Question for SD Realtor or any other trustee sale experts….

[bearishgurl]

A tax bill search reveals that “Lamont & Felissa Meeks” are the defaulting trustors

A cursory search of ARCC reveals:

9/16/10 Trustees Deed filed (back to bene)

11/10/10 the Meeks IRS lien (which had been paid off prior to sale) was released.

11/29/10 Recission filed by bene

12/16/10 New NOS filed for reduced amount

Note: the IRS and FTB typically MAY NOT release their liens until up to a year or more AFTER the taxpayer filed the missing tax returns or prevailed in tax court, unless there is an atty/enrolled agent in their corner riding their a$$. This is likely what happened here.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=SD Realtor]bg in addition to not wanting to get stuck with any tax penalties the lenders will pay the taxes as they are subordinate to the taxman.[/quote]

Understand, SDR. In addition, they are also subordinate to IRS and FTB (junior) liens. Hence, the 9/7/10 sale (opening bid) amount and previous NOS reflective of that jr lien amt added to their defaulted note (+ late chgs/trustees fees).

edit: this particular “do-over” machination by the defaulting lender will not only fix the erroneous defaulted sum on their books, but more importantly, it will enable them to deliver clear title to a prospective buyer at such time as they choose to market the property.

2nd edit: Upon further examination of UCGal’s foreclosure data, it appears that the 2nd trustees sale amount was actually higher (possibly to reflect that the bene (lender) paid the Meeks’ tax lien and added this amount onto the defaulted TD and note). When they got stuck paying it, they rescinded the sale and filed a new NOS, reflective of the new defaulted amt PLUS the paid-off IRS lien.

The lower opening bid amount on the 2nd sale was perhaps set by the bene to entice potential bidders . . . but no takers here.

Sorry for the confusion. My assessment still stands that it was a do-over to reflect the payoff of that IRS lien.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=SD Realtor]bg in addition to not wanting to get stuck with any tax penalties the lenders will pay the taxes as they are subordinate to the taxman.[/quote]

Understand, SDR. In addition, they are also subordinate to IRS and FTB (junior) liens. Hence, the 9/7/10 sale (opening bid) amount and previous NOS reflective of that jr lien amt added to their defaulted note (+ late chgs/trustees fees).

edit: this particular “do-over” machination by the defaulting lender will not only fix the erroneous defaulted sum on their books, but more importantly, it will enable them to deliver clear title to a prospective buyer at such time as they choose to market the property.

2nd edit: Upon further examination of UCGal’s foreclosure data, it appears that the 2nd trustees sale amount was actually higher (possibly to reflect that the bene (lender) paid the Meeks’ tax lien and added this amount onto the defaulted TD and note). When they got stuck paying it, they rescinded the sale and filed a new NOS, reflective of the new defaulted amt PLUS the paid-off IRS lien.

The lower opening bid amount on the 2nd sale was perhaps set by the bene to entice potential bidders . . . but no takers here.

Sorry for the confusion. My assessment still stands that it was a do-over to reflect the payoff of that IRS lien.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=SD Realtor]bg in addition to not wanting to get stuck with any tax penalties the lenders will pay the taxes as they are subordinate to the taxman.[/quote]

Understand, SDR. In addition, they are also subordinate to IRS and FTB (junior) liens. Hence, the 9/7/10 sale (opening bid) amount and previous NOS reflective of that jr lien amt added to their defaulted note (+ late chgs/trustees fees).

edit: this particular “do-over” machination by the defaulting lender will not only fix the erroneous defaulted sum on their books, but more importantly, it will enable them to deliver clear title to a prospective buyer at such time as they choose to market the property.

2nd edit: Upon further examination of UCGal’s foreclosure data, it appears that the 2nd trustees sale amount was actually higher (possibly to reflect that the bene (lender) paid the Meeks’ tax lien and added this amount onto the defaulted TD and note). When they got stuck paying it, they rescinded the sale and filed a new NOS, reflective of the new defaulted amt PLUS the paid-off IRS lien.

The lower opening bid amount on the 2nd sale was perhaps set by the bene to entice potential bidders . . . but no takers here.

