Don’t be Fooled by Solicitations from Companies that Will “File” Your Annual Corporate Minutes (for a fee, of course)

After recently receiving a suspicious-looking solicitation on “official” letterhead bearing a Sacramento address, a client asked:

“I got a form in the mail entitled “Disclosure Statement: Department of Annual Business Minutes (DOBM)” or “Annual Disclosure Statement” (or something similar), from a Sacramento address. It says I must fill it out and return it with a check for $125. Is this a scam? Do I need to do anything with my minutes on a yearly basis?”

Generally speaking, these are scams. I, myself, receive these solicitations several times a year. There are many companies out there that get an address somewhere in Sacramento (sometimes it’s just a mailbox store), and send envelopes with logos that somewhat resemble the official seal of the State of California, or they may look like they are from the Secretary of State’s office or the Department of Corporations. They generally tell you of some ill that will befall you and your business of you do not immediately sign the form and send it back with anywhere from $115 to $150 for annual minutes. You may receive such a solicitation within a few of weeks of filing your Articles of Incorporation.

Articles of Incorporation are public records, and these companies simply purchase lists of newly formed corporations. With so many small businesses incorporating every day, it’s like shooting fish in a barrel for them, and unfortunately their scare tactics work on a lot of people.

Here’s the real deal: Your corporation must have an annual meeting of the shareholders and an annual meeting of the directors. Meeting requirements are set forth in the Corporations Code and also in your corporation’s bylaws. These “meetings” do not have to be at a fancy conference location, and if your board of directors consists of just one person, you won’t exactly be “meeting” with yourself. But the meetings do have to be documented with minutes in your corporate record book. When we form a corporation for a client, the “organizational meeting” minutes are included as part of our corporation package. The bylaws further specify the requirements for the date and time of both the annual meeting of shareholders and the annual meeting of directors. In small corporations, these are usually handled as “paper meetings,” that is, minutes are generated documenting major decisions made that affect the corporation, but there is no actual “meeting” where folks sit down and conduct a discussion, etc. Failure to maintain an up to date corporate binder with all of the documents required in the Corporations Code and your bylaws (including minutes of these annual meetings) could potentially cause you to lose your corporate liability protection, and you may also be required to produce such documentation in the event you are ever audited by the tax authorities.

Red Sky Legal, of course, prepares these documents, too. We offer a complete annual corporate compliance package that includes minutes of the shareholders meeting, minutes of the directors meeting, waivers, resolutions, etc., and also preparation of the annual Statement of Information that must be filed with the Secretary of State. However, these are all things you can do yourself, too. There are some easy-to-understand self-help books out there, like Nolo’s book on corporate resolutions. The Secretary of State will mail you a blank SOI form you can fill out and send back. But if you don’t want to hassle with it, we’re here to help.

Above all else, please understand that any solicitation you receive is likely a scam. Minutes do not get filed with the Secretary of State’s office; the only thing filed with the Secretary is the annual Statement of Information. Odds are, you will receive these bulk-mailed solicitations at various times of the year, often when you are nowhere near the annual meeting date established in your bylaws. Whatever services they are trying to sell you most likely won’t include the SOI, may not include the necessary notice waivers, and may not include the minutes of both meetings (shareholders and directors) as required in your bylaws.

Bottom line…buyer beware!

Attorney General Sues 21 Individuals and 14 Companies Who Ripped Off Homeowners Desperate for Mortgage Relief

As part of a massive federal-state crackdown on loan modification scams, California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. at a press conference today announced the filing of legal action against 21 individuals and 14 companies who ripped off thousands of homeowners desperately seeking mortgage relief.

Brown is demanding millions in civil penalties, restitution for victims and permanent injunctions to keep the companies and defendants from offering mortgage-relief services.

"The loan modification industry is teeming with confidence men and charlatans, who rip off desperate homeowners facing foreclosure," Brown said. "Despite firm promises and money-back guarantees, these scam artists pocketed thousands of dollars from each victim and didn't provide an ounce of relief."

Brown filed five lawsuits as part of "Operation Loan Lies," a nationwide sweep of sham loan modification consultants, which he conducted with the Federal Trade Commission, the U.S. Attorney's office and 22 other federal and state agencies. In total, 189 suits and orders to stop doing business were filed across the country.

Following the housing collapse, hundreds of loan modification and foreclosure-prevention companies have cropped up, charging thousands of dollars in upfront fees and claiming that they can reduce mortgage payments. Yet, loan modifications are rarely, if ever, obtained. Less than 1 percent of homeowners nationwide have received principal reductions of any kind.

