[SK in CV]

Here’s the deal. Most states that require judicial foreclosures, also require that the lender be in physical possession of the original note and trust deed, and the foreclosure process requires that the owner of the loan attest that those original documents have been reviewed. In deposition, under penalty of purjury, employees of BofA (as successor in interest to Countrywide) have told plaintiff attorney that, in the ordinary course of business, those original notes and trust deeds were NEVER transmitted to the note purchasers, and were, in fact, retained by BofA (or Countrywide). Thousands? More likely 10’s or even 100’s of thousands of loans. Those loans should NOT be foreclosed until the lender has met the legal requirements to file the foreclosure.

I’m not disputing those loans are in default. I’m sure it’s only a tiny minority of loans that are actually current. (Though that number should be zero!)

As to market sanity. Do you think it’s an insane market now? I think it’s pretty sane. It’s hard to sell a house because there is an over supply. Get used to it. We probably have 24-36 more months of it. More and faster foreclosures won’t help that. It sounds to me like your definition of a sane market is where there is a flood of foreclosures so you can make a quick buck. I don’t know what’s sane about that.

(And some blighted markets will never come back.)

[SK in CV]

Here’s the deal. Most states that require judicial foreclosures, also require that the lender be in physical possession of the original note and trust deed, and the foreclosure process requires that the owner of the loan attest that those original documents have been reviewed. In deposition, under penalty of purjury, employees of BofA (as successor in interest to Countrywide) have told plaintiff attorney that, in the ordinary course of business, those original notes and trust deeds were NEVER transmitted to the note purchasers, and were, in fact, retained by BofA (or Countrywide). Thousands? More likely 10’s or even 100’s of thousands of loans. Those loans should NOT be foreclosed until the lender has met the legal requirements to file the foreclosure.

I’m not disputing those loans are in default. I’m sure it’s only a tiny minority of loans that are actually current. (Though that number should be zero!)

As to market sanity. Do you think it’s an insane market now? I think it’s pretty sane. It’s hard to sell a house because there is an over supply. Get used to it. We probably have 24-36 more months of it. More and faster foreclosures won’t help that. It sounds to me like your definition of a sane market is where there is a flood of foreclosures so you can make a quick buck. I don’t know what’s sane about that.

(And some blighted markets will never come back.)

[SK in CV]

Here’s the deal. Most states that require judicial foreclosures, also require that the lender be in physical possession of the original note and trust deed, and the foreclosure process requires that the owner of the loan attest that those original documents have been reviewed. In deposition, under penalty of purjury, employees of BofA (as successor in interest to Countrywide) have told plaintiff attorney that, in the ordinary course of business, those original notes and trust deeds were NEVER transmitted to the note purchasers, and were, in fact, retained by BofA (or Countrywide). Thousands? More likely 10’s or even 100’s of thousands of loans. Those loans should NOT be foreclosed until the lender has met the legal requirements to file the foreclosure.

I’m not disputing those loans are in default. I’m sure it’s only a tiny minority of loans that are actually current. (Though that number should be zero!)

As to market sanity. Do you think it’s an insane market now? I think it’s pretty sane. It’s hard to sell a house because there is an over supply. Get used to it. We probably have 24-36 more months of it. More and faster foreclosures won’t help that. It sounds to me like your definition of a sane market is where there is a flood of foreclosures so you can make a quick buck. I don’t know what’s sane about that.

(And some blighted markets will never come back.)

[SK in CV]

Here’s the deal. Most states that require judicial foreclosures, also require that the lender be in physical possession of the original note and trust deed, and the foreclosure process requires that the owner of the loan attest that those original documents have been reviewed. In deposition, under penalty of purjury, employees of BofA (as successor in interest to Countrywide) have told plaintiff attorney that, in the ordinary course of business, those original notes and trust deeds were NEVER transmitted to the note purchasers, and were, in fact, retained by BofA (or Countrywide). Thousands? More likely 10’s or even 100’s of thousands of loans. Those loans should NOT be foreclosed until the lender has met the legal requirements to file the foreclosure.

I’m not disputing those loans are in default. I’m sure it’s only a tiny minority of loans that are actually current. (Though that number should be zero!)

As to market sanity. Do you think it’s an insane market now? I think it’s pretty sane. It’s hard to sell a house because there is an over supply. Get used to it. We probably have 24-36 more months of it. More and faster foreclosures won’t help that. It sounds to me like your definition of a sane market is where there is a flood of foreclosures so you can make a quick buck. I don’t know what’s sane about that.

(And some blighted markets will never come back.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=CA renter]
Just because the lenders might have technical issues related to the notes, it does not mean these borrowers get free houses.[/quote]

Is that what this is about? Lenders should be able to run rough-shod over the system that they agreed to, ignore laws, blatantly break laws, commit purjury, foreclose on thousands of homes that they shouldn’t, and worse, just so that a few people might not get free houses?

[SK in CV]

[quote=CA renter]
Just because the lenders might have technical issues related to the notes, it does not mean these borrowers get free houses.[/quote]

Is that what this is about? Lenders should be able to run rough-shod over the system that they agreed to, ignore laws, blatantly break laws, commit purjury, foreclose on thousands of homes that they shouldn’t, and worse, just so that a few people might not get free houses?

[SK in CV]

[quote=CA renter]
Just because the lenders might have technical issues related to the notes, it does not mean these borrowers get free houses.[/quote]

Is that what this is about? Lenders should be able to run rough-shod over the system that they agreed to, ignore laws, blatantly break laws, commit purjury, foreclose on thousands of homes that they shouldn’t, and worse, just so that a few people might not get free houses?

[SK in CV]

[quote=CA renter]
Just because the lenders might have technical issues related to the notes, it does not mean these borrowers get free houses.[/quote]

Is that what this is about? Lenders should be able to run rough-shod over the system that they agreed to, ignore laws, blatantly break laws, commit purjury, foreclose on thousands of homes that they shouldn’t, and worse, just so that a few people might not get free houses?

[SK in CV]

[quote=CA renter]
Just because the lenders might have technical issues related to the notes, it does not mean these borrowers get free houses.[/quote]

Is that what this is about? Lenders should be able to run rough-shod over the system that they agreed to, ignore laws, blatantly break laws, commit purjury, foreclose on thousands of homes that they shouldn’t, and worse, just so that a few people might not get free houses?

[SK in CV]

[quote=jpinpb]Technically, wasn’t Carmel Valley previously known as North City West? That’s what I remember way back when.[/quote]

Yeah it was! I had forgotten that. I think that name pretty much disappeared pretty soon after the first homes were sold. Buncha Del Mar wannabes.

[SK in CV]

[quote=jpinpb]Technically, wasn’t Carmel Valley previously known as North City West? That’s what I remember way back when.[/quote]

Yeah it was! I had forgotten that. I think that name pretty much disappeared pretty soon after the first homes were sold. Buncha Del Mar wannabes.

[SK in CV]

[quote=jpinpb]Technically, wasn’t Carmel Valley previously known as North City West? That’s what I remember way back when.[/quote]

Yeah it was! I had forgotten that. I think that name pretty much disappeared pretty soon after the first homes were sold. Buncha Del Mar wannabes.

[SK in CV]

[quote=jpinpb]Technically, wasn’t Carmel Valley previously known as North City West? That’s what I remember way back when.[/quote]

Yeah it was! I had forgotten that. I think that name pretty much disappeared pretty soon after the first homes were sold. Buncha Del Mar wannabes.

[SK in CV]

[quote=jpinpb]Technically, wasn’t Carmel Valley previously known as North City West? That’s what I remember way back when.[/quote]

Yeah it was! I had forgotten that. I think that name pretty much disappeared pretty soon after the first homes were sold. Buncha Del Mar wannabes.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Diego Mamani][quote=SK in CV]The question is, should the lenders be allowed to ignore the law[/quote]

No one should be allowed to ignore the law, obviously. Have you ever thought of the distinction between the spirit and the letter of the law? The impression you give in this forum is that you are overly concerned with the letter of the law, without regard for the intent of the legislators or the intent of the law.

When a deadbeat or FB stops making payments, that constitutes a substantial violation of the loan agreement, and therefore, of the “spirit” of the law in addition to the “letter.” That behavior is the complete opposite of a technicality.

On the other hand, if we insist that lenders provide hard copies of every single document that prove that they are entitled to foreclose, we are putting the “letter” of the law over its “spirit.” In other words, a technicality.

You’re essentially defending those who “game the system”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaming_the_system
“[using] the rules and procedures meant to protect a system in order, instead, to manipulate the system for [a] desired outcome.”[/quote]

I would suggest, that in this instance, the spirit of the law and the intent are same. Most contracts don’t have to be in writing. One of the exceptions are contracts related to real estate, including liens thereon. That isn’t accidental. That is the intent of the law. Real estate notes and liens have to be in writing, they have to be recorded, they have to be transferred through proper endorsement. They are negotiable instruments (at least the notes are, I’ve seen some arguments that liens are not).

I have not anywhere defended anyone that has gamed the system. I have no doubt there are a small minority of deliquent borrowers who have done just that. But using your definition of “gaming the system”, that percentage is dwarfed by the loan servicing industry which has repeatedly and illegally gamed the system in clear opposition to both the letter AND the spirit of the law the last three years.

(What’s an “FB”?)

[Author]

Posts