9.7 Million Homeowners Underwater

Author: Tory Barringer May 20, 2014

The number of underwater borrowers continues to fall, but that was about the only good news Zillow had to report in its latest look at negative equity.

The company released Tuesday its Negative Equity Report for the first quarter, revealing an estimated 9.7 million homeowners continue to owe more on their mortgage than their home is worth. That number, down from about 9.8 million in Q4 2013, represents about 18.8 percent of mortgage-paying Americans, according to Zillow.

Conservative estimates from the company call for a negative equity rate of 17 percent by this time next year as home value growth moderates.

While the continuing downward trend in underwater rates is a welcome sign of improvement in the housing sector, the company notes that the “effective” negative equity rate, which includes homeowners with 20 percent or less equity in their homes, remains elevated at more than one in three.

“The unfortunate reality is that housing markets look to be swimming with underwater borrowers for years to come,” said Zillow’s chief economist, Dr. Stan Humphries.

With so many borrowers lacking enough equity to comfortably sell their homes and afford a down payment on a new one, Humphries expects inventory to remain choked, driving home values higher and making affordability a greater concern.

What’s more, Zillow found that homes priced in the bottom third of home values nationwide have a greater negative equity rate, with 30.2 percent of that population currently underwater compared to 18.1 percent of those in the middle tier and just 10.7 percent in the top tier.

For those underwater borrowers who happen to be in the lower tier of home values, listing their home will remain difficult without engaging in a short sale or bringing cash to the closing table—another contributor to the supply shortage and a major obstacle for buyers in search of starter homes.

“It’s hard to overstate just how much of a drag on the housing market negative equity really is, especially at the lower end of the market, which represents those homes typically most affordable for first-time buyers,” Humphries said.

http://dsnews.com/9-7-million-homeowners-underwater/

How Would You Like to be Locked out of Your House Right Before Christmas?

stolen savings from a broken piggy bankMay 12, 2014

 I think everyone would answer this one the same. What if I asked the same question but added that the entity responsible for locking you and your 5 year old son out of the house right before Christmas was your friendly bank. Yes the same one that you make your mortgage payment to.

This is actually a true story that happened to a client of mine. I will keep the names anonymous but tell you the story none the less.

My client (single parent of one 5 year old son) wanted to get a loan modification from Bank A and went through the arduous process. Bank A told him to make 3 trial payments and then he would be done. He made 3 trial payments and low and behold Bank A did not cash the checks. They sent all 3 back to him stating that they were not for the actual loan amount so they could not accept them.

I personally saw the modification along with the prior payment amount and the new agreed to payment amount and my client did EVERYTHING that Bank A asked. Bank A should have accepted the payments since they offered to and my client accepted their offer by tendering the payments. Recent case law finds that Bank A could be sued in this in case and would be forced to do what they should have done in the first place.

My client did not sue. Instead he agreed to go through the whole process again (he actually didn’t know at the time that Bank A’s actions were against current law). Right when he was almost done with the whole process for the second time Bank A transferred his loan to Bank B.

This all seemed to be okay until 2 weeks later when he arrived home from a long day at work there was a door hanger attached to his front door advising him to contact Bank B. He called Bank B the next day and had a 20 minute conversation detailing what happened with Bank A and going back over the whole process. Bank B seemed to be okay with everything and my client ended the call feeling okay.

Then 2 weeks after the above friendly conversation with Bank B he came home to a notice on his door that Bank B had hired Safeguard Properties, Inc. to secure the property. His locks had been changed and he could not gain entry to his own house. Desperately he made calls to Bank B, Safeguard Properties, Inc and ADT (his alarm company).

He was assured that it was a big mistake and that Bank B would contact Safeguard Properties, Inc. to let them know that they should change the locks back and let my client have his house back. I have his phone records to prove that every day he made multiple calls and he would be continually told that they would unwind the situation and put a rush on it – day after day after day and yet it didn’t happen day after day after day.

He finally got his house back 3 weeks later! The food in his refrigerator had spoiled since the refrigerator doors had been left open. All his drawers were ransacked like a thief had been looking for money or other hidden assets. Some of his personal items were missing. Talk about a violation of a person’s sacred space. The screens on all the windows were torn off and some of his alarm sensors needed replacement. If the story stopped here it would be a very sad tale of Bank incompetence but it actually gets a little worse.

