Attorney’s office called yesterday afternoon to ask me to attend the Temporary Injunction Hearing this morning (which was actually scheduled on June 7th) so I was a wreck last night. Apologies to all for listening to my clonazepam induced ramblings and thanks to all who attended to me. I am grateful to have so many friends who care. Let’s see if I can make this short and sweet. The hearing was AWESOME! Short transcript to follow (my lame layman version).
Shortly after my attorney and I talked on Monday, an attorney for my bank filed an appearance. They are NOT objecting to a preliminary injunction. That means they don’t have a problem with me staying in the home for now. They did want some bond money each month. Our objective at this point was to convince them of how poor I am. No problemo. I typed out a budget sheet for my attorney.
At the hearing, the judge read the Idaho Code pertaining to the situation and couldn’t find a way around the bond issue. He asked the mortgage attorney what they were thinking of in terms of a bond. Their attorney stated that they, of course, wanted the full past due amount and regular payements of $736 a month. My attorney objected stating that the bank holds the property in collateral and they forced me to pay for mortgage protection insurance that would pay them in full in case of default on the debt. He said that they were doubly covered and are not losing anything if I don’t pay a bond. He stated his interpretation of the Code saying that it was entirely up to the court to decide.
The mortgage attorney then asked for a $9,000 bond. My attorney objects again. He tells the court what my financial situation consists of, reminds the judge that the bond is at the discretion of the court and states that the mortgage is protected by insurance, that they hold the property itself and therefore, a bond is a third security. The mortgage attorney claims that their company will be damaged in the difficult economic times if they don’t retain a bond. The judge reminds the mortgage attorney that they did not object to the injunction and therefore the Plaintiff will more that likely prevail, so why must they insist on a bond?
The mortgage attorney holds his position and insists on $9,000 and $730 a month bond which is standard due to a low down payment, claiming they need security, if for nothing else but legal fees. The judge agrees that according to Idaho Code, there must be some bond and asks the mortgage attorney if they object to a surety bond. The mortgage attorney agrees and the judge set the surety bond at $5,000 (no additional monthly payment) due and payable within 30 days. The judge asks the attorneys how long the bond will hold as there was no deadline in the Code. The mortgage attorney stated that it has been taking them about 12 months to build a case. Court was adjourned.
Recap: My attorney explained to me that I will get to stay in my home for another year at least, that I need to pay $500 (10% of bond) to a surety bond agency which he will find for me, that he will continue to fight for the title free and clear, but at the very least can negotiate for the lowest possible mortgage payment if that is what we have to settle for. This means that the battle is half won! One year with no mortgage payment, another year with a $500 payment. Why aren’t more people fighting foreclosure! Would you?
agelimits 