[SK in CV]

The homeowner does have the right to pose the question by filing an affirmative defense. There are a good dozen or so affirmative defenses that might apply. The problem is that most home loans contain clauses that will burden the losing party to the legal fees of the prevailing party. So even if you try to do it yourself without an attorney, you’ll end up paying the lenders legal fees. And except in very extraordinary circumstances you will lose.

The California non-judicial foreclosure process is not sympathetic (or at least so far has not proven to be sympathetic) to standings claims.

[SK in CV]

The homeowner does have the right to pose the question by filing an affirmative defense. There are a good dozen or so affirmative defenses that might apply. The problem is that most home loans contain clauses that will burden the losing party to the legal fees of the prevailing party. So even if you try to do it yourself without an attorney, you’ll end up paying the lenders legal fees. And except in very extraordinary circumstances you will lose.

The California non-judicial foreclosure process is not sympathetic (or at least so far has not proven to be sympathetic) to standings claims.

[SK in CV]

The homeowner does have the right to pose the question by filing an affirmative defense. There are a good dozen or so affirmative defenses that might apply. The problem is that most home loans contain clauses that will burden the losing party to the legal fees of the prevailing party. So even if you try to do it yourself without an attorney, you’ll end up paying the lenders legal fees. And except in very extraordinary circumstances you will lose.

The California non-judicial foreclosure process is not sympathetic (or at least so far has not proven to be sympathetic) to standings claims.

[SK in CV]

The homeowner does have the right to pose the question by filing an affirmative defense. There are a good dozen or so affirmative defenses that might apply. The problem is that most home loans contain clauses that will burden the losing party to the legal fees of the prevailing party. So even if you try to do it yourself without an attorney, you’ll end up paying the lenders legal fees. And except in very extraordinary circumstances you will lose.

The California non-judicial foreclosure process is not sympathetic (or at least so far has not proven to be sympathetic) to standings claims.

[SK in CV]

[quote=carli]Any homeowner who sees this segment who is anywhere near getting foreclosed on would be crazy not to demand to see the actual signature page of the loan documents proving that the institution that’s foreclosing on the house OWNS the house. The segment made it seem like most institutions would not be able to produce the document/proof needed.

[/quote]

Laws are different in every state. In California, in most cases it is probably a non-issue. The non-judicial foreclosure process doesn’t require the lender to produce the original document.

[SK in CV]

[quote=carli]Any homeowner who sees this segment who is anywhere near getting foreclosed on would be crazy not to demand to see the actual signature page of the loan documents proving that the institution that’s foreclosing on the house OWNS the house. The segment made it seem like most institutions would not be able to produce the document/proof needed.

[/quote]

Laws are different in every state. In California, in most cases it is probably a non-issue. The non-judicial foreclosure process doesn’t require the lender to produce the original document.

[SK in CV]

[quote=carli]Any homeowner who sees this segment who is anywhere near getting foreclosed on would be crazy not to demand to see the actual signature page of the loan documents proving that the institution that’s foreclosing on the house OWNS the house. The segment made it seem like most institutions would not be able to produce the document/proof needed.

[/quote]

Laws are different in every state. In California, in most cases it is probably a non-issue. The non-judicial foreclosure process doesn’t require the lender to produce the original document.

[SK in CV]

[quote=carli]Any homeowner who sees this segment who is anywhere near getting foreclosed on would be crazy not to demand to see the actual signature page of the loan documents proving that the institution that’s foreclosing on the house OWNS the house. The segment made it seem like most institutions would not be able to produce the document/proof needed.

[/quote]

Laws are different in every state. In California, in most cases it is probably a non-issue. The non-judicial foreclosure process doesn’t require the lender to produce the original document.

[SK in CV]

[quote=carli]Any homeowner who sees this segment who is anywhere near getting foreclosed on would be crazy not to demand to see the actual signature page of the loan documents proving that the institution that’s foreclosing on the house OWNS the house. The segment made it seem like most institutions would not be able to produce the document/proof needed.