After all the dust settled he noticed that the locks to his back gate were missing each time he replaced them. He finally stopped replacing them unsure of what was going on. Well his gardener told him about 7 months later that when he showed up on a different day due to scheduling issues he came across someone cutting the grass. When confronted the stranger said the bank hired him and he was not going to stop until the bank told him so.

We did ultimately get the bank to stop the continued trespass but a few months after that my client received a call from Bank B asking how he planned to catch up his past due balance. In shock my client told Bank B that he did not have a past due balance and to please forward any information they could on this discrepancy. Well not only had Bank B done this terrible thing to him but they also had the gall to charge him for it all and to continually add monthly charges for lawn maintenance to his balance due which was just over $3,000.00.

Can you imagine being locked out of your house with no clothes, toothbrush, etc… for 3 weeks? I can’t even comprehend how hard that would be and especially with a 5 year old. Bank B never even said they were sorry and then they started billing him for it all!

Well we have filed a lawsuit for this poor fellow and plan to have justice served on all parties responsible.

 

The good news for California homeowners is that as of January 1, 2013 we now have the California Homeowners Bill of Rights. This law forces bank to treat homeowners right or else homeowners can get a lawyer like me to help them. This allows the legal system to oversee the banks and punish them when they do the wrong thing. The law is well written and is a blessing to California homeowners. It’s certainly too late for some homeowners but if the action taken by the bank against a homeowner is after January 1, 2013 they may still have a case. At a minimum the banks will have to treat people right and stop the egregious behavior or pay a price. If someone had made 3 payments and the bank didn’t honor the agreement there may still be time left to take action but you must do so right away.

 

I sometimes have to scratch my head and say “what were they thinking” when I hear some of the stories my clients tell me. The true story above is quite amazing but it really doesn’t matter at what level the bank mistreats you – the answer is the same – it shouldn’t happen and you shouldn’t have to get a lawyer involved to make it right but here we are and sometimes you do. I think the banks just didn’t want to help solve the housing crisis – while getting bail outs and handouts from the federal government. Well they are back now making record profits and still treating some people badly.

 

If you feel you have been wronged by your bank you should call us immediately for a FREE consultation. We will compassionately analyze your situation and explain your legal options. You can call me at 877.442.4577 or send me an email at tgreene@tedgreenelaw.com. We handle all kinds of civil litigation matters such as wrongful foreclosure and predatory lending and we also can help you with a short sale if that is something that has crossed your mind. You should call us today since most legal actions have time limitations which can cause you to lose your ability to get relief. The banks have lawyers and now you can too!

 

Ted A. Greene

California Attorney and

licensed Real Estate Broker

Great News for Underwater Home Owners in California

Sacramento, CA – April 28, 2014

 

Great tax relief news for California home owners considering a short sale. The national media has it all WRONG. I just read an article published in Realtor Mag which is a publication put out by the National Association of Realtors (a link to this article below). The headline was “Homeowners Think Twice About Short Sales”. The article painted a gloom and doom scenario explaining the reason Short Sales have dropped. It put most of the blame on the fact that Congress hasn’t passed an extension of the Mortgage Debt Relief Act and therefore there will be an “increase in taxes borrowers will now have to pay on forgiven debt”.

 

NOT IN CALIFORNIA. I repeat – not in California. This article does not mention the huge California exception which misleads everyone in California reading the article. They are not the only ones. I daily seem to read articles which don’t properly explain the situation for California homeowners.

 

I will try to explain in the simplest terms why California homeowners have the best laws in the country and will most likely NOT owe any debt forgiveness income tax after a short sale. First let me state that there are other exceptions to this crazy tax the IRS and state taxing bureaus want people to pay. Bankruptcy and insolvency are exceptions but I will not get into those exceptions in this article due to space constraints – and I don’t want to bore you to death.

 

In December 2013 the California Association of Realtors and Senator Barbara Boxer announced in a press release that the IRS and the California Franchise Tax Board (California’s equivalent to the IRS) both have agreed that a short sale in California is a non-recourse event and therefore does not create so-called “cancellation of debt” income to underwater home sellers for income tax purposes. This is GREAT news! No other state that I know of has such great laws protecting underwater homeowners.

