
change, although I would think, not an insurmountable one.
The California State Bar has interpreted SB 94 to prohibit the use of trust accounts in conjunction
with the acceptance of advance fees as related to providing loan modification services, and it doesn’t
appear that the FTC’s new rule will do anything to preempt that interpretation.
Actually, it gets a bit complicated. The FTC’s new rule says the exemption to the rule for attorneys is
subject to state laws, and the State Bar’s interpretation of SB 94 is not actually a law, but with the
penalty for non-compliance being a criminal matter, no one has tested the Bar’s interpretation in a
court of law. So, for now… suffice it to say that attorneys will continue to practice in this area as they
have been since SB 94 was signed into law on October 12, 2009.
As far as mortgage and real estate brokers in California are concerned, the new FTC rule just makes a
bad situation much worse. There aren’t many real estate and mortgage professionals offering to assist
consumers with loan modifications, as SB 94 made it illegal to accept payment for services until a
loan modification has been obtained, or the homeowner is formally denied by the lender, I suppose,
and that can mean not getting paid for an awful lot of work for up to and even beyond a year in some
cases.
As you might imagine, that’s a pretty effective deterrent to California’s mortgage and real estate
brokers being that business, but the new rule goes even further, and applies to all non-attorneys
nationwide, prohibiting payment for services until the homeowner receives a written offer to modify
his or her loan from the lender or servicer, and the homeowner ACCEPTS the deal. Under the new
rule, if the homeowner says “no thanks,” the mortgage or real estate broker gets nothing.
I’m sorry, but it’s kind of funny when you think about it. Since no one in this country can predict
what any of the banks are going to do tomorrow, let alone six months or a year from now, and when
you consider the percentage of homeowners that are likely to be dissatisfied with the bank’s offer and
therefore say no in the end, and then factor in the percentage of homeowners who won’t or can’t pay
the bill at the end of the process for whatever reason… the only way the business makes any sense is
if you were to charge something like $100,000 for the modification and then be ready to file a law suit
to collect, and perhaps… at best… end up with a lien on a property that is, by definition, seriously
underwater. Yeah baby… sign me up for that on Career Day.
In the summary to the Commission’s Final Rule and Statement of Basis and Purpose, it states that it
governs “the practices of for-profit companies that, in exchange for a fee, offer to work on behalf of
consumers to help them obtain modifications to the terms of mortgage loans or to avoid foreclosure
on those loans.”
It also states that, among other things, the Final Rule:
1. Prohibits providers of such mortgage assistance relief services from making false or misleading
claims;
2. Mandates that providers disclose certain information about these services;
3. Bars the collection of advance fees for these services;
4. Prohibits anyone from providing substantial assistance or support to another they know or
consciously avoid knowing is engaged in a violation of the Rule;
5. And imposes recordkeeping and compliance requirements.
The FTC’s Final Rule will go into effect on December 29, 2010, with the exception of § 322.5, which
is the section that bars the collection of advance fees, or as described in the text of the new rule:
Prohibition on Collection of Advance Fees and Related Disclosures. That aspect of the Final Rule
doesn’t take effect until a month later on January 31, 2011.
I read the 180-page document three times… see what I go through… and as I read, I got the
impression that the rationale behind the advance fee ban not becoming effective until a month after
the rest of the rule takes effect is to provide companies with a little extra time to comply with the
various requirements, such as the new disclosure and record keeping requirements. Then towards the
very end, I found this:
The Commission is providing MARS providers an additional month after the effective
date of the other provisions of the Rule because compliance with the advance fee ban
may entail substantial adjustments to many providers’ operations.
This is hysterical, in terms of its real life impact, because I cannot imagine even a single non-attorney
staying in business under the new rule. As a result, the only impact of the extra month is likely to be
an extra month for scammers to rip-off homeowners. But I digress.
Look, I’ve met two of the key guys at the FTC related to this issue, Tom Pahl and Joel Winston. In
January of 2010, I was a speaker, alongside Tom Pahl of the FTC, on a panel at the American Bar
Association’s Conference on Consumer Financial Services. And I’ve spoken with them on several
occasions post-conference. They’re not bad guys. They’re trying to help prevent homeowners from
being ripped off primarily by unscrupulous mortgage brokers whom, they would say, as a group have
