How attorneys enable squatters to game the system

Dec 27th, 2010  
by IrvineRenter  in Library News

Astute Observations

Astute Observation by Alan
2010-12-27 07:11 AM

Ignoring the “backyard” - in this case almost literaly a yard behind the house - it does look like a million-dollar house. But $1m and not $3m.

I’d further say hotel design, rather than restaurant.

I guess some people want that, and they are welcome to it. Even if money were no concern or the price-to-value looked good, I personally have zero interest in living in such a house. Good luck to the current owner and next buyer.

Astute Observation by romeotybalt
2010-12-27 08:12 AM

The untenable feeling of squatting is a bit overestimated.

Actually it is sort of a rush every time the thought comes to mind.

The feeling of dread may appear though at thoughts of eventually paying rent.

Unless of course you are moving in with parents, or used the squatters dough to buy a home outright.

It’s kinda hard getting used to paying a mortgage that’s too damn high.

It may be a bit like the feeling that there is no way you will pay $200 for Nike sneakers when $35 knockoffs will do.

The good thing is that the new frugality may permeate every purchase, which in turns allow for more savings.

Ironically at a time that the sqatter probably has more discretionary funds.

Astute Observation by Honcho
2010-12-27 09:23 AM

Welcome to my (former) world, IR.  I had to deal with this kind of nonsense from attorneys on a daily basis (although my firm and I weren’t called in until there was a lawsuit was actually filed).

There is a 0% chance that this chance accomplishes anything other than: 1) allowing the defaulted borrower to continue squatting, and 2) allowing the “attorney” to collect a monthly fee from the defaulted borrower (you just don’t see these attorneys take this type of case on a contingency fee basis for obvious reasons).

There have been a string of infamous attorneys in Southern California that made millions of dollars running this scam on borrowers. I swear that the business model went like this: “We can get you a free house, just pay this monthly fee and, even if we aren’t successful, you will have been able to stay in your home and you are paying us less than you would be paying in rent.”  That business model worked for a while.  Until judges got fed up with the bogus lawsuits and the state bar shut this type of practice.

I’ll also tell you that any hope for a loan modification went out the window as soon as we were hired.  There were/are real costs associated with retaining an attorney to defend this type of bogus claim and my clients were not about to invite additional lawsuits by settling any claim against them in the form of a loan modification (yet, these attorneys representing defaulted borrowers were telling the borrowers that the only way to get a favorable loan modification was by using the leverage they gained in a lawsuit).

Astute Observation by AZDavidPhx
2010-12-27 10:09 AM

You know they must not have much to work with when the bulk of the posturing is over 350.00$ an hour “reasonable” attorney fees and fantasized headlines in the “presses”.  It certainly reads like a bluff.

It does seem silly that the NOD had no address listed but I would assume that the trustee will have proof that the bum was notified about his default one way or another.  If the squatter refused to accept registered mail or whatever then oh well - i doubt a judge will sympathize with his plight when the trustee shows up with a stack of letters marked as refused.  I highly doubt that it is going to fly if you make yourself unreachable and then file lawsuits saying you were not properly.

It is pretty ridiculous that the moron has money to pay a lawyer 350.00 an hour but won’t pay his mortgage.

Astute Observation by alan
2010-12-27 11:03 AM

“It is pretty ridiculous that the moron has money to pay a lawyer 350.00 an hour but won’t pay his mortgage”

Ummm earth to Dave….

The client is NOT paying $350/hr.  The client paid a few grand one time for a retainer and the attorney earned his retainer by writing this letter.  I doubt the attorney plans on getting any money out of his client.  This is a shake down letter, he’s trying to get money from the bank.

Astute Observation by Honcho
2010-12-27 11:34 AM

These aren’t one-time retainer fees.  Attorneys are charging flat fees on a monthly basis.  The attorney wins by dragging out the process, as does the client who gets to stay in the house for a longer period of time without making his mortgage payment and without fearing foreclosure.

Astute Observation by romeotybalt
2010-12-27 12:28 PM

Absolutely.

I am constantly innundated with calls from lawyers offering to litigate my foreclosure for 1500-3500 down and 500-730 per month.  Yeah right.

Yet, on Legalaid.com has all the information needed to fight foreclosure from the notice of foreclosure, to appealing the order of possession, all for free.

When 4 different attorneys called me, I explained why would I pay them to do something that I could do for Pro-Se for free?

They quickly concluded that I would be a difficult client.

Ultimatley, the goal for the client is to stall foreclosure, so if the client has a 3k monthly mortgage, these fees may seem like a great deal.

Astute Observation by Honcho
2010-12-27 11:04 AM

The borrowers aren’t paying an hourly fee.  The business models we saw had borrowers paying a monthly fee (typically around $1,500) to the attorney.  I did not see any lawsuit that had any merit coming from these attorneys.  Not one.  The attorneys were just taking money from their clients with no hope of prevailing.

Maybe this is what the borrower wants at the end of the day, just a little longer in the house at a reduced cost.  However, I think a lot of these borrowers thought that their attorneys actually had legitimate claims that were being brought on their behalf.  They didn’t realize that they could do just as well as the attorney for none of the cost (I actually saw a judge tell an attorney I was up against that his client (the borrower) was doing better when the borrower was in court without an attorney representing him).

Astute Observation by Scott
2010-12-27 11:11 PM

I have to disagree with IR and the rest of the posters on this one.  If the attorney’s letter is correct, and the bank did not follow the procedures required under Nevada law, then the foreclosure may have been improper and there are consequences.

I am not sure why everyone is giving the bank a free pass for its trustee’s error.  We are talking about transferring an asset worth a $100K or more, the bank should get it right.

I wonder if the consensus here is merely passing judgment on who is more “wrong”.  Would your opinion change if the debtor stopped paying, but had equity in the property?  Or the debtor was serving overseas in the military?

Astute Observation by honcho
2010-12-27 11:51 PM

In California, we have the Tender Rule that takes care of nonsnese like this claim. Even if there was a procedural defect, why should a court or the law set the foreclosure aside if the borrower cannot redeem the property. The borrower was not therefore harmed.

Think of it as a “harmless error” in criminal law. If the criminal was found guilty and would be found guilty absent the error, why should the result be set aside?

Why should a mere technicality be allowed to stop an otherwise lawful foreclosure?

Astute Observation by Scott
2010-12-28 10:53 AM

The foreclosure should be set aside or the lender should pay damages to the debtor because that is (apparently) what Nevada law says. 

Everyone here seems to be arguing that Nevada law is wrong, and that the rules should have some sort of “right-ness” or fairness exception.  Do you really want courts in that business?  I don’t.  I prefer certainty.  If the bank doesn’t follow the rules, then they can be certain they have a problem if the debtor raises it, like here.

Astute Observation by Honcho
2010-12-28 12:42 PM

Please tell me what you think the damages should be?  How has the defaulted borrower been damaged if (taking the attorney’s word for it), there was a technical defect?

Honestly, I would like to know what you think the damages should be?

California has answered this question.  It says that the borrower is not damaged in this situation, because the borrower would have lost the house regardless of the fact that there was a techincal defect.

Astute Observation by Honcho
2010-12-28 06:34 PM

I’ll ask another way.

If the “purpose” of the statute “is to afford the debtor an opportunity to cure the default” (the attorney’s words, not mine), why set aside the foreclosure based upon a technical defect if the borrower cannot, in fact, cure the default?

And, if the borrower cannot cure the default, how has he been damaged if he loses the home? What money has he lost?

The best this guy can hope for is for a court to require the trustee to renotice the foreclosure.

Astute Observation by tazman
2010-12-28 08:49 AM

If the debtor was serving overseas in the military, the Soldiers and Sailors Act prevents any type of legal proceeding from moving forward until that member is back in the United States in a legal and physical location conducive to answering.  A Pro Se letter with a copy of official orders to a creditor or court would stop this as well as free legal counsel provided by the military.

Astute Observation by Scott
2010-12-28 10:55 AM

This may be true (I don’t know either way, as I have read about instances where service members overseas are foreclosed upon), but they would still need to have (proper) notice of the action. 

The lawyer here is saying that the foreclosure sale was not properly noticed.

Astute Observation by AZDavidPhx
2010-12-27 10:14 AM

inviting you to relax in rooms of grand scale with unexpected intimacy.

Woah, it almost reads like one of those steamy novels.  I need a cold shower after reading that!  Whew!

Astute Observation by Darin
2010-12-27 10:26 AM

For some reason, I am constantly shocked that people think they can sell a home for more than 1M that has a garage door in the front elevation.

Astute Observation by .
2010-12-27 11:31 AM

Why are you shocked?  Go to redfin.  Search for sold homes in Irvine with a price of over $1,000,000 and the result will be 289.  Granted 25 of those will be custom or semi-custom estates in Shady Canyon that sold for over $3,000,000.

Searching for homes that sold between $1-2 million in the past year in Orange County, redfin comes up with 1,962 results.

Who’s delusional now?

Astute Observation by Darin
2010-12-27 02:12 PM

It’s not the price tag.  It’s the fact that they have a garage door as part of their front elevation AND they go for over 1M.

Astute Observation by John
2010-12-27 01:13 PM

There was a major addition since the last sale; check out the 3-D photo on Redfin.  They added 2700 square feet (there went the yard!) and the “hotel” finishes to what had been a standard tract home.

Astute Observation by Vincenzo
2010-12-27 01:37 PM

Any information why the most expensive home sold last year in Irvine had a magical price of $5,777,777?

I hope somebody will add a couple millions and buy it for a more magical price.

Astute Observation by octal77
2010-12-28 09:52 AM

Seller is owner of Las Vegas Casino?

Astute Observation by Pwned
2010-12-27 04:27 PM

http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/8196357/

Astute Observation by toshi
2010-12-27 05:18 PM

Personally, I wouldn’t want to live in a home that looks like a hotel lobby.  I don’t think I can feel comfortable in a place like that.

This place looks totally different on Google Maps.  Did the owner mcmansionize it?

Astute Observation by octal77
2010-12-28 09:50 AM

I live in the area and have driven by 2 Sunpeak
for 10 years on a weekly basis.

A few years ago the owners essentially stripped
a pretty nice custom house down to the core
and expanded it to this God awful monstrosity.

House sits on the corner of Sunpeak and Hillcrest.
Nearby Ridgeline and Hillcrest/Starcrest is one
of the busiest intersections in Turtle Rock.

Subject house front room stares down Hillcrest
for marginal view.  At night, approaching traffic
headlights will flood living room.

IMHO, this property is an eyesore.  Why anyone
would pay $3mm is beyond my comprehension. Even
$1mm would be a stretch.  Maybe someone can
explain?

Astute Observation by octal77
2010-12-28 10:09 AM

checked my personal TR database.
FWIW price has already dropped


**********************************
ORIGINAL LISTING - note ft/sq
**********************************

MLS# S479294 SFR priced at $1,870,000*
2 SUNPEAK, Irvine, CA 92603
Bedrooms: 4
Bathrooms: 3
Square Footage: 3,450
Lot Size: 11,000 Sq. Ft.
Year Built: 1986
Stories: 2
ZipRealty Rebate up to: $11,220**

**************************************
After expansion to McMansion status
**************************************


MLS# S634114 SFR priced at $3,175,000*
2 SUNPEAK, Irvine, CA 92603
Bedrooms: 5
Bathrooms: 3 1/2
Square Footage: 6,029
Lot Size: 11,267 Sq. Ft.
Year Built: 2010
ZipRealty Rebate up to: $19,050**


MLS# S634114 SFR priced at $3,075,000*
2 SUNPEAK, Irvine, CA 92603
Bedrooms: 5
Bathrooms: 3 1/2
Square Footage: 6,029
Lot Size: 11,267 Sq. Ft.
Year Built: 2010
ZipRealty Rebate up to: $18,450**


Price Reduced: 11/17/10—$3,175,000 to $3,075,000

Astute Observation by toshi
2010-12-28 12:29 PM

I agree.  This place is totally ostentatious and seems out of place with the rest of the neighborhood.

It’s interesting that the McMansionization somehow increased the lot size by a marginal amount.  I wonder how that happened.

Astute Observation by Christine
2010-12-28 01:52 PM

Aren’t places this expensive supposed to have at least one bathroom per bedroom and extra partial bathrooms for public areas?

It seems odd to me that it doesn’t, especially since a designer of hotels made it.  Interesting.

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

<< Back to main