Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
urbanrealtor
ParticipantPublic Defender/ Walter/ scaredy:
As an agent, if I had any inkling that a buyer was trying to add an extra 60-70 days to an escrow, I would totally smoke out the buyer.
A notice to perform to remove contingencies followed by a notice to perform to close escrow followed by a re-list on the MLS as active subject to cancellation of current escrow.
In other words, if the listing agent were to give you that much latitude, I would find his conduct questionable.
That being said, the way you want to do it is to claim it as a lending issue and to offer some concession that appeals to them.
Let the deposit go hard, offer additional monies in a way that makes sense.
Good luck.
Participant[quote=bubba99]I found an article that seems to agree that proper recording of mortgage ownership has changed. The applicable text being “Titles and mortgages on real property are officially recorded in county clerks’ offices, a slow-moving, old-fashioned, deliberate world of ink, paper, and filing cabinets. The process has been perfected over a millennium, going back to the Domesday Book, the survey of English property completed in 1086 for William the Conqueror. This paper-based system, though admirably accurate and permanent, wasn’t equipped for the era of rapid-fire refinancing and securitization. When over 8 million new and used homes are sold per year, as at the height of the boom, and most loans are packaged into securities, you need a lot of clerks.”
The whole article is here:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_43/b4200009860564.htm%5B/quote%5D
One should bear in mind that CA does not take its legal cues from England.
It takes them (at least partially) from Castillo and
Aragon as a property of the Spanish Empire.Additionally, California stopped using mortgages in the 70’s.
We now use trust deeds (recorded) and notes (not so much).
This is, in part, because judicial foreclosure is too cumbersome.
Trust deeds create a trust that requires no actual court action.
Just exercise of its various clauses.
Participant[quote=bubba99]I found an article that seems to agree that proper recording of mortgage ownership has changed. The applicable text being “Titles and mortgages on real property are officially recorded in county clerks’ offices, a slow-moving, old-fashioned, deliberate world of ink, paper, and filing cabinets. The process has been perfected over a millennium, going back to the Domesday Book, the survey of English property completed in 1086 for William the Conqueror. This paper-based system, though admirably accurate and permanent, wasn’t equipped for the era of rapid-fire refinancing and securitization. When over 8 million new and used homes are sold per year, as at the height of the boom, and most loans are packaged into securities, you need a lot of clerks.”
The whole article is here:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_43/b4200009860564.htm%5B/quote%5D
One should bear in mind that CA does not take its legal cues from England.
It takes them (at least partially) from Castillo and
Aragon as a property of the Spanish Empire.Additionally, California stopped using mortgages in the 70’s.
We now use trust deeds (recorded) and notes (not so much).
This is, in part, because judicial foreclosure is too cumbersome.
Trust deeds create a trust that requires no actual court action.
Just exercise of its various clauses.
Participant[quote=bubba99]I found an article that seems to agree that proper recording of mortgage ownership has changed. The applicable text being “Titles and mortgages on real property are officially recorded in county clerks’ offices, a slow-moving, old-fashioned, deliberate world of ink, paper, and filing cabinets. The process has been perfected over a millennium, going back to the Domesday Book, the survey of English property completed in 1086 for William the Conqueror. This paper-based system, though admirably accurate and permanent, wasn’t equipped for the era of rapid-fire refinancing and securitization. When over 8 million new and used homes are sold per year, as at the height of the boom, and most loans are packaged into securities, you need a lot of clerks.”
The whole article is here:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_43/b4200009860564.htm%5B/quote%5D
One should bear in mind that CA does not take its legal cues from England.
It takes them (at least partially) from Castillo and
Aragon as a property of the Spanish Empire.Additionally, California stopped using mortgages in the 70’s.
We now use trust deeds (recorded) and notes (not so much).
This is, in part, because judicial foreclosure is too cumbersome.
Trust deeds create a trust that requires no actual court action.
Just exercise of its various clauses.