Sorry for the confusion. My assessment still stands that it was a do-over to reflect the payoff of that IRS lien.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=SD Realtor]bg in addition to not wanting to get stuck with any tax penalties the lenders will pay the taxes as they are subordinate to the taxman.[/quote]

Understand, SDR. In addition, they are also subordinate to IRS and FTB (junior) liens. Hence, the 9/7/10 sale (opening bid) amount and previous NOS reflective of that jr lien amt added to their defaulted note (+ late chgs/trustees fees).

edit: this particular “do-over” machination by the defaulting lender will not only fix the erroneous defaulted sum on their books, but more importantly, it will enable them to deliver clear title to a prospective buyer at such time as they choose to market the property.

2nd edit: Upon further examination of UCGal’s foreclosure data, it appears that the 2nd trustees sale amount was actually higher (possibly to reflect that the bene (lender) paid the Meeks’ tax lien and added this amount onto the defaulted TD and note). When they got stuck paying it, they rescinded the sale and filed a new NOS, reflective of the new defaulted amt PLUS the paid-off IRS lien.

The lower opening bid amount on the 2nd sale was perhaps set by the bene to entice potential bidders . . . but no takers here.

Sorry for the confusion. My assessment still stands that it was a do-over to reflect the payoff of that IRS lien.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=SD Realtor]bg in addition to not wanting to get stuck with any tax penalties the lenders will pay the taxes as they are subordinate to the taxman.[/quote]

Understand, SDR. In addition, they are also subordinate to IRS and FTB (junior) liens. Hence, the 9/7/10 sale (opening bid) amount and previous NOS reflective of that jr lien amt added to their defaulted note (+ late chgs/trustees fees).

edit: this particular “do-over” machination by the defaulting lender will not only fix the erroneous defaulted sum on their books, but more importantly, it will enable them to deliver clear title to a prospective buyer at such time as they choose to market the property.

2nd edit: Upon further examination of UCGal’s foreclosure data, it appears that the 2nd trustees sale amount was actually higher (possibly to reflect that the bene (lender) paid the Meeks’ tax lien and added this amount onto the defaulted TD and note). When they got stuck paying it, they rescinded the sale and filed a new NOS, reflective of the new defaulted amt PLUS the paid-off IRS lien.

The lower opening bid amount on the 2nd sale was perhaps set by the bene to entice potential bidders . . . but no takers here.

Sorry for the confusion. My assessment still stands that it was a do-over to reflect the payoff of that IRS lien.

[UCGal]

Thanks.

I’ve seen a few of these “double” foreclosures… It’s good to know the banks are checking their paperwork and doing do-overs where necessary.

[UCGal]

Thanks.

I’ve seen a few of these “double” foreclosures… It’s good to know the banks are checking their paperwork and doing do-overs where necessary.

[UCGal]

Thanks.

I’ve seen a few of these “double” foreclosures… It’s good to know the banks are checking their paperwork and doing do-overs where necessary.

[UCGal]

Thanks.

I’ve seen a few of these “double” foreclosures… It’s good to know the banks are checking their paperwork and doing do-overs where necessary.

[UCGal]

Thanks.

I’ve seen a few of these “double” foreclosures… It’s good to know the banks are checking their paperwork and doing do-overs where necessary.

[UCGal]

Just came across another one…

http://www.sdlookup.com/Property-6627C84D-4111_Mt_Bross_Ave_San_Diego_CA_92111#114884

This time it looks like it sold on the steps… and if I’m reading it right – they reduced the final sales price by $3k… but was it a brand new sale, or was the previous buyer told tough luck?

[UCGal]

Just came across another one…

http://www.sdlookup.com/Property-6627C84D-4111_Mt_Bross_Ave_San_Diego_CA_92111#114884

This time it looks like it sold on the steps… and if I’m reading it right – they reduced the final sales price by $3k… but was it a brand new sale, or was the previous buyer told tough luck?

[UCGal]

Just came across another one…

http://www.sdlookup.com/Property-6627C84D-4111_Mt_Bross_Ave_San_Diego_CA_92111#114884

This time it looks like it sold on the steps… and if I’m reading it right – they reduced the final sales price by $3k… but was it a brand new sale, or was the previous buyer told tough luck?

[UCGal]

Just came across another one…

http://www.sdlookup.com/Property-6627C84D-4111_Mt_Bross_Ave_San_Diego_CA_92111#114884

This time it looks like it sold on the steps… and if I’m reading it right – they reduced the final sales price by $3k… but was it a brand new sale, or was the previous buyer told tough luck?

[Author]

Posts