Posted on 04/18/2011 3:40:01 AM PDT by Neidermeyer
On March 30, an Alabama judge issued a short, conclusory order that stopped foreclosure on the home of a beleaguered family, and also prevents the same bank in the case from trying to foreclose against that couple, ever again. This may not seem like big news -- but upon review of the underlying documents, the extraordinarily important nature of the decision and the case becomes obvious.
No Securitization, No Foreclosure
The couple involved, the Horaces, took out a predatory mortgage with Encore Credit Corp in November, 2005. Apparently Encore sold their loan to EMC Mortgage Corp, who then tried to securitize it in a Bear Stearns deal. If the securitization had been done properly, in February 2006 the trust created to hold the loans would have acquired the Horace loan. Once the Horaces defaulted, as they did in 2007, the trustee would have been able to foreclose on the Horaces.
And that's why this case is so big: the judge found the securitization of the Horace loan wasn't done properly, so the trustee -- LaSalle National Bank Association, now part of Bank of America (BAC) -- couldn't foreclose. In making that decision, the judge is the first to really address the issue, head-on: If a screwed-up securitization process meant a loan never got securitized, can a bank foreclose under the state versions of the Uniform Commercial Code anyway? This judge says no, finding that since the securitization was busted, the trust didn't have the right to foreclose, period.
Selling the note on the open market has nothing to do with the assigns. Nothing, nothing, nothing, it is of no concern of the deadbeat. The only thing of concern to him is the papers on file at the local court house and that he lives up to the terms of the agreement, the only time the assigns is changed is when the bank wants a different trustee. Because the loan changed servicing agents and/or the trustee dies are is fired are retires are replaced. Normal course of business thing. Once again, note sells and transfers have nothing to do with the debtor, it is spelled out in the loan agreement.
LOL! You can’t be taught anything but your parrot line.
The facts are the facts, the way I state it is the way it works. Period.
Someone owns that loan and those deadbeats belong out on the street!!!
Thankfully the courts don’t have anything to do with forclosures in California!
>>This family did nothing wrong. Bullcrap. They took out a loan and didn’t pay it.<<
Actually,that option is available and spelled out in the contract. It is not “wrong”. The judge did not say that nobody could foreclose on them. He just said this particular bank couldn’t. It is now up to them to discuss with who sold them the loan, who can discuss with who sold them the loan, etc.
As a former real estate agent as well has having a brother and daughter that did/do handle mortgages and closings, I can tell you that if the contract these buyers signed was wrong, then they did nothing wrong in not making the payments. They merely invoked the “plan B” contained in all secured loans. Now, if we can ever determine who has that securitization, that party can foreclose. Successfully.
>>This family did nothing wrong. Bullcrap. They took out a loan and didn’t pay it.<<
Actually,that option is available and spelled out in the contract. It is not “wrong”. The judge did not say that nobody could foreclose on them. He just said this particular bank couldn’t. It is now up to them to discuss with who sold them the loan, who can discuss with who sold them the loan, etc.
As a former real estate agent as well has having a brother and daughter that did/do handle mortgages and closings, I can tell you that if the contract these buyers signed was typical, then they did nothing wrong in not making the payments. They merely invoked the “plan B” contained in all secured loans. Now, if we can ever determine who has that securitization, that party can foreclose. Successfully.
>>It appears that all these properties will end up belonging to the government, at some level.<<
I think this nails the whole thing. What if these folks had made all their payments, completely paid it off, and then asked for clear title? Then they really WOULD have been screwed.
They can live there ‘till they die, and then it goes to the government (I suspect) because they cannot will something they do not own.
No wonder the government let this fiasco go on.
You choose your own "facts" from your own fairy land of how you think things should be - and absent the fraud by banksters, I'd agree. But that's no longer the case.
You didn't check out the first of those lawyers I supplied you with, did you? You choose to be ignorant, that's your business, that's your dillusion.
BTW, I misspelled Adam's surname - it's "LEVITIN".
Check out what he has to say, what he said before Congress. He has the credentials in law knowledge to back up his statements.
forclosed by who?
the bank can prove they are the rightful party so they can’t forclose.
The rightful party can’t be found so there is nobody to pay money to.
If the rightful owner does not forclose within the statute of limitations, their claim is permanently time barred.
Wrong little one it works like I told you, I don’t need an attorney to tell anything about real estate and real estate law. Attorney’s have called me for my advise on title problems., I could write the lesson book. But it would not have all of those made up words with no meaning you tend to write.
Then it's unclaimed property, and the state gets it. Just like bank accounts whose owner cannot be found. The state holds the money until the rightful owner is established.
Because I have extensive education in economics - coming from a military logistics back ground and having studied the reasoning behind the strategic aspects of the second world war I saw this coming.
The situation the US is in was predictable with even an elementary understanding of basic economics - as opposed to a smattering of high finance that neglects the fundamentals.
Housing is a necessity that is not a durable good. It costs money to keep them in repair.
Millions of the homes on the market now are going to fall into dilapidated ruin, as the cost of maintaining them exceeds what they can ever be expected to sell for. The wide prevalence of abandoned buildings will likely bring about the rise of a culture of squatters like they have had in Europe for years. Eventually communities will probably begin to torch abandoned dwellings.
Every real estate agent I’ve ever known has been a dishonest weasel. You’re sounding like one too.
Taking out a loan and never making the payments is wrong no matter what the fine print on the contract says. Plenty of things you can get away with legally are wrong.
Someone owns that loan...
***********************************
Yes but it has been seperated from the security interest.
The facts are the facts, the way I state it is the way it works. Period.
*************************************************
That’s the way it should work , and DID work up until the 1980’s ... you really need to get up to speed ... you sound like my mother ,, for her time seems to have stopped in the 1950’s .
Like the other poster told you I have never heard so much made up garbage in my life as the BS you have written here.
>>Every real estate agent I’ve ever known has been a dishonest weasel. You’re sounding like one too.<<
You don’t seem to understand the concept of a secured loan. Morally speaking, that is. Yes, people can take advantage of it (people can take advantage of any loan agreement), but that doesn’t mean that it is always wrong to not make the payments. It depends on the circumstances. How about losing your job and huge medical bills coming due at the same time?
I am disappointed in the meanness of some freepers regarding discussion tactics.
I do agree with this however: “Plenty of things you can get away with legally are wrong.” I like to say it this way: What is legal is not necessarily moral, and what is moral is not necessarily legal. That said, contract law is not about morality. It is about legality. The specific circumstances and context surrounding the activities of the parties of a contract are where “morality” of actions is defined.
Oh, and yes I was a dishonest weasel when I sold commercial real estate. I became a Christian and one of my first acts was to quit my job. I considered the whole industry dishonest. It isn’t though. It is one reason my wife and I re-entered in residential RE back at the turn of the century. The reason we got out was that the only way to be successful is to give up your life for the job. We have a life now. We are not at everyone’s beck and call 24/7. It’s nice.
You really need to get caught up on what is the current reality , you’re making a fool of yourself (again).
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.