Top Massachusetts court limits foreclosure relief

Reuters ^ | June 22, 2012 | Jonathan Stempel

[2ndDivisionVet]

The highest court in Massachusetts ruled that lenders must have proper paperwork to conduct foreclosures but said its decision applies only to future property seizures, averting a potential flood of problems for banks trying to take possession of homes.

Friday's unanimous decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, in a case that had drawn national attention, avoids the prospect that title could be clouded on thousands of recently foreclosed properties in the state.

It said a lender must in the future have a borrower's underlying note, or act on behalf of someone who does, in order to foreclose. The court rejected a lower court ruling that the lender possess both a borrower's mortgage and note...

[uncommonsense]

Doesn't matter - contract law is based on at least 500 years of common law and is a federal issue. The mortgage fiasco was fueled by guberment meddling (usurping) in contract law, but that doesn't mean it is no longer applicable.

[2ndDivisionVet]

Tell that to the General Motors and Chrysler stockholders, bondholders and former dealership owners.

[Lancey Howard]

Good to see somebody slap down the latest ruse used by deadbeats who want to avoid taking responsibility for their decision to sign on the line which is dotted. Massachusetts... Hard to believe.

[PLMerite]

Agree. I wonder if they (the deadbeats) have thought their position out completely? They’ve obviously borrowed money from *somebody* whom they must still owe if they’re not paying anyone. So they can’t claim to own the property themselves or be able to sell it or use it as colleteral. And what’s to keep the State from pulling an eminent domain on them if they think they can sell the property to make money for the local jurisdiction? You can’t very well lay claim to a property you don’t own and aren’t paying for.

[ronnie raygun]

How would you feel if the state bought the foreclosed home next to you, using your tax dollars, and moved in people recently released from prison? Or how about deinstitutionalized mentally-ill drug addicts? That’s exactly what a bill speeding through the legislature would do. The New Jersey Residential Foreclosure Transformation Act will borrow nearly a billion dollars without voter approval to buy homes across the state for individuals with special needs – defined as including those getting out of prison, on welfare, addicted to drugs or alcohol or individuals in other emerging special needs groups identified by state agencies – in other words, anyone and everyone. We all share concern for the less fortunate but this bill is about social engineering and destroying suburban neighborhoods – because Low Income Housing always means higher crime, higher taxes and lower home values. That’s the last thing we need.

READ THE ENTIRE BILL! THIS IS THIER PLAN FOR ALL OF US AND THE REASON FOR THE DELIBERATE HOUSING COLLAPSE
http://www.taxpayerminute.com/

[2ndDivisionVet]

I wouldn’t move to New Jersey with a gun to my head. My relatives in New Brunswick showed me all I ever needed to know about that s***hole.

[ex91B10]

"We all share concern for the less fortunate"

Until they want to move in next to YOU, then your compassion mysteriously wanes.

NIMBY mentality.

[ex91B10]

You're kidding, right? I mean, do you actually believe that?

[VA Voter]

Great news.

[uncommonsense]

[I didn't see a /sarc tag from these posts, so I take them at face value. I said "Doesn't matter - contract law is based on at least 500 years of common law and is a federal issue." This means there is no basis for any level of government to usurp property and contract laws. Please tell me I'm wrong to interpret them as serious comments directed at me.]

"You're kidding, right? I mean, do you actually believe that?"

Yes. Do you believe we should throw out our charter of a constitutional republic? I'm sure you don't believe the ideology of marxists like ObaMao when he tells us "that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties" is a bad thing.

"Tell that to the General Motors and Chrysler stockholders, bondholders and former dealership owners."

I have opposed this usurpation many times, in many ways, in many very public venues (including FR where it's a matter of record) - risking the livelihood of my family in the process. You can read my profile and deduce why.

I will never in my life time, which may not see the end of this ever increasing attack on our republic, give up on it.

Thanks for commenting and bringing attention to this issue of liberty which forms the basis for our republic.