proven themselves to be oftentimes, shall we say, less-than-trustworthy.
They don’t exactly have a rock solid grasp on exactly what’s happening in real life in communities
throughout this country, they don’t get to see the “good guys” that are undeniably out there, and they
don’t have unlimited resources that can be directed at solving the problem. Also, in my view anyway,
they’re probably a bit too influenced by the financial industry’s influence peddlers… but nowadays,
who in Washington D.C. isn’t?
So, when faced with the problem of creating a rule to protect distressed homeowners from being
ripped off, they did what they could do… stopped the ability for non-attorneys to get paid until the
homeowner is happy and all warm and safe, tucked in bed. It’s a shame for the legitimate providers
of loan modifications services who have without question helped many thousands of homeowners get
loans modified. But, at the end of the rule making process, the FTC accepted this loss in favor of
protecting homeowners from the other kind of loss… getting scammed by someone who promises and
then delivers nothing.
And, even though I hate to see the number of legitimate sources that homeowners have to turn to for
help with loan modifications decrease, I hate the idea of desperate homeowners getting conned out of
thousands of dollars even more.
At least the Final Rule does not apply retroactively, so the advance fee ban doesn’t apply to contracts
with homeowners executed prior to the effective date. California’s SB 94 was retroactive and it was a
huge problem for many in the industry.
I couldn’t find the penalty for noncompliance with the new rule anywhere in the 180-page document,
so I called Julie Greenfield, who is both a close friend of mine, and a highly experienced mortgage
banking compliance attorney who now represents homeowners seeking modification of loans. In
response, Julie sent me the following: “Under the FTC Act, violations of a final FTC Order can
impose a civil liability of $11,000 per day.”
That’s $11,000 a day that you are found to be out of compliance with the new rule… that is to say that
each day is considered a separate violation and carries its own $11,000 fine. Out of compliance for a
month… that’ll be $330,000, thank you very much.
So, what else is in the 180 pages that describing the new Final Rule?
Well, let’s see… one HUGE thing is that lead generation companies are pretty much cooked too.
Federal courts have held that providing knowing substantial assistance to others who
engaged in unlawful conduct is an unfair practice.
And that means that if you provide leads to a company that you know or should know… or have
consciously avoided knowing… is breaking the rule, you can be charged just like if you were
breaking the rule yourself. The rule speaks to this issue extensively, so I would think that it’s clearly
an area the FTC intends to enforce.
F. Section 322.6: Substantial Assistance or Support
The proposed rule prohibited any person within the FTC’s jurisdiction under the FTC
Act from providing “substantial assistance or support” to any MARS provider if the
person “knows or consciously avoids knowing that the provider is engaged in any act
or practice that violates this rule.”
Several commenters asserted that such a measure would prevent MARS providers from
using “lead generators” or mortgage brokers to supply contact information for
potential customers, thus making it more difficult for deceptive MARS providers to
operate. For example, a consumer group explained that such a provision would be
valuable because entities that assist and facilitate fraudulent MARS providers often
receive a substantial portion of the funds obtained from consumers for mortgage
assistance relief services.367
1. Substantial Assistance
Many MARS providers rely on, or work in conjunction with, other entities to advertise
their services and operate their businesses. The Final Rule provision applies to
substantial – i.e., more than casual or incidental – assistance or support that such
entities provide to MARS providers.
Substantial assistance could include such critical support functions as lead generation,
telemarketing and other marketing support, payment processing, back-end handling of
consumer files, and customer referrals. A common example of those who provide
substantial assistance to MARS providers are so- called “lead generators.”
Lead generators obtain the contact information of consumers, i.e. leads, who have
indicated interest in MARS by visiting the lead generator’s website in response to
advertisements disseminated either by the lead generators themselves, or through a
network of Internet advertisers. Lead generators then sell the consumer information to
MARS providers.
The Commission retains the “knows or consciously avoids knowing” standard in the
Final Rule.
… the ‘conscious avoidance’ standard is intended to capture the situation where actual
knowledge cannot be proven, but there are facts and evidence that support an inference
of deliberate ignorance on the part of a person that [the wrongdoer] is engaged in an
act or practice that violates [the Rule].”379
If those who provide substantial assistance or support to MARS providers receive or

