Skip to comments.Court: Busted Securitization Prevents Foreclosure
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.
I’ve read your posts here and on other blogs and have concluded that you either work for the fraudsters or Owhatever. You know so much that is not true. Please go pester someone else.
Cheer leading the destruction of one's own country is about as low as one can get.
Thanks , I hadn’t seen that first story (Paulson/ABACUS) ,, of all the frauds that is by far the most blatant and easily understandable.
You're wrong. The court is saying the bifurcation of the note and mortgage rendered the note unsecured - like a jumbo (or should we say, jumbled) personal loan. The house doesn't secure the note any longer.
Whoever is entitled to payment (the one who legally holds the note) may sue the homeowner (if they can ever determine who that is) to satisfy the jumbo personal loan; their home is debt free, the homeowner may not be.
There is no judge nor court that can "fix" this problem to the bank's best interest. They skewered themselves over their own invented sword called "REMICS". Arrange the letters a little differently and you get "CRIMES". Ironic, isn't it?
They can file a motion to quiet title and get the title cleared, especially true now the court has ruled in their favor.
I heard of a bank a few blocks from me, that had protesters from moveon.org as part of this glop today.
except now the home owner owes all of the attorney legal fees as well
Not the ones stemming from the paperwork mess caused by the banks and investors. Then we still have to deal with the fraud and tax evasion by the banks that violated state laws.
Does that satisfy all claims to the title, or just the one the bank claims?
moveon.org is linked with the anti foreclosure types
Every once in a while a blind squirrel finds a nut...
I can assure you that I am not a moveon type , I want to see the rule of law prevail ,, the fraud condoned by the Bush2 and Obama admins ($4T down the rat hole) is why we cannot pull out of the financial mess we’re in ,, Maybe we should follow Japans lead and keep throwing money at the criminals for the next 20 years ... except we probably don’t have 20 months left.
Well that's great, but saying that people should be able to get out of their mortgages doesn't square with that.
As I have said many times; if housing prices had gone up; no one would be concerned about how mortgages are securitized.
We just have a lot of people looking for loopholes and for cover.
And if it was my home that had declined in value by 50% and I put 0% down; I might be one of them.
We are a nation of excuse makers and blame shifters. Personal responsibility is a quaint concept of the past. And it may destroy our nation as we know it.
That is a goal of move.og.
Other con men who lie about the known value of the product they are misrepresenting to the mark use the exact same line you are using - with the same intent.
If I am treating anyone unfairly, home and business locations will be selling for a similar price to what they went for in 2008 within three years.
If not, the banks - and their unprincipled apologists as well - were full of shit and deserve everything they and you get.
I note that this thread is just full of whining apologists for the banking industry all upset that the law requires them to transfer ownership in a certain way - and the way they tried to transfer ownership of likely unrecoverable loans was illegal and they want a do-over.
I saw this coming years in advance. It was unavoidable - as the properties were and are worth no where near what the loans were for.
If I am wrong, you can ridicule me on it three years from now - because you can be damned sure that if you are still on these forums then I won't be cutting you any slack if things continue the way things pretty much have to go when you have built a fifteen year oversupply of buildings.
Buyer beware indeed. Also poster beware - things you post now will be showing up in quotes in the future calling into question your credibility based on your past lack of comprehension or integrity.
I guess personal responsibility is a one way street, eh?
“A Morgan Stanley property fund failed to make $3.3 billion in debt payments by a deadline on Friday, handing over the keys to a central Tokyo office building to Blackstone (BX.N) and other investors, the largest repayment failure of its kind in Japan.”
And the ACLU is linked with some credible causes as well. they do it to achieve legitimacy.The mortgage fraud is real and people here at Free Republic have also been involved since early on.
Is it your intention to imply that Jim Robinson (since he runs this site) is now somehow connected to move on.org?
Also - what prompted you to characterize this as being anti foreclosure rather than anti mortgage fraud?
Do you also claim people opposed to illegal aliens are also opposed to immigration as a whole?
Just seeing if you are consistent.
Throw the book at them
I do quite a bit of bankruptcy law and have a multitude of cases where the bankrupt lost their homes to the mortgage company as a secured creditor. If the bankruptcy trustees or bankruptcy court judges believed there was good law to claim that these properties were unsecured, they would go after the property in a New York minute. However, no bankruptcy trustee or court in the entire country has tried to claim that these mortgages are void or even voidable.
Throw the book at them
There may be SOME of it that is real on the origination side.
But that's not what we hear from some posters.
Some posters infer that every foreclosure is unjust and unlawful.
Skipping out on taxes seemed like a cherry on top. lol We’re all supposed to be goose-stepping the dead-beat line. Fail.