Brown has been leading the fight against fraudulent loan modification companies. He has sought court orders to shut down several companies including First Gov and Foreclosure Freedom and has brought criminal charges and obtained lengthy prison sentences for deceptive loan modification consultants.

Brown's office filed the following lawsuits in Orange County and U.S. District Court for the Central District (Los Angeles):

• U.S. Homeowners Assistance, based in Irvine;
• U.S. Foreclosure Relief Corp and its legal affiliate Adrian Pomery, based in the City of Orange;
• Home Relief Services, LLC, with offices in Irvine, Newport Beach and Anaheim, and its legal affiliate, the Diener Law Firm;
• RMR Group Loss Mitigation, LLC and its legal affiliates Shippey & Associates and Arthur Aldridge. RMR Group has offices in Newport Beach, City of Orange, Huntington Beach, Corona, and Fresno; and
• United First, Inc, and its lawyer affiliate Mitchell Roth, based in Los Angeles.

U.S. Homeowners Assistance

Brown on Monday sued U.S. Homeowners Assistance, and its executives -- Hakimullah "Sean" Sarpas and Zulmai Nazarzai -- for bilking dozens of homeowners out of thousands of dollars each.

U.S. Homeowners Assistance claimed to be a government agency with a 98 percent success rate in aiding homeowners. In reality, the company was not a government agency and was never certified as an approved housing counselor by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. None of U.S. Homeowners Assistance's known victims received loan modifications despite paying upfront fees ranging from $1,200 to $3,500.

For example, in January 2008, one victim received a letter from her lender indicating that her monthly mortgage payment would increase from $2,300 to $3,500. Days later, she received an unsolicited phone call from U.S. Homeowners Assistance promising a 40 percent reduction in principal and a $2,000 reduction in her monthly payment. She paid $3500 upfront for U.S. Homeowners Assistance's services.

At the end of April 2008, her lender informed her that her loan modification request had been denied and sent her the documents that U.S. Homeowners Assistance had filed on her behalf. After reviewing those documents, she discovered that U.S. Homeowners Assistance had forged her signature and falsified her financial information - including fabricating a lease agreement with a fictitious tenant.

When she confronted U.S. Homeowners Assistance, she was immediately disconnected and has not been able to reach the company.

Brown's suit contends that U.S. Homeowners Assistance violated:

• California Business and Professions Code section 17500 by falsely stating they were a government agency and misleading homeowners by claiming a 98 percent success rate in obtaining loan modifications;
• California Business and Professions Code section 17200 by failing to perform services made in exchange for upfront fees;
• California Civil Code section 2945.4 for unlawfully collecting upfront fees for loan modification services;
• California Civil Code section 2945.45 for failing to register with the California Attorney General's Office as foreclosure consultants; and
• California Penal Code section 487 for grand theft.

Brown is seeking $7.5 million in civil penalties, full restitution for victims, and a permanent injunction to keep the company and the defendants from offering foreclosure consultant services.

US Homeowners Assistance also did business as Statewide Financial Group, Inc., We Beat All Rates, and US Homeowners Preservation Center.

US Foreclosure Relief Corporation

Brown last week sued US Foreclosure Relief Corporation, H.E. Service Company, their executives -- George Escalante and Cesar Lopez -- as well as their legal affiliate Adrian Pomery for running a scam promising homeowners reductions in their principal and interest rates as low as 4 percent. Brown was joined in this suit by the Federal Trade Commission and the State of Missouri.

Using aggressive telemarketing tactics, the defendants solicited desperate homeowners and charged an upfront fee ranging from $1,800 to $2,800 for loan modification services. During one nine-month period alone, consumers paid defendants in excess of $4.4 million. Yet, in most instances, defendants failed to provide the mortgage-relief services. Once consumers paid the fee, the defendants avoided responding to consumers' inquiries.

In response to a large number of consumer complaints, several government agencies directed the defendants to stop their illegal practices. Instead, they changed their business name and continued their operations - using six different business aliases in the past eight months alone.

