Irvine Housing Blog

Hear ye Hear YE!!! A Judge finds fraud is against the law, even for banksters!!!

In the case of this house, I think that the owners installed some renters and fled the country…collecting the rent and not paying the mortgage.

What happens if you bought one of these MA foreclosures at the auction?  Do you lose everything?  Both cases, the bank bought at foreclosure so it is hard to understand.

The banks got the houses for free via fractional reserve lending. Actually not only did they get them for free… they have made over 4x including YOUR TAX MONEY via HELOC, eg 1.6T.

You’re obviously confused here… if I sell you a house and hold the promissory note to it… then immeadiately SELL that note in as a SECURITY [and dont register it w/ the courts] does that make me the OWNER of that house? Does that give me the AUTHORITY to foreclose? Of course not.
In order to buy/sell/foreclose you mush actually have the mortgage and the note. 80% of the time these banks DON’T. Are they innocent? Hell no.

Banks have sold these notes over and over w/o registering them with the courts.  Then the receipient of these notes then also sold them without recording them.

Be angry, call it what you want, but in court providing the judge isn’t corrupt, these houses can not be foreclosed on by the bank not matter where they are.

Remember, the bankers INVENTED all of the money/debt that we have in the world today. Anyone who defends them either has no idea how the MoneyMakers/IMF/WorldBank/UN operates…. WAKE UP.

IR2,

Why do you characterize the MA judges as “activist”?????

It would seem to me that they are the opposite of such.  Rather, they are conservatively adhering to the letter of the law.

Activist would be ‘reinterpreting’ the law to allow FC without legal standing, no?

oops, that is addressed to IrvineRenter, not IR2!

stopped reading after the “activists in Massachusetts” comment.  Any judgment one disagrees with comes from an “activist judge,” right? 

When we were studying for the bar, law students collectively lament recording and mortgage questions in the topic of property.  We’re given crazy hypotheticals about the grantor who sold to three grantees, one of whom took out a mortgage and the bank failed to record while the other two sailed around the world for 20 years…

Guess what- if you can’t prove you own a note, you don’t own a note.  That’s the oldest maxim in mortgage and property law, predating our country.  Using inflaming language like “activists in Massachusetts” only cheapens your message.

I spent a little more time reviewing the Mass. opinion this weekend.  There isn’t much that really shocks me about what they wrote and it’s actually pretty well reasoned.  It looks like the bank/lawyers didn’t submit the proper paperwork when this thing was in front of the trial court.  This doomed their failure in the case.  The case has nothing to do with “fraud” by the bank or “fraud” with the securitization process, or any other kind of “fraud” you want to come up with.

The Mass court didn’t say that they can’t foreclose.  Just that the paper work that was submitted was insufficient based on what the foreclosure statute requires.  The court makes it clear what banks/lawyers must do to perfect a foreclosure.  Nothing in the current industry practice is affected by this decision and Mass homeowners will not suddenly find themselves owning homes with their debt obligations erased.

The Court said it’s a very simply thing.  Follow what the statute says and then they lay out what would be acceptable proof.

Like I said on Friday, the issue now is how to deal with potentially unwinding transactions and what to do then.  Certainly, if improper paperwok was filed, a defaulted borrower might be entitled to rescind the foreclosure and have a foreclosure with the proper paperwork filed.  They will not get a free home and will not be entitled to stay htere beyond the period of time that it then takes to complete the foreclosure.  The biggest isue I see is trying to figure out what to do with those who bought the house subsequent to the foreclosure.  I don’t know how you solve this issue and how you compensate these individuals.  Get those title insurance policies ready…

The other issue to consider is that the Mass court has said that you can foreclose, if you have your paperwork in order how are they going to recreate the paper flow when many of people in the chain are no longer around? How are you going to get anyone at, say, New Century financial to consent?  While the solution in theory is straightforward in practice I think it will prove more difficult.