[/quote]

Laws are different in every state. In California, in most cases it is probably a non-issue. The non-judicial foreclosure process doesn’t require the lender to produce the original document.

[SK in CV]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=SK in CV]

As to who forecloses…well it is the servicer. They get the ball rolling, nobody else. The servicers, on behalf of the beneficiary control that process.[/quote]

You are inaccurate about this.
The lenders (or lien holders or note holders or whatever) are the employers of the servicers and can veto their actions.
I am doing one with Aurora right now.
Aurora has misrepresented some of the components of this deal and the seller has had me contact the note holder (who is a major east coast financial firm).

The financial firm has postponed the short sale and we are now dealing with them.

While I do not dispute that it is sometimes in the best interests of the servicer to foreclose, I think that they try very hard not to act in any way that appears to place their own interests above those of their lender.

Now that last thought is pure speculation but it is consistent with both observable behavior as well as models of lien holder and servicer incentive structures.[/quote]

Which is why I said “on behalf of the beneficiary”. What I have seen is that when the bene is a single entity, they’re much more likely to have input. When the bene is a REMIC (either private label or GSE) the likelihood that they’ll get involved in anything the servicer does is less likely. Not impossible, just less likely.

I have a recollection of there being some pretty significant complaints against Aurora in the past, and some litigation about how they were handling…now I can’t remember if it was short sales or mods. Litigants were attempting to get their class certified. Not sure what happened with it.

And yes, the servicers attempt to appear as if their clients recovery is most important. Even as they’re taking kickbacks from foreclosure attorneys :).

[SK in CV]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=SK in CV]

As to who forecloses…well it is the servicer. They get the ball rolling, nobody else. The servicers, on behalf of the beneficiary control that process.[/quote]

You are inaccurate about this.
The lenders (or lien holders or note holders or whatever) are the employers of the servicers and can veto their actions.
I am doing one with Aurora right now.
Aurora has misrepresented some of the components of this deal and the seller has had me contact the note holder (who is a major east coast financial firm).

The financial firm has postponed the short sale and we are now dealing with them.

While I do not dispute that it is sometimes in the best interests of the servicer to foreclose, I think that they try very hard not to act in any way that appears to place their own interests above those of their lender.

Now that last thought is pure speculation but it is consistent with both observable behavior as well as models of lien holder and servicer incentive structures.[/quote]

Which is why I said “on behalf of the beneficiary”. What I have seen is that when the bene is a single entity, they’re much more likely to have input. When the bene is a REMIC (either private label or GSE) the likelihood that they’ll get involved in anything the servicer does is less likely. Not impossible, just less likely.

I have a recollection of there being some pretty significant complaints against Aurora in the past, and some litigation about how they were handling…now I can’t remember if it was short sales or mods. Litigants were attempting to get their class certified. Not sure what happened with it.

And yes, the servicers attempt to appear as if their clients recovery is most important. Even as they’re taking kickbacks from foreclosure attorneys :).

[SK in CV]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=SK in CV]

As to who forecloses…well it is the servicer. They get the ball rolling, nobody else. The servicers, on behalf of the beneficiary control that process.[/quote]

You are inaccurate about this.
The lenders (or lien holders or note holders or whatever) are the employers of the servicers and can veto their actions.
I am doing one with Aurora right now.
Aurora has misrepresented some of the components of this deal and the seller has had me contact the note holder (who is a major east coast financial firm).

The financial firm has postponed the short sale and we are now dealing with them.

While I do not dispute that it is sometimes in the best interests of the servicer to foreclose, I think that they try very hard not to act in any way that appears to place their own interests above those of their lender.

