Eviction

[bearishgurl]

I believe if there was actually substantial equity in the property, any likely heirs or even their parent (the daughter) would have moved heaven and earth to save it from foreclosure.

It’s also possible that Medi-Cal liens ate up whatever equity was remaining after the TD loan(s). If the Notice of Sale which was presumably prepared in the last month is still in the name of the decedent, then I do not believe a your decedent’s “will” was ever probated as any competent attorney probating that estate would have first sent the lender(s) a death certificate, filed the death certificate in the county recorder, filed a change of ownership form with the county assessor and also could have gotten a court order to stay the sale.

If the decedent had a “trust,” are you certain that the property was placed in it?

Legal title appears to still be in the name of the decedent so that is all the trustee had to go by when preparing the Notice of Sale.

[northparkbuyer]

NOTS was dated 12/31/09, original sale date was 1/25/10, and it was delayed several times. NOTS was indeed in the name of the decedent.

Balance on the note was $439K as of the NOTS, so there was some equity there.

It is a very curious situation and I appreciate the knowledgeable insights.

[northparkbuyer]

NOTS was dated 12/31/09, original sale date was 1/25/10, and it was delayed several times. NOTS was indeed in the name of the decedent.

Balance on the note was $439K as of the NOTS, so there was some equity there.

It is a very curious situation and I appreciate the knowledgeable insights.

[northparkbuyer]

NOTS was dated 12/31/09, original sale date was 1/25/10, and it was delayed several times. NOTS was indeed in the name of the decedent.

Balance on the note was $439K as of the NOTS, so there was some equity there.

It is a very curious situation and I appreciate the knowledgeable insights.

[northparkbuyer]

NOTS was dated 12/31/09, original sale date was 1/25/10, and it was delayed several times. NOTS was indeed in the name of the decedent.

Balance on the note was $439K as of the NOTS, so there was some equity there.

It is a very curious situation and I appreciate the knowledgeable insights.

[northparkbuyer]

NOTS was dated 12/31/09, original sale date was 1/25/10, and it was delayed several times. NOTS was indeed in the name of the decedent.

Balance on the note was $439K as of the NOTS, so there was some equity there.

It is a very curious situation and I appreciate the knowledgeable insights.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=northparkbuyer]bearishgurl, I missed your last question in my reply. According to the Web site, the opening bid was $460K.

I am fairly certain there was no second lien on the property, just a first for about $410K through BofA, $27K of which was paid back. All rough numbers.[/quote]

northparkbuyer, this means that the decedent would have only owed $383K today had the payments been kept up. Instead $460K was owing (including late charges and trustees fees). That is $50K higher than the original loan and $77K higher than what should have been remaining on the loan today had payments been kept up. This is a LOT MORE $$ than what would be owing if the payments had been FIRST discontinued AFTER the death.

My gut feeling is that the decedent took out this new loan of $460K between 2004 and 2007 (RE “bubble”), either by purchasing the property during the “bubble” or refinancing “cash-out” (I’m guessing the latter). There is NO WAY she could recover enough monthly rent from her daughter to keep up payments on a $460K loan, esp. if it was a sub-prime “NINA loan” (due to her not having the income to support it). Based on the info you posted, I believe it has been 2+ years since any payments have been made on the property.

$460K may be more than the property is worth today. In any case, I predict if the lender recovers the property after the trustees sale they will evict the tenant and market it to recoup as much of their losses as they can.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=northparkbuyer]bearishgurl, I missed your last question in my reply. According to the Web site, the opening bid was $460K.

I am fairly certain there was no second lien on the property, just a first for about $410K through BofA, $27K of which was paid back. All rough numbers.[/quote]

northparkbuyer, this means that the decedent would have only owed $383K today had the payments been kept up. Instead $460K was owing (including late charges and trustees fees). That is $50K higher than the original loan and $77K higher than what should have been remaining on the loan today had payments been kept up. This is a LOT MORE $$ than what would be owing if the payments had been FIRST discontinued AFTER the death.

My gut feeling is that the decedent took out this new loan of $460K between 2004 and 2007 (RE “bubble”), either by purchasing the property during the “bubble” or refinancing “cash-out” (I’m guessing the latter). There is NO WAY she could recover enough monthly rent from her daughter to keep up payments on a $460K loan, esp. if it was a sub-prime “NINA loan” (due to her not having the income to support it). Based on the info you posted, I believe it has been 2+ years since any payments have been made on the property.

$460K may be more than the property is worth today. In any case, I predict if the lender recovers the property after the trustees sale they will evict the tenant and market it to recoup as much of their losses as they can.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=northparkbuyer]bearishgurl, I missed your last question in my reply. According to the Web site, the opening bid was $460K.

I am fairly certain there was no second lien on the property, just a first for about $410K through BofA, $27K of which was paid back. All rough numbers.[/quote]

northparkbuyer, this means that the decedent would have only owed $383K today had the payments been kept up. Instead $460K was owing (including late charges and trustees fees). That is $50K higher than the original loan and $77K higher than what should have been remaining on the loan today had payments been kept up. This is a LOT MORE $$ than what would be owing if the payments had been FIRST discontinued AFTER the death.

My gut feeling is that the decedent took out this new loan of $460K between 2004 and 2007 (RE “bubble”), either by purchasing the property during the “bubble” or refinancing “cash-out” (I’m guessing the latter). There is NO WAY she could recover enough monthly rent from her daughter to keep up payments on a $460K loan, esp. if it was a sub-prime “NINA loan” (due to her not having the income to support it). Based on the info you posted, I believe it has been 2+ years since any payments have been made on the property.

$460K may be more than the property is worth today. In any case, I predict if the lender recovers the property after the trustees sale they will evict the tenant and market it to recoup as much of their losses as they can.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=northparkbuyer]bearishgurl, I missed your last question in my reply. According to the Web site, the opening bid was $460K.

I am fairly certain there was no second lien on the property, just a first for about $410K through BofA, $27K of which was paid back. All rough numbers.[/quote]

northparkbuyer, this means that the decedent would have only owed $383K today had the payments been kept up. Instead $460K was owing (including late charges and trustees fees). That is $50K higher than the original loan and $77K higher than what should have been remaining on the loan today had payments been kept up. This is a LOT MORE $$ than what would be owing if the payments had been FIRST discontinued AFTER the death.

My gut feeling is that the decedent took out this new loan of $460K between 2004 and 2007 (RE “bubble”), either by purchasing the property during the “bubble” or refinancing “cash-out” (I’m guessing the latter). There is NO WAY she could recover enough monthly rent from her daughter to keep up payments on a $460K loan, esp. if it was a sub-prime “NINA loan” (due to her not having the income to support it). Based on the info you posted, I believe it has been 2+ years since any payments have been made on the property.

$460K may be more than the property is worth today. In any case, I predict if the lender recovers the property after the trustees sale they will evict the tenant and market it to recoup as much of their losses as they can.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=northparkbuyer]bearishgurl, I missed your last question in my reply. According to the Web site, the opening bid was $460K.

I am fairly certain there was no second lien on the property, just a first for about $410K through BofA, $27K of which was paid back. All rough numbers.[/quote]

northparkbuyer, this means that the decedent would have only owed $383K today had the payments been kept up. Instead $460K was owing (including late charges and trustees fees). That is $50K higher than the original loan and $77K higher than what should have been remaining on the loan today had payments been kept up. This is a LOT MORE $$ than what would be owing if the payments had been FIRST discontinued AFTER the death.

My gut feeling is that the decedent took out this new loan of $460K between 2004 and 2007 (RE “bubble”), either by purchasing the property during the “bubble” or refinancing “cash-out” (I’m guessing the latter). There is NO WAY she could recover enough monthly rent from her daughter to keep up payments on a $460K loan, esp. if it was a sub-prime “NINA loan” (due to her not having the income to support it). Based on the info you posted, I believe it has been 2+ years since any payments have been made on the property.

$460K may be more than the property is worth today. In any case, I predict if the lender recovers the property after the trustees sale they will evict the tenant and market it to recoup as much of their losses as they can.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=northparkbuyer]NOTS was dated 12/31/09, original sale date was 1/25/10, and it was delayed several times. NOTS was indeed in the name of the decedent.

Balance on the note was $439K as of the NOTS, so there was some equity there.

It is a very curious situation and I appreciate the knowledgeable insights.[/quote]

If NOS was dated 12/31/09, then that $439K reflects ONLY the payments, late charges and trustees fees due at that time. Since then, these items have increased by $21K, to $460K, or thereabouts, thus, the opening bid on the steps.

Why do you think there is/was equity in the property before the trustees sale?? Have you examined the title for any creditors claims, judgment liens, government liens or tax liens or taxes due on the property?

Does the property have a large lot, over 2200 sf, a permitted “granny-flat” or have historical significance?

$439K or $460K sounds like a large loan to me for North Park unless the property is large and/or has a Mills Act contract on it.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=northparkbuyer]NOTS was dated 12/31/09, original sale date was 1/25/10, and it was delayed several times. NOTS was indeed in the name of the decedent.

Balance on the note was $439K as of the NOTS, so there was some equity there.

It is a very curious situation and I appreciate the knowledgeable insights.[/quote]

If NOS was dated 12/31/09, then that $439K reflects ONLY the payments, late charges and trustees fees due at that time. Since then, these items have increased by $21K, to $460K, or thereabouts, thus, the opening bid on the steps.

Why do you think there is/was equity in the property before the trustees sale?? Have you examined the title for any creditors claims, judgment liens, government liens or tax liens or taxes due on the property?

Does the property have a large lot, over 2200 sf, a permitted “granny-flat” or have historical significance?

$439K or $460K sounds like a large loan to me for North Park unless the property is large and/or has a Mills Act contract on it.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=northparkbuyer]NOTS was dated 12/31/09, original sale date was 1/25/10, and it was delayed several times. NOTS was indeed in the name of the decedent.

Balance on the note was $439K as of the NOTS, so there was some equity there.

It is a very curious situation and I appreciate the knowledgeable insights.[/quote]

If NOS was dated 12/31/09, then that $439K reflects ONLY the payments, late charges and trustees fees due at that time. Since then, these items have increased by $21K, to $460K, or thereabouts, thus, the opening bid on the steps.

Why do you think there is/was equity in the property before the trustees sale?? Have you examined the title for any creditors claims, judgment liens, government liens or tax liens or taxes due on the property?

Does the property have a large lot, over 2200 sf, a permitted “granny-flat” or have historical significance?

$439K or $460K sounds like a large loan to me for North Park unless the property is large and/or has a Mills Act contract on it.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=northparkbuyer]NOTS was dated 12/31/09, original sale date was 1/25/10, and it was delayed several times. NOTS was indeed in the name of the decedent.

Balance on the note was $439K as of the NOTS, so there was some equity there.

It is a very curious situation and I appreciate the knowledgeable insights.[/quote]

If NOS was dated 12/31/09, then that $439K reflects ONLY the payments, late charges and trustees fees due at that time. Since then, these items have increased by $21K, to $460K, or thereabouts, thus, the opening bid on the steps.

Why do you think there is/was equity in the property before the trustees sale?? Have you examined the title for any creditors claims, judgment liens, government liens or tax liens or taxes due on the property?

Does the property have a large lot, over 2200 sf, a permitted “granny-flat” or have historical significance?

$439K or $460K sounds like a large loan to me for North Park unless the property is large and/or has a Mills Act contract on it.

[Author]

Posts