 

The national media seems to ignore this when doing their reporting most likely because it is a very complicated subject and it’s easier to paint with a broad brush. I have even talked to tax preparers who still haven’t received the great tax news regarding California short sales. Needless to say you should talk to an expert in this area and do NOT accept legal advice from a realtor. Realtors are not allowed to give legal advice and when dealing with a short sale it’s almost ALL legal.

 

Most homeowners are very concerned about things such as: what if my bank sues me, can they garnish my paychecks, what about my retirement accounts, will I ever be able to buy another house, etc…

 

If you have any questions or concerns about your own personal situation I would be happy to give you a FREE one on one legal consultation and if I help you with your short sale you pay me nothing. You can call me at 877.442.4577 or send me an email at tgreene@tedgreenelaw.com or just visit my website www.upsidedownca.com.

 

Ted Greene
California Attorney and
licensed Real Estate Broker

 

http://realtormag.realtor.org/daily-news/2014/04/25/home-owners-think-twice-about-short-sales?om_rid=AAEuNF&om_mid=_BTWq0yB85q1l0U&om_ntype=RMODaily

California foreclosure rates rise in 2014

DataQuick: Default notices expected to continue dropping

 UPDATED 2:39 PM PDT Apr 22, 2014

SAN DIEGO —A research firm says California home foreclosure starts increased from January through March after plunging to an eight-year low in the previous quarter.

DataQuick said Tuesday that there were slightly more than 19,200 default notices filed in the first quarter, up 6 percent from the fourth quarter of 2013 and up 4 percent from the same period a year earlier.

Figures for the first quarter of 2013 were driven lower by new state laws designed to protect homeowners from losing property.

The San Diego-based research firm says default notices are expected to continue dropping, thanks to an improving economy and higher home prices. California home prices surged to a six-year high last month.

Default notices are the first step in the foreclosure process.

Published By: kcra – Yesterday

 

Foreclosure Prevention Attorney in California Sues Lender in Lawsuit and Obtains Court Order to Stop Wrongful Foreclosure

For background, see article “Homeowners Obtain Restraining Order Against Foreclosure Sale Under Homeowners’ Bill of Rights” at wesuethebanks.com

A borrower filed a complaint and request for a restraining order, attended a hearing, and obtained a Court order restraining the bank from selling the home as required under the Homeowners’ Bill of Rights.

The Court set the matter out for an actual injunction and gave the bank the opportunity to respond. The bank opposed the request but the Court disagreed with their argument and issued a preliminary injunction, the bank is now barred from selling the home until they comply with the new laws and review the borrower for a loan modification.

For more information, contact the Law Offices of Ted A. Greene, Inc., attorneys for the borrower.

Consumer Advocates

(916) 442-6400
Sacramento,  California 95811

“Helping Homeowners sue the banks is what we do”

Legal expenses push Bank of America into $276-million loss

Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan had reason to grimace as his company announced a $276 million loss. Above, Moynihan during an interview in L.A. last year. (Lawrence K. Ho / Los Angeles Times )

original source: By E. Scott ReckardApril 16, 2014, 8:11 a.m.

Socked by mortgage-related legal expenses, Bank of America Corp. lost $276 million during the first quarter, sending its stock down sharply.

The quarterly loss, its first in 2½ years, came despite lower loan losses and better than expected results in fixed-income trading, a slowing business that hurt rival JPMorgan Chase & Co. during the quarter.

The results included $6 billion in litigation expense, much of it related to toxic bonds backed by housing-boom mortgages from Countrywide Financial Corp., the aggressive Calabasas lender that nearly collapsed before being acquired by Bank of America in 2008.

“The cost of resolving more of our mortgage issues hurt our earnings this quarter,” Chief Executive Brian Moynihan said in announcing the results Wednesday morning.

QUIZ: How much do you know about mortgages?

The loss at the Charlotte, N.C., bank amounted to 5 cents a share, in contrast to a profit of $1.48 billion, 10 cents a share, in the first quarter of 2013. Revenue fell nearly 3%, to $22.7 billion.

Bank of America shares were down 55 cents at $15.84 in morning trading, a 3.4% decline.

A major impact on the earnings was a $9.5-billion settlement related to faulty mortgage securities that had been purchased by home finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The deal was struck last month with Fannie and Freddie’s regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency.

