Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Delaying foreclosure: Borrowers keep homes without paying - Yahoo! Finance (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/delaying-foreclosure-borrowers-keep-homes-102300544.html - broken link)
I read this article yesterday. The comments at the bottom are the best part...
Quote:
thats crap. So i pay my bills, and go without meanwhile they get to keep the nice cars, the fancy cell phones, go out to eat, and party AND live in the house. Wow i'm an idiot for following the rules.
Quote:
You're not an idiot for following the rules, you're an idiot for not knowing the rules. Don't knock this borrowers for using what's available to them.
Quote:
Hey Scott. My family is on the verge of loosing our house, and with it being so cold and the economy being the way it is - You'd better believe we'll take whatever we can and do whatever we can to stall the foreclosure. Also, we don't have fancy cars or diamond rings or nice cell phones or anything else.
The damage to the chain of title is ongoing, any recordation subsequent to MERS further convolutes the title to the point of uninsurability.
The titles to the properties remain clouded, subsequent sale (good faith, or not). You cannot convey what you do not "legally" own.
>>>“Borrower Covenants that Borrower is lawfully seised of the estate and has the right to convey”<<<
Only one way to resolve this... litigation, very expensive litigation.
This "problem" is only in your mind. Out in the real world folks are buying and selling real property without problem.
Show me a few cases where a court has order a foreclosure and the original borrower later comes back to contest it (and wins). Or show me a few cases where a person who buys a foreclosed or short sale can't sell the property because of your claimed damaged title.
This "problem" is only in your mind. Out in the real world folks are buying and selling real property without problem.
Show me a few cases where a court has order a foreclosure and the original borrower later comes back to contest it (and wins). Or show me a few cases where a person who buys a foreclosed or short sale can't sell the property because of your claimed damaged title.
i would like to know the links also... and make sure they are in Vegas.
Show me a few cases where a court has order a foreclosure and the original borrower later comes back to contest it (and wins). Or show me a few cases where a person who buys a foreclosed or short sale can't sell the property because of your claimed damaged title.
You have judges in states all over the country (NY, Mass, Utah, Mich, Ore, Ariz, et al) ruling that these so-called note holders lack legal standing to execute foreclosure. You need to do your own research. The mortgage and promissory notes were separated and only the mortgage was assigned.
MERS is finished. How they fix the mess is anyone's guess. To simply state that life goes on (in the "real" world) and that everything is fine is absolutely ludicrous.
"If the State Supreme Court rules that mortgages assigned by MERS cannot establish ownership, homeowners could challenge any foreclosure done in MERS’ name"
"MERS holds more than half of mortgages across the United States, and a similar number in Nevada"
You have judges in states all over the country (NY, Mass, Utah, Mich, Ore, Ariz, et al) ruling that these so-called note holders lack legal standing to execute foreclosure. You need to do your own research. The mortgage and promissory notes were separated and only the mortgage was assigned.
MERS is finished. How they fix the mess is anyone's guess. To simply state that life goes on (in the "real" world) and that everything is fine is absolutely ludicrous.
Most of the State Supreme Courts are holding that in cases where the borrower signed a Deed of Trust, MERS has an interest to start foreclosure proceedings. I suspect that most folks who get a mortgage sign a Deed of Trust so that a non-judicial foreclosure can take place. So it appears that MERS is far from finished and is alive and well in the real world. In those cases where the borrrower didn't sign a Deed of Trust, MERS will have to record an assignment of the mortgage note in the county's record Office before starting a judicial foreclosure.
What percentage of foreclosures in Nevada involve the use of Deeds of Trust?
Most(Not true) of the State Supreme Courts are holding that in cases where the borrower signed a Deed of Trust, MERS has an interest(On behalf of a third party when interest was not properly recorded/conveyed, how is that going to fly?) to start foreclosure proceedings. I suspect that most folks who get a mortgage sign a Deed of Trust so that a non-judicial foreclosure can take place. So it appears that MERS is far from finished(The boss resigned and they formally announcedthere would be no further foreclosures in MERS name, stick 'em with a fork) and is alive and well in the real world. In those cases where the borrrower didn't sign a Deed of Trust, MERS will have to record an assignment of the mortgage note in the county's record Office before starting a judicial foreclosure.(Documents were lost or destroyed, that's why they were manufacturing them)
Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans Inc. (United States District Court, District of Arizona)
On September 24, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, in Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., et al, dismissed all federal and state law claims made by three borrowers in a complaint filed against a group of defendants that included MERS. The court discussed whether MERS was a proper beneficiary but only in the context of whether its involvement constituted the tort of fraud on the borrowers. The court found the mere use of MERS was not common law fraud on the borrowers, finding that "Plaintiffs have failed to allege what effect, if any, listing the MERS system as a 'sham' beneficiary on the deed of trust had upon their obligations as borrowers."
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Revoredo, et al. (Florida Third District Court of Appeals)
Both the 3rd District Court of Appeals in Miami and the 2nd District Court of Appeals in Lakeland held that MERS can foreclose. Senior Judge Alan R. Schwartz noted the decision was based in part in the changes in finance and technology over time. "The problem arises from the difficulty of attempting to shoehorn a modern innovative instrument of commerce into nomenclature and legal categories which stem essentially from the medieval English land law," Schwartz wrote.
Jewelean Jackson, et. al. v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (Minnesota Supreme Court)
On August 14, 2009, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that MERS can foreclose under state law as the mortgagee of record.
