60 minutes piece on loan docs

[carli]

Ah, okay, that makes sense…still, I’m wondering if (even in CA) the homeowner can further tie up the foreclosure process by questioning that the home is actually owned by the foreclosing institution, or are you saying that a homeowner doesn’t have the right to even pose that question in the CA process?

[SK in CV]

The homeowner does have the right to pose the question by filing an affirmative defense. There are a good dozen or so affirmative defenses that might apply. The problem is that most home loans contain clauses that will burden the losing party to the legal fees of the prevailing party. So even if you try to do it yourself without an attorney, you’ll end up paying the lenders legal fees. And except in very extraordinary circumstances you will lose.

The California non-judicial foreclosure process is not sympathetic (or at least so far has not proven to be sympathetic) to standings claims.

[SK in CV]

The homeowner does have the right to pose the question by filing an affirmative defense. There are a good dozen or so affirmative defenses that might apply. The problem is that most home loans contain clauses that will burden the losing party to the legal fees of the prevailing party. So even if you try to do it yourself without an attorney, you’ll end up paying the lenders legal fees. And except in very extraordinary circumstances you will lose.

The California non-judicial foreclosure process is not sympathetic (or at least so far has not proven to be sympathetic) to standings claims.

[SK in CV]

The homeowner does have the right to pose the question by filing an affirmative defense. There are a good dozen or so affirmative defenses that might apply. The problem is that most home loans contain clauses that will burden the losing party to the legal fees of the prevailing party. So even if you try to do it yourself without an attorney, you’ll end up paying the lenders legal fees. And except in very extraordinary circumstances you will lose.

The California non-judicial foreclosure process is not sympathetic (or at least so far has not proven to be sympathetic) to standings claims.

[SK in CV]

The homeowner does have the right to pose the question by filing an affirmative defense. There are a good dozen or so affirmative defenses that might apply. The problem is that most home loans contain clauses that will burden the losing party to the legal fees of the prevailing party. So even if you try to do it yourself without an attorney, you’ll end up paying the lenders legal fees. And except in very extraordinary circumstances you will lose.

The California non-judicial foreclosure process is not sympathetic (or at least so far has not proven to be sympathetic) to standings claims.

[SK in CV]

The homeowner does have the right to pose the question by filing an affirmative defense. There are a good dozen or so affirmative defenses that might apply. The problem is that most home loans contain clauses that will burden the losing party to the legal fees of the prevailing party. So even if you try to do it yourself without an attorney, you’ll end up paying the lenders legal fees. And except in very extraordinary circumstances you will lose.

The California non-judicial foreclosure process is not sympathetic (or at least so far has not proven to be sympathetic) to standings claims.

[carli]

Thanks, SK. That’s very interesting. Thank goodness I don’t need to know for personal reasons (phew)…I was just very curious after seeing this segment. Even with CA foreclosures generally not involved, I imagine the cleanup fund to be funded by banks will have to be huge…Sheila Bair said it would be “in the billions” last night when asked this question. Probably in the tens of billions at least.

[carli]

Thanks, SK. That’s very interesting. Thank goodness I don’t need to know for personal reasons (phew)…I was just very curious after seeing this segment. Even with CA foreclosures generally not involved, I imagine the cleanup fund to be funded by banks will have to be huge…Sheila Bair said it would be “in the billions” last night when asked this question. Probably in the tens of billions at least.

[carli]

Thanks, SK. That’s very interesting. Thank goodness I don’t need to know for personal reasons (phew)…I was just very curious after seeing this segment. Even with CA foreclosures generally not involved, I imagine the cleanup fund to be funded by banks will have to be huge…Sheila Bair said it would be “in the billions” last night when asked this question. Probably in the tens of billions at least.

[carli]

Thanks, SK. That’s very interesting. Thank goodness I don’t need to know for personal reasons (phew)…I was just very curious after seeing this segment. Even with CA foreclosures generally not involved, I imagine the cleanup fund to be funded by banks will have to be huge…Sheila Bair said it would be “in the billions” last night when asked this question. Probably in the tens of billions at least.

[carli]

Thanks, SK. That’s very interesting. Thank goodness I don’t need to know for personal reasons (phew)…I was just very curious after seeing this segment. Even with CA foreclosures generally not involved, I imagine the cleanup fund to be funded by banks will have to be huge…Sheila Bair said it would be “in the billions” last night when asked this question. Probably in the tens of billions at least.

[SK in CV]

The current discussion is 20 to 30 billion dollars. Nowhere near enough. 10X that much would be more appropriate.

[SK in CV]

The current discussion is 20 to 30 billion dollars. Nowhere near enough. 10X that much would be more appropriate.

[SK in CV]

The current discussion is 20 to 30 billion dollars. Nowhere near enough. 10X that much would be more appropriate.

[SK in CV]

The current discussion is 20 to 30 billion dollars. Nowhere near enough. 10X that much would be more appropriate.

[Author]

Posts