Brown's lawsuit alleges the companies and individuals violated:

• The National Do Not Call Registry, 16 C.F.R. section 310.4 and California Business and Professions Code section 17200 by telemarketing their services to persons on the registry;
• The National Do Not Call Registry, 16 C.F.R. section 310.8 and California Business and Professions Code section 17200 by telemarketing their services without paying the mandatory annual fee for access to telephone numbers within the area codes included in the registry;
• California Civil Code section 2945 et seq. and California Business and Professions Code section 17200 by demanding and collecting up-front fees prior to performing any services, failing to include statutory notices in their contracts, and failing to comply with other requirements imposed on mortgage foreclosure consultants;
• California Business and Professions Code sections 17200 and 17500 by representing that they would obtain home loan modifications for consumers but failing to do so in most instances; by representing that consumers must make further payments even though they had not performed any of the promised services; by representing that they have a high success rate and that they can obtain loan modification within no more than 60 days when in fact these representations were false; and by directing consumers to avoid contact with their lenders and to stop making loan payments causing some lenders to initiate foreclosure proceedings and causing damage to consumers' credit records.

Victims of this scam include a father of four battling cancer, a small business owner, an elderly disabled couple, a sheriff whose income dropped due to city budget cuts and an Iraq-war veteran. None of these victims received the loan modification promised.

Brown is seeking unspecified civil penalties, full restitution for victims, and a permanent injunction to keep the company and the defendants from offering foreclosure consultant services.

The defendants also did business under other names including Lighthouse Services and California Foreclosure Specialists.

Home Relief Services, LLC

Brown Monday sued Home Relief Services, LLC., its executives Terence Green Sr. and Stefano Marrero, the Diener Law Firm and its principal attorney Christopher L. Diener for bilking thousands of homeowners out of thousands of dollars each.

Home Relief Services charged homeowners over $4,000 in upfront fees, promised to lower interest rates to 4 percent, convert adjustable-rate mortgages to low fixed-rate loans and reduce principal up to 50 percent within 30 to 60 days. None of the known victims received a modification with the assistance of the defendants.

In some cases, these companies also sought to be the lenders' agent in the short-sale of their clients' homes. In doing so, the defendants attempted to use their customers' personal financial information for their own benefit.

Home Relief Services and the Diener Law Firm directed homeowners to stop contacting their lender because the defendants would act as their sole agent and negotiator.

Brown's lawsuit contends that the defendants violated:

• California Business and Professions Code section 17500 by claiming a 95 percent success rate and promising consumers significant reductions in the principal balance of their mortgages;
• California Business and Professions Code section 17200 by failing to perform on promises made in exchange for upfront fees;
• California Civil Code section 2945.4 for unlawfully collecting upfront fees for loan modification services;
• California Business and Professions Code section 2945.3 by failing to include cancellation notices in their contracts;
• California Civil Code section 2945.45 by not registering with the Attorney General's office as foreclosure consultants; and
• California Penal Code section 487 for grand theft.

Brown is seeking $10 million in civil penalties, full restitution for victims, and a permanent injunction to keep the company and the defendants from offering foreclosure consultant services.

Two other companies with the same management were also involved in the effort to deceive homeowners: Payment Relief Services, Inc. and Golden State Funding, Inc.

RMR Group Loss Mitigation Group

Brown Monday sued RMR Group Loss Mitigation and its executives Michael Scott Armendariz of Huntington Beach, Ruben Curiel of Lancaster, and Ricardo Haag of Corona; Living Water Lending, Inc.; and attorney Arthur Steven Aldridge of Westlake Village as well as the law firm of Shippey & Associates and its principal attorney Karla C. Shippey of Yorba Linda - for bilking over 500 victims out of nearly $1 million.

The company solicited homeowners through telephone calls and in-person home visits. Employees claimed a 98 percent success rate and a money-back guarantee. None of the known victims received any refunds or modifications with the assistance of defendants.

For example, in July 2008, a 71-year old victim learned his monthly mortgage payments would increase from $2,470 to $3,295. He paid $2,995, yet received no loan modification and no refund.

Additionally, RMR insisted that homeowners refrain from contacting their lenders because the defendants would act as their agents.

Brown's suit contends that the defendants violated:

• California Business and Professions Code section 17500 by claiming a 98 percent success rate and promising consumers significant reductions in the principal balance of their mortgages;
• California Business and Professions Code section 17200 by failing to perform on promises made in exchange for upfront fees;
• California Civil Code section 2945.4 for unlawfully collecting upfront fees for loan modification services;
• California Business and Professions Code section 2945.3 by failing to include cancellation notices in their contracts;
• California Civil Code section 2945.45 by not registering with the Attorney General's office as foreclosure consultants; and
• California Penal Code section 487 for grand theft.