That accounted for $3.4 billion of the $6 billion in litigation expense, the bank said. The rest was from additional, previously announced mortgage issues, said  Moynihan, now in his fifth years as head of Bank of America.

Moynihan has spent much of his tenure as CEO slogging through liabilities inherited from Countrywide, acquired by his predecessor, Ken Lewis. The deal has cost Bank of America more than $50 billion in loan losses and legal costs.

Bank earnings have been a mixed bag this quarter, with Wells Fargo & Co. and Citigroup Inc. beating analyst estimates and JPMorgan Chase & Co. coming up short. Wall Street heavyweights Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley are to release their financial results Thursday.

source: http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-bank-america-earnings-20140416,0,1948920.story#ixzz2z4K6n8LO

Mortgage Resets Are Beginning, and Things Could Get Ugly

The Home Affordable Modification Program was a godsend to many troubled homeowners after the financial crisis, allowing tens of thousands of mortgage holders to reduce their monthly payments to no more than 31% of their gross monthly income, often through interest rate reductions.

But, all good things must end, and HAMP – which helped many avoid foreclosure – was only a five-year, temporary fix. Now, modifications that began in February 2009 are maturing out of the program, and into a gradual increase in interest rates. For most, this means a final monthly payment increase of $196; for some, it could be as high as $1,724, depending upon where the average rate for a 30-year loan sat at the time of the modification.

Almost 90% of HAMP loans will see increases
According to the latest report from the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, 88% of the nearly 900,000 active HAMP loans will see their payments rise between now and 2021. With many borrowers having their rate reduced to as little as 2%, a 1% per year rise will likely be painful. Some will see their rates reset up to 5.4% over the next few years — more painful still.

Obviously, the redefault risk is pretty high. As SIGTARP notes, those in the HAMP program the longest default at the highest rate – nearly 50%. Almost half of homeowners with HAMP modifications received them from 2009 to 2010. The overall default rate at the end of last year was 28%.

Which institutions hold these loans? Of the 10 major servicers involved with HAMP, Bank of America Corp. (NYSE: BAC  ) , JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM  ) and Wells Fargo (NYSE: WFC  ) are in the top five. At the end of 2013, redefaults for each bank associated with HAMP loans was 31% for B of A, 23% for JPMorgan, and 24% for Wells.Ocwen Loan Servicing and Nationstar Mortgage, the other two servicers in the top five, each had redefault rates of 30% and 26%, respectively. Can they expect a whole lot more in the next few years? It certainly seems like it.

The other reset problem: Helocs
In addition to new default risks for HAMP loans, banks are also facing issues with home equity lines of credit made right before the crash, some of which began maturing last year. Once the loan turns 10 years old, these so-called Helocs begin to add principal to the interest-only payments homeowners have been accustomed to paying. For some, those reset payments will be in the neighborhood of $500 to $600 more each month.

The usual suspects mentioned above are the biggest players here, as well. Together, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, and Wells Fargo hold big hunks of the total $529 billion in Helocs, with B of A having the biggest portion, $81.4 billion. JPMorgan and Wells hold about $70 billion and $80 billion apiece. Since these loans are usually second liens, banks face bigger losses.

Banks are facing these threats with less of a cushion these days, as well. As their troubled loan portfolios have waned, banks have cut back by billions of dollars on their loan loss reserves. Both Bank of America and Wells, for instance, put aside approximately $5 billion less in 2013 than they did in 2012.

Things could get rough for the big banks again very soon, as defaults start to add up. As far as they’ve come from the dark days of the financial crisis, the legacy of banking’s pre-crisis lending spree never really seems to fade

source:  http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/04/05/mortgage-resets-are-beginning-and-things-could-get.aspx

Duped Homeowners At Risk Of Losing Home Due To Adjusting Payments.

In the years leading up to the recent mortgage crisis, the behavior and activities of mortgage lenders changed dramatically. Lenders offered more and more loans to higher-risk borrowers, including undocumented immigrants. Sub-prime mortgages amounted to thirty-five billion dollars ($35,000,000,000) (5% of total originations) in 1994 and increased dramatically to six-hundred billion dollars ($600,000,000,000) (20%) in 2006.

