big banks at risk in foreclosure fraud

[briansd1]

[quote=jstoesz]Brian, isn’t your scenario just a paperwork problem. Now if someone sold you a car they didn’t own, well that’s a different story. But if the title is lost, or destroyed, who cares, get a new one. Pain in the ass yes, but catastrophic no.

So are banks selling something that is actually owned by someone else. Or are they just not passing the mortgage around when they sell it.

Maybe it will take a mountain of litigation to find this out.[/quote]

It could be a paperwork problem. It could not. We don’t know. So, as you said, it will take time to find out.

If I buy the car, I want the title. If the seller can’t produce the title, that’s his problem, not mine (well, it is my problem since I gave him the money).

And if the seller can’t get a replacement title in a timely basis, then I want my money back (at least I can sue for my money back).

[jpinpb]

[quote=walterwhite]I’ll check the law but I would bet a 60 day limitation would not apply in the case of fraud or maybe the 60 days would run from where the fraud is discovered but in any event this has gotta conflict with some federal law.[/quote]

My rudementary understanding of law, there is no statute of limitations on fraud.

[jpinpb]

[quote=walterwhite]I’ll check the law but I would bet a 60 day limitation would not apply in the case of fraud or maybe the 60 days would run from where the fraud is discovered but in any event this has gotta conflict with some federal law.[/quote]

My rudementary understanding of law, there is no statute of limitations on fraud.

[jpinpb]

[quote=walterwhite]I’ll check the law but I would bet a 60 day limitation would not apply in the case of fraud or maybe the 60 days would run from where the fraud is discovered but in any event this has gotta conflict with some federal law.[/quote]

My rudementary understanding of law, there is no statute of limitations on fraud.

[jpinpb]

[quote=walterwhite]I’ll check the law but I would bet a 60 day limitation would not apply in the case of fraud or maybe the 60 days would run from where the fraud is discovered but in any event this has gotta conflict with some federal law.[/quote]

My rudementary understanding of law, there is no statute of limitations on fraud.

[jpinpb]

[quote=walterwhite]I’ll check the law but I would bet a 60 day limitation would not apply in the case of fraud or maybe the 60 days would run from where the fraud is discovered but in any event this has gotta conflict with some federal law.[/quote]

My rudementary understanding of law, there is no statute of limitations on fraud.

[bubba99]

The paper statements are from the servicing company. During the securitization process, mortgages were split in any number of ways – derivatives for principal, interest, various tranches with first claim riders. Who actually owns the mortgage is a real question. I can see that multiple parties have a claim to each actual underlying mortgage.

In the good old days, the principal and interest were owned by the same party. To foreclose you needed both parts to be “harmed” – the underlying note, and missing payment. There is no record except MERs as to the various ownerships. Do you really believe that they will do anything to add integrity to the system?

[bubba99]

The paper statements are from the servicing company. During the securitization process, mortgages were split in any number of ways – derivatives for principal, interest, various tranches with first claim riders. Who actually owns the mortgage is a real question. I can see that multiple parties have a claim to each actual underlying mortgage.

In the good old days, the principal and interest were owned by the same party. To foreclose you needed both parts to be “harmed” – the underlying note, and missing payment. There is no record except MERs as to the various ownerships. Do you really believe that they will do anything to add integrity to the system?

[bubba99]

The paper statements are from the servicing company. During the securitization process, mortgages were split in any number of ways – derivatives for principal, interest, various tranches with first claim riders. Who actually owns the mortgage is a real question. I can see that multiple parties have a claim to each actual underlying mortgage.

In the good old days, the principal and interest were owned by the same party. To foreclose you needed both parts to be “harmed” – the underlying note, and missing payment. There is no record except MERs as to the various ownerships. Do you really believe that they will do anything to add integrity to the system?

[bubba99]

The paper statements are from the servicing company. During the securitization process, mortgages were split in any number of ways – derivatives for principal, interest, various tranches with first claim riders. Who actually owns the mortgage is a real question. I can see that multiple parties have a claim to each actual underlying mortgage.

In the good old days, the principal and interest were owned by the same party. To foreclose you needed both parts to be “harmed” – the underlying note, and missing payment. There is no record except MERs as to the various ownerships. Do you really believe that they will do anything to add integrity to the system?

[bubba99]

The paper statements are from the servicing company. During the securitization process, mortgages were split in any number of ways – derivatives for principal, interest, various tranches with first claim riders. Who actually owns the mortgage is a real question. I can see that multiple parties have a claim to each actual underlying mortgage.

In the good old days, the principal and interest were owned by the same party. To foreclose you needed both parts to be “harmed” – the underlying note, and missing payment. There is no record except MERs as to the various ownerships. Do you really believe that they will do anything to add integrity to the system?

[PCinSD]

[quote=jpinpb]
My rudementary understanding of law, there is no statute of limitations on fraud.[/quote]

3 years from the date you discover the fraud, or, in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered the fraud.

[PCinSD]

[quote=jpinpb]
My rudementary understanding of law, there is no statute of limitations on fraud.[/quote]

3 years from the date you discover the fraud, or, in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered the fraud.

[PCinSD]

[quote=jpinpb]
My rudementary understanding of law, there is no statute of limitations on fraud.[/quote]

3 years from the date you discover the fraud, or, in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered the fraud.

[PCinSD]

[quote=jpinpb]
My rudementary understanding of law, there is no statute of limitations on fraud.[/quote]

3 years from the date you discover the fraud, or, in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered the fraud.

[Author]

Posts