Assuming that a pre-training agreement complies with the rules of contracting, the courts have generally found these agreements applicable. Indeed, they generally start from the applicability of such agreements without providing an explanation as to their participation. In Travelers Ins. Co. v. Corporex Properties, Inc., 798 F. Supp. 423 (E.D. Ky.
1992), a borrower entered into a pre-training agreement with Travelers, but then stated that travellers waived their silos when they accepted partial interest payments. The Tribunal found that the travellers had not waived their rights by accepting partial payments, indicating, as the authority of the agreement, the explicit language of the pre-training agreement, that there was no waiver. The court took over the applicability of the pre-training agreement without discussion. See also, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. v. Drofan Realty Corp., 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 345 (S.D.N.Y, 1996).
3. Who should be involved in the pre-training agreement? A mortgage training contract is intended to help a borrower avoid forced execution, the process by which the lender takes control of a property by the homeowner due to a lack of payment, as stipulated in the mortgage agreement. At the same time, it helps the lender recover some of its resources that would otherwise be lost. There are many advantages to pre-workout agreements, but the most remarkable is the lender`s ability to reduce its exposure to lenders` debts. Lender liability is a flat clause describing various contractual and illicit theories that borrowers sued lenders. In general, it is alleged that the lender exercised improper control over the borrower, making the lender liable for the borrower`s losses. Borrowers also cited a breach of tacit trust and fair trade, fraud, negligence and processing, and the breach of trust obligations liability to the borrower. See General E. Allan Farnsworth, Precontractual Liability and Preliminary Agreements: Fair Dealing and Failed Negotiations, 87 Col.L.Rev.
217 (1987). Borrowers who pass in lenders` security claims can claim not only compensation, but also significant damages to penalties. See z.B. Crystal Springs Trout Co. v. First State Bank, 732 p.2d 819, reh`g, 736 p.2d 95 (Mount 1987); Robinson v. McAllen State Bank, 48 BNA Banking Rptr. 1004 (Tex. Dist. Ct. 1987).
While lenders have been accepting pre-training agreements for decades, today`s difficult economic conditions have given them new importance. Given the financial difficulties faced by more borrowers, more and more loans have proved problematic. Lenders trying to save these problematic loans by entering into training negotiations may face a large number of claims for liability from lenders in the absence of an agreement. However, these risks can be mitigated by the conclusion of pre-training agreements. Pre-training agreements also offer the advantage of creating both a framework for productive discussions and a plan to bring an orderly end to fruitless negotiations. Lenders wishing to achieve these goals can follow the steps listed in this article to prepare a well-written and enforceable agreement prior to training. Although the decision to consider training has been made and the parties have been identified, the lender must exercise caution so as not to interfere directly in substantive negotiations at this stage. On the contrary, the lender should enter into a pre-training agreement with the borrower.