Posted on 10/13/2010 4:57:31 PM PDT by SmithL
Just two days ago, I blogged about how title insurance may play a big role if foreclosed homeowners should come back to haunt the banks by trying to reclaim ownership. This issue particularly strikes a cord with me, as I became a homeowner recently - purchasing a property a bank had foreclosed on.
Well, what I imagined could happen had already happened last Saturday. Down in Simi Valley, a suburb of LA, a family broke back into the house that the bank had taken away from them. With the local ABC news film crew invited to the move/ break-in, the family of 11 reclaimed the house they say they were illegally evicted from. The scary part is that the vacant home had already been sold to new owners.
A family claims they were illegally evicted, and Saturday, they broke the locks and started moving back in even though the home has already been sold.
Jim and Danielle Earl, along with their nine children ranging in age from 3 to 23, returned to their house of nine years on Mustang Drive.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
I just bought one for cash last month and have a clear title recorded plus a title policy.
*************************************************
It’s clear for now.... hope your title insurance company remains solvent...
If a lawyer or bank submits false or misleading statements to a court, they should be sanctioned or disbarred; but it should not mean that some deadbeat gets a free house.
*******************************************************
When should the true accounting be disclosed.. many of these houses are free and clear ,, paid off in full by CDS’s or other insurance products or wiped off the books when xx% of the tranch they were in defaulted.. no party can show they are owed anything in many cases...
People are being foreclosed on when the loans are paid in full ...
Very well said!
If this becomes any sort of trend then the US will have become just another banana republic (or maybe I'm insulting banana republics here?)
“The pertinent question is whether these people deserved to be foreclosed, not whether the bank violated the law in some cases.”
Fortunately you are wrong. Every person has legal rights.
The originating bank sold the loan, were paid for the loan. Or they packaged it with 1000 other loans and sold the package as a security.
None of which was tracked or recorded except as a financial transaction.
So which financial institution has standing to foreclose? Can they prove it?
Sure people should have to pay their bills. Either we abide by proven property laws and expect the banks to hold to the standard. Or we let the banks do whatever the heck they want. Which is it?
I’d rather people got a free house then the banks and govt get free reign to do whatever they want.
“mainly that only 2/3rds of the money taken from the investors was spent actually purchasing loans”
They took the investor money and paid each other massive amounts for the loans. A terrific pyramid scheme if you are on the winning side.
Interestingly enough he used a lawyer to review the docs and the lawyer is still not sure how this happened due to the obscure wording of the contract.
Now I am sure that these people will prevail in court but the damage is done they are out of the house and the houses have been mostly resold.
That is just wrong and a large violation of federal law and the feds have no interest in doing anything about it.
This family is too big to fail.....
None of your crap holds true in California!
I’d have to read the contract myself to see if it was so convoluted that they had no reasonable way of knowing what they were signing. However, if a lawyer looked at it and is perplexed, that certainly sounds like the contract was inherently flawed (no meeting of the minds possible).
It will be interesting, as a non-lawyer, to see how something like that would turn out, since normally I believe contracts like that are dissolved, not satisfied.
That seems to be different from the case in this article, where it sounds like the people kept taking money from the lender until they couldn’t afford it anymore, and then stopped paying the lender so the lender was out hundreds of thousands of dollars.
ping
Adverse possession. If the people living in the house occupy it for a number of years (varies from state to state) and the “owner” does nothing to evictthem, those who occupy it adversely possess the house and can file a lawsuit to obtain title to the house.
It’s a bit more complicated than that, but that is generally how it works.
I agree and when the lender complies with the law, they will be.
But, will there be clear title through adverse possesion?
The TARP crap is what really gets me. These banks were given tax payer dollars for these “toxic” loans. Then they turn around and foreclose on a property they’ve already been paid for. I say the tax payers own these properties. And the bankers trying to foreclose KNOW they’re doing it on property for which they’ve already been paid so they should go to jail.
The properties should be sold at public auction and the proceeds go to the county where the house sets to help cover the back taxes and upkeep. This way the people are getting their money back. Or give it back to the people in pro-rated tax rebates. I sure as hell don’t want it going to D.C. no matter which party is in power.
No, the banks did plenty wrong. However, it is more wrong for someone to borrow money, not pay it back, then claim that they are entitled to keep the property which was supposed to be collateral for their loan.
That is true. It has become a national problem, and will likely require a Federal solution.
A CORD? stupid people....
A good business professor would do some research before professing:
Two Faces: Demystifying the Mortgage Electronic Registration System's Land Title Theory
The MERS problem is about much more than some deadbeat homeowners.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.