Now that last thought is pure speculation but it is consistent with both observable behavior as well as models of lien holder and servicer incentive structures.[/quote]

Which is why I said “on behalf of the beneficiary”. What I have seen is that when the bene is a single entity, they’re much more likely to have input. When the bene is a REMIC (either private label or GSE) the likelihood that they’ll get involved in anything the servicer does is less likely. Not impossible, just less likely.

I have a recollection of there being some pretty significant complaints against Aurora in the past, and some litigation about how they were handling…now I can’t remember if it was short sales or mods. Litigants were attempting to get their class certified. Not sure what happened with it.

And yes, the servicers attempt to appear as if their clients recovery is most important. Even as they’re taking kickbacks from foreclosure attorneys :).

[SK in CV]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=SK in CV]

As to who forecloses…well it is the servicer. They get the ball rolling, nobody else. The servicers, on behalf of the beneficiary control that process.[/quote]

You are inaccurate about this.
The lenders (or lien holders or note holders or whatever) are the employers of the servicers and can veto their actions.
I am doing one with Aurora right now.
Aurora has misrepresented some of the components of this deal and the seller has had me contact the note holder (who is a major east coast financial firm).

The financial firm has postponed the short sale and we are now dealing with them.

While I do not dispute that it is sometimes in the best interests of the servicer to foreclose, I think that they try very hard not to act in any way that appears to place their own interests above those of their lender.

Now that last thought is pure speculation but it is consistent with both observable behavior as well as models of lien holder and servicer incentive structures.[/quote]

Which is why I said “on behalf of the beneficiary”. What I have seen is that when the bene is a single entity, they’re much more likely to have input. When the bene is a REMIC (either private label or GSE) the likelihood that they’ll get involved in anything the servicer does is less likely. Not impossible, just less likely.

I have a recollection of there being some pretty significant complaints against Aurora in the past, and some litigation about how they were handling…now I can’t remember if it was short sales or mods. Litigants were attempting to get their class certified. Not sure what happened with it.

And yes, the servicers attempt to appear as if their clients recovery is most important. Even as they’re taking kickbacks from foreclosure attorneys :).

[SK in CV]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=SK in CV]

As to who forecloses…well it is the servicer. They get the ball rolling, nobody else. The servicers, on behalf of the beneficiary control that process.[/quote]

You are inaccurate about this.
The lenders (or lien holders or note holders or whatever) are the employers of the servicers and can veto their actions.
I am doing one with Aurora right now.
Aurora has misrepresented some of the components of this deal and the seller has had me contact the note holder (who is a major east coast financial firm).

The financial firm has postponed the short sale and we are now dealing with them.

While I do not dispute that it is sometimes in the best interests of the servicer to foreclose, I think that they try very hard not to act in any way that appears to place their own interests above those of their lender.

Now that last thought is pure speculation but it is consistent with both observable behavior as well as models of lien holder and servicer incentive structures.[/quote]

Which is why I said “on behalf of the beneficiary”. What I have seen is that when the bene is a single entity, they’re much more likely to have input. When the bene is a REMIC (either private label or GSE) the likelihood that they’ll get involved in anything the servicer does is less likely. Not impossible, just less likely.

I have a recollection of there being some pretty significant complaints against Aurora in the past, and some litigation about how they were handling…now I can’t remember if it was short sales or mods. Litigants were attempting to get their class certified. Not sure what happened with it.

And yes, the servicers attempt to appear as if their clients recovery is most important. Even as they’re taking kickbacks from foreclosure attorneys :).

[SK in CV]

Oh it was wonderful. My first mortgage loan somewhere around 1978 was 14%. Refi’d at just under 12% a couple years later and I was ecstatic. Just checked Zillow and that condo is worth somewhere around $190K now. (there are somewhere around 75 identical condos, so the value is probably pretty close to accurate.) I paid just under $70K. If we see those kinds of rates again, it won’t drop down to the price I paid, but based on current rents, it probably could drop down to $100K. The good old days. When Realtors actually earned their 6% 😛

[Author]

Posts