Participant[quote=bubba99]I found an article that seems to agree that proper recording of mortgage ownership has changed. The applicable text being “Titles and mortgages on real property are officially recorded in county clerks’ offices, a slow-moving, old-fashioned, deliberate world of ink, paper, and filing cabinets. The process has been perfected over a millennium, going back to the Domesday Book, the survey of English property completed in 1086 for William the Conqueror. This paper-based system, though admirably accurate and permanent, wasn’t equipped for the era of rapid-fire refinancing and securitization. When over 8 million new and used homes are sold per year, as at the height of the boom, and most loans are packaged into securities, you need a lot of clerks.”
The whole article is here:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_43/b4200009860564.htm%5B/quote%5D
One should bear in mind that CA does not take its legal cues from England.
It takes them (at least partially) from Castillo and
Aragon as a property of the Spanish Empire.Additionally, California stopped using mortgages in the 70’s.
We now use trust deeds (recorded) and notes (not so much).
This is, in part, because judicial foreclosure is too cumbersome.
Trust deeds create a trust that requires no actual court action.
Just exercise of its various clauses.
Participant[quote=bubba99]I found an article that seems to agree that proper recording of mortgage ownership has changed. The applicable text being “Titles and mortgages on real property are officially recorded in county clerks’ offices, a slow-moving, old-fashioned, deliberate world of ink, paper, and filing cabinets. The process has been perfected over a millennium, going back to the Domesday Book, the survey of English property completed in 1086 for William the Conqueror. This paper-based system, though admirably accurate and permanent, wasn’t equipped for the era of rapid-fire refinancing and securitization. When over 8 million new and used homes are sold per year, as at the height of the boom, and most loans are packaged into securities, you need a lot of clerks.”
The whole article is here:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_43/b4200009860564.htm%5B/quote%5D
One should bear in mind that CA does not take its legal cues from England.
It takes them (at least partially) from Castillo and
Aragon as a property of the Spanish Empire.Additionally, California stopped using mortgages in the 70’s.
We now use trust deeds (recorded) and notes (not so much).
This is, in part, because judicial foreclosure is too cumbersome.
Trust deeds create a trust that requires no actual court action.
Just exercise of its various clauses.
Participant[quote=faterikcartman]UR — I can’t imagine title companies covering this sort of thing. Have you read the exclusions lately? Anything that isn’t a public record located at X, Y, or Z is probably not going to be covered. Nor can I imagine most ever getting near this sort of coverage via a standard policy.[/quote]
At the theoretical level:
There are 3 basic types of ownership clouds that title covers:-physical:
where you find out the lot line goes through your living room.-ownership:
Where a long lost heir claims he owns part of your house.-lien holder:
There is a lien holder interest (like mortgage or abatement) that was never taken care of and has the potential to cloud the new owner’s interest. This the type that concerns us.At a practical and anecdotal level:
Speaking as someone who has asked this question of my escrow peeps, I am not terribly stressed out about it.I have not seen this type of challenge regarding security or ownership interest up close myself.
That does not mean it has not happened on a deal I have done.
It just means that any ruckus was sent directly to the right people (the escrow company and the title company) and not to me (if it happened).
Per my short sale escrow officers, it does happen sometimes (though seldom) that a lender is not compensated correctly at the time of sale (eg: the payoff comes in $1000 short) and nobody notices until after the close and recording.
Per them, it then ends up as either a small write off (the bank says “oh fuck it, its only a grand”) or the escrow company eats it (assuming the mistake is primarily theirs) or the lender puts in a claim with the title company (who pays all or part of it).
They insure the new buyers ownership and the old owner’s conveyance.
I have never heard of a lender coming after a ex-borrower-cum-seller or after a new buyer or even attempting to undo a sale.
I suppose it is possible but it ranks along with ranks (along with FHA short refis) as a unicorn.
Participant[quote=faterikcartman]UR — I can’t imagine title companies covering this sort of thing. Have you read the exclusions lately? Anything that isn’t a public record located at X, Y, or Z is probably not going to be covered. Nor can I imagine most ever getting near this sort of coverage via a standard policy.[/quote]
At the theoretical level:
There are 3 basic types of ownership clouds that title covers:-physical:
where you find out the lot line goes through your living room.-ownership:
Where a long lost heir claims he owns part of your house.-lien holder:
There is a lien holder interest (like mortgage or abatement) that was never taken care of and has the potential to cloud the new owner’s interest. This the type that concerns us.At a practical and anecdotal level:
Speaking as someone who has asked this question of my escrow peeps, I am not terribly stressed out about it.I have not seen this type of challenge regarding security or ownership interest up close myself.
That does not mean it has not happened on a deal I have done.
It just means that any ruckus was sent directly to the right people (the escrow company and the title company) and not to me (if it happened).
Per my short sale escrow officers, it does happen sometimes (though seldom) that a lender is not compensated correctly at the time of sale (eg: the payoff comes in $1000 short) and nobody notices until after the close and recording.
Per them, it then ends up as either a small write off (the bank says “oh fuck it, its only a grand”) or the escrow company eats it (assuming the mistake is primarily theirs) or the lender puts in a claim with the title company (who pays all or part of it).
They insure the new buyers ownership and the old owner’s conveyance.
I have never heard of a lender coming after a ex-borrower-cum-seller or after a new buyer or even attempting to undo a sale.
I suppose it is possible but it ranks along with ranks (along with FHA short refis) as a unicorn.
Participant[quote=faterikcartman]UR — I can’t imagine title companies covering this sort of thing. Have you read the exclusions lately? Anything that isn’t a public record located at X, Y, or Z is probably not going to be covered. Nor can I imagine most ever getting near this sort of coverage via a standard policy.[/quote]
At the theoretical level:
There are 3 basic types of ownership clouds that title covers:-physical:
where you find out the lot line goes through your living room.-ownership:
Where a long lost heir claims he owns part of your house.-lien holder:
There is a lien holder interest (like mortgage or abatement) that was never taken care of and has the potential to cloud the new owner’s interest. This the type that concerns us.At a practical and anecdotal level:
Speaking as someone who has asked this question of my escrow peeps, I am not terribly stressed out about it.I have not seen this type of challenge regarding security or ownership interest up close myself.
That does not mean it has not happened on a deal I have done.
It just means that any ruckus was sent directly to the right people (the escrow company and the title company) and not to me (if it happened).
Per my short sale escrow officers, it does happen sometimes (though seldom) that a lender is not compensated correctly at the time of sale (eg: the payoff comes in $1000 short) and nobody notices until after the close and recording.
Per them, it then ends up as either a small write off (the bank says “oh fuck it, its only a grand”) or the escrow company eats it (assuming the mistake is primarily theirs) or the lender puts in a claim with the title company (who pays all or part of it).
They insure the new buyers ownership and the old owner’s conveyance.
I have never heard of a lender coming after a ex-borrower-cum-seller or after a new buyer or even attempting to undo a sale.
I suppose it is possible but it ranks along with ranks (along with FHA short refis) as a unicorn.
Participant[quote=faterikcartman]UR — I can’t imagine title companies covering this sort of thing. Have you read the exclusions lately? Anything that isn’t a public record located at X, Y, or Z is probably not going to be covered. Nor can I imagine most ever getting near this sort of coverage via a standard policy.[/quote]
At the theoretical level:
There are 3 basic types of ownership clouds that title covers:-physical:
where you find out the lot line goes through your living room.-ownership:
Where a long lost heir claims he owns part of your house.-lien holder:
There is a lien holder interest (like mortgage or abatement) that was never taken care of and has the potential to cloud the new owner’s interest. This the type that concerns us.At a practical and anecdotal level:
Speaking as someone who has asked this question of my escrow peeps, I am not terribly stressed out about it.I have not seen this type of challenge regarding security or ownership interest up close myself.
That does not mean it has not happened on a deal I have done.
It just means that any ruckus was sent directly to the right people (the escrow company and the title company) and not to me (if it happened).
Per my short sale escrow officers, it does happen sometimes (though seldom) that a lender is not compensated correctly at the time of sale (eg: the payoff comes in $1000 short) and nobody notices until after the close and recording.
Per them, it then ends up as either a small write off (the bank says “oh fuck it, its only a grand”) or the escrow company eats it (assuming the mistake is primarily theirs) or the lender puts in a claim with the title company (who pays all or part of it).
They insure the new buyers ownership and the old owner’s conveyance.
I have never heard of a lender coming after a ex-borrower-cum-seller or after a new buyer or even attempting to undo a sale.
I suppose it is possible but it ranks along with ranks (along with FHA short refis) as a unicorn.
Participant[quote=faterikcartman]UR — I can’t imagine title companies covering this sort of thing. Have you read the exclusions lately? Anything that isn’t a public record located at X, Y, or Z is probably not going to be covered. Nor can I imagine most ever getting near this sort of coverage via a standard policy.[/quote]
At the theoretical level:
There are 3 basic types of ownership clouds that title covers:-physical:
where you find out the lot line goes through your living room.-ownership:
Where a long lost heir claims he owns part of your house.-lien holder:
There is a lien holder interest (like mortgage or abatement) that was never taken care of and has the potential to cloud the new owner’s interest. This the type that concerns us.At a practical and anecdotal level:
Speaking as someone who has asked this question of my escrow peeps, I am not terribly stressed out about it.I have not seen this type of challenge regarding security or ownership interest up close myself.
That does not mean it has not happened on a deal I have done.
It just means that any ruckus was sent directly to the right people (the escrow company and the title company) and not to me (if it happened).
Per my short sale escrow officers, it does happen sometimes (though seldom) that a lender is not compensated correctly at the time of sale (eg: the payoff comes in $1000 short) and nobody notices until after the close and recording.
Per them, it then ends up as either a small write off (the bank says “oh fuck it, its only a grand”) or the escrow company eats it (assuming the mistake is primarily theirs) or the lender puts in a claim with the title company (who pays all or part of it).
They insure the new buyers ownership and the old owner’s conveyance.
I have never heard of a lender coming after a ex-borrower-cum-seller or after a new buyer or even attempting to undo a sale.
I suppose it is possible but it ranks along with ranks (along with FHA short refis) as a unicorn.
Participant[quote=pabloesqobar][quote=jpinpb]Right. The point being the statute of limitations is not restricted b/c it can be an unspecified time when and until you find out there’s fraud.[/quote]
Not entirely correct, but that’s still a far cry from your flawed assertion that “there is no statute of limitations for fraud”. That’s the only point I was making. All SOL’s have rules as to how they are applied. And it’s “rudimentary”, not “rudementary”.[/quote]
Only if its followed by “peni”
Participant[quote=pabloesqobar][quote=jpinpb]Right. The point being the statute of limitations is not restricted b/c it can be an unspecified time when and until you find out there’s fraud.[/quote]
Not entirely correct, but that’s still a far cry from your flawed assertion that “there is no statute of limitations for fraud”. That’s the only point I was making. All SOL’s have rules as to how they are applied. And it’s “rudimentary”, not “rudementary”.[/quote]
Only if its followed by “peni”
Participant[quote=pabloesqobar][quote=jpinpb]Right. The point being the statute of limitations is not restricted b/c it can be an unspecified time when and until you find out there’s fraud.[/quote]
Not entirely correct, but that’s still a far cry from your flawed assertion that “there is no statute of limitations for fraud”. That’s the only point I was making. All SOL’s have rules as to how they are applied. And it’s “rudimentary”, not “rudementary”.[/quote]
Only if its followed by “peni”
-
AuthorPosts