Brown is seeking $7.5 million in civil penalties, full restitution for victims, and a permanent injunction to keep the company and the defendants from offering foreclosure consultant services.

United First, Inc.

On July 6, 2009, Brown sued a foreclosure consultant and an attorney -- Paul Noe Jr. and Mitchell Roth - who conned 2,000 desperate homeowners into paying exorbitant fees for "phony lawsuits" to forestall foreclosure proceedings.

These lawsuits were filed and abandoned, even though homeowners were charged $1,800 in upfront fees, at least $1,200 per month and contingency fees of up to 80 percent of their home's value.

Noe convinced more than 2,000 homeowners to sign "joint venture" agreements with his company, United First, and hire Roth to file suits claiming that the borrower's loan was invalid because the mortgages had been sold so many times on Wall Street that the lender could not demonstrate who owned it. Similar suits in other states have never resulted in the elimination of the borrower's mortgage debt.

After filing the lawsuits, Roth did virtually nothing to advance the cases. He often failed to make required court filings, respond to legal motions, comply with court deadlines, or appear at court hearings. Instead, Roth's firm simply tried to extend the lawsuits as long as possible in order to collect additional monthly fees.

United First charged homeowners approximately $1,800 in upfront fees, plus at least $1,200 per month. If the case was settled, homeowners were required to pay 50 percent of the cash value of the settlement. For example, if United First won a $100,000 reduction of the mortgage debt, the homeowner would have to pay United First a fee of $50,000. If United First completely eliminated the homeowner's debt, the homeowner would be required to pay the company 80 percent of the value of the home.

Brown's lawsuit contends that Noe, Roth and United First:

• Violated California's credit counseling and foreclosure consultant laws, Civil Code sections 1789 and 2945
• Inserted unconscionable terms in contracts;
• Engaged in improper running and capping, meaning that Roth improperly partnered with United First, Inc. and Noe, who were not lawyers, to generate business for his law firm violating California Business and Professions Code 6150; and
• Violated 17500 of the California Business and Professions Code.

Brown's office is seeking $2 million in civil penalties, full restitution for victims, and a permanent injunction to keep the company and the defendants from offering foreclosure consultant services.

Tips for Homeowners

Brown's office issued these tips for homeowners to avoid becoming a victim:

• DON'T pay money to people who promise to work with your lender to modify your loan. It is unlawful for foreclosure consultants to collect money before (1) they give you a written contract describing the services they promise to provide and (2) they actually perform all the services described in the contract, such as negotiating new monthly payments or a new mortgage loan. However, an advance fee may be charged by an attorney, or by a real estate broker who has submitted the advance fee agreement to the Department of Real Estate, for review.
• DO call your lender yourself. Your lender wants to hear from you, and will likely be much more willing to work directly with you than with a foreclosure consultant.
• DON'T ignore letters from your lender. Consider contacting your lender yourself, many lenders are willing to work with homeowners who are behind on their payments.
• DON'T transfer title or sell your house to a "foreclosure rescuer." Fraudulent foreclosure consultants often promise that if homeowners transfer title, they may stay in the home as renters and buy their home back later. The foreclosure consultants claim that transfer is necessary so that someone with a better credit rating can obtain a new loan to prevent foreclosure. BEWARE! This is a common scheme so-called "rescuers" use to evict homeowners and steal all or most of the home's equity.
• DON'T pay your mortgage payments to someone other than your lender or loan servicer, even if he or she promises to pass the payment on. Fraudulent foreclosure consultants often keep the money for themselves.
• DON'T sign any documents without reading them first. Many homeowners think that they are signing documents for a new loan to pay off the mortgage they are behind on. Later, they discover that they actually transferred ownership to the "rescuer."
• DO contact housing counselors approved by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), who may be able to help you for free. For a referral to a housing counselor near you, contact HUD at 1-800-569-4287 (TTY: 1-800-877-8339) or http://www.hud.gov/.

If you believe you have been the victim of a mortgage-relief scam in California, please contact the Attorney General's Public Inquiry Unit at http://ag.ca.gov/consumers/general.php.

The Complaints filed in these cases can be downloaded by clicking here.

FAQ: Should I Incorporate My Business?

The primary advantages of operating as a corporation are liability protection and potential tax savings. Like any important decision, choosing whether to incorporate involves weighing the pros and cons, and should only be done after careful research and consultation with a legal or tax professional.

Once incorporated, the business assets of the corporation are separated from the owner’s personal finances. As a result, the owner’s personal assets generally can be shielded from creditors of the business.

To maintain this legal separation (and avoid “piercing the corporate veil”), the corporation must observe certain formalities, including:

• Keeping corporate assets and personal assets separate (no commingling of funds)
• Holding shareholder and director meetings at least annually
• Maintaining a corporate record book including bylaws, minutes of shareholder and director meetings, and shareholder records
• Filing annual information statements with the Secretary of State
• Filing a separate tax return for the corporation

Many people are concerned about “double taxation” of income, but you should do your own research, and compare the features of the C-corporation and S-corporation. The double taxation results when a C-corporation has profit at the end of the year, and that profit is then distributed to the shareholders. That profit is taxed to the corporation, at the corporate tax rate, and then the dividends are taxable income to the shareholders on their personal tax returns. However, the corporate tax rate is typically much lower than the individual tax rate that a sole-proprietor will pay on a 1040 Schedule C, and a competent accountant can help the corporation minimize double-taxation (or eliminate it completely).

For example, a small C-corporation will likely have a shareholder who is also an employee. Paychecks to the shareholder/employee are, of course, tax deductible to the business. To the shareholder/employee, they are taxable income (as would be the case with a paycheck from any employer). A bonus could be paid to the shareholder/employee in order to lower the corporation’s taxable profit, eliminating the double-taxation. These calculations should be performed by your accountant or tax advisor, but shifting income from the corporation to the shareholder/employee (or vice versa, depending on which has the lower tax rate) can be a great way to lower your overall tax liability. In addition, there are certain advantages that are only available with a C-Corporation, such as full tax-deductibility of medical benefits for a shareholder/employee.

The S-Corporation avoids the double-taxation by offering a tax structure similar to the Limited Liability Company (LLC, which is not an option for businesses that are required to hold a license, certification or registration). A corporation with 75 or fewer shareholders can elect to be treated as an S-Corporation. If the corporation is profitable, the shareholder/employee must draw a reasonable salary (and pay employment tax on it), but then all remaining corporate profits flow through to the shareholder’s personal tax return (thereby avoiding the FICA tax on the portion of profits that is taken as a dividend).

Before deciding to incorporate, you should seek legal and tax advice on what type of ownership best suits your business. An experienced attorney and tax advisor can help you decide which form of ownership is best for your business. For the do-it-yourselfers, we highly recommend “Own Your Own Corporation” by Garrett Sutton, Esq. (part of the Rich Dad series).

Red Sky Legal specializes in helping small business owners form and manage their California corporations. Please contact us to learn how affordable - and easy - it is to protect yourself and your business.

What is a Notice of Pendency of Action (Lis Pendens)?

A “notice of pendency of action,” also known as a “lis pendens” (Latin for “a suit pending”), is a written notice that a lawsuit has been filed that may affect either the title to, possession of, or a claimed ownership interest in real property. The notice is usually filed in the county Recorder’s office. Recording the notice alerts a potential purchaser or lender that the property’s title is in question, which can make the property less attractive to a buyer or lender.

A notice of pendency of action is available in actions involving “real property claims,” which are defined in California Code of Civil Procedure § 405.04 as “the cause or causes of action in a pleading which would, if meritorious, affect (a) title to, or the right to possession of, specific real property or (b) the use of an easement identified in the pleading, other than an easement obtained pursuant to statute by any regulated public utility.”

Unless otherwise specified, the notice must be recorded in the office of the Recorder of each county in which all or part of the property is situated. The notice must contain the names of all parties to the court action and a description of the property.

An attorney of record in an action may sign a notice of pendency of action. Alternatively, a judge of the court in which an action that includes a real property claim is pending may, on request of a party, approve a notice of pendency of action. Such a request is usually made in the form of an ex parte application. Both the notice and the ex parte application are routine legal documents that you can prepare yourself, with a little help from the law library, or a non-attorney legal document preparer can assist you. For more information, please contact us.

Association Updates LDA Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility; Adopts LDA Client’s Bill of Rights

The Alliance of Legal Document Assistant Professionals (ALDAP) yesterday unanimously voted to approve an expanded Legal Document Assistant (LDA) Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility, and a new LDA Client’s Bill of Rights and Responsibilities. The vote took place at the association’s annual membership meeting, after months of careful consideration and deliberation. All association members are required to adhere to the canons set forth in the Code. The new standards are effective immediately.

“In addition to maintaining compliance with governmental regulations—those things we must do—it is imperative that our industry implement self-regulation—those things we should do— to ensure the protection of the public and the integrity of the legal document assistant profession,” said Suzanne Ervine, vice president of the association.

Although it’s been more than a decade since California Business & Professions Code section 6400—the legislation governing the LDA profession—was enacted, the industry remains rife with non-compliant, unregistered “rogue” paralegals with neither the requisite training and experience, nor the registration and bond that affords some measure of consumer protection.

“In looking to the future of the growing self-help-legal movement, we decided it was time to expand our Code of Ethics, and implement additional consumer protections with the Client’s Bill of Rights,” said Ervine, who owns and operates Red Sky Legal in San Diego.

Since ALDAP’s inception in 2007, the Code of Ethics has served as the foundation of ethical practices for the legal document assistant profession. The new Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility doubles the number of canons from five to ten, with an increased emphasis on consumer protection.

For more information, visit http://www.aldap.org/.

San Diego Law Library to Host Free Events & Classes

Law Week 2009: A Legacy of Liberty – Celebrating Lincoln's Bicentennial

The San Diego County Public Law Library is offering special lectures, legal clinics and exhibits celebrating Law Week. All Law Week events are FREE to the general public and some are available for attorney/paralegal MCLE credit.

Events are taking place at all four library branches. Click here for a schedule of events sorted by location.

What is Law Week?

In 1958, President Dwight D. Eisenhower proclaimed Law Day to “strengthen our great heritage of liberty, justice, and equality under the law.” The San Diego County Public Law Library feels that this is such an important event, we have expanded Law Day into Law Week! This year’s theme is A Legacy of Liberty – Celebrating Lincoln's Bicentennial.

2009 marks the bicentennial of the birth of Abraham Lincoln, regarded by many as our nation’s greatest and most eloquent president. Lincoln, who devoted much of his adult life to the practice of law, was the quintessential American lawyer-president. His background in the law informed both his actions and his oratory. For Law Day 2009, the American Bar Association encourages efforts nationwide to commemorate Lincoln by exploring this rich and resonant theme – A Legacy of Liberty.

Foreclosure Rescue Scams Skyrocket; Protect Yourself Now

Source: Findlaw.com

The nationwide jump in foreclosures and mortgage defaults has triggered a corresponding rise in the number of predatory scams targeting financially-strapped homeowners. The federal government is announcing a crackdown on loan modification and foreclosure rescue scams. Learn more about the crackdown and things to be on the lookout for.

The Problem: Promises of "Foreclosure Relief Now!" and "Save Your Home!" are skyrocketing along with national foreclosure figures, with the FBI currently targeting more than 2,000 companies allegedly scamming troubled homeowners with "rescue" offers -- up 400% from five years ago, according to the Los Angeles Times. And a recent Federal Trade Commission (FTC) investigation of nationwide online and print ads offering mortgage foreclosure rescue assistance found about 70 separate companies running questionable ads.

The Crackdown: A coordinated effort by federal agencies (including the U.S. Departments of the Treasury, the Department of Justice, and HUD) announced today is aimed at boosting mortgage-related fraud investigations, alerting financial institutions to new schemes, and educating financially distressed homeowners to avoid falling victim to loan modification or foreclosure rescue scams. Learn more about the Foreclosure Rescue Scam Crackdown (from the U.S. Department of the Treasury).

Protect Yourself: If you are having trouble making your mortgage payments, or have been threatened with foreclosure, you need to take time to separate legitimate channels of assistance from predatory offers. Things to watch out for include companies that offer to pay off your mortgage or temporarily take it over, and scammers that demand high up-front fees to renegotiate your mortgage obligations down to unbelievably (read: impossibly) low monthly payments. Learn more: Watch out for Foreclosure Scams. And find free and low-cost Foreclosure Assistance Counseling from HUD.gov.

More Information:

• Federal, State Partners Announce Multi-Agency Crackdown Targeting Foreclosure Rescue Scams (U.S. Department of the Treasury)
• Reuters: U.S. Warns Mortgage Fraudsters are Eyeing Rescue
• L.A. Times: Obama Administration Warns of Mortgage Relief Scams
• MSNBC: Regulators Struggle to Contain Foreclosure Fraud
• Don't Lose Your Home to Foreclosure "Rescue" Scammers (FindLaw)
• Watch Out for Foreclosure Scams (FindLaw)
• Foreclosure Assistance Counseling (HUD.gov)
• Real Estate Center: Foreclosure (FindLaw)