MERSCORP, Inc., RESPA Litigation (United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit)
In 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed a multi-district class action lawsuit against MERS. The Plaintiffs alleged that a small fee charged by mortgage lenders, which was then paid to MERS, violated provisions in the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA). The Plaintiffs also argued that MERS unfairly received business referrals from the mortgage lenders. However, the Circuit Judges held that “In exchange for the fee, MERS performed the service of being the permanent record mortgagee in the public land records...” Plaintiffs’ complaint was dismissed by the appellate court for failure to state a claim under RESPA.
Gomes v. Countrywide Home Loans (California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District, Division One)
On February 18, 2011, the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District affirmed the sustaining of a demurrer without leave to amend. In an opinion by Justice Joan Irion, the court ruled in favor of MERS in two ways: (1) California's nonjudicial foreclosure statutes did not expressly or impliedly allow a lawsuit simply to determine whether the party initiating a foreclosure was authorized to do so; and (2) even if they did, the plaintiff consented to the use of MERS to initiate the foreclosure when he signed the deed of trust.[16]Gomes expressly cited to and relied upon the state supreme court's 2010 decision in Lu v. Hawaiian Gardens Casino, Inc.,[17] which clarified that a certain conservative method of statutory analysis (first articulated by Associate Justice Frank K. Richardson in 1979 and adopted by a majority of the court in a 1988 opinion by Chief Justice Malcolm M. Lucas) applies to all California statutes, not just the California Insurance Code. Thus, if the California Legislature has not expressly written a cause of action into a statute, it simply does not exist. The Supreme Court of California denied Gomes's petition for review on May 18, 2011, and the U.S. Supreme Court denied his petition for writ of certiorari on October 11, 2011.
Residential Funding v. Saurman (Michigan Supreme Court)
In April 2011, in Residential Funding v. Saurman, the Michigan Court of Appeals decided two consolidated cases holding that MERS did not have standing to foreclose non-judicially pursuant to MCL 600.3204(1)(d) because it didn’t actually own any interest in the debt. [19] The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the decision in an order November 16, 2011, finding that MERS is the owner of an interest in the mortgage because "[MERS'] contractual obligations as mortgagee were dependent upon whether the mortgagor met the obligation to pay the indebtedness which the mortgage secured." However, the court clarified that MERS' status as an "owner of an interest in the indebtedness" does not equate to an ownership interest in the note."
On November 16, 2011, the Michigan Supreme Court, understanding the urgency and potential fallout of this matter, issued a peremptory order, in lieu of granting the appeal, and reversed the Court of Appeals judgment. (Residential Funding Co, LLC v Saurman, 2011 WL 5588929 (Mich, November 1, 2011). The Court agreed with the dissenting Court of Appeals opinion, “pursuant to MCL 600.3204(1)(d), Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS) is the ‘owner . . . of an interest in the indebtedness secured by the mortgage at issue in each of these consolidated cases’ because ‘[MERS] contractual obligations as the mortgagee were dependent upon whether the mortgagor met the obligation to pay the indebtedness which the mortgage secured.’” The Court clarified that “MERS status as an ‘owner of an interest in the indebtedness’ does not equate to an ownership interest in the note. Rather, as a record-holder of the mortgage, MERS owned a security lien on the property, the continued existence of which was contingent upon the satisfaction of the indebtedness.” This interest in the indebtedness . . . authorized MERS to foreclosure by advertisement under MCL 600.3204(1)(d).” (emphasis added).
The Court’s interpreted MCL 600.3204(1) as inclusive rather than exclusive. The Court held those with an “interest in the indebtedness” includes mortgagees of record (such as MERS) and constitutes a category of parties entitled to foreclose by advertisement, along with those who “own the indebtedness” and those who “act as the servicing agent of the mortgage.”
Robinson v. Countrywide (Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District)
On September 12, the Fourth District Court citing its own May decision in Gomes v. Countrywide, stated that "the statutory scheme...does not provide for a preemptive suit challenging standing. Consequently, plaintiffs' claims for damages for wrongful initiation of foreclosure and for declaratory relief based on plaintiffs' interpretation of section 2924, subdivision (a), do not state a cause of action as a matter of law."
I read this article yesterday. The comments at the bottom are the best part...
It's so easy to vilify the home owners that aren't making their payments it's bank propaganda.
Look at it this way, the bank sells your note the home owner is never contacted regarding the note being sold to another bank,plus it's never recorded properly through mers. Now a bank the bank that sold the note that doesn't own the home owners note is trying to foreclose on the unsuspecting home owner.
Technically the bank that doesn't own the note has no legal right to foreclose on a property that they don't have a lien on. The home owner would not and should not pay the bank that doesn't hold the note. Another question is if the home owner were making payments to a lender that didn't own the note shouldn't those payments go back to the home owner to pay the rightful note holder?
The big question I would ask where is the bank that purchased the note from the bank that is trying to illegally foreclose on the home owner why isn't that bank contacting the home owner. What happened to the sale documents between banks? Not only is the recording to public records wrong through mers the banks themselves have a messed up booking keeping system as well.
Here is the latest on home sales in and around Las Vegas.
What they aren't saying is the canceled contracts are usually short sales due to the long response time of the lender that holds the note. Or that the seller and lender couldn't agree on the short sale terms in a timely manner and the buyer became discouraged and canceled.
Not all canceled are short sale some of it is jobs. And if the buyer needed financing to purchase the property the buyers lender and the buyers lender's underwriter found that the buyer really didn't qualify for the loan. Just because a buyer is pre-approved for a loan doesn't mean it's set in stone that the buyer will get the loan.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
