Irvine Housing Blog

Hi, Irvine renter,

I am confused that I found all the houses for sale in Westpark II have been listed at price the same level reached in 2006 (peak)

48 festivo 2100 sqt 949K
1 santa eugenia 2100sqt 920k
28 vienne 2900 sqt 1090k
18 trieste <3100 sqt 1249k
27 arbusto 2535 sqt 1099k

I had several cases against Walter Hackett, one of the lawyers mentioned in the article.  His clients were not successful in any of those lawsuits and the lawsuits were quickly dismissed by the courts.

What he still doesn’t seem to understand is that 3rd parties (i.e., not the note holder) are authorized to initiate non-judicial foreclosures here in California.

I think that you are erroneously blaming the attorneys.  I doubt that banks can keep all of the information correct 100% of the time.  There is some human error in all systems.  Perhaps, the law is there to protect the innocent when there is a mistake.  I’m sure that they are thankful that we are a country where no man or bank is above the law.

I think the question is:  what level of wrongful foreclosure are we willing to accept? 

Its rather like the criminal justice system, do we require “preponderance of evidence” (which appears to be where we are now), or “beyond a reasonable doubt” (which is what it used to be prior to securitization/mers).

The examples of true F-ups by banks have been few, but not zero (like the BofA florida FC on a paid-off house this fall, or the story of the soldier in Iraq who was illegally FC’d in Michigan that ran in yesterday’s NYT).

What level of proof do we require to take someone’s house?

Why doesn’t at least one of these banks try and get in front of this whole issue and release something like the following:

“When a homeowner is delinquent in their payments, sometime we at HonestBank have to resort to foreclosure. Rarely, mistakes are made, but from this point on, here’s what will happen if any non-delinquent homeowner is foreclosed on through HonestBank’s error: After correcting the error at our expense, I, John Mucketymuck, CEO of HonestBank, will personally fly to your house, look you in the eye, apologize, take you out to dinner, and give you a check for $50,000 for your trouble.”

Of course, the CEO will have to go out and apologize in the extreme cases, but if it happens more than a couple times a year, you can bet the approval process for foreclosures will change a bit. It also lets the bank put some of the focus back on the fact that the people complaining loudest about foreclosure proceedings are delinquent anyway. Why go crying to the media and the courts if you’re paid up when you can just get a nice dinner and a $50K check?

The law is the law.. Sloppy in is Sloppy out. Only a judge can say if this is right or wrong but ultimately the right thing is keeping people in their houses. Thoughts?

Did you get that Cappy?  Minimal reconditioning.  I wonder if any of these wonder boys have ever tried flipping a residential property, or maybe even had a conversation with a professional flipper and found out what their margin is.

Minimal reconditioning.

Yeah, you just head on down to the courthouse, buy a foreclosure, put out a sign, and baam! 12% in 6 months.  Anybody can do it.

‘This is the MERS defense. The third party claim to ownership of the note is being called into question. Its wrong.’

LOL!!! You have obviously been misled.

The actual process of money creation takes place primarily in banks ... bankers discovered that they could make loans merely by giving their promise to pay, or bank notes, to borrowers. In this way banks began to create money. Transaction deposits are the modern counterpart of bank notes. It was a small step from printing notes to making book entries crediting deposits of borrowers, which the borrowers in turn could ‘spend’ by writing checks, thereby ‘printing’ their own money.
– Modern Money Mechanics, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago

I first became aware that all my suspicions about the banking system were accurate when I read Thoren’s book, Truth In Money. I learned that all money is ‘borrowed into existence’. It doesn’t exist until someone borrows it. It is ‘debt-based money’, hence it is not really money since real money is based upon substance – gold, silver, etc. If ‘money’ is borrowed into existence, then this is all that exists. So, where is the ‘interest’? It doesn’t exist. How can it possibly be paid? It can’t be paid because it is not part of what is created. It simply does not exist. The currency we use is based upon our future labour which the Feds have promised to the banksters. It also does not yet exist. Future generations are already enslaved to pay a debt which does not exist.

We can’t pay debt with something of no substance. We also need to take a look at how the account statements were created. Goods and services are assigned a value; everything is only true because someone says so and someone else agrees to it. Do you ever question your bills, which are not true bills in commerce but rather ‘statements of account’? ... not the ‘amount due’, but the concept . What if you found out that
everything you ever needed or wanted was already paid for? – that you didn’t owe anyone anything? When you go into a store to buy a book and you pay in whatever manner you choose, what do you get for the payment? No, not the book; you get a receipt. The evidence for this is that the dollar amount on the receipt matches precisely the dollar amount on your payment. It is an exact exchange. The book is not even part of the equation. It was pre-paid; all you did was go to the store to claim and retrieve it. In order to understand the concept of ‘pre-paid’, imagine this:  Suppose you want to open a restaurant and you just need another $10,000 and so you ask a friend to lend it to you. Knowing that there is no money and the currency your friend has is essentially worthless compared to what he truly wants in his life, he sure wouldn’t mind lending it to you. So after a couple of months you ashamedly go to him and say that there is no way you can ever pay him back, what with interest and all, yet you are so ingratiated to him you tell him that he can eat in your restaurant any time he wants – for free. Not only that but also you would be so grateful if he would because, alas, it would assuage your guilt. All he is required to do when the waiter presents him with an itemization of his meal is to sign it; he is not required to pay for his meal – its ‘prepaid’.

In the same way, our bills are already paid and, in fact, the corporate entity which is billing us would be only too grateful if we would take advantage of our having prepaid them because then they wouldn’t have to pay the tax on the $ we send them. So all that is required of us is to sign the invoice and return it to them. The telephone company is funded by the government; you and I, and everyone who has a birth certificate or socialist number (ss#) have funded the government. So, we have an ‘exemption’ the same way your friend is exempted from paying for his meals at your restaurant. Why is the telephone company sending us a statement (not an invoice) with a ‘amount owing’ on it? We paid up front. All goods and services are now lawfully ours just for the asking.

Our mind is of 3 categories: what we know, what we don’t know, and what we don’t know we don’t
know. Not knowing is unfortunate; not knowing that we don’t know is tragic. – W. Erhart.

The guy at 24 Pismo Beach kicked butt. I was at the auction the day he bought that one. I didn’t think he would get the $1.5M he was asking, but I knew he had plenty of room to lower the price to make a sale.

I actually thought the property would sell between $1.4M and $1.45M, but after 6 months of holding it, the flipper was probably quite motivated.

how ‘bout this overseas baby

Dalkey (Dublin, Ireland) house valued in 2007 at €6.2m sells for €1.4m

that’s a sweet 78% drop

wonder who holds the paper on this beauty ?

oh yeah , that’s right ; irish taxpayers

it’s a beautiful thing ain’t it?

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2011/0129/1224288528521.html

$340,000 for one bath ?!  that’s funny .  i like that .

Delaying foreclosure actually helps the banks. As moronic as this sounds it all has to do with banks being able to avoid having to use mark to market accounting. Mark-to-whatever-you-want-to-mark-it-to accounting was the same type of anti free market accounting that the Government allowed in the Enron case. The financial institutions changed their accounting away from MTM in March of 2009, with the help of BS Government laws and regs. That’s why financials reported record earnings in April of 2009 as they could mark their bad book values up to above market rates. I posted about this on my blog, you can click on my name to read about the “Non-Foreclosure Crisis”

Nobody can seriously think that the banks would make and allow trustees to make such novice mistakes if they wouldn’t benefit from such delays.

Some specialists state that home loans aid people to live their own way, just because they are able to feel free to buy necessary things. Moreover, banks present term loan for all people.

> If the copy entered into the public record didn’t have the address written on it, should we give the former owner a free house?

Actually, yes. Until the complainant has the right paperwork to go to court, that’s how our law, and common sense, work.

IrvineRenter: I don’t understand why you’re so obtuse about this. How can a lawsuit be filed when the complainant cannot prove anything? Why should the defendant be expected to do anything in that case?

Just because you want your auctions to be tidy in Vegas doesn’t mean the world rolls that way.