[quote=CA renter]
But we’ve heard of a number of cases where they’ve tried to challenge the trustees/servicers on the title issues. It sounds like this removes one more possible obstacle (however legitimate or not) on the way to foreclosure.
What are you seeing WRT speeding up the process?
We’ve noted a number of homes in SD and LA that have already been forclosed on and have been sitting empty (or not) for 6 months++++. Do you have any idea what the delay is, other than just sitting on the inventory in order to artificially reduce supply? I thought it might be related to possible problems with title, but don’t know for sure what they are doing.[/quote]
I’m not aware of too many cases in CA attempting to defend foreclosures similar to what we’re seeing in other states. Small handful maybe. When the robo-signing thing hit, some lenders temporarily stopped foreclosures, reportedly even in CA, even though it made no sense. It just isn’t part of the process here. Unless I’m forgetting something, I don’t recall reading about a successful affirmative defense related to any of the half a dozen or so issues that have arisen (and in my opinion, rightly so) in other states. There was a case up in Oakland a few months ago that an attorney friend of mine worked on that might have been landmark, except the borrowers lost. (I wish I could remember the issue, as I recall it seemed like a reasonable cause. Much better than the one noted in the case cited in the original post here. Court didn’t think so.)
Others here have argued, or at least alluded to a well thought out conspiracy to delay foreclosures on the part of lenders. I think it’s just incompetence. There has been some federal programs (like the non-mandatory HAMP, which I’ve described here before as both ill concieved and poorly implemented) which may have slowed the process. Though there is absolutely nothing within the HAMP program that every single lender shouldn’t have been doing on their own, even without the push from the government.
As to what might speed up the process, that’s simple. The lenders have to want to. There have been rumors that both BofA and Wells Fargo have decided to do just that. (When they hold onto REO they are not “artificially reduce(ing) supply”. There is nothing artificial about it.) BofA is flailing in the wind. They haven’t a clue. Wells is a bit better, if they actually are releasing more (or accelerating the process) it is part of a well thought out plan. (I can’t argue that their implementation will be any better. I have yet to see a large bank that can effectively and efficiently deal with distressed assets.)
On the other hand, I see absolutely nothing nefarious in their maintaining a slow pace of foreclosures or their slow pace of putting REO on the market. I dislike the phrase “deny and delay”, because I think it implies some sort of well orchestrated plan. On another thread I think I described the myriad of causes of the slow pace of foreclosures (robo-signing, MERS, servicing issues, federal programs, incompetence, etc.) as a clusterfuck that might just succeed. The planning couldn’t have been any worse. But so far at least, it has.