In addition to considering higher-risk borrowers, lenders offered increasingly risky loan options and borrowing incentives, such as “yield spread premiums.” The American Dream of home-ownership could not have been easier to obtain. However, with an ever-growing “cash-cow” providing limitless income to mortgage brokers and lenders, greed inevitably took over.

Mortgage qualification guidelines began to drastically morph. At first, the “stated income, verified assets” loans were introduced. Proof of income was no longer needed, borrowers just needed to “state” income and show that they had money in the bank (which in many circumstances, the brokers would transfer their own or company funds into the borrowers account to ensure approval). Then, the “no income, verified assets” loans were introduced. The lender no longer required proof of employment. Borrowers just needed to show proof of money in their bank accounts. The qualification guidelines kept getting looser in order to produce more mortgages and more securities. This led to the creation of “No Income, No Assets” (“NINA”) loans. Basically, NINA loans are official loan products and let you borrow money without having to prove or even state any owned assets. All that was required for a mortgage was a credit score. This program solely based the funding on the value of the collateral (the home), which often led to over-inflated appraisals to ensure approval.

Due to the risky nature of these types of loans, they frequently held extremely predatory features that were in no way of any benefit to the borrower. One example of a predatory mortgage sold during this time was the interest-only adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM), which allows the homeowner to pay just the interest (not principal) during an initial period. Nearly one (1) in ten (10) mortgage borrowers in 2005 and 2006 were sold these “option ARM” loans, unbeknownst to some, including Plaintiffs.

As a result of the enormous amounts of profit made on sub-prime mortgages, lenders began paying extreme commissions and “kickbacks” outside of closing to ensure that mortgage brokers sold borrowers the most profitable option.

These incentives led to the financial interest of the borrower being thrown to the wind as the commissions and bonuses paid to mortgage brokers were substantially larger when they would place a “prime” borrower into a “sub-prime” mortgage. Mortgage brokers, who owe a common law and statutory fiduciary duty to borrowers, would fail to mention that; 1) the loan is considered “sub-prime,” and 2) the borrower could qualify for a traditional “prime” mortgages holding a fixed interest rate and payment that would fully amortize.

This lending scheme, coupled with the ever falling home values due to inflated appraisals, is the reason for the State of California’s economy being crippled as it resulted in the millions of foreclosures of these “designed-to-fail” mortgages. Borrowers are being faced with adjusted payments that are substantially larger than the original payment amount resulting in default.

If you’ve experienced first-hand the hardship of these adjusting payments and want to learn more about your remedies visit  the wrongful foreclosure attorney Ted A. Greene can help you. You can email Ted at tgreene@tedgreenelaw.com or call (916) 442-6400 and your information will remain private and confidential.

What Is Bankruptcy: Five Things You Might Not Know

What Is Bankruptcy Really? Five Things You Didn’t Know About This Option

We’ve all heard of bankruptcy, whether we’ve seen it in a movie or read about in the newspapers. Bankruptcy is a means to resolve the issue of a debtor ETF, personal finance, bankruptcy, personal debt,  being unable to repay his or her debts. You may not know anyone who’s been through the bankruptcy process, but the fact of the matter is it can happen to anyone. Here are some things about filing for bankruptcy that you may not have known.

1. You don’t necessarily need to give away your assets

Not all types of bankruptcy involve giving away your assets like most people believe. One type of bankruptcy lets you keep them, specifically Chapter 13 bankruptcy. Chapter 13 bankruptcy involves creating a repayment plan so that you’ll be able to repay your creditors without giving up the assets you require.

2. Bankruptcy does not release you from all debt obligations

There are certain types of debt that are impossible to discharge through bankruptcy. The most commonly known type is student loan debt, but those who’ve been through divorces also won’t be able to discharge payments to spouses or children of spouses. Some types of money owed to the government, like fines or recent back taxes, also must be paid regardless of bankruptcy status.

3. Filing for bankruptcy requires credit counseling

The 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act requires everyone filing for bankruptcy to receive credit counseling. The organization providing the counseling must be approved by the government, and individuals must have taken part in such counseling in the six months before they file for bankruptcy. For those dealing with bankruptcy, bankruptcy specialists like us might be able to help.

4. Getting credit after a bankruptcy won’t be as difficult as you think

Most people believe getting credit after filing for bankruptcy is nearly impossible. As it turns out, many lenders will let you take out loans just six months after a bankruptcy if a down payment is provided, and credit cards companies are generally also willing to issue cards with which you can rebuild your credit after you file. The reason for this is that once you file for bankruptcy, you won’t be able to file again for four to seven years.

