Ex-in-laws (3rd party creditors) want to foreclose on my condo

[ucodegen]

[quote frenchlambda]What exactly would make the note callable?
Doesn’t the deed of trust make it callable?[/quote]
Wording in the note stating that the lender can back out and demand their capital (outstanding balance including any outstanding interest due) at will and at any time. The deed of trust does not make it callable. It just makes the loan secured by the property.
[quote frenchlambda]By the way, both my ex-wife and I signed the deed of trust. I refused to do so at the beginning because my wife was refusing to sign the “stipulation and order” document. [/quote] Of course she would sign the trust deed.. It helps her and her parents. From what I have seen of the “marriage settlement” posted earlier, she dumped it all on you.. the underwater property and all of the liabilities. She should have shared in the liabilities because they were part of the community property.
[quote frenchlambda][quote ucodegen]Was the “stipulation and order” part of the divorce agreement?[/quote]No, it was not. And neither was the deed of trust. Before even reaching the final agreement, I signed the deed of trust while my ex signed the “stipulation and order”.[/quote]
It should have been, particularly with how much you spent on the whole proceedings, including the restraining order. Considering that you were divvying up the marriage assets, it all should have been part of the “marriage settlement”. The note associated with the deed of trust should have been modified by the minimum of the $85k.. resulting in an outstanding balance of $200,000 – $85,824.49 or $114175.31 — making refi much easier. Have you yet received the $85k?
[quote frenchlamda]I called my ex-wife’s mom and she told me that the note clearly specifies that the $200K must be paid by September 3rd and that they gave us a 5-year loan.
The whole part in the “Straight (Balloon) Note” section of the note completely confuses me.[/quote]
As your supposed exact copy of the note reads, it doesn’t. But this is one of those things were the wording is VERY important. One word added or omitted from the wording can change the meaning.
[quote frenchlamda]I forgot to mention the following clause as part of the promissory note:

“Should default be made in payment of principal and/or interest when due, the whole sum of principal and accrued interest shall become immediately due, without notice, at the option of the holder of this note.”[/quote]
VERY IMPORTANT – like I mentioned above, wording is critical. This makes the note callable on default. Notice that the wording states “shall become immediately due” with the condition of “Should default..”. Are you current in the payments to the ex-in-laws?

So far, I have found nothing that makes them able to foreclose, but I am concerned that you are omitting something… the paragraph you ‘forgot to mention’ is incredibly critical.

Is the mortgage document with the in-laws written in English or French?

[frenchlambda]

[quote=ucodegen]The note associated with the deed of trust should have been modified by the minimum of the $85k.. resulting in an outstanding balance of $200,000 – $85,824.49 or $114175.31 — making refi much easier. Have you yet received the $85k?
[/quote]
I used these $85K towards the down-payment for the property. Since 75% of the total down-payment came from money I had acquired outside the marriage, it is my understanding that I would get 75% of whatever equity was in the house at the time of dissolution.
The problem is that at the time of divorce, there was only $10K of equity in the house (appraised value: $340K; balance on the loans: $330K). In other words, pretty much my entire contribution to the down-payment disappeared in the loss of value of the property after 5 years.
All that I got was the right to keep the little of equity in the condo.

[quote=ucodegen]
This makes the note callable on default. Notice that the wording states “shall become immediately due” with the condition of “Should default..”. Are you current in the payments to the ex-in-laws?
[/quote]
Yes I am current. I pay the interests or $833 (since it’s an interest-only loan) to my ex’s parents every month since we are separated.

[quote=ucodegen]
So far, I have found nothing that makes them able to foreclose, but I am concerned that you are omitting something… the paragraph you ‘forgot to mention’ is incredibly critical.
[/quote]
I am going to scan the Promissory Note and the copy of the Deed of Trust if you wish to look more in details. Those are the only document besides the Divorce Agreement part that I already mentioned earlier.

[quote=ucodegen]
Is the mortgage document with the in-laws written in English or French?[/quote]
It’s in English. The in-laws and my ex-wife are American. I’m the only who’s French.

[frenchlambda]

[quote=ucodegen]The note associated with the deed of trust should have been modified by the minimum of the $85k.. resulting in an outstanding balance of $200,000 – $85,824.49 or $114175.31 — making refi much easier. Have you yet received the $85k?
[/quote]
I used these $85K towards the down-payment for the property. Since 75% of the total down-payment came from money I had acquired outside the marriage, it is my understanding that I would get 75% of whatever equity was in the house at the time of dissolution.
The problem is that at the time of divorce, there was only $10K of equity in the house (appraised value: $340K; balance on the loans: $330K). In other words, pretty much my entire contribution to the down-payment disappeared in the loss of value of the property after 5 years.
All that I got was the right to keep the little of equity in the condo.

[quote=ucodegen]
This makes the note callable on default. Notice that the wording states “shall become immediately due” with the condition of “Should default..”. Are you current in the payments to the ex-in-laws?
[/quote]
Yes I am current. I pay the interests or $833 (since it’s an interest-only loan) to my ex’s parents every month since we are separated.

[quote=ucodegen]
So far, I have found nothing that makes them able to foreclose, but I am concerned that you are omitting something… the paragraph you ‘forgot to mention’ is incredibly critical.
[/quote]
I am going to scan the Promissory Note and the copy of the Deed of Trust if you wish to look more in details. Those are the only document besides the Divorce Agreement part that I already mentioned earlier.

[quote=ucodegen]
Is the mortgage document with the in-laws written in English or French?[/quote]
It’s in English. The in-laws and my ex-wife are American. I’m the only who’s French.

[frenchlambda]

[quote=ucodegen]The note associated with the deed of trust should have been modified by the minimum of the $85k.. resulting in an outstanding balance of $200,000 – $85,824.49 or $114175.31 — making refi much easier. Have you yet received the $85k?
[/quote]
I used these $85K towards the down-payment for the property. Since 75% of the total down-payment came from money I had acquired outside the marriage, it is my understanding that I would get 75% of whatever equity was in the house at the time of dissolution.
The problem is that at the time of divorce, there was only $10K of equity in the house (appraised value: $340K; balance on the loans: $330K). In other words, pretty much my entire contribution to the down-payment disappeared in the loss of value of the property after 5 years.
All that I got was the right to keep the little of equity in the condo.

[quote=ucodegen]
This makes the note callable on default. Notice that the wording states “shall become immediately due” with the condition of “Should default..”. Are you current in the payments to the ex-in-laws?
[/quote]
Yes I am current. I pay the interests or $833 (since it’s an interest-only loan) to my ex’s parents every month since we are separated.

[quote=ucodegen]
So far, I have found nothing that makes them able to foreclose, but I am concerned that you are omitting something… the paragraph you ‘forgot to mention’ is incredibly critical.
[/quote]
I am going to scan the Promissory Note and the copy of the Deed of Trust if you wish to look more in details. Those are the only document besides the Divorce Agreement part that I already mentioned earlier.

[quote=ucodegen]
Is the mortgage document with the in-laws written in English or French?[/quote]
It’s in English. The in-laws and my ex-wife are American. I’m the only who’s French.

[frenchlambda]

[quote=ucodegen]The note associated with the deed of trust should have been modified by the minimum of the $85k.. resulting in an outstanding balance of $200,000 – $85,824.49 or $114175.31 — making refi much easier. Have you yet received the $85k?
[/quote]
I used these $85K towards the down-payment for the property. Since 75% of the total down-payment came from money I had acquired outside the marriage, it is my understanding that I would get 75% of whatever equity was in the house at the time of dissolution.
The problem is that at the time of divorce, there was only $10K of equity in the house (appraised value: $340K; balance on the loans: $330K). In other words, pretty much my entire contribution to the down-payment disappeared in the loss of value of the property after 5 years.
All that I got was the right to keep the little of equity in the condo.

[quote=ucodegen]
This makes the note callable on default. Notice that the wording states “shall become immediately due” with the condition of “Should default..”. Are you current in the payments to the ex-in-laws?
[/quote]
Yes I am current. I pay the interests or $833 (since it’s an interest-only loan) to my ex’s parents every month since we are separated.

[quote=ucodegen]
So far, I have found nothing that makes them able to foreclose, but I am concerned that you are omitting something… the paragraph you ‘forgot to mention’ is incredibly critical.
[/quote]
I am going to scan the Promissory Note and the copy of the Deed of Trust if you wish to look more in details. Those are the only document besides the Divorce Agreement part that I already mentioned earlier.

[quote=ucodegen]
Is the mortgage document with the in-laws written in English or French?[/quote]
It’s in English. The in-laws and my ex-wife are American. I’m the only who’s French.

[frenchlambda]

[quote=ucodegen]The note associated with the deed of trust should have been modified by the minimum of the $85k.. resulting in an outstanding balance of $200,000 – $85,824.49 or $114175.31 — making refi much easier. Have you yet received the $85k?
[/quote]
I used these $85K towards the down-payment for the property. Since 75% of the total down-payment came from money I had acquired outside the marriage, it is my understanding that I would get 75% of whatever equity was in the house at the time of dissolution.
The problem is that at the time of divorce, there was only $10K of equity in the house (appraised value: $340K; balance on the loans: $330K). In other words, pretty much my entire contribution to the down-payment disappeared in the loss of value of the property after 5 years.
All that I got was the right to keep the little of equity in the condo.

[quote=ucodegen]
This makes the note callable on default. Notice that the wording states “shall become immediately due” with the condition of “Should default..”. Are you current in the payments to the ex-in-laws?
[/quote]
Yes I am current. I pay the interests or $833 (since it’s an interest-only loan) to my ex’s parents every month since we are separated.

[quote=ucodegen]
So far, I have found nothing that makes them able to foreclose, but I am concerned that you are omitting something… the paragraph you ‘forgot to mention’ is incredibly critical.
[/quote]
I am going to scan the Promissory Note and the copy of the Deed of Trust if you wish to look more in details. Those are the only document besides the Divorce Agreement part that I already mentioned earlier.

[quote=ucodegen]
Is the mortgage document with the in-laws written in English or French?[/quote]
It’s in English. The in-laws and my ex-wife are American. I’m the only who’s French.

[frenchlambda]

[quote=ucodegen]
So far, I have found nothing that makes them able to foreclose,[/quote]

According to Eugene, they have a right to foreclose based on the fact that the loan will mature on 9/3/2011.

[quote=Eugene]
However, if the loan matures on 9/3/2011, it’s irrelevant whether it’s callable or not. You have to pay up unless you can negotiate a refinancing, or you can bear the consequences of defaulting.

The difference between the original promissory note and the deed of trust is that the deed of trust makes the loan secured by the property. So now your in-laws have the right to foreclose on the condo. [/quote]

[frenchlambda]

[quote=ucodegen]
So far, I have found nothing that makes them able to foreclose,[/quote]

According to Eugene, they have a right to foreclose based on the fact that the loan will mature on 9/3/2011.

[quote=Eugene]
However, if the loan matures on 9/3/2011, it’s irrelevant whether it’s callable or not. You have to pay up unless you can negotiate a refinancing, or you can bear the consequences of defaulting.

The difference between the original promissory note and the deed of trust is that the deed of trust makes the loan secured by the property. So now your in-laws have the right to foreclose on the condo. [/quote]

[frenchlambda]

[quote=ucodegen]
So far, I have found nothing that makes them able to foreclose,[/quote]

According to Eugene, they have a right to foreclose based on the fact that the loan will mature on 9/3/2011.

[quote=Eugene]
However, if the loan matures on 9/3/2011, it’s irrelevant whether it’s callable or not. You have to pay up unless you can negotiate a refinancing, or you can bear the consequences of defaulting.

The difference between the original promissory note and the deed of trust is that the deed of trust makes the loan secured by the property. So now your in-laws have the right to foreclose on the condo. [/quote]

[frenchlambda]

[quote=ucodegen]
So far, I have found nothing that makes them able to foreclose,[/quote]

According to Eugene, they have a right to foreclose based on the fact that the loan will mature on 9/3/2011.

[quote=Eugene]
However, if the loan matures on 9/3/2011, it’s irrelevant whether it’s callable or not. You have to pay up unless you can negotiate a refinancing, or you can bear the consequences of defaulting.

The difference between the original promissory note and the deed of trust is that the deed of trust makes the loan secured by the property. So now your in-laws have the right to foreclose on the condo. [/quote]

[frenchlambda]

[quote=ucodegen]
So far, I have found nothing that makes them able to foreclose,[/quote]

According to Eugene, they have a right to foreclose based on the fact that the loan will mature on 9/3/2011.

[quote=Eugene]
However, if the loan matures on 9/3/2011, it’s irrelevant whether it’s callable or not. You have to pay up unless you can negotiate a refinancing, or you can bear the consequences of defaulting.

The difference between the original promissory note and the deed of trust is that the deed of trust makes the loan secured by the property. So now your in-laws have the right to foreclose on the condo. [/quote]

[bearishgurl]

Regardless of ANY language on the OP’s MSA, I STILL have a problem with the ex-wife signing the trust deed (along with the OP). Whether the holder of the (belated) trust deed (executed during a “divorce settlement”) is a relative or not is immaterial. In CA, I don’t see how domestic judges can legally absolve a domestic party from a promissory note they signed while married and taking title as joint tenants. Nor can they absolve parties of joint debts secured by filed trust deeds they executed together.

If the OP lets the first TD go into foreclosure, it will affect BOTH their credit reports. If he lets the 2nd TD go into foreclosure, does this (private) bene know how to report this foreclosure to the OP’s credit report?? If they did, they would likely (selectively) NOT, of course report it to their own daughter’s credit report.

frenchlambda, practically speaking, your “equalization stipulation” that you presumably signed the trust deed in exchange for really means nothing if (1) your ex-wife has no assets; (2) your ex wife is not employed or employable; and (3) you are unable to trace the (commingled) downpayment funds as your sole and separate property before a judge. I fear that if you try to collect any of these monies now or later, your ex’s parents will get her a lawyer to fight you in court on the amount. If the court awards you some or all of your 2640 monies, subject to proof, you will STILL have to colllect from her, which could prove to be problematic.

As for your child custody situation, I know you wanted to spend as much time with your daughter as possible and I’m not you but I really believe, based on the child endangerment charge filed against your ex, that you could have gotten at least a 50% timeshare and even moved her to Orange County to live near your job, IMHO. One of you would have gotten at least one weekend per month, half the holidays changing on rotating years and 90% of the summer vacation. I know … “water under the bridge” now (meaning: already done). In any case, you are probably aware that child custody arrangements are changeable thru the court until your child reaches the age of 18.

Domestic courts in CA do NOT favor moms over dads for child custody (not even female judges). They are fully aware that many moms are flaky and do not have the financial wherewithal to keep a stable home for children (even with support coming in).

Based on your posts, the reason I feel your in-laws got involved in your dissolution at the “11th hour” by finally filing a trust deed on your marital property (meaning “at the last minute”) is because they feared their own daughter would lose custody of your child or get limited visitation based on her recent arrest. They wanted to keep you distracted and worried that you wouldn’t have a local home for her so dangled the trust deed carrot in front of you during the proceedings. It worked and your lawyer refused to advise you on it.

I believe your in-laws are fully aware that RE values have fallen and, as a subordinate TD holder, they cannot recover all of their investment on a successful foreclosure and can’t come after either of you for the balance due because it was a “purchase money” loan. Their lawyer told them that. They did not file a TD at the time they executed the promissory note with both of you because it was meant to be a “gift.” The divorce changed everything for them.

This is just my contribution, based upon your posts. Seek advice from a good RE attorney who can advise you on whether that language in your MSA holds any water over your previously jointly executed trust deeds (security instruments) and notes. You always have the option of defaulting on your 1st TD only, affecting your ex’s credit as well. Then your ex-in-laws will be forced to bid the opening bid at the eventual trustees sale to gain ownership of the property, then sell it and recoup some of their loss. If they do nothing and let the property revert back to your 1st TD beneficiary, they will lose their entire investment.

Good luck!!

[bearishgurl]

Regardless of ANY language on the OP’s MSA, I STILL have a problem with the ex-wife signing the trust deed (along with the OP). Whether the holder of the (belated) trust deed (executed during a “divorce settlement”) is a relative or not is immaterial. In CA, I don’t see how domestic judges can legally absolve a domestic party from a promissory note they signed while married and taking title as joint tenants. Nor can they absolve parties of joint debts secured by filed trust deeds they executed together.

If the OP lets the first TD go into foreclosure, it will affect BOTH their credit reports. If he lets the 2nd TD go into foreclosure, does this (private) bene know how to report this foreclosure to the OP’s credit report?? If they did, they would likely (selectively) NOT, of course report it to their own daughter’s credit report.

frenchlambda, practically speaking, your “equalization stipulation” that you presumably signed the trust deed in exchange for really means nothing if (1) your ex-wife has no assets; (2) your ex wife is not employed or employable; and (3) you are unable to trace the (commingled) downpayment funds as your sole and separate property before a judge. I fear that if you try to collect any of these monies now or later, your ex’s parents will get her a lawyer to fight you in court on the amount. If the court awards you some or all of your 2640 monies, subject to proof, you will STILL have to colllect from her, which could prove to be problematic.

As for your child custody situation, I know you wanted to spend as much time with your daughter as possible and I’m not you but I really believe, based on the child endangerment charge filed against your ex, that you could have gotten at least a 50% timeshare and even moved her to Orange County to live near your job, IMHO. One of you would have gotten at least one weekend per month, half the holidays changing on rotating years and 90% of the summer vacation. I know … “water under the bridge” now (meaning: already done). In any case, you are probably aware that child custody arrangements are changeable thru the court until your child reaches the age of 18.

Domestic courts in CA do NOT favor moms over dads for child custody (not even female judges). They are fully aware that many moms are flaky and do not have the financial wherewithal to keep a stable home for children (even with support coming in).

Based on your posts, the reason I feel your in-laws got involved in your dissolution at the “11th hour” by finally filing a trust deed on your marital property (meaning “at the last minute”) is because they feared their own daughter would lose custody of your child or get limited visitation based on her recent arrest. They wanted to keep you distracted and worried that you wouldn’t have a local home for her so dangled the trust deed carrot in front of you during the proceedings. It worked and your lawyer refused to advise you on it.

I believe your in-laws are fully aware that RE values have fallen and, as a subordinate TD holder, they cannot recover all of their investment on a successful foreclosure and can’t come after either of you for the balance due because it was a “purchase money” loan. Their lawyer told them that. They did not file a TD at the time they executed the promissory note with both of you because it was meant to be a “gift.” The divorce changed everything for them.

This is just my contribution, based upon your posts. Seek advice from a good RE attorney who can advise you on whether that language in your MSA holds any water over your previously jointly executed trust deeds (security instruments) and notes. You always have the option of defaulting on your 1st TD only, affecting your ex’s credit as well. Then your ex-in-laws will be forced to bid the opening bid at the eventual trustees sale to gain ownership of the property, then sell it and recoup some of their loss. If they do nothing and let the property revert back to your 1st TD beneficiary, they will lose their entire investment.

Good luck!!

[bearishgurl]

Regardless of ANY language on the OP’s MSA, I STILL have a problem with the ex-wife signing the trust deed (along with the OP). Whether the holder of the (belated) trust deed (executed during a “divorce settlement”) is a relative or not is immaterial. In CA, I don’t see how domestic judges can legally absolve a domestic party from a promissory note they signed while married and taking title as joint tenants. Nor can they absolve parties of joint debts secured by filed trust deeds they executed together.

If the OP lets the first TD go into foreclosure, it will affect BOTH their credit reports. If he lets the 2nd TD go into foreclosure, does this (private) bene know how to report this foreclosure to the OP’s credit report?? If they did, they would likely (selectively) NOT, of course report it to their own daughter’s credit report.

frenchlambda, practically speaking, your “equalization stipulation” that you presumably signed the trust deed in exchange for really means nothing if (1) your ex-wife has no assets; (2) your ex wife is not employed or employable; and (3) you are unable to trace the (commingled) downpayment funds as your sole and separate property before a judge. I fear that if you try to collect any of these monies now or later, your ex’s parents will get her a lawyer to fight you in court on the amount. If the court awards you some or all of your 2640 monies, subject to proof, you will STILL have to colllect from her, which could prove to be problematic.

As for your child custody situation, I know you wanted to spend as much time with your daughter as possible and I’m not you but I really believe, based on the child endangerment charge filed against your ex, that you could have gotten at least a 50% timeshare and even moved her to Orange County to live near your job, IMHO. One of you would have gotten at least one weekend per month, half the holidays changing on rotating years and 90% of the summer vacation. I know … “water under the bridge” now (meaning: already done). In any case, you are probably aware that child custody arrangements are changeable thru the court until your child reaches the age of 18.

Domestic courts in CA do NOT favor moms over dads for child custody (not even female judges). They are fully aware that many moms are flaky and do not have the financial wherewithal to keep a stable home for children (even with support coming in).

Based on your posts, the reason I feel your in-laws got involved in your dissolution at the “11th hour” by finally filing a trust deed on your marital property (meaning “at the last minute”) is because they feared their own daughter would lose custody of your child or get limited visitation based on her recent arrest. They wanted to keep you distracted and worried that you wouldn’t have a local home for her so dangled the trust deed carrot in front of you during the proceedings. It worked and your lawyer refused to advise you on it.

I believe your in-laws are fully aware that RE values have fallen and, as a subordinate TD holder, they cannot recover all of their investment on a successful foreclosure and can’t come after either of you for the balance due because it was a “purchase money” loan. Their lawyer told them that. They did not file a TD at the time they executed the promissory note with both of you because it was meant to be a “gift.” The divorce changed everything for them.

This is just my contribution, based upon your posts. Seek advice from a good RE attorney who can advise you on whether that language in your MSA holds any water over your previously jointly executed trust deeds (security instruments) and notes. You always have the option of defaulting on your 1st TD only, affecting your ex’s credit as well. Then your ex-in-laws will be forced to bid the opening bid at the eventual trustees sale to gain ownership of the property, then sell it and recoup some of their loss. If they do nothing and let the property revert back to your 1st TD beneficiary, they will lose their entire investment.

Good luck!!

[bearishgurl]

Regardless of ANY language on the OP’s MSA, I STILL have a problem with the ex-wife signing the trust deed (along with the OP). Whether the holder of the (belated) trust deed (executed during a “divorce settlement”) is a relative or not is immaterial. In CA, I don’t see how domestic judges can legally absolve a domestic party from a promissory note they signed while married and taking title as joint tenants. Nor can they absolve parties of joint debts secured by filed trust deeds they executed together.

If the OP lets the first TD go into foreclosure, it will affect BOTH their credit reports. If he lets the 2nd TD go into foreclosure, does this (private) bene know how to report this foreclosure to the OP’s credit report?? If they did, they would likely (selectively) NOT, of course report it to their own daughter’s credit report.

frenchlambda, practically speaking, your “equalization stipulation” that you presumably signed the trust deed in exchange for really means nothing if (1) your ex-wife has no assets; (2) your ex wife is not employed or employable; and (3) you are unable to trace the (commingled) downpayment funds as your sole and separate property before a judge. I fear that if you try to collect any of these monies now or later, your ex’s parents will get her a lawyer to fight you in court on the amount. If the court awards you some or all of your 2640 monies, subject to proof, you will STILL have to colllect from her, which could prove to be problematic.

As for your child custody situation, I know you wanted to spend as much time with your daughter as possible and I’m not you but I really believe, based on the child endangerment charge filed against your ex, that you could have gotten at least a 50% timeshare and even moved her to Orange County to live near your job, IMHO. One of you would have gotten at least one weekend per month, half the holidays changing on rotating years and 90% of the summer vacation. I know … “water under the bridge” now (meaning: already done). In any case, you are probably aware that child custody arrangements are changeable thru the court until your child reaches the age of 18.

Domestic courts in CA do NOT favor moms over dads for child custody (not even female judges). They are fully aware that many moms are flaky and do not have the financial wherewithal to keep a stable home for children (even with support coming in).

Based on your posts, the reason I feel your in-laws got involved in your dissolution at the “11th hour” by finally filing a trust deed on your marital property (meaning “at the last minute”) is because they feared their own daughter would lose custody of your child or get limited visitation based on her recent arrest. They wanted to keep you distracted and worried that you wouldn’t have a local home for her so dangled the trust deed carrot in front of you during the proceedings. It worked and your lawyer refused to advise you on it.

I believe your in-laws are fully aware that RE values have fallen and, as a subordinate TD holder, they cannot recover all of their investment on a successful foreclosure and can’t come after either of you for the balance due because it was a “purchase money” loan. Their lawyer told them that. They did not file a TD at the time they executed the promissory note with both of you because it was meant to be a “gift.” The divorce changed everything for them.

This is just my contribution, based upon your posts. Seek advice from a good RE attorney who can advise you on whether that language in your MSA holds any water over your previously jointly executed trust deeds (security instruments) and notes. You always have the option of defaulting on your 1st TD only, affecting your ex’s credit as well. Then your ex-in-laws will be forced to bid the opening bid at the eventual trustees sale to gain ownership of the property, then sell it and recoup some of their loss. If they do nothing and let the property revert back to your 1st TD beneficiary, they will lose their entire investment.

Good luck!!

[Author]

Posts