Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
bubba99
ParticipantNot sure what the building dept requires in this specific area, but in many, permits are not transferable to new owner. Although the land use and zoning usually stays intact, the acutal plans need to be resubmitted in many areas, causing new costs, and delays.
Good luck
ParticipantNot sure what the building dept requires in this specific area, but in many, permits are not transferable to new owner. Although the land use and zoning usually stays intact, the acutal plans need to be resubmitted in many areas, causing new costs, and delays.
Good luck
ParticipantI agree that Sulak failed in their bid to contest MERS, but the recent bankruptcy court rulng seems to be just the opoosite. “which found that MERS could not, as a matter of law, have transferred the note to Citibank from the original lender, Bayrock Mortgage Corp. The Court’s opinion is headlined stating that MERS and Citibank are not the real parties in interest.”
Further, “Any attempt to transfer the beneficial interest of a trust deed without ownership of the underlying note IS VOID UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW.”
It maybe that this does not hold up under appeal, but for now, there is a hole in the damn. Here in California, and Kansas, New York, and Ohio.
ParticipantI agree that Sulak failed in their bid to contest MERS, but the recent bankruptcy court rulng seems to be just the opoosite. “which found that MERS could not, as a matter of law, have transferred the note to Citibank from the original lender, Bayrock Mortgage Corp. The Court’s opinion is headlined stating that MERS and Citibank are not the real parties in interest.”
Further, “Any attempt to transfer the beneficial interest of a trust deed without ownership of the underlying note IS VOID UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW.”
It maybe that this does not hold up under appeal, but for now, there is a hole in the damn. Here in California, and Kansas, New York, and Ohio.
ParticipantI agree that Sulak failed in their bid to contest MERS, but the recent bankruptcy court rulng seems to be just the opoosite. “which found that MERS could not, as a matter of law, have transferred the note to Citibank from the original lender, Bayrock Mortgage Corp. The Court’s opinion is headlined stating that MERS and Citibank are not the real parties in interest.”
Further, “Any attempt to transfer the beneficial interest of a trust deed without ownership of the underlying note IS VOID UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW.”
It maybe that this does not hold up under appeal, but for now, there is a hole in the damn. Here in California, and Kansas, New York, and Ohio.
ParticipantI agree that Sulak failed in their bid to contest MERS, but the recent bankruptcy court rulng seems to be just the opoosite. “which found that MERS could not, as a matter of law, have transferred the note to Citibank from the original lender, Bayrock Mortgage Corp. The Court’s opinion is headlined stating that MERS and Citibank are not the real parties in interest.”
Further, “Any attempt to transfer the beneficial interest of a trust deed without ownership of the underlying note IS VOID UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW.”
It maybe that this does not hold up under appeal, but for now, there is a hole in the damn. Here in California, and Kansas, New York, and Ohio.
ParticipantI agree that Sulak failed in their bid to contest MERS, but the recent bankruptcy court rulng seems to be just the opoosite. “which found that MERS could not, as a matter of law, have transferred the note to Citibank from the original lender, Bayrock Mortgage Corp. The Court’s opinion is headlined stating that MERS and Citibank are not the real parties in interest.”
Further, “Any attempt to transfer the beneficial interest of a trust deed without ownership of the underlying note IS VOID UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW.”
It maybe that this does not hold up under appeal, but for now, there is a hole in the damn. Here in California, and Kansas, New York, and Ohio.
ParticipantA small point, but I believe that any refinance becomes a recourse loan in the event of a foreclosure. The original loan and even the second if used for the initial purchase is non-recourse. That means that in the event of foreclosure there is no deficiency judgment.
On any refi, I believe the entire loss (in the event of foreclosure) becomes recourse.
ParticipantA small point, but I believe that any refinance becomes a recourse loan in the event of a foreclosure. The original loan and even the second if used for the initial purchase is non-recourse. That means that in the event of foreclosure there is no deficiency judgment.
On any refi, I believe the entire loss (in the event of foreclosure) becomes recourse.
ParticipantA small point, but I believe that any refinance becomes a recourse loan in the event of a foreclosure. The original loan and even the second if used for the initial purchase is non-recourse. That means that in the event of foreclosure there is no deficiency judgment.
On any refi, I believe the entire loss (in the event of foreclosure) becomes recourse.
ParticipantA small point, but I believe that any refinance becomes a recourse loan in the event of a foreclosure. The original loan and even the second if used for the initial purchase is non-recourse. That means that in the event of foreclosure there is no deficiency judgment.
On any refi, I believe the entire loss (in the event of foreclosure) becomes recourse.
ParticipantA small point, but I believe that any refinance becomes a recourse loan in the event of a foreclosure. The original loan and even the second if used for the initial purchase is non-recourse. That means that in the event of foreclosure there is no deficiency judgment.
On any refi, I believe the entire loss (in the event of foreclosure) becomes recourse.
ParticipantRecently I returned from a few weeks in the far north of Thailand. I spent my time in small farming villages and I ate as normal, but “native” foods. Fresh foods, not frozen or in anyway enhanced. Imagine my surprise when I returned to the US, and my uniforms were now a size too big.
Could be many reasons, but I believe that the food we are eating in America is killing us. The salt, calories, antibiotics, genetically engineered food, and growth hormones are all contributing to us getting fat. The goal of the food producers is not to grow health items, but the cheapest, most profitable crap we will buy. Any side effect of hormones like increased appetite is just a plus to them.
ParticipantRecently I returned from a few weeks in the far north of Thailand. I spent my time in small farming villages and I ate as normal, but “native” foods. Fresh foods, not frozen or in anyway enhanced. Imagine my surprise when I returned to the US, and my uniforms were now a size too big.
Could be many reasons, but I believe that the food we are eating in America is killing us. The salt, calories, antibiotics, genetically engineered food, and growth hormones are all contributing to us getting fat. The goal of the food producers is not to grow health items, but the cheapest, most profitable crap we will buy. Any side effect of hormones like increased appetite is just a plus to them.
-
AuthorPosts
