Banks lose important ruling on foreclosures

[CA renter]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=CA renter]
Just because the lenders might have technical issues related to the notes, it does not mean these borrowers get free houses.[/quote]

Is that what this is about? Lenders should be able to run rough-shod over the system that they agreed to, ignore laws, blatantly break laws, commit purjury, foreclose on thousands of homes that they shouldn’t, and worse, just so that a few people might not get free houses?[/quote]

How many houses have been foreclosed on where they “shouldn’t have” foreclosed? I know there is a case (maybe a handful) where banks foreclosed on houses where the owner had no mortgage, or was paying the mortgage as agreed; but the vast majority of foreclosures happen because the borrowers aren’t paying their mortgages as agreed. They have no reason to expect a “free” house, just because the lender might not have filed/transfered the paperwork properly.

[Diego Mamani]

[quote=SK in CV]Is that what this is about? Lenders should be able to run rough-shod over the system that they agreed to, ignore laws, blatantly break laws, commit purjury, foreclose on thousands of homes that they shouldn’t, and worse, just so that a few people might not get free houses?[/quote]

(Emphasis added)
You can’t argue using false facts like those “thousands of foreclosures” that shouldn’t be. There’s been at most 1 or so such cases reported in the media, which was (were) rectified soon afterwards.

Like your comment above that not making payments on a loan is a mere technicality (!), your fabrication of “thousands” is completely off the mark. Better to come across transparently and say that you are a lawyer representing delinquent borrowers.

I’ll come clean too; I’m an investor buying residential property, and I’m also on the fence about buying my own house, so it is in my own interest that the markets return to sanity, meaning, that prices come down to a point where the market clears and house prices appreciate at about the rate of inflation. Also, once the investors come in, refurbish, and rent out, there won’t be any abandoned houses or blighted neighborhoods.

But as long as we deny and delay the inevitable, we make the process more costly for all involved.

[Diego Mamani]

[quote=SK in CV]Is that what this is about? Lenders should be able to run rough-shod over the system that they agreed to, ignore laws, blatantly break laws, commit purjury, foreclose on thousands of homes that they shouldn’t, and worse, just so that a few people might not get free houses?[/quote]

(Emphasis added)
You can’t argue using false facts like those “thousands of foreclosures” that shouldn’t be. There’s been at most 1 or so such cases reported in the media, which was (were) rectified soon afterwards.

Like your comment above that not making payments on a loan is a mere technicality (!), your fabrication of “thousands” is completely off the mark. Better to come across transparently and say that you are a lawyer representing delinquent borrowers.

I’ll come clean too; I’m an investor buying residential property, and I’m also on the fence about buying my own house, so it is in my own interest that the markets return to sanity, meaning, that prices come down to a point where the market clears and house prices appreciate at about the rate of inflation. Also, once the investors come in, refurbish, and rent out, there won’t be any abandoned houses or blighted neighborhoods.

But as long as we deny and delay the inevitable, we make the process more costly for all involved.

[Diego Mamani]

[quote=SK in CV]Is that what this is about? Lenders should be able to run rough-shod over the system that they agreed to, ignore laws, blatantly break laws, commit purjury, foreclose on thousands of homes that they shouldn’t, and worse, just so that a few people might not get free houses?[/quote]

(Emphasis added)
You can’t argue using false facts like those “thousands of foreclosures” that shouldn’t be. There’s been at most 1 or so such cases reported in the media, which was (were) rectified soon afterwards.

Like your comment above that not making payments on a loan is a mere technicality (!), your fabrication of “thousands” is completely off the mark. Better to come across transparently and say that you are a lawyer representing delinquent borrowers.

I’ll come clean too; I’m an investor buying residential property, and I’m also on the fence about buying my own house, so it is in my own interest that the markets return to sanity, meaning, that prices come down to a point where the market clears and house prices appreciate at about the rate of inflation. Also, once the investors come in, refurbish, and rent out, there won’t be any abandoned houses or blighted neighborhoods.

But as long as we deny and delay the inevitable, we make the process more costly for all involved.

[Diego Mamani]

[quote=SK in CV]Is that what this is about? Lenders should be able to run rough-shod over the system that they agreed to, ignore laws, blatantly break laws, commit purjury, foreclose on thousands of homes that they shouldn’t, and worse, just so that a few people might not get free houses?[/quote]

(Emphasis added)
You can’t argue using false facts like those “thousands of foreclosures” that shouldn’t be. There’s been at most 1 or so such cases reported in the media, which was (were) rectified soon afterwards.

Like your comment above that not making payments on a loan is a mere technicality (!), your fabrication of “thousands” is completely off the mark. Better to come across transparently and say that you are a lawyer representing delinquent borrowers.

