- This topic has 25 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 5 months ago by
scaredyclassic.
-
AuthorPosts
-
December 8, 2009 at 5:14 PM #16780December 9, 2009 at 12:36 AM #492045
ucodegen
ParticipantEx-parte judgements are questionable period. See the 5th and 14th amendments (in effect: a person shall not be deprived of any interest in liberty or property without due process). They are usually for a ‘temporary’ action and not permanent. Removing money from an account through ‘ex-parte’ is a rather permanent action unless you intend to put it back…
FYI to other readers: ex-parte means an action and judgement by one party in a dispute without notification of the other party and without giving the other party time to respond.
It looks like the people mentioned in the article should have declared bankruptcy before the second took action. Bankruptcy would have prevented the second from being able to directly attach the wages/accounts.
Too many of these cases by banks may cause them to get ‘slapped back’ pretty hard. Their traditional process would be for the second to foreclose on the property, clear the first and then resell the property. I suspect the second knows that the property is so far underwater that the sale of the property would probably not even clear the first, much less the outstanding on the second.
December 9, 2009 at 12:36 AM #492210ParticipantEx-parte judgements are questionable period. See the 5th and 14th amendments (in effect: a person shall not be deprived of any interest in liberty or property without due process). They are usually for a ‘temporary’ action and not permanent. Removing money from an account through ‘ex-parte’ is a rather permanent action unless you intend to put it back…
FYI to other readers: ex-parte means an action and judgement by one party in a dispute without notification of the other party and without giving the other party time to respond.
It looks like the people mentioned in the article should have declared bankruptcy before the second took action. Bankruptcy would have prevented the second from being able to directly attach the wages/accounts.
Too many of these cases by banks may cause them to get ‘slapped back’ pretty hard. Their traditional process would be for the second to foreclose on the property, clear the first and then resell the property. I suspect the second knows that the property is so far underwater that the sale of the property would probably not even clear the first, much less the outstanding on the second.
December 9, 2009 at 12:36 AM #492591ParticipantEx-parte judgements are questionable period. See the 5th and 14th amendments (in effect: a person shall not be deprived of any interest in liberty or property without due process). They are usually for a ‘temporary’ action and not permanent. Removing money from an account through ‘ex-parte’ is a rather permanent action unless you intend to put it back…
FYI to other readers: ex-parte means an action and judgement by one party in a dispute without notification of the other party and without giving the other party time to respond.
It looks like the people mentioned in the article should have declared bankruptcy before the second took action. Bankruptcy would have prevented the second from being able to directly attach the wages/accounts.
Too many of these cases by banks may cause them to get ‘slapped back’ pretty hard. Their traditional process would be for the second to foreclose on the property, clear the first and then resell the property. I suspect the second knows that the property is so far underwater that the sale of the property would probably not even clear the first, much less the outstanding on the second.
December 9, 2009 at 12:36 AM #492680ParticipantEx-parte judgements are questionable period. See the 5th and 14th amendments (in effect: a person shall not be deprived of any interest in liberty or property without due process). They are usually for a ‘temporary’ action and not permanent. Removing money from an account through ‘ex-parte’ is a rather permanent action unless you intend to put it back…
FYI to other readers: ex-parte means an action and judgement by one party in a dispute without notification of the other party and without giving the other party time to respond.
It looks like the people mentioned in the article should have declared bankruptcy before the second took action. Bankruptcy would have prevented the second from being able to directly attach the wages/accounts.
Too many of these cases by banks may cause them to get ‘slapped back’ pretty hard. Their traditional process would be for the second to foreclose on the property, clear the first and then resell the property. I suspect the second knows that the property is so far underwater that the sale of the property would probably not even clear the first, much less the outstanding on the second.
December 9, 2009 at 12:36 AM #492915ParticipantEx-parte judgements are questionable period. See the 5th and 14th amendments (in effect: a person shall not be deprived of any interest in liberty or property without due process). They are usually for a ‘temporary’ action and not permanent. Removing money from an account through ‘ex-parte’ is a rather permanent action unless you intend to put it back…
FYI to other readers: ex-parte means an action and judgement by one party in a dispute without notification of the other party and without giving the other party time to respond.
It looks like the people mentioned in the article should have declared bankruptcy before the second took action. Bankruptcy would have prevented the second from being able to directly attach the wages/accounts.
Too many of these cases by banks may cause them to get ‘slapped back’ pretty hard. Their traditional process would be for the second to foreclose on the property, clear the first and then resell the property. I suspect the second knows that the property is so far underwater that the sale of the property would probably not even clear the first, much less the outstanding on the second.
December 9, 2009 at 9:37 AM #492169UCGal
ParticipantFrom reading the article – it sounds like the court action did involve serving the couple – but that it may have been a questionable service.
It also sounds like the couple did everything wrong. They bought the house as an investment for $520k in 2006. They refinanced to a first of $464k and a 2nd of $126k a year later. They claim they took out 20k to pay off credit cards… I guess the other 40-50k in additional debt was just bonus money. These people ATM’d their “investment” property.
IF the court summons was properly served (which is in question) – then I don’t see anything wrong with the process. The article doesn’t mention whether they stopped paying on the 2nd – but I have to assume they did when they stopped paying on the first.
They made bad choices. Life is full of consequences.
December 9, 2009 at 9:37 AM #492334ParticipantFrom reading the article – it sounds like the court action did involve serving the couple – but that it may have been a questionable service.