5. You can repay some of your debt, but not all types of bankruptcies require it

It’s not necessary to repay any of your debt through Chapter 7 bankruptcy, though it requires you to liquidate all your assets. With Chapter 13 bankruptcy, however, you’re required to repay some of your debt.

Most people who live within their means and don’t need to borrow enormous amounts of money with a risk of losing all or part of their income will not need to worry about bankruptcy. But for those with no other options, bankruptcy can be a means to solve the problem with advantages and disadvantages that many people aren’t aware of.

 

source 

Chapter 7 vs. Chapter 13

Which Chapter Does Your Bankruptcy Belong In?

Man calculating his bills while his family are on the sofaIn 2005, a major change was made to how Chapter 7 Bankruptcy is processed in the United States. The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 instituted a means test to determine whether an individual should file for Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 as well as some other new requirements. Chapter 11 is typically for small businesses and will not be addressed in this article. Many may dispute how much abuse has been prevented and just how consumers are being protected by this law. Anyway, let us now focus on the means test requirement.

Test Your Means, Does It Amount to More Than a Hill of Beans?

The means test will determine whether you are eligible for Chapter 7 or 13. If you make more than the median income for your state, California’s median income for a single earner is $48,415, then you will have to file for Chapter 13. Why is this important? Chapter 7 liquidates your debts quickly whereas a Chapter 13 filing entails a 3-5 year payment plan with a strict budget. More on that in a moment.

What Does Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Mean to Me?

Chapter 7 bankruptcy is the most common form filed and we are experts on it here at the Law Offices of Ted A. Greene. Many of our clients ask what Chapter 7 requires. We do not need all of this information in the first consultation but as we work with you we will require:

  • A complete list of all creditors as well as the specific amounts and the nature of each claim
  • The origin, amount, and frequency of our client’s income
  • Last 2 years of most recent tax returns
  • Previous 6 months of bank statements
  • A list of our client’s property and all assets
  • A detailed breakdown of each client’s monthly living expenses including: food, clothing, shelter, utilities, taxes, transportation, medicine, etc.

 

Regardless of whether a married person is filing jointly or individually, the court requires this information for their spouse as well to evaluate the financial position of our client’s household. The state of California has its own exemption systems as allowed by federal law and requires each debtor filing for bankruptcy to use one of two schedules. We won’t get into the specifics of the property exemptions allowed in this article but it is extensive. Once you have properly filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy your debts can be resolved in as little as 4-6 months.

Why Would I File Chapter 13?

The main reason many people file for Chapter 13 is because they make too much money to qualify for Chapter 7. An income that is higher than $48,415 for a single earner in California will typically push you over into Chapter 13. There are some deductions that can keep you in a Chapter 7 if you are slightly over the median income but we won’t address their complicated nature here.

The main feature of Chapter 13 is the repayment plan. This plan allows you to address your debts in payments as negotiated by the bankruptcy trustee. The plan is proposed in “good faith” with the full intention of completing the payments. The Chapter 13 repayment plan may take 3-5 years to complete. Many creditors owed for unsecured debts may receive as much as they would have in Chapter 7 bankruptcy, meaning nothing. If one is unable to complete a payment plan on Chapter 13, a Chapter 7 may be allowed after the failure of the payment plan. Many may use an emergency Chapter 13 filing to stall a foreclosure long enough to complete a short sale. There are restrictions in Chapter 13 which will require one to seek approval before applying for substantial new debt such as a car loan. While we do not process Chapter 13 filings here at the Law Offices of Ted A. Greene, we can refer you to someone who is quite capable.

What Should I Do?

If you are a California resident and are tired of creditors harassing you, tired of feeling overwhelmed and under-informed, or you just want to know what your options are please contact me, Ted A. Greene, today at 916.442.6400. Either a member of my experienced staff or I will talk to you. Your initial consultation will cost you nothing more than your time. You can also complete the form on our Contact Us page and we will call you. I personally guarantee I can process your Chapter 7 bankruptcy for less than any other attorney in the Sacramento metropolitan area, come in, sit down, and we can help you chart a better financial future for you and yours.