I’ll come clean too; I’m an investor buying residential property, and I’m also on the fence about buying my own house, so it is in my own interest that the markets return to sanity, meaning, that prices come down to a point where the market clears and house prices appreciate at about the rate of inflation. Also, once the investors come in, refurbish, and rent out, there won’t be any abandoned houses or blighted neighborhoods.

But as long as we deny and delay the inevitable, we make the process more costly for all involved.

[Diego Mamani]

[quote=SK in CV]Is that what this is about? Lenders should be able to run rough-shod over the system that they agreed to, ignore laws, blatantly break laws, commit purjury, foreclose on thousands of homes that they shouldn’t, and worse, just so that a few people might not get free houses?[/quote]

(Emphasis added)
You can’t argue using false facts like those “thousands of foreclosures” that shouldn’t be. There’s been at most 1 or so such cases reported in the media, which was (were) rectified soon afterwards.

Like your comment above that not making payments on a loan is a mere technicality (!), your fabrication of “thousands” is completely off the mark. Better to come across transparently and say that you are a lawyer representing delinquent borrowers.

I’ll come clean too; I’m an investor buying residential property, and I’m also on the fence about buying my own house, so it is in my own interest that the markets return to sanity, meaning, that prices come down to a point where the market clears and house prices appreciate at about the rate of inflation. Also, once the investors come in, refurbish, and rent out, there won’t be any abandoned houses or blighted neighborhoods.

But as long as we deny and delay the inevitable, we make the process more costly for all involved.

[SK in CV]

Here’s the deal. Most states that require judicial foreclosures, also require that the lender be in physical possession of the original note and trust deed, and the foreclosure process requires that the owner of the loan attest that those original documents have been reviewed. In deposition, under penalty of purjury, employees of BofA (as successor in interest to Countrywide) have told plaintiff attorney that, in the ordinary course of business, those original notes and trust deeds were NEVER transmitted to the note purchasers, and were, in fact, retained by BofA (or Countrywide). Thousands? More likely 10’s or even 100’s of thousands of loans. Those loans should NOT be foreclosed until the lender has met the legal requirements to file the foreclosure.

I’m not disputing those loans are in default. I’m sure it’s only a tiny minority of loans that are actually current. (Though that number should be zero!)

As to market sanity. Do you think it’s an insane market now? I think it’s pretty sane. It’s hard to sell a house because there is an over supply. Get used to it. We probably have 24-36 more months of it. More and faster foreclosures won’t help that. It sounds to me like your definition of a sane market is where there is a flood of foreclosures so you can make a quick buck. I don’t know what’s sane about that.

(And some blighted markets will never come back.)

[SK in CV]

Here’s the deal. Most states that require judicial foreclosures, also require that the lender be in physical possession of the original note and trust deed, and the foreclosure process requires that the owner of the loan attest that those original documents have been reviewed. In deposition, under penalty of purjury, employees of BofA (as successor in interest to Countrywide) have told plaintiff attorney that, in the ordinary course of business, those original notes and trust deeds were NEVER transmitted to the note purchasers, and were, in fact, retained by BofA (or Countrywide). Thousands? More likely 10’s or even 100’s of thousands of loans. Those loans should NOT be foreclosed until the lender has met the legal requirements to file the foreclosure.

I’m not disputing those loans are in default. I’m sure it’s only a tiny minority of loans that are actually current. (Though that number should be zero!)

As to market sanity. Do you think it’s an insane market now? I think it’s pretty sane. It’s hard to sell a house because there is an over supply. Get used to it. We probably have 24-36 more months of it. More and faster foreclosures won’t help that. It sounds to me like your definition of a sane market is where there is a flood of foreclosures so you can make a quick buck. I don’t know what’s sane about that.

(And some blighted markets will never come back.)

[SK in CV]

Here’s the deal. Most states that require judicial foreclosures, also require that the lender be in physical possession of the original note and trust deed, and the foreclosure process requires that the owner of the loan attest that those original documents have been reviewed. In deposition, under penalty of purjury, employees of BofA (as successor in interest to Countrywide) have told plaintiff attorney that, in the ordinary course of business, those original notes and trust deeds were NEVER transmitted to the note purchasers, and were, in fact, retained by BofA (or Countrywide). Thousands? More likely 10’s or even 100’s of thousands of loans. Those loans should NOT be foreclosed until the lender has met the legal requirements to file the foreclosure.

I’m not disputing those loans are in default. I’m sure it’s only a tiny minority of loans that are actually current. (Though that number should be zero!)

As to market sanity. Do you think it’s an insane market now? I think it’s pretty sane. It’s hard to sell a house because there is an over supply. Get used to it. We probably have 24-36 more months of it. More and faster foreclosures won’t help that. It sounds to me like your definition of a sane market is where there is a flood of foreclosures so you can make a quick buck. I don’t know what’s sane about that.

(And some blighted markets will never come back.)

[SK in CV]

Here’s the deal. Most states that require judicial foreclosures, also require that the lender be in physical possession of the original note and trust deed, and the foreclosure process requires that the owner of the loan attest that those original documents have been reviewed. In deposition, under penalty of purjury, employees of BofA (as successor in interest to Countrywide) have told plaintiff attorney that, in the ordinary course of business, those original notes and trust deeds were NEVER transmitted to the note purchasers, and were, in fact, retained by BofA (or Countrywide). Thousands? More likely 10’s or even 100’s of thousands of loans. Those loans should NOT be foreclosed until the lender has met the legal requirements to file the foreclosure.

I’m not disputing those loans are in default. I’m sure it’s only a tiny minority of loans that are actually current. (Though that number should be zero!)

As to market sanity. Do you think it’s an insane market now? I think it’s pretty sane. It’s hard to sell a house because there is an over supply. Get used to it. We probably have 24-36 more months of it. More and faster foreclosures won’t help that. It sounds to me like your definition of a sane market is where there is a flood of foreclosures so you can make a quick buck. I don’t know what’s sane about that.

(And some blighted markets will never come back.)

[SK in CV]

Here’s the deal. Most states that require judicial foreclosures, also require that the lender be in physical possession of the original note and trust deed, and the foreclosure process requires that the owner of the loan attest that those original documents have been reviewed. In deposition, under penalty of purjury, employees of BofA (as successor in interest to Countrywide) have told plaintiff attorney that, in the ordinary course of business, those original notes and trust deeds were NEVER transmitted to the note purchasers, and were, in fact, retained by BofA (or Countrywide). Thousands? More likely 10’s or even 100’s of thousands of loans. Those loans should NOT be foreclosed until the lender has met the legal requirements to file the foreclosure.

I’m not disputing those loans are in default. I’m sure it’s only a tiny minority of loans that are actually current. (Though that number should be zero!)

As to market sanity. Do you think it’s an insane market now? I think it’s pretty sane. It’s hard to sell a house because there is an over supply. Get used to it. We probably have 24-36 more months of it. More and faster foreclosures won’t help that. It sounds to me like your definition of a sane market is where there is a flood of foreclosures so you can make a quick buck. I don’t know what’s sane about that.

(And some blighted markets will never come back.)

[Diego Mamani]

[quote=SK in CV]As to market sanity. Do you think it’s an insane market now? I think it’s pretty sane.[/quote]Granted, it’s not as insane today as in 2003-2006, but we are not in a sane housing market yet. And it’s not just prices or volume, what I find pretty insane now is the fact that there’s really no free market. It’s all on gov’t life support!

Take out Freddie, Fannie, and the FHA, and prices would really drop to reality! Painful? Yes, but I’d rather live in a painful reality than in a fantasy world that I know is unsustainable. Gov’t intervention, and now the courts meddling, are simply prolonging the fantasy, meaning, the pain will be even worse when the chickens come home to roost.

[Diego Mamani]

[quote=SK in CV]As to market sanity. Do you think it’s an insane market now? I think it’s pretty sane.[/quote]Granted, it’s not as insane today as in 2003-2006, but we are not in a sane housing market yet. And it’s not just prices or volume, what I find pretty insane now is the fact that there’s really no free market. It’s all on gov’t life support!

Take out Freddie, Fannie, and the FHA, and prices would really drop to reality! Painful? Yes, but I’d rather live in a painful reality than in a fantasy world that I know is unsustainable. Gov’t intervention, and now the courts meddling, are simply prolonging the fantasy, meaning, the pain will be even worse when the chickens come home to roost.

[Diego Mamani]

[quote=SK in CV]As to market sanity. Do you think it’s an insane market now? I think it’s pretty sane.[/quote]Granted, it’s not as insane today as in 2003-2006, but we are not in a sane housing market yet. And it’s not just prices or volume, what I find pretty insane now is the fact that there’s really no free market. It’s all on gov’t life support!

Take out Freddie, Fannie, and the FHA, and prices would really drop to reality! Painful? Yes, but I’d rather live in a painful reality than in a fantasy world that I know is unsustainable. Gov’t intervention, and now the courts meddling, are simply prolonging the fantasy, meaning, the pain will be even worse when the chickens come home to roost.

[Diego Mamani]

[quote=SK in CV]As to market sanity. Do you think it’s an insane market now? I think it’s pretty sane.[/quote]Granted, it’s not as insane today as in 2003-2006, but we are not in a sane housing market yet. And it’s not just prices or volume, what I find pretty insane now is the fact that there’s really no free market. It’s all on gov’t life support!

Take out Freddie, Fannie, and the FHA, and prices would really drop to reality! Painful? Yes, but I’d rather live in a painful reality than in a fantasy world that I know is unsustainable. Gov’t intervention, and now the courts meddling, are simply prolonging the fantasy, meaning, the pain will be even worse when the chickens come home to roost.

[Author]

Posts