become aware of information that reasonably calls into question the legality of the
MARS provider’s practices, they will be liable if they continue to assist and support
that provider. In general, the determination of whether a person had the requisite
knowledge will depend on a variety of factors such as the person’s relationship to the
MARS provider, the nature and extent of the person’s degree of involvement in the
operations of the MARS provider, and the nature of the provider’s violations.
2. The Knowledge Standard
Under the proposed rule, those who provided substantial assistance to MARS providers
would be liable if they knew or consciously avoided knowing that the providers were
violating the rule.
Lead generators themselves often may also qualify as “mortgage assistance relief
service providers” and thus be liable for primary violations of the Rule, because many
of these entities “arrange for others to provide” MARS. For example, if a lead
generator disseminates advertisements containing misrepresentations to entice
consumers to provide their contact information, and then passes that information on to
another entity that will provide MARS, the lead generator would likely be in violation
of § 322.3 of the Final Rule.
Additionally, advertising affiliate network companies may serve as intermediaries

between advertisers and lead generator websites. Such companies also could be held
liable if they knowingly provide substantial assistance to MARS providers who violate
the Rule.
So, if you’re in the business of generating leads for a company offering loan modification services,
you’d better make sure they’re not breaking the new rule, because just saying “I didn’t know” is not
going to get you very far in terms of a defense should the fit hit the shan.
And what else?
This may sound terrible, but one positive thing for those that provide loan modification services, I
suppose, is that the FTC declined to place caps on amounts charged for services, saying:
… the Commission declines to set caps on the fees MARS providers can receive. While
the FTC concludes that the collection of advance fees by MARS providers is an unfair
act or practice, it has made no such determination about the amount of fees charged.
In general, the competitive market should establish the prices MARS providers
charge,351 and the Commission’s role is to remove obstacles to consumers making the
informed choices that are necessary to a properly functioning market.
I know, some of you may be thinking that placing caps on fees would be a good thing, but I’m not at
all sure about that. The market is almost always much better at setting the costs of things, and if the
caps didn’t allow lawyers to provide the service, they wouldn’t… and homeowners would be on their
own… not a good thing. Also, it costs more to do business in some states and less in others, so caps
would have been difficult to establish correctly.
There’s also a whole lot about how the FTC reached the conclusions they did… what the arguments
were, for and against the various points, but I’m not going to bother going into all that mostly because
I just don’t see the point. I mean, why should I bother describing the new record keeping
requirements for non-attorneys when I can’t envision any non-attorneys even being in the business
after this coming New Years’ Day. And attorneys are exempted from those new record keeping
requirements anyway.
What I will do is offer what I considered to be a few of the most important paragraphs from the 180-
page document, and provide a link so you can read it for yourself, if you are so inclined.
So, here are some of the paragraphs you might want to read… and you’ll find Title 16 – Code of
Federal Regulations, Part 322, for Mortgage Assistance Relief Services in its entirety by clicking on
that blue type.
And here are some of the highlights, or lowlights, as the case may be:
The Final Rule, however, requires that payment be contingent upon consumer acceptance of results
the provider presents.337
###
As discussed in Section I.A, the Dodd-Frank Act will transfer rulemaking authority with respect to
this Rule to a new Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, effective as of the transfer date, Dodd-
Frank Act, Pub. L. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376, which is currently designated as July 21, 2011.
###
Regardless of how the result the provider delivers compares to what it promoted or promised at the
time the consumer agreed to use its service, the provider still must secure a written agreement
between the consumer and his or her lender or servicer accepting the results delivered before
collecting any fees. The Commission has adopted an approach different from that in the proposed rule
because it concludes that the new approach strikes a better balance between protecting consumers
and ensuring that MARS providers can collect fees for beneficial results they achieve.
At the same time, the Final Rule permits providers to collect fees if they deliver results that, although
different from what they promised to consumers, are ultimately acceptable to consumers. It avoids
disputes over what the provider actually promised, and allows consumers to make the decision about
whether the offered mortgage relief is satisfactory to them. It also ensures that the consumer receives
a result that he or she determines to be beneficial – for example, a loan modification with a particular
reduction in monthly payments338 or lasting a specific duration. This approach is similar to the one
taken in the TSR’s advance fee ban for debt relief services.339
###
The Commission warns that securing consumer acceptance to an offer will not immunize a provider
from other violations of the Rule. Providers cannot misrepresent the results consumers will receive if
they use MARS. For example, if a provider represents to a consumer that it will obtain a reduction in
the amount of interest, principal balance, or monthly payments, but only obtains a forbearance
agreement, then, regardless of whether the consumer accepts the forbearance agreement, that
provider has made a misrepresentation in violation of § 322.3(b) of the Final Rule. In order to comply
with § 322.3(b), the provider should qualify its claims sufficiently so that a reasonable consumer
would understand that he or she may not receive a reduction in the amount of interest, principal
balance, or monthly payments.
###
The Commission cautions that providers not attempt to evade the requirements of § 322.5(a) by
entering a contract with consumers signed at the outset specifying the consumer’s preapproval, for
example, that any offer that involves a certain type of concession from the lender or servicer will be
deemed acceptable. Moreover, the provider may not rely on authority obtained through a power of
attorney at the time or before the time of contracting to execute an agreement incorporating the offer
of mortgage relief from the lender or servicer on the consumer’s behalf, because the Commission
would not regard the consumer as having accepted the offer – as required under § 322.5(a). The
Commission further cautions that providers not use deceptive or unfair practices to convince
consumers to accept concessions to which they would not otherwise agree, as doing so may constitute
a violation of § 322.5(a) and other provisions of the Rule, including § 322.3(b)(12).
###
Further, as described above, § 322.5(b) of the Final Rule requires providers to inform consumers: (a)
that they do not have to pay any fees to the MARS provider unless and until they accept the result that
the provider has delivered, and (b) the total amount in fees consumers will have to pay the provider if
they accept that result.
Section 322.5(d) also specifies that in cases where the mortgage relief offer obtained from the lender
or servicer is a trial loan modification, the notice from the lender or servicer that the provider must
furnish to the consumer with the offer of mortgage assistance must include: (1) that the consumer may
not qualify for a permanent modification, and (2) if the consumer does not qualify, the likely amount
of the scheduled periodic payments that he will have to pay and any arrearages or fees that may
accumulate.
Some commenters recommended that the proposed rule be changed to prohibit providers from
collecting fees for obtaining a trial modification, because most consumers who receive trial
modifications do not receive permanent modifications that would substantially reduce the amount
they pay on their loans.340
The Commission has determined that, in light of the changes in the Final Rule, including the advance
fee ban and related disclosures, such a prohibition is unnecessary. As noted above, § 322.5 will
ensure that consumers are told that they are being offered a trial modification and ensure that they
have the opportunity to reject the offer.
###
b. Prohibition on Advance Fees for Piecemeal Services
As detailed above, NAAG and several other commenters strongly supported the proposed rule’s
prohibition on the practice of collecting advance fees for piecemeal services.342
The Commission agrees that without such a prohibition, many MARS providers would attempt to
collect fees for discrete tasks that fall short of, and often may never lead to, the result promised. These
individual tasks might include: conducting an initial consultation with the consumer; reviewing or
auditing the consumer’s mortgage loan documents; gathering financial or other information from the
borrower; sending an application or other request to the lender or servicer; facilitating
communications between the borrower and the lender or servicer; or responding on behalf of the
consumer to requests from the lender or servicer. The record demonstrates that many MARS
providers currently charge discrete fees for these types of tasks, in some instances to evade state
advance fee bans.344
Section 322.5 of the Final Rule, although modified, still prohibits MARS providers from collecting
fees for piecemeal services. Section 322.5(a) requires the provider to secure the consumer’s written
agreement to accepting the mortgage relief it has obtained; thus, providers will be unable to charge a
fee for intermediate services unless and until the consumer accepts the result the MARS provider
obtains from the consumer’s lender or servicer.
###
b. Use of Dedicated Accounts
In the NPRM, the Commission requested comment on whether, in the event the Rule bans advance
fees, MARS providers should be allowed to request or require that consumers place any such fees in a
dedicated bank account.352
The Final Rule does not permit MARS providers, other than attorneys, to request or require
consumers to pay fees into any type of account prior to completing their services.353
The overwhelming weight of comments opposed allowing the use of such accounts, because, among
other things, some unscrupulous MARS providers might misuse funds held in dedicated accounts, and
permitting dedicated accounts would place undue burdens on consumers to recover money they paid
into the accounts if providers do not deliver the results consumers finds acceptable.356
There is nothing in the record indicating that non-attorney MARS providers currently use dedicated
accounts with any frequency to deposit advance fees or that an infrastructure to support such
accounts exists. Without more information as to how MARS providers would use dedicated accounts
and whether consumers would be adequately protected, and in light of widespread deceptive and
unfair acts and practices by MARS providers, the Commission declines to permit providers to request
or require that consumers place advance fees for MARS in such accounts.357
###
The Commission declines to include a right to cancel provision in the Final Rule. Under § 322.5 of
the Final Rule, even if a consumer enters into an agreement to use a MARS provider in circumstances
undermining his or her ability to make a well-informed decision, the consumer has no obligation to
pay any money to the MARS provider until he or she accepts an offered result. The consumer is free to
reject offers that he or she believes are unsatisfactory. If the consumer never accepts an offer, he or
she is never obligated to pay the provider. Thus, a right to cancel would provide little additional
benefit to consumers.363
###
FOR ATTORNEYS:
3. The Attorney Exemption in the Final Rule
In the Final Rule, the Commission has broadened the attorney exemption. An attorney is exempt from
the Rule, except the advance fee ban, if he or she: (1) provides MARS as part of the practice of law;
(2) is licensed to practice law in the state where the client or the client’s dwelling is located; and (3)
complies with applicable state laws and regulations relating to the same general types of conduct the
Rule addresses, namely, the competent and diligent provision of legal services, communication with
clients, charging and receipt of fees, promotion of services, and not engaging in fraudulent or
deceitful conduct. In addition, an attorney that meets these criteria is exempt from the advance fee
ban if the attorney deposits any advance fees in a client trust account and complies with all state laws
and licensing regulations relating to the use of those accounts. The attorney exemption in the Final
Rule strikes a balance between allowing consumers to continue to have access to bona fide legal
assistance,436 while at the same time preventing or deterring unfair or deceptive practices by
attorneys.437
d. Exemption from the Advance Fee Ban
The practices of attorneys who meet the conditions listed in 322.7(a) are entitled to a general
exemption from the Final Rule. The one exception relates to the prohibition on advance fees. Under §
322.7(b) of the Final Rule, attorneys are exempt from the advance fee ban only if they: (1) meet all of
the conditions required for the general exemption; (2) deposit any advance fees they receive into a
client trust account; and (3) comply with all state laws and licensing regulations governing the use of
such accounts.
Given the frequency with which attorneys, and those affiliated with attorneys, have engaged in unfair
and deceptive practices in connection with MARS, the Commission believes that a blanket exemption
FTC Moves to Protect Homeowners With New MARS Rule – Regulates Loan Modific... Page 10 of 17
from the advance fee ban for attorneys is unwarranted and would not adequately protect consumers.
At the same time, the Commission is mindful of the possible adverse consequences from imposing
unnecessary fee restrictions on attorneys that would reduce the availability of beneficial legal
services. On balance, the Commission has concluded that a modified, broader attorney exemption
with regard to the advance fee ban is appropriate.
The Final Rule therefore permits attorneys who provide MARS as part of their provision of legal
services to collect advance fees if, in compliance with applicable state laws and licensing regulations,
the attorney deposits such payments into a client trust account475 and draws on them as work is
performed.
Unlike other MARS providers, attorneys commonly deposit advance fees in client trust accounts and,
in some jurisdictions, are legally required to do so.476 State laws and licensing regulations strictly
limit attorneys’ use of funds in these accounts.477
For example, state laws and licensing regulations mandate that attorneys keep fees deposited in the
client trust accounts separate from their own funds,478 only withdraw funds as fees are earned or
expenses are incurred,479 maintain complete records as to transactions,480 notify clients of any
withdrawals,481 and keep the client’s funds separate from other clients’ funds if a dispute as to
ownership of the funds is pending.482
In some cases, attorneys also are prohibited from “front-loading” fees to expedite their withdrawal of
funds from client trust accounts.483 In addition, as discussed above, in the event attorneys
misappropriate funds, state court systems and bars can take, and have taken, disciplinary action,
including license revocation. Finally, state bars typically maintain client- security funds, which are
capitalized by licensing fees that attorneys pay, for the purpose of compensating injured clients.484
To qualify for the exemption from the requirements of the advance fee ban, the Commission concludes
that attorneys not only must deposit advance fees in a client trust account, but also must comply with
all state laws and licensing regulations governing their use of client trust accounts for these funds.485
The Rule does not restrict attorneys as to the type of fees they charge clients, including flat fees,
contingency fees, or hourly fees, but requires that they withdraw their fees from the client trust
accounts consistent with state laws and licensing regulations. These conditions are appropriate for
ensuring that such attorneys do not collect and handle fees in a manner harmful to consumers.
Attorneys who do not comply with all of these state requirements must comply with the advance fee
ban in the Final Rule.486
###
B. Recordkeeping Requirements
The Rule also imposes several recordkeeping requirements. Several commenters argued generally
that the proposed recordkeeping requirements were burdensome, in particular for attorney
providers. To address those concerns, the Final Rule exempts attorney providers from the
recordkeeping provision.
###
In other instances, the Rule requires MARS providers to create as well as retain documents
demonstrating their compliance with specific Rule requirements. These include the requirement that
providers document the following activities: (1) the mortgage relief obtained by the provider from the
lender or servicer before seeking payment from a consumer; (2) monitoring of sales presentations by
recording and testing of oral representations if they engage in the telemarketing of their services; (3)
establishing a procedure for receiving and responding to consumer complaints; (4) ascertaining, in
some instances, the number and nature of consumer complaints; and (5) taking corrective action if
sales persons fail to comply with the Rule, including training and disciplining sales persons. To lessen
the burden of providers who do not telemarket their services, the Commission streamlined the
compliance requirements by limiting the need to record communications to providers who telemarket
their services.
###
b. Mortgage Refinancing Services
The proposed rule covered mortgage brokers who offer loan origination or refinancing services, but
only if those services are represented, expressly or impliedly, to help consumers avoid delinquency or
foreclosure. The Final Rule is unchanged on this point. Thus, the Final Rule does not cover mortgage
brokers who offer services that are advertised or marketed for other purposes. To obtain a new loan
or refinance an existing loan, consumers can work either with the lender directly or with a mortgage
broker.
###
The End.
Mandelman out.
A VERY SPECIAL, LIMITED TIME OFFER…

If you do want a more detailed analysis of the new rule, authored by yours truly along with
compliance attorney Julie Greenfield, we are offering… for a limited time… our Special Report
and invitation-only Webinar at a cost of $250.
Just send an email to mandelman@mac.com and we’ll be happy to send you our report, and
invite you a special invitation only Webcast on the new rule’s impact. Payment can be made via
Pay Pal or by check. Our report and Webcast not only offers expert legal analysis of the FTC’s
rule, but also presents opportunities that remain for those who chose not to operate under the
new rule.
Tagged with: advance fee rule attorney exemption to new FTC rule foreclosure crisis FTC new
rule loan mod advance fee rule loan modification national rule mandelman
matters MARS MARS rule martin andelman ml-implode mortgage brokers and loan
modifications SB 94 SB94
Comments
1. SolutionsNow says at Mon Nov 22, 2010 12:25 am
Compliments on a very thorough examination of the FTC Rule.
I found it refreshing that, for once, someone gave some credit

to Ethical Loan Modification companies...usually all anybody wants
to do is Automatically lump Every company into the Scammer mold.
I find many of these laws...even this FTC law, to use the "Scam"
scare tactics as just more Bank Propaganda!
There are badly run companies in EVERY industry (thus the BBB)
and bad employees in just about every business...
It's the BANKS that want everyone to Fear for their "Scam" and
in doing so, have gotten the States (and the FTC) to write laws that
just about makes it Impossible to do a Modification if it's not through
the Banks!
So, your problem is with the banks...but you have to go To the Banks
for Help? And...no other Advocate can represent you because they can't
guarantee they can get paid...
Banks have finessed this into a Modification Monopoly!

They have manipulated Legislation so there ARE NO COMPETITORS!
And a bunch of ignorant Consumer Agencies have "bought into this"
B.S. under this "Modification Scam" scenario as if it were Orson Wells
telling you Martians just landed in Jersey!
The Real Scam is the Bank Modification...look at the Stats!

Phony Trial Mods leading Homeowners into Foreclosure
Phony accounting and Phony promises....it's all over the News!
What about Bank of America (and others) insisting Homeowners

wreck their credit and stop making payments Before they will Modify.
This type of manipulation should be a violation of FCRA and TILA.
It's the BANKS that have created Modification Fraud on a MASSIVE scale.
Banks have manipulated the Treasury

Banks have manipulated the FTC
and now, they want to manipulate Capital Hill next, to have all the Illegal
Activities under the MERS mess simply Pardoned and have all the
Fraud and Forgery...the lawsuits and investigations...just "Go Away!"
Banks have ruined the Economy and are openly Raping Americans
for their homes (please include Servicers as a part of Banks).
What will America do about it?
Comment on this post! (Requires free membership in the Implode-Explode forums!)
The Author
This post was written by Mandelman on Saturday, November 20, 2010, 6:53. Mandelman has
written 359 posts on this blog.
Information
• Posted in LATEST ARTICLES
Foreclosure Mom’s Rap

Listen to Podcasts
• Search Mandelman Matters

Search for: Search
• Contribute to the Cause
• Bumper Stickers
Well, Somebody Has to Say It....
NEW BUMPER STICKERS from Mandelman!
Only $5.95 each! (Plus Shipping & Handling)

Car bumper stickers make lovely holiday gifts!
Click Now to Order
• A Hundred Thousand Homeowners

Voices of Hope & Change
“A Hundred Thousand Homeowners” is a documentary that will deliver a cacophony of outrage

over the way our government has addressed the foreclosure crisis. It will make loud the voices
of a hundred thousand homeowners.
The finished documentary will be distributed using the power of the Internet, but also on DVD,
wrapped in high-impact “A Hundred Thousand Homeowners” packaging. It will land on the
desks of every single elected representative in the House of Representatives and the U.S.
Senate. It will be sent to the governors of all 50 states… to every single banking industry
CEO... to every major media outlet... and of course, to the Oval Office. It will be seen, the
voices it represents will be heard, and the story will finally be told.
We need everyone’s help to make this happen, and it’s far too important to be allowed to fail.
People ask me all the time how they can help. Well, here’s how. Together we can be heard…
together we will make a difference.
Everyone can join this virtual march on Washington but there is a minimum cost to participate:
$1.00. That’s “one dollar,” just so everyone’s clear.
Click the "Donate" button above and join "A Hundred Thousand Homeowners" today.
Click Here to Read Article
• Recent Posts
◦ Mandelman U. Presents: There’s Credit Default Swaps & then there’s Credit Default
Swaps
◦ FTC Moves to Protect Homeowners With New MARS Rule – Regulates Loan
◦ IT’S BACK & IT’S HERE: Mandelman’s Monthly Museletter – Version 9.0
◦ Foreclosure Mom’s Rap
◦ Where Are Our Religious Leaders?
◦ QE2 Leaves Port, Bernanke Takes Leave of Senses
◦ Well, Would You Look at That: Elizabeth Warren Might Be Replaced by a Bank
Lobbyist
◦ Chief Judge Gonzalez calls WaMu’s Conduct “Immoral, Unethical, Oppressive,
Unscrupulous or Substantially Injurious to Consumers” (You go, Your Honor.)
◦ What Shall We Tell Our Children, Mr. President?
◦ Why Servicers Foreclose When They Should Modify… YAWN.
• Mandelman in the Niche Report
Send me a complimentary, autographed copy!
• @Mandelman on Twitter
Martin Andelman
mandelman
mandelman RT @mandelman
Mandelman U. Presents: There’s Credit
Default Swaps & then there’s Credit
Default Sw.. http://bit.ly/fQT0dM
5 hours ago
mandelman RT @mandelman FTC

Moves to Protect Homeowners With New
MARS Rule – Regulates Loan
Modifications Na.. http://bit.ly/akWMRN
3 days ago
mandelman RT @mandelman IT’S BACK

