Homeowners may reduce their mortgage payments under the new federal Home Affordable Modification Program (HMP). Homebuyers who are behind on their mortgages may be
offered the opportunity to actually modify the terms of their
mortgage under the new program which was implemented on March 4, 2009. Homeowners who qualify for assistance may have their monthly mortgage
payment lowered to 31% of their monthly gross income.
The reduction in the monthly mortgage payments will be achieved by reducing the interest
rate, extending the term of the loan, or deferring payment
on a part of the principal.
Fannie Mae,
Freddie Mac, and financial institutions receiving assistance
under the federal Financial Stability Plan are required to implement
the program. Participation is voluntary for other mortgage lenders. However, the federal government is offering substantial
incentives to encourage other lenders to participate, and most major lenders have agreed
to participate.
| Click here to visit the program website for more information and to determine if you are eligible for assistance. |
 |
A proposed settlement has been reached in Martinez v. Astrue, No. 08-CV-4735 CW (N.D. Cal.) over the so-called "fleeing felon" issue. The Social Security Administration will halt procedures which in recent years have caused the unjustified denial or suspension of benefits for tens of thousands of persons.
Under the terms of the settlement SSA has agreed to change its policy going forward beginning April 1, 2009. Under the new policy SSA will not initiate action to suspend or deny benefits under this provision unless an arrest warrant was issued under one of three National Crime Information Center (NCIC) codes pertaining to: (1) escape; (2) flight to avoid prosecution; or (3) flight – escape. The experience of advocates is that these three categories constitute an extremely small percentage of all suspensions and denials under the previous policy.
In addition to changing the policy going forward, SSA will cease collecting any overpayments related to the challenged policy and will pay full retroactive benefits to eligible individuals who have been suspended or denied since January 1, 2007 and who continue to be otherwise eligible, as well as to all people who had a live administrative claim on this issue on August 11, 2008. SSA has also agreed to send a notice to anyone whose benefits have been suspended or denied since January 1, 2000 advising them that the policy has been changed and that they may now be eligible for benefits.
The Martinez case was filed in October 2008 to challenge the Social Security Administration's (SSA) interpretation of a statutory provision prohibiting payment of benefits to anyone who is “fleeing to avoid prosecution” for a felony. SSA applied this provision by suspending or denying Social Security, Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Special Veterans Benefits (SVB) benefits to anyone who had an outstanding arrest warrant for a felony. They also refused to certify anyone as a representative payee in each of these programs if the person had an outstanding felony warrant. Plaintiffs contended, as did every court that has examined the issue so far, that the statutory language required a determination of the individual's intent before benefits could be suspended or denied. [The first case which successfully challenged the policy was Hull v. Barnhart, 336 F.Supp.2d 1113 (D.Or. 2004). The plaintiff in Hull was represented by Jim Kocher, staff attorney at Lane County Legal Aid and Advocacy Center.]
Intent is important: almost none of the claimants have had an intent to flee from prosecution. Although SSA acted as if its actions were directed against “fleeing felons,” the reality is very different. Often the warrants are decades old, and based upon trivial offenses or administrative mistakes. In some cases, the denial or suspension is based on a mistake in identity resulting from a flaw in the way SSA matches warrant information with their database, with the claimant happening to have the same name and date of birth as a person with an arrest warrant.
Furthermore, the claimants generally have not “fled” – they may simply have moved to seek work or be closer to family or friends and often did not even know that criminal charges were pending. In some instances, the claimant was a minor when the move was made, and had moved along with his or her family.
The plaintiffs in the Martinez case are represented by National Senior Citizens Law Center, the private firm Munger, Tolles & Olson, the Urban Justice Center, Disability Rights California, and the Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County. This information is reported on the NSCLC website.
An analysis of nearly 16,000 nursing homes was released by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on December 18, 2008.
The new Medicare website "Nursing Home Compare" allows consumers to search for homes by name or location. Eight nursing homes in Eugene and Springfield are listed in the new ratings, each receiving from one to four stars. No homes in Eugene and Springfield received the highest five star rating.
The new Five-Star Quality Rating System rating system assigns homes one to five stars for quality, staffing and health inspections, plus an overall score. The new system was created to help consumers, their families, and caregivers compare nursing homes more easily and help identify areas about which you may want to ask questions. This rating system is based on continued efforts as a result of the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1987 (OBRA '87), a nursing home reform law, and more recent quality improvement campaigns such as the Advancing Excellence in America's Nursing Homes, a coalition of consumers, health care providers, and nursing home professionals.
Related stories:
USA Today: Medicare nursing homes ratings
USA Today: Nursing homes talk new ratings