It also sounds like the couple did everything wrong. They bought the house as an investment for $520k in 2006. They refinanced to a first of $464k and a 2nd of $126k a year later. They claim they took out 20k to pay off credit cards… I guess the other 40-50k in additional debt was just bonus money. These people ATM’d their “investment” property.
IF the court summons was properly served (which is in question) – then I don’t see anything wrong with the process. The article doesn’t mention whether they stopped paying on the 2nd – but I have to assume they did when they stopped paying on the first.
They made bad choices. Life is full of consequences.
December 9, 2009 at 9:37 AM #492714ParticipantFrom reading the article – it sounds like the court action did involve serving the couple – but that it may have been a questionable service.
It also sounds like the couple did everything wrong. They bought the house as an investment for $520k in 2006. They refinanced to a first of $464k and a 2nd of $126k a year later. They claim they took out 20k to pay off credit cards… I guess the other 40-50k in additional debt was just bonus money. These people ATM’d their “investment” property.
IF the court summons was properly served (which is in question) – then I don’t see anything wrong with the process. The article doesn’t mention whether they stopped paying on the 2nd – but I have to assume they did when they stopped paying on the first.
They made bad choices. Life is full of consequences.
December 9, 2009 at 9:37 AM #492803ParticipantFrom reading the article – it sounds like the court action did involve serving the couple – but that it may have been a questionable service.
It also sounds like the couple did everything wrong. They bought the house as an investment for $520k in 2006. They refinanced to a first of $464k and a 2nd of $126k a year later. They claim they took out 20k to pay off credit cards… I guess the other 40-50k in additional debt was just bonus money. These people ATM’d their “investment” property.
IF the court summons was properly served (which is in question) – then I don’t see anything wrong with the process. The article doesn’t mention whether they stopped paying on the 2nd – but I have to assume they did when they stopped paying on the first.
They made bad choices. Life is full of consequences.
December 9, 2009 at 9:37 AM #493040ParticipantFrom reading the article – it sounds like the court action did involve serving the couple – but that it may have been a questionable service.
It also sounds like the couple did everything wrong. They bought the house as an investment for $520k in 2006. They refinanced to a first of $464k and a 2nd of $126k a year later. They claim they took out 20k to pay off credit cards… I guess the other 40-50k in additional debt was just bonus money. These people ATM’d their “investment” property.
IF the court summons was properly served (which is in question) – then I don’t see anything wrong with the process. The article doesn’t mention whether they stopped paying on the 2nd – but I have to assume they did when they stopped paying on the first.
They made bad choices. Life is full of consequences.
December 9, 2009 at 12:09 PM #492298Rt.66
ParticipantNew York is a quasi no-recourse state in that they have a one action rule. A lender can go for a foreclosure OR sue for the deficiency.
Though CA is a non-recourse state the non-recourse aspect generally only applies to “purchase money” loans (original first).
So HELOCs and equity loans can result in law suits for collection unless the second initiates a foreclosure (not likely here). I expect we will see our own versions of this tactic in CA by lenders taking advantage of those rules.
May take a while though as today’s climate would bring unwanted hostility to lenders going for the jugular of the poor deadbeat. But rest assured they will come for their money sooner or later.
The practice of extracting money out of deadbeats who defaulted on 2nds will be a popular and easy money maker in the years to come. Future earnings beware!
December 9, 2009 at 12:09 PM #492463ParticipantNew York is a quasi no-recourse state in that they have a one action rule. A lender can go for a foreclosure OR sue for the deficiency.
Though CA is a non-recourse state the non-recourse aspect generally only applies to “purchase money” loans (original first).
So HELOCs and equity loans can result in law suits for collection unless the second initiates a foreclosure (not likely here). I expect we will see our own versions of this tactic in CA by lenders taking advantage of those rules.
May take a while though as today’s climate would bring unwanted hostility to lenders going for the jugular of the poor deadbeat. But rest assured they will come for their money sooner or later.
The practice of extracting money out of deadbeats who defaulted on 2nds will be a popular and easy money maker in the years to come. Future earnings beware!
December 9, 2009 at 12:09 PM #492844ParticipantNew York is a quasi no-recourse state in that they have a one action rule. A lender can go for a foreclosure OR sue for the deficiency.
Though CA is a non-recourse state the non-recourse aspect generally only applies to “purchase money” loans (original first).
So HELOCs and equity loans can result in law suits for collection unless the second initiates a foreclosure (not likely here). I expect we will see our own versions of this tactic in CA by lenders taking advantage of those rules.
May take a while though as today’s climate would bring unwanted hostility to lenders going for the jugular of the poor deadbeat. But rest assured they will come for their money sooner or later.
The practice of extracting money out of deadbeats who defaulted on 2nds will be a popular and easy money maker in the years to come. Future earnings beware!
December 9, 2009 at 12:09 PM #492932ParticipantNew York is a quasi no-recourse state in that they have a one action rule. A lender can go for a foreclosure OR sue for the deficiency.
Though CA is a non-recourse state the non-recourse aspect generally only applies to “purchase money” loans (original first).
So HELOCs and equity loans can result in law suits for collection unless the second initiates a foreclosure (not likely here). I expect we will see our own versions of this tactic in CA by lenders taking advantage of those rules.
May take a while though as today’s climate would bring unwanted hostility to lenders going for the jugular of the poor deadbeat. But rest assured they will come for their money sooner or later.
The practice of extracting money out of deadbeats who defaulted on 2nds will be a popular and easy money maker in the years to come. Future earnings beware!
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.