& IT’S HERE: Mandelman’s Monthly
Museletter – Version 9.0 - Mandelman
Matt.. http://bit.ly/c4jB87
4 days ago
mandelman @dylankramer ... Thank

you... the person. One of the best
persons there ever was. One that this
world just couldn't afford to lose.
4 days ago
Join the conversation
• Become a fan of Mandelman on Facebook!
Mandelman Matters on Facebook

Like
Mandelman Matters
FTC Moves to Protect

Homeowners With New MARS
Rule – Regulates Loan
...
Saturday at 8:21am
Mandelman Matters
IT’S BACK & IT’S HERE:

Mandelman’s Monthly Museletter
– Version 9.0
...
November 19 at 4:44pm
Mandelman Matters
Foreclosure Mom’s Rap

...
1,105 people like Mandelman Matters
Tom Abdullah Niki Brenda Gianni
Andrew Rommeth Richard Sean Alan
Mandelman Matters on Facebook
• Meta
◦ Log in
◦ Entries RSS
◦ Comments RSS
◦ WordPress.org
• Archives
◦ November 2010
◦ October 2010
◦ September 2010
◦ August 2010
◦ July 2010
◦ June 2010
◦ May 2010
◦ April 2010
◦ March 2010
◦ February 2010
◦ January 2010
◦ December 2009
◦ November 2009
◦ October 2009
◦ September 2009
◦ August 2009
◦ July 2009
◦ June 2009
◦ May 2009
◦ April 2009
◦ March 2009
◦ February 2009
This blog is for entertainment and informational purposes only. The blog expresses Martin
Andelman's opinions, with absolutely no express or implied warranty or guarantee of any kind. If
you act based on information contained herein, you are on your own. Neither Martin Andelman
nor IEHI, Inc. vouch for comments posted by here by third party users. Comments may not be
filtered or moderated and should be understood to only express the opinions of their authors, and
may even contain blatant untruths.
Copyright © 2009 Mandelman Matters, Martin Andelman in concert with IEHI, Inc.
Credits: Matteo Turchetto | Andreas Viklund
The content of this site is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.

FTC Mars Advance Fees On Loan Mods

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

FTC Mars Advance Fees On Loan Mods

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FTC Moves to Protect Homeowners With New MARS Rule – Regulates Loan Modificati...

Tuesday 23rd November

FTC Moves to Protect Homeowners With New

Attorneys, however, are largely exempted from the new rule.

It also states that, among other things, the Final Rule:

F. Section 322.6: Substantial Assistance or Support

If those who provide substantial assistance or support to MARS providers receive or

2. The Knowledge Standard

Additionally, advertising affiliate network companies may serve as intermediaries

And what else?

b. Prohibition on Advance Fees for Piecemeal Services

b. Use of Dedicated Accounts

3. The Attorney Exemption in the Final Rule

d. Exemption from the Advance Fee Ban

b. Mortgage Refinancing Services

A VERY SPECIAL, LIMITED TIME OFFER…

Compliments on a very thorough examination of the FTC Rule.

I found it refreshing that, for once, someone gave some credit

Banks have finessed this into a Modification Monopoly!

The Real Scam is the Bank Modification...look at the Stats!

What about Bank of America (and others) insisting Homeowners

Banks have manipulated the Treasury

What will America do about it?

Comment on this post! (Requires free membership in the Implode-Explode forums!)

Foreclosure Mom’s Rap

• Search Mandelman Matters

• Contribute to the Cause

Only $5.95 each! (Plus Shipping & Handling)

• A Hundred Thousand Homeowners

“A Hundred Thousand Homeowners” is a documentary that will deliver a cacophony of outrage

Click Here to Read Article

• Mandelman in the Niche Report

Send me a complimentary, autographed copy!

mandelman RT @mandelman FTC

mandelman RT @mandelman IT’S BACK

mandelman @dylankramer ... Thank

Join the conversation

• Become a fan of Mandelman on Facebook!

Mandelman Matters on Facebook

FTC Moves to Protect

IT’S BACK & IT&#8217;S HERE:

Foreclosure Mom’s Rap

Tom Abdullah Niki Brenda Gianni

Andrew Rommeth Richard Sean Alan

Mandelman Matters on Facebook

Credits: Matteo Turchetto | Andreas Viklund

You might also like

IT’S BACK & IT’S HERE: