Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Court: Busted Securitization Prevents Foreclosure
Daily Finance ^ | 04/01/2011 | Abigail Field

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.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; News/Current Events; US: Alabama
KEYWORDS: fraudclosure; housingbubble
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-129 next last
(Comment copied from www.livinglies.wordpress.com )

EDITORIAL COMMENT: The fact that this case came from Alabama makes it all the more important to be watched and noted. Despite the reluctance of many Judges to give a free house to homeowners, this Judge picked up on the fact that the homeowner wasn’t getting a free house and that if he allowed the foreclosure it would have been the pretender lender getting the free house.

When it comes down to it, this really is simple: the trustee never got the loan. The asset-backed pool didn’t have it despite their claim to the contrary. Saying it doesn’t make so.

http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2011/04/18/alabama-court-busted-securitization-prevents-foreclosure/

1 posted on 04/18/2011 3:40:06 AM PDT by Neidermeyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Chunga85; Kartographer; businessprofessor

WOW! The courts are finally applying black letter law !!! If you’re not REALLY SHORT on BAC , WF and the rest DO IT NOW!!! It’s too late to short DJSP ..


2 posted on 04/18/2011 3:42:24 AM PDT by Neidermeyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Neidermeyer

It is nice to see that judges are expecting banks to obey the law as well.


3 posted on 04/18/2011 3:43:04 AM PDT by pnh102 (Regarding liberalism, always attribute to malice what you think can be explained by stupidity. - Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Neidermeyer
So who does really own the house? and although the Horaces aren't getting a free house, do they get to live there forever without payment?
4 posted on 04/18/2011 3:45:31 AM PDT by Truth29
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Neidermeyer

I’ve paid off my house and now I’m debt free. Now It’s time to buy a second house. The catch is I’ll be buying it for someone else to live in. Boy do I feel like a sucker.


5 posted on 04/18/2011 3:48:07 AM PDT by Locomotive Breath
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Truth29

The banks took the investors money and never gave them the correct paperwork transferring the note to the investors trust/pool ,,, it’s the wall street banks that have been getting the free houses for the last 4 years or so ,, houses that they never put up even a single dollar for ,, it’s time for the wall street banks to pay off the investors for their failure to comply with the contracts they had and to which the homeowner was never a part.


6 posted on 04/18/2011 3:52:12 AM PDT by Neidermeyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Truth29

No, the lender will appeal and the people sill owe on the note. In the end the judge will be reversed.


7 posted on 04/18/2011 3:54:45 AM PDT by org.whodat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Locomotive Breath

You’ve been paying off wall streets malfeasance through the 4 trillion in debt we’ve piled on and through your taxes which are due today ,, this family did nothing wrong. Are you a sucker ,, you betcha , we all are thanks to OBOZO and Bush#2 . You want to get mad? get mad at Paulsen , Geitner , Bernanke and the rest of the scum that have sunk the USA... notably those that got rid of all oversight on banking over the last 15 years or so.


8 posted on 04/18/2011 3:55:22 AM PDT by Neidermeyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat

WRONG , The homeowner still owes on the note (although it is unenforceable) , that is not in dispute ,,, the lender wasn’t even a part of the trial , just the bank that was pretending to be the lender .. THIS WILL STAND!


9 posted on 04/18/2011 3:57:04 AM PDT by Neidermeyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Neidermeyer

This family did nothing wrong. Bullcrap. They took out a loan and didn’t pay it.

I’m going to sell my house, invest the cash, take out a new loan and then default.


10 posted on 04/18/2011 3:58:51 AM PDT by Locomotive Breath
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Neidermeyer

This is complete horsebleep. Endorsed in blank ? No standing ? Ipso facto predatory ?

Whoever the mortgage broker was - he got paid to replenish his warehouse line for this loan. Then the bank got paid by EMC. And then EMC got paid by Bear. Is the Alabama couple going to sue now to get the payments they made, if any, back now too ? A fictitious tax SPV is to be relied upon to prove no standing ? Something the govt. can annul willy nilly or retroactively?

The only sane remedy here gives the couple 6 more free months in the home while the SPV does some paperwork. The rest of the world has had to catch up to the internet and electronic documentation. Real property law must now do the same. At bottom this is no different than the ATM adding a zero and giving you 2000 instead of 200. No one says that hey - I get to keep the extra 1800. Keep real property because of an endorsement in blank ? The world is turned upside down.


11 posted on 04/18/2011 3:59:01 AM PDT by major-pelham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pnh102

“It is nice to see that judges are expecting banks to obey the law as well.”

Expect to see “something bad” happen to them in the near future.


12 posted on 04/18/2011 4:03:04 AM PDT by ViLaLuz (2 Chronicles 7:14)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Neidermeyer
Wrong, the state supreme court will not be party to destroying the mortgage industry.
13 posted on 04/18/2011 4:03:56 AM PDT by org.whodat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Locomotive Breath

I’m going to sell my house, invest the cash, take out a new loan and then default.
*********************************************
Sorry , you’re too late , Wall Street is actually following the NY State Trust Laws now.


14 posted on 04/18/2011 4:10:49 AM PDT by Neidermeyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: major-pelham

NEGATIVE , You can’t “FIX” outright fraud with NEW FRAUDULENT POSTDATED DOCUMENTS!!! and go against the contract (the PSA) that created and governs the trust ,, this is a complete FUBAR created by Wall Street and it is NOT FIXABLE ...


15 posted on 04/18/2011 4:13:06 AM PDT by Neidermeyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Neidermeyer

The culpability is not primarily from the last fifteen years.

This was able to happen because real estate appraisals ceased to factor in the population density, median income, and housing supply.

That change (which allowed a value to be detirmined strictly indexing recent home sales) happened under Carter.


16 posted on 04/18/2011 4:20:10 AM PDT by MrEdd (Heck? Geewhiz Cripes, thats the place where people who don't believe in Gosh think they aint going.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Truth29
So who does really own the house? and although the Horaces aren't getting a free house, do they get to live there forever without payment?

Nobody gets to live anywhere "forever". As far as "without payment", they're still responsible for the property taxes.

It appears that all these properties will end up belonging to the government, at some level. At the rate it's going, I expect to see some kind of mechanism set up that lets the federal government take ownership so it can be made immune to local property taxes, and then handed out to Acorn (or whatever they call themselves today) political operatives.

17 posted on 04/18/2011 4:25:58 AM PDT by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Do they pay the property taxes? The tax bill usually goes to the mortgage holder, so if the occupants are in default and not paying the mortgage, they likely aren’t paying the property taxes either.


18 posted on 04/18/2011 4:31:09 AM PDT by Truth29
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: major-pelham

Real estate changes hands slowly enough that current law works just fine. The problem we have with mortgages is that properties are treated like commodities, not individual unique entities.


19 posted on 04/18/2011 4:32:04 AM PDT by freedomfiter2 (Brutal acts of commission and yawning acts of omission both strengthen the hand of the devil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Neidermeyer

With the backlog they now have, I could live for free for at least 10 years before they actually managed to foreclose. If ever.


20 posted on 04/18/2011 4:38:45 AM PDT by Locomotive Breath
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Neidermeyer
NEGATIVE , You can’t “FIX” outright fraud with NEW FRAUDULENT POSTDATED DOCUMENTS!!!

Horse-puckies.

It would be fraud if some bank created documents to indicate a debt where none was entered into, but despite your sophistry, THERE IS A DEBT HERE.

The couple who bought the house, of their own free will took out a mortgage for the purchase of the house. That is a fact not under dispute. They ceased to make timely payments. That is another fact not under dispute.

The rational response is for the court to appoint a trustee for the lender (at whatever point the "true" lender is sorted out), foreclose, throw the deadbeats out, and sort out who the "legitimate" owner of the note is at leisure. To do otherwise creates a windfall to the occupiers of the house.

21 posted on 04/18/2011 4:40:15 AM PDT by PapaBear3625 ("It is only when we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything" -- Fight Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Truth29
Do they pay the property taxes? The tax bill usually goes to the mortgage holder, so if the occupants are in default and not paying the mortgage, they likely aren’t paying the property taxes either.

If they got a mortgage, they'll be on record at the courthouse as being the current owner.

Property taxes are assesed to whoever holds the title to the property. The mortgage holders have a claim to the title, but have to foreclose to get it.

If they can't foreclose, the residents are left with title, but the record of the unpaid mortgage will probably be enough to prevent anyone wanting to buy it from ever getting title insurance. The current owners can still live there, but they're still responsible for the property taxes, and they'll never be able to sell it in the open market.

22 posted on 04/18/2011 4:44:20 AM PDT by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Truth29

It’s their house, with a unclear liens upon it, which they may over time and the courts, have removed if any of the claimants can’t prove they have a claim to the house.


23 posted on 04/18/2011 4:57:57 AM PDT by Leisler (11% GDP of borrowing this year alone, gives 2% GDP boost! Woohoo!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: freedomfiter2
the selling and trading of the notes has nothing to do with the home owner. The only problem here is someone did not keep the assigns up to date, easy fix, you just reverse the transaction and let the proper assignor handle the foreclosure, except now the home owner owes all of the attorney legal fees as well.
24 posted on 04/18/2011 4:58:03 AM PDT by org.whodat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat
The people will still "owe on the note," but I'm not sure the bank will win this case on appeal.

What the judge is saying is that the bank doesn't own the mortgage, so it has no legal standing to foreclose on the property. I'm sure someone has legal standing to foreclose on the property, but it's not the responsibility of the people occupying the home -- or even the judge in the foreclosure case -- to figure out who that is.

There is going to be a separate long, costly accounting and legal process undertaken to figure all that out. The irony is that these people may very well end up living in this home for a long time without ever making another mortgage payment -- because the cost of figuring out who owns the mortgage may exceed the outstanding balance on the mortgage itself.

25 posted on 04/18/2011 4:58:42 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Leisler
A court will only remove the lien when they have proof the debt has been paid.
26 posted on 04/18/2011 5:00:38 AM PDT by org.whodat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Wrong, it only takes a trip to the local court house to see who has current legal standing, foreclosure will take 30 to 45 days.


27 posted on 04/18/2011 5:08:45 AM PDT by org.whodat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Neidermeyer
"You can’t “FIX” outright fraud with NEW FRAUDULENT POSTDATED DOCUMENTS!!


WRONG! You can 'fix' it with forged, post date, perjuryed documents or passing retroactive laws that over turn hundreds of years of settled law and there are plenty of 'conservatives' right here on FR that not only would allow it, but encourage it!

Granted if you have failed to pay your mortgage you should be ready to except the consequences, but let me ask you this when was the last time you saw any business readily admit that they had done wrong even when caught 'res-handed'? When was the last time you watched and did not see a corporation avail themselves of every legal right and defense allowed them in an a effort to limit their exposure?

Do companies in general own up to their errors or do they drag it out things until the other-side agrees to settle? How often have we watched them drag out even criminal proceedings until they can get someone to settle for some slap on the wrist fine and no jail and not even an admission of wrong.

An excellent example of this was what happened with Countrywide.

Right now many of these same lenders are reneging on billions of dollars in commercial property loans, does anyone think for one minute that any of these lenders will just step right up and pay what they owe or will they drag out the process in court making use of every legal right that they are entitled to? And when they do will you be calling them 'Dead Beats' and want them jailed when they fail to readily admit their wrong and pay up?

Morally yes people who haven’t and aren’t paying should own up, but just as the banks they have a right to present a legal defense, they have a right to demand that every ‘i’ is dotted, that every ‘t' is crossed and that the letter of the law is observed just like the banks do and to deny the same rights to one while denying them to the other is wrong.

Our legal system isn’t prefect, but its better than anything else. And if history has taught us anything when you start denying some people their rights and protections under the law in an effort to punish them, soon everyone loses those same rights and protections.

28 posted on 04/18/2011 5:36:27 AM PDT by Kartographer (".. we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Neidermeyer
WRONG , The homeowner still owes on the note (although it is unenforceable) , that is not in dispute ,,, the lender wasn’t even a part of the trial , just the bank that was pretending to be the lender .. THIS WILL STAND!

Correct. There is still an underlying debt, whether it is collateralized by the home or not is the question. Even an unsecured loan will result in action - it's just a longer road to get to the underlying assets (ie house). If the foreclosure is stopped, the lender can sue for default on an unsecured loan and obtain a judgement against the homeowner. If the homeowner fails to satisfy the judgement, then the lender can seek to garnish wages and or take possession of assets to satisfy the judgement. If the home is not considered security or a lienhold, then it is an asset - it is one of the two. In the end the deadbeat borrower will need to satisfy the obligation of the loan. It is just a matter of how to go about obtaining remedy.

Part of me is glad to see the institutions getting railroaded for creating complex financial instruments which could never receive oversight. At the same time, I cannot stand the thought of someone defaulting on their obligation and receiving a benefit for being irresponsible. MERS is a joke, as is fractional banking - a quick return to basics is sorely needed.

29 posted on 04/18/2011 5:41:02 AM PDT by RobertClark (On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat
"Wrong, it only takes a trip to the local court house to see who has current legal standing, foreclosure will take 30 to 45 days."

If it was that easy this never would have come to trial. There is a good chance that the company listed in the courthouse documents are not longer in business, or have merged and had their assets sold off to someone who never received the proper records. There were so many shady deals back then with mortgages sold several times within weeks between companies the records are a shambles for millions of loans.

My mortgage has been sold since I refinanced through Countrywide for a lower interest rate. If I was losing my house I sure as hell would want BOA to be able to produce my signature on my mortgage they were foreclosing on and prove that they are the ones who deserve to take my home. I'm not saying I don't deserve to lose it either, but I sure as hell would want records showing why they are the ones that deserve it legally.

30 posted on 04/18/2011 6:03:06 AM PDT by Abathar (Proudly posting without reading the article carefully since 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625
To do otherwise creates a windfall to the occupiers of the house.

But to throw the occupiers out prior to proving ownership is a presumption of legal fact.

The court has no authority to take anything or appoint anyone until a petitioner can prove legal standing (snicker)to have brought suit in the first place.

"It's ours because we say so" doesn't cut it in a true court of Law.

31 posted on 04/18/2011 6:08:25 AM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a Person as created by the Law of Nature, not a person as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Neidermeyer

there was no fraud against the homeowner - the bank that held the note,and was expecting payments, did not get the title rights transferred to it by the letter of the law. That bank tried to foreclose when the payments stopped coming.

There is an entity (not the people living in the house) that will transfer correct title to the note holder, as soon as they straighten out the paperwork.

If the bank cant get the title and the right to foreclose - then they sell the note back to the title holder - and they foreclose. the delinquent homeowner will end up out of the property.


32 posted on 04/18/2011 6:09:58 AM PDT by Triple (Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat
Wrong, the state supreme court will not be party to destroying the mortgage industry.

Pretty sad when economics trump the law in court...and are supported in doing so.

33 posted on 04/18/2011 6:31:50 AM PDT by Chunga85 ("Foreclosure Fraud", TARP, "Mortgage Crisis", Bailout)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Chunga85
It is not trumping the law, the basic law is the court house documents rule, the short of this case is for the banks to prefect their court house documents. Nothing has changed for the deadbeat sooner are later he will be put in the street. In the mean time he does not have the credit to buy a roll of toilet paper.
34 posted on 04/18/2011 6:38:24 AM PDT by org.whodat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
In most states it does not take going to court to foreclose. The trustee just runs the foreclosure in the paper and put a notice up at the court house. If you wish to contest it the first think the judge asks for is your proof of payment. End of game.
35 posted on 04/18/2011 7:30:13 AM PDT by org.whodat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Abathar; org.whodat
Thanks for the additional input, Abathar.

Nothing against org.whodat or anyone else who has posted on this thread, but I've got just a bit more insight into this because I've been following several fascinating foreclosure cases that may end up turning the entire banking industry on its head.

One case in particular has been working its way through the Utah court system over the last year or so. In that case, the person who occupies the home that is facing foreclosure has successfully (at least up to now) argued that the mortgage holder has no legal standing to initiate foreclosure proceedings. What makes that case so fascinating to me is that there is no question about who actually holds the mortgage. The mortgage holder is a large institution (an arm of Bank of America, I believe) that has purchased and securitized thousands of mortgages, and the Utah court determined that they could not initiate foreclosure proceedings because the institution did not meet a number of legal requirements under Utah's banking laws.

I saw that case as a sure sign that the entire U.S. mortgage industry was going to go through some serious turbulence and might even unravel completely.

36 posted on 04/18/2011 7:31:03 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat; Abathar

P.S. If it turns out that the entity who currently has legal standing to foreclose on the mortgage (say, a local bank) has already “sold” the mortgage to someone else (i.e., Bank of America or an institution that deals in collateralized debt instruments) and has been paid for that transaction, then that entity has no incentive to initiate foreclosure proceedings against the delinquent borrower and therefore won’t even bother doing so.


37 posted on 04/18/2011 7:37:40 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat

Not true at all.

Debts are extinguished all the time in the various bankrupts.

Also, you can ask GM bondholders about the sanctity of obligations.

In America, property rights are ever more clouded, and diminished every year. Nice trend line. Courts are active participants in this clown circus. So, it’s everyone for himself, as you can.


38 posted on 04/18/2011 7:50:07 AM PDT by Leisler (11% GDP of borrowing this year alone, gives 2% GDP boost! Woohoo!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Wrong, contractual arrangement between the two makes the seller guarantee performance. Are he can be made to prefect the deal by a court.
39 posted on 04/18/2011 7:53:22 AM PDT by org.whodat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat
In the case of a collateralized mortgage, we have no idea what the contractual arrangement between the buyer and seller is. And in addition to that, there's a huge question (which was the underlying dispute in the Utah case I referenced) as to which court is the proper authority to adjudicate that kind of dispute.

In the Utah case, Bank of America is trying to force the matter into the Federal court system by claiming that it is now a "securities" issue subject to Federal oversight rather than a "real estate" issue subject to provisions of Utah law.

The irony of all this is that it can be traced all the way back to the infancy of mortgage bonds (then called collateralized mortgage obligations, or CMOs) in the 1970s. Most Wall Street investment banks were very reluctant to get into the business (which is why Salomon Brothers dominated the industry through the mid-1980s) because nobody ever really addressed the issue of whether CMOs were subject to real estate law or securities law. I guess they still haven't!

40 posted on 04/18/2011 7:59:48 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Leisler
LOL, this is not a bankruptcy, and if it were you would not get to keep the property. Second your are not government motors and never will be, and their actions were ordered by the bankruptcy judge. There was a lot of whining here about the bond holders, but they bought paper, they did not make loans on trust deeds.
41 posted on 04/18/2011 8:03:41 AM PDT by org.whodat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat

If I wanted to ‘sell’ such a clouded entity, I’d just 100 lease it. As in everything else a market would/is develops and they would like any lower rated product be moved at that price. You could also rent it. ( Off the cuff, I’d say half of Latin and South American land is lived, rented, sold without title, and with out courts.

Further, you have to look into the incentives of the courts, lawyers for and against. None have much interest in clearing this. They made money selling, now filing claims, and their brethren defending. Lawyers and judges have to eat too.


42 posted on 04/18/2011 8:09:34 AM PDT by Leisler (11% GDP of borrowing this year alone, gives 2% GDP boost! Woohoo!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

The contractual relationship is established by the secondary market, otherwise there is no insurance. All of those that play the buying selling of notes, play by the same rules, how else would the millions of homes that are sold and paid off annually have their paid notes show up and cancelled in a timely manner.


43 posted on 04/18/2011 9:43:09 AM PDT by org.whodat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]



From the Mountains...

Sign up to donate monthly
and a sponsoring FReeper will donate $10

Urgent: Save Lazamataz! Donate today

44 posted on 04/18/2011 9:53:17 AM PDT by TheOldLady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625

The couple who bought the house, of their own free will took out a mortgage for the purchase of the house. That is a fact not under dispute. They ceased to make timely payments. That is another fact not under dispute.
*******************************************************
SO WHAT , The mortgage does not name the true parties to the agreement , the real lender is not named , the contract is VOID , not VOIDABLE , but VOID AT INCEPTION ... Wait a few weeks or months when journalists actually start to look in the right places and see how corrupt the creators of thse MBS’s were... How it was commonplace to defraud the actual investors by re-using mortgages in multiple MBS’s whenever they were short 50 or 100 million dollars worth of loans..


45 posted on 04/18/2011 10:59:05 AM PDT by Neidermeyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat

............easy fix, you just reverse the transaction and let the proper assignor handle the foreclosure, except now the home owner owes all of the attorney legal fees as well.

***************************************************
What homeowner , knowing that the banks have absolutely no enforcement authority and that they can live unemcumbered in the house FOREVER , will sign new loan docs to cure the banks fraud and encumber themselves?


46 posted on 04/18/2011 11:02:28 AM PDT by Neidermeyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Neidermeyer
How it was commonplace to defraud the actual investors by re-using mortgages in multiple MBS’s whenever they were short 50 or 100 million dollars worth of loans..

An MBS issuer who fraudulently listed the name mortgage in more than one securitized pool needs to go to jail.

This does NOT mean that the home buyers who did not pay their mortgage should get the house.

47 posted on 04/18/2011 11:04:08 AM PDT by PapaBear3625 ("It is only when we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything" -- Fight Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Neidermeyer
That is a loony statement, the mortgage and the lien are still on the house, the only people going anywhere is the freeloaders when the sheriff put their shit in the street. The proper assigned has all the power of the law behind his action. You are making a paper work foul up in to something it is not. There are no free house and no free lunches.
48 posted on 04/18/2011 1:26:19 PM PDT by org.whodat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Truth29

The Horaces are the homeowners and they own the house. They put it up as collateral.

This is why some banks are not just suing on the debt rather than wasting time with the loan.


49 posted on 04/18/2011 1:29:51 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625

It is no longer a SECURED debt.

The real issue is in the article. Does the bank get a free house via fraud and lying to the courts OR do the homeowners get a free house by using the same laws the banks have used to bully individuals.

Also remember the banks recieved tarp money for these loans.


50 posted on 04/18/2011 1:32:44 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-129 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson