Menu

Home › Forums › Closed Forums › Buying and Selling RE › Question for SD Realtor or any other trustee sale experts….

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 51 total)
1 2 3 4
  • Author
    Posts
  • January 6, 2011 at 7:23 PM #18361
    UCGal
    Participant

    So I track a lot of trustee sales. And I’ve seen what I call “double” forclosures a few times… I’m trying to figure out what causes this.

    Example… 7305 Sitio Salvia, 92009.

    It looks like it foreclosed in September. I posted this info on sdlookup.com.
    http://www.sdlookup.com/Property-12095626-7305_Sitio_Salvia_Carlsbad_CA_92009#114847

    Redfin shows this as a forclosure in their property history.
    http://www.redfin.com/CA/Carlsbad/7305-Sitio-Salvia-92009/home/12152475

    Today it shows up as a forclosure again…

    I checked the tax records – it’s a bank that paid the taxes… so the Sept forclosure seems to have happened.

    What’s with this new forclosure? Did the bank try to sell it at the steps a second time… just to try and unload it?

    I’m just curious about this…

    January 6, 2011 at 7:45 PM #648567
    bearishgurl
    Participant

    UCGal, without seeing the actual documents, I’m just going to “shoot from the hip” here. It appears in the first instance, that yes, the particular (first?) trust deed DID go back to the bene on 9/7/10 but was not PERFECTED. In other words, the foreclosing bene never filed the Trustee’s Deed. Perhaps there was a problem with the actual defaulted sum. It appears on the 1/6/11 Trustee’s sale the defaulted amount was adjusted downwards. You need to check in ARCC on Monday 1/10/11 after 4:00 p.m. (72 bus. hrs. after the “sale”) to see if the new Trustee’s Deed was actually filed by the trustee of the foreclosing bene.

    If so, the foreclosing bene engaged in a “do-over” to properly perfect the sale.

    January 6, 2011 at 7:45 PM #649224
    bearishgurl
    Participant

    UCGal, without seeing the actual documents, I’m just going to “shoot from the hip” here. It appears in the first instance, that yes, the particular (first?) trust deed DID go back to the bene on 9/7/10 but was not PERFECTED. In other words, the foreclosing bene never filed the Trustee’s Deed. Perhaps there was a problem with the actual defaulted sum. It appears on the 1/6/11 Trustee’s sale the defaulted amount was adjusted downwards. You need to check in ARCC on Monday 1/10/11 after 4:00 p.m. (72 bus. hrs. after the “sale”) to see if the new Trustee’s Deed was actually filed by the trustee of the foreclosing bene.

    If so, the foreclosing bene engaged in a “do-over” to properly perfect the sale.

    January 6, 2011 at 7:45 PM #649361
    bearishgurl
    Participant

    UCGal, without seeing the actual documents, I’m just going to “shoot from the hip” here. It appears in the first instance, that yes, the particular (first?) trust deed DID go back to the bene on 9/7/10 but was not PERFECTED. In other words, the foreclosing bene never filed the Trustee’s Deed. Perhaps there was a problem with the actual defaulted sum. It appears on the 1/6/11 Trustee’s sale the defaulted amount was adjusted downwards. You need to check in ARCC on Monday 1/10/11 after 4:00 p.m. (72 bus. hrs. after the “sale”) to see if the new Trustee’s Deed was actually filed by the trustee of the foreclosing bene.

    If so, the foreclosing bene engaged in a “do-over” to properly perfect the sale.

    January 6, 2011 at 7:45 PM #649686
    bearishgurl
    Participant

    UCGal, without seeing the actual documents, I’m just going to “shoot from the hip” here. It appears in the first instance, that yes, the particular (first?) trust deed DID go back to the bene on 9/7/10 but was not PERFECTED. In other words, the foreclosing bene never filed the Trustee’s Deed. Perhaps there was a problem with the actual defaulted sum. It appears on the 1/6/11 Trustee’s sale the defaulted amount was adjusted downwards. You need to check in ARCC on Monday 1/10/11 after 4:00 p.m. (72 bus. hrs. after the “sale”) to see if the new Trustee’s Deed was actually filed by the trustee of the foreclosing bene.

    If so, the foreclosing bene engaged in a “do-over” to properly perfect the sale.

    January 6, 2011 at 7:45 PM #648638
    bearishgurl
    Participant

    UCGal, without seeing the actual documents, I’m just going to “shoot from the hip” here. It appears in the first instance, that yes, the particular (first?) trust deed DID go back to the bene on 9/7/10 but was not PERFECTED. In other words, the foreclosing bene never filed the Trustee’s Deed. Perhaps there was a problem with the actual defaulted sum. It appears on the 1/6/11 Trustee’s sale the defaulted amount was adjusted downwards. You need to check in ARCC on Monday 1/10/11 after 4:00 p.m. (72 bus. hrs. after the “sale”) to see if the new Trustee’s Deed was actually filed by the trustee of the foreclosing bene.

    If so, the foreclosing bene engaged in a “do-over” to properly perfect the sale.

    January 6, 2011 at 7:56 PM #649696
    SD Realtor
    Participant

    Not sure UCG. It could be as BG was saying but honestly I am not sure. Seems like a trustees deed was filed but could not tell ya.

    January 6, 2011 at 7:56 PM #649234
    SD Realtor
    Participant

    Not sure UCG. It could be as BG was saying but honestly I am not sure. Seems like a trustees deed was filed but could not tell ya.

    January 6, 2011 at 7:56 PM #649371
    SD Realtor
    Participant

    Not sure UCG. It could be as BG was saying but honestly I am not sure. Seems like a trustees deed was filed but could not tell ya.

    January 6, 2011 at 7:56 PM #648648
    SD Realtor
    Participant

    Not sure UCG. It could be as BG was saying but honestly I am not sure. Seems like a trustees deed was filed but could not tell ya.

    January 6, 2011 at 7:56 PM #648577
    SD Realtor
    Participant

    Not sure UCG. It could be as BG was saying but honestly I am not sure. Seems like a trustees deed was filed but could not tell ya.

    January 6, 2011 at 8:01 PM #648658
    bearishgurl
    Participant

    FWIW, I have seen lenders paying taxes on properties they have not yet even filed a NOD on but which have been in default more than a year. These particular loans had impounds (which may or may not have sufficient funds to pay taxes/ins prems) and the lender fully intends on foreclosing in the future if the trustor does not qualify for a permanent loan modification. The lender, in these instances, is trying to avoid the 10% penalty (in CA) for paying the taxes late. In these cases, the lenders very likely believe they will end up with these properties.

    January 6, 2011 at 8:01 PM #649706
    bearishgurl
    Participant

    FWIW, I have seen lenders paying taxes on properties they have not yet even filed a NOD on but which have been in default more than a year. These particular loans had impounds (which may or may not have sufficient funds to pay taxes/ins prems) and the lender fully intends on foreclosing in the future if the trustor does not qualify for a permanent loan modification. The lender, in these instances, is trying to avoid the 10% penalty (in CA) for paying the taxes late. In these cases, the lenders very likely believe they will end up with these properties.

    January 6, 2011 at 8:01 PM #649381
    bearishgurl
    Participant

    FWIW, I have seen lenders paying taxes on properties they have not yet even filed a NOD on but which have been in default more than a year. These particular loans had impounds (which may or may not have sufficient funds to pay taxes/ins prems) and the lender fully intends on foreclosing in the future if the trustor does not qualify for a permanent loan modification. The lender, in these instances, is trying to avoid the 10% penalty (in CA) for paying the taxes late. In these cases, the lenders very likely believe they will end up with these properties.

    January 6, 2011 at 8:01 PM #648587
    bearishgurl
    Participant

    FWIW, I have seen lenders paying taxes on properties they have not yet even filed a NOD on but which have been in default more than a year. These particular loans had impounds (which may or may not have sufficient funds to pay taxes/ins prems) and the lender fully intends on foreclosing in the future if the trustor does not qualify for a permanent loan modification. The lender, in these instances, is trying to avoid the 10% penalty (in CA) for paying the taxes late. In these cases, the lenders very likely believe they will end up with these properties.

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 51 total)
1 2 3 4
  • The forum ‘Buying and Selling RE’ is closed to new topics and replies.