Sabatini and Associates, LLC Attorneys at Law :: Newington :: Hartford :: Connecticut

A federal district court judge ruled that Chevy Chase Bank must rescind loans to certain borrowers who took out so-called option adjustable-rate mortgages because it violated the Federal Truth in Lending Act.  A Wisconsin couple borught the lawsuit after they received a statement showing that two months after obtaining their mortgage their rate shot up from 1.95% to 4.375%.  The couple believed that the 1.95% rate was fixed for five years.  Instead,the rate was used a teaser only lasting for a few months.  What caused the couple to be confused.  Well for one, the disclosures regarding the rate of the loan were confusing and unclear according to District Court Judge Lynn Adelman of the Eastern District of Wisconsin.  The disclosure statement included the words “5-year fixed”.  This was confusing to consumers because while payments on the loan were fixed for five years the interest was not.  The borrowers covered by the judge’s decision will get back any payments made to the bank inlcuding closing costs and attorneys’ fees. 

If you have re-financed or purchased a home with an option ARM over the last three years and believe that you have been deceived or the terms and conditions of the loan were no properly disclosed to you, please contact us.

According to Business Week, borrowers who jumped into option adjustable rate mortgage (ARM) loans are in danger of their payments skyrocketing. The ARM is possibly the riskiest and most complicated home loan product yet. The ARM has attractive low minimum payments, which has brought a new group of home-buyers into the market, thus extending the housing boom. 

Many of the option ARMs taken out in 2004 and 2005 are resetting at much higher payment schedules, often to the astonishment of people who thought the low installments were fixed for at least five years. Because home prices have leveled off, borrowers cannot count on rising equity to save them. Furthermore, high pre-payment penalty terms prevent such borrowers from refinancing.

According to Business Week, brokers are paid more to sell option ARMs than other mortgage products, and lenders are allowed to claim the full monthly payment as revenue even when borrowers choose to pay much less. Moreover, the option ARM’s interest rates and fees might not have been set by their bank but rather by a hedge fund, which is a lightly regulated private investment fund sometimes characterized by unconventional strategies.

Also, because banks don’t have to report how many option ARMs they underwrite, few choose to do so. Also, banks have protected themselves by selling their option ARMs as repackaged mortgage-backed securities to Wall Street investors, hedge funds and other big investors. Other option ARMs remain on lenders’ books, generating large profits for some lenders, as banks can count as revenue the highest amount of an option ARM payment even when borrowers only make the minimum payment, claiming future revenue now. However, it is difficult to know if unpaid interests and payments will ever get paid.

Option ARMs were initially marketed as flexibility tools to wealthy home buyers who wanted the option of making low payments most months and then paying off a big chunk all at once. However, in the past few years, option ARMs have become affordability tools for the masses in order for the banks to keep the money flowing, without regard to whether such people could deal with or even understood the risks.

Currently, up to 80% of all option ARM borrowers make only the minimum payment each month, according to Fitch Ratings, with the rest of the money getting added to the principal balance, also known as negative amortization. Accordingly, when balances grow to a certain amount, the loans automatically reset at higher payments.

Soon, option ARM borrowers will be confronted with the choice of paying higher payments or losing their homes.

Minutes before Comair Flight 5191 crashed after going down the wrong runaway, the pilots were talking about their dogs, their families and other job opportunities.  This extraneous cockpit chatter violates FAA rules.  In 1981, the FAA adopted a sterile cockpit rule that forbids among other things extraneous cockpit chatter during landing, take off and taxi.  This rule is in place to ensure that the pilot and co-pilot are directing their complete focus and attention to the tasks at hand.  Having said this, it is too early to determine how much of a factor the cockpit chatter played in the worse US aviation disaster in the last five years.  This tragic story will continue to be followed.