Industry Reacts to New York 90-Day Mortgage Relief Plan

first_img Governmental Measures Target Expanded Access to Affordable Housing 2 days ago Demand Propels Home Prices Upward 2 days ago Tagged with: Coronavirus Foreclosure New York The Week Ahead: Nearing the Forbearance Exit 2 days ago Home / Daily Dose / Industry Reacts to New York 90-Day Mortgage Relief Plan The Best Markets For Residential Property Investors 2 days ago Coronavirus Foreclosure New York 2020-03-19 Seth Welborn Data Provider Black Knight to Acquire Top of Mind 2 days ago Servicers Navigate the Post-Pandemic World 2 days ago Previous: Did the Great Recession Change the Mortgage Industry? Next: Tracking Default Rates Servicers Navigate the Post-Pandemic World 2 days ago Seth Welborn is a Reporter for DS News and MReport. A graduate of Harding University, he has covered numerous topics across the real estate and default servicing industries. Additionally, he has written B2B marketing copy for Dallas-based companies such as AT&T. An East Texas Native, he also works part-time as a photographer. March 19, 2020 3,205 Views Share Savecenter_img in Daily Dose, Featured, Foreclosure, Loss Mitigation, News, REO Data Provider Black Knight to Acquire Top of Mind 2 days ago Demand Propels Home Prices Upward 2 days ago New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has announced a 90-day mortgage relief plan for homeowners across the state, responding to the spread of coronavirus putting many New Yorkers out of work.“We’re not exempting people from the mortgage payments, we’re just adjusting the mortgage to include those payments on the backend,” he said.CNN reports that these mortgage reliefs include postponing or suspending foreclosures, as well as:Waive mortgage payments based on financial hardshipNo negative reporting to credit bureausGrace period for load modificationNo late payment fees or online payment feesLance Margolin, Partner Emeritus/Counsel at The Margolin & Weinreb Law Group LLP told DS News about the situation in New York.”Virtually all government offices and agencies are now either closed or on reduced staffing thus affecting our ability to do our daily jobs,” Margolin said. “Things we did just a few weeks ago without thinking about it are now either impossible or improbable.””I am optimistic that the challenges that we are facing now will be met with the best of what we have and who we are,” he added.”This unprecedented health crisis requires an unprecedented response,” said Ed Delgado, President and CEO, Five Star Global. “However, it is critical that we consider both the short- and long-term implications of any relief strategies. Gov. Cuomo’s proposed plan could threaten to destabilize the mortgage markets. We must work to meet the needs of struggling homeowners, but must also ensure we do not undermine the very system of homeownership.”Gov. Cuomo’s relief plan follows President Donald Trump’s announcement that foreclosures and evictions for mortgages backed by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Federal Housing Finance Agency will be suspended. Official statements from FHFA and HUD clarified that the policy will extend at least 60 days.During an earlier press conference Wednesday, President Trump had said, “Today I am also announcing that the Department of Housing and Urban Development is providing immediate relief to renters and homeowners by suspending all foreclosures and evictions until the end of April. We are working very closely with Dr. Ben Carson and everybody from HUD.”“Today’s actions will allow households who have an FHA-insured mortgage to meet the challenges of COVID-19 without fear of losing their homes, and help steady market concerns,” said HUD Secretary Dr. Benjamin Carson. “The health and safety of the American people is of the utmost importance to the Department, and the halting of all foreclosure actions and evictions for the next 60 days will provide homeowners with some peace of mind during these trying times.”“This is an uncertain time for many Americans, particularly those who could experience a loss of income. As such, we want to provide FHA borrower households with some immediate relief given the current circumstances,” said Federal Housing Commissioner The Hon. Brian Montgomery. “Our actions today make it clear where the priority needs to be.” The Best Markets For Residential Property Investors 2 days ago Industry Reacts to New York 90-Day Mortgage Relief Plan Sign up for DS News Daily Governmental Measures Target Expanded Access to Affordable Housing 2 days ago Related Articles About Author: Seth Welborn  Print This Post Subscribelast_img read more

Read More »

No FIR Can Be Registered For Offence Under Section 188 Of IPC : Chhattisgarh HC [Read Judgment]

first_imgNews UpdatesNo FIR Can Be Registered For Offence Under Section 188 Of IPC : Chhattisgarh HC [Read Judgment] LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK13 Oct 2020 4:33 AMShare This – xThe High Court of Chhattisgarh has held that the police cannot register an FIR for the offence under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code.Holding thus, the Court quashed an FIR registered against a doctor who was alleged to have violated the directions issued by the Collector in the wake of COVID-19.Section 188 IPC deals with the offence relating to disobedience of an order promulgated by…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginThe High Court of Chhattisgarh has held that the police cannot register an FIR for the offence under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code.Holding thus, the Court quashed an FIR registered against a doctor who was alleged to have violated the directions issued by the Collector in the wake of COVID-19.Section 188 IPC deals with the offence relating to disobedience of an order promulgated by a public servant.A single bench of Justice Sanjay K Agrawal noted that as per Section 195(1)(a)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a court can take cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188(both inclusive) of the IPC only on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned.”In order to prosecute an accused for the offence punishable under Section 188 of the IPC, it is imperative to undergo the procedure envisaged under Section 195(1)(a)(i) of the Code i.e. complaint in writing of public servant concerned or some other public servant to whom he is subordinate, otherwise cognizance of offence under Section 188 of the IPC cannot be taken and if this imperative procedure is not complied with, the entire prosecution for offence under Section 188 of the IPC would be rendered void ab initio, as Section 195 of the Code is an exception to the general rule contained in Section 190 of the Code wherein any person can set the law in motion by making complaint”, the Court observed. The State argued that the police was competent to register the FIR as Section 188 IPC was a cognizable offence. In rejecting this argument, the Court noted that the courts take cognizance of cases in which FIRs are registered on the basis of chargesheets(police reports) submitted after investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC. But, in cases of Section 188 IPC, courts are barred from taking cognizance except on a written complaint by the concerned public officer.The definition of “complaint” under Section 2(d) of the CrPC excludes a “police report”, the Court noted.The Explanation added to Section 2(d) treats only the report submitted by the police in a non-cognizable offence as a complaint. But, Section 188 IPC is a cognizable offence, the Court observed.”…merely because the offence under Section 188 of the IPC is cognizable offence, that by itself does not authorise the police officer to register FIR under Section 154 of the Code for such offence, the reason being that the registration of FIR would necessarily result in submission of police report under Section 173(8) of the Code which is specifically barred by Section 195(1)(a) read with Section 2(d) of the Code. The definition of “complaint” contained in Section 2(d) of the Code makes it clear that complaint does not include a police report”, the Court stated.The HC was considering a writ petition filed by Dr. Apurva Ghiya to quash the FIR registered by Ambagad Chowki Police Station of Rajnandgaon District.Advocate Shalvik Tiwari appeared for the petitioner.In June 2020, she reached her native place in Chhattisgarh from New Delhi after obtaining the requisite E-Pass. She told the court that she had informed the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Rajnandgaon, about her arrival.After she was tested positive for COVID-19, the FIR was lodged against her alleging that she had failed to inform Chief Medical & Health Officer, Ambagad Chowki, about her arrival from Delhi.Recently, the Madras High Court had quashed an FIR for offence under Section 188 IPC on the same reasoning. Click here to download the judgment Read JudgmentNext Storylast_img read more

Read More »