Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-11-2011, 10:53 AM
 
Location: Here
11,574 posts, read 13,923,579 times
Reputation: 6983

Advertisements

These must be some of the proud 99% folks out protesting.


Quote:
In a strange twist in the ongoing saga of shoddy record-keeping surrounding mortgage documents, Chase bank last month sued a San Antonio couple because they were mistakenly released from having to make any more house payments — nine years ago.

Stephen Cochran, the Guerreros' lawyer, acknowledged that the couple never made their mortgage payments after a 2001 refinancing, blaming that on the then-lender apparently losing the note and the couple's confusion over where to send their payments.

Read more: Mortgage error sparks lawsuit - San Antonio Express-News
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-11-2011, 12:24 PM
 
29,981 posts, read 42,859,282 times
Reputation: 12828
Obviously the couple knew they owed mortgage payments. Banks and the IRS make mistakes all the time. Those who owe always are legally obliged to pay.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2011, 12:29 PM
 
Location: Tampa Florida
22,229 posts, read 17,825,162 times
Reputation: 4585
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal View Post
Obviously the couple knew they owed mortgage payments. Banks and the IRS make mistakes all the time. Those who owe always are legally obliged to pay.
Prove it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2011, 12:48 PM
 
Location: Morrisville
1,168 posts, read 2,499,554 times
Reputation: 1115
Quote:
Originally Posted by florida.bob View Post
Prove it.
from the article:

Quote:
Stephen Cochran, the Guerreros' lawyer, acknowledged that the couple never made their mortgage payments after a 2001 refinancing, blaming that on the then-lender apparently losing the note and the couple's confusion over where to send their payments
Quote:
“This started off on the wrong foot and went right off a cliff,” Cochran said. The mortgage company evidently lost the original mortgage, and the couple never received a coupon book, so they didn't know where to send their payments, he said.
“Then (Ramiro Guerrero) got scared, (wondering), ‘If we put this back together, what kind of late fees am I looking at?' No one could ever assure him that he'd be in good shape,” Cochran said.
Quote:
Collection efforts, including three or four foreclosure actions, were taken against the Guerreros, but each time the couple presented the release of lien, and the matters were dropped, Cochran said. He didn't know why efforts to fix the problem weren't taken sooner.
did you actually bother to read the article? It's pretty clear that the homeowners KNEW they owed someone money.

They lucked out and took advantage of a clerical mistake. I don't think Chase should be able to collect but to say that the homeowners didn't know they actually owed someone money for their loan is just crazy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2011, 01:24 PM
 
Location: Land of Thought and Flow
8,323 posts, read 15,147,082 times
Reputation: 4957
From what I'm reading, Chase received the paperwork for this mortgage last year for a mortgage that had a release of lien signed in 2002... from a person who may not have even had the authority to do make the transfer. Then, of course, take into account the following:

"In August, MERS recorded a rescission of release of lien in Bexar County property records. But that document isn't signed by the Guerreros."

That sounds like pretty shady business practices.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal View Post
Obviously the couple knew they owed mortgage payments. Banks and the IRS make mistakes all the time. Those who owe always are legally obliged to pay.
Legally? No.
Ethically? Probably.

Problem is, the mortgage note was lost. Having a note protects the company from people who attempt to skip out on payments. It also protects consumers from companies going after monies not actually owed. While it may be obvious (in this case) that a debt is owed, if there is no paperwork present, the company simply can not prove the amount of money owed or the terms thereof. That's why the couple received a release of lien. That paper is a legal document that states that the lienholder is releasing them from any debt owed.

If the story is to be believed at face value, everything up until MERS gave the mortgage to Chase was legal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2011, 01:42 PM
 
29,981 posts, read 42,859,282 times
Reputation: 12828
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rita Mordio View Post
From what I'm reading, Chase received the paperwork for this mortgage last year for a mortgage that had a release of lien signed in 2002... from a person who may not have even had the authority to do make the transfer. Then, of course, take into account the following:

"In August, MERS recorded a rescission of release of lien in Bexar County property records. But that document isn't signed by the Guerreros."

That sounds like pretty shady business practices.



Legally? No.
Ethically? Probably.

Problem is, the mortgage note was lost. Having a note protects the company from people who attempt to skip out on payments. It also protects consumers from companies going after monies not actually owed. While it may be obvious (in this case) that a debt is owed, if there is no paperwork present, the company simply can not prove the amount of money owed or the terms thereof. That's why the couple received a release of lien. That paper is a legal document that states that the lienholder is releasing them from any debt owed.

If the story is to be believed at face value, everything up until MERS gave the mortgage to Chase was legal.
It would likely take seeing all documets involved to come to any realistic conclusion. Do all the documets after the original (or latest in regard to re-fis) mortgage contract which clearly spell out the amount due from the mortgagee void the mortgage contract to which they signed their obligation to pay? I don't know. I am operating on the assuption that it does not.

Did the couple in question hire an attorney to track down the obviouse clerical error at the time the lein was released. Or, did they think they had hit the jackpot and figure that the whole thing might just go away with them winning a house in the process?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2011, 01:50 PM
 
Location: Meggett, SC
11,011 posts, read 10,998,110 times
Reputation: 6191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rita Mordio View Post
From what I'm reading, Chase received the paperwork for this mortgage last year for a mortgage that had a release of lien signed in 2002... from a person who may not have even had the authority to do make the transfer. Then, of course, take into account the following:

"In August, MERS recorded a rescission of release of lien in Bexar County property records. But that document isn't signed by the Guerreros."

That sounds like pretty shady business practices.



Legally? No.
Ethically? Probably.

Problem is, the mortgage note was lost. Having a note protects the company from people who attempt to skip out on payments. It also protects consumers from companies going after monies not actually owed. While it may be obvious (in this case) that a debt is owed, if there is no paperwork present, the company simply can not prove the amount of money owed or the terms thereof. That's why the couple received a release of lien. That paper is a legal document that states that the lienholder is releasing them from any debt owed.

If the story is to be believed at face value, everything up until MERS gave the mortgage to Chase was legal.
It would seem, at face value, with the couple having that release of lien, they legally do not owe the bank any more monies for this property?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2011, 02:04 PM
 
Location: MS
4,396 posts, read 4,899,877 times
Reputation: 1559
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbel View Post
It would seem, at face value, with the couple having that release of lien, they legally do not owe the bank any more monies for this property?
They did not owe the FIRST bank any more money. They definitely owed the 2nd bank money.

Had I been in this situation, I would have put each payment into an account as well as documenting each attempt to contact the new lien holder.

What happened to people doing the honorable thing and repaying their debt?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2011, 02:17 PM
 
Location: Land of Thought and Flow
8,323 posts, read 15,147,082 times
Reputation: 4957
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbel View Post
It would seem, at face value, with the couple having that release of lien, they legally do not owe the bank any more monies for this property?
If it was within four years, the company could dispute it and get it rescinded. However, it is has been more than double the statute of limitations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal View Post
It would likely take seeing all documets involved to come to any realistic conclusion. Do all the documets after the original (or latest in regard to re-fis) mortgage contract which clearly spell out the amount due from the mortgagee void the mortgage contract to which they signed their obligation to pay? I don't know. I am operating on the assuption that it does not.

Did the couple in question hire an attorney to track down the obviouse clerical error at the time the lein was released. Or, did they think they had hit the jackpot and figure that the whole thing might just go away with them winning a house in the process?
I agree about seeing all the documents - which will most likely be provided to the courts as evidence. What appears to have happened is that:

The couple had a mortgage with Company A.
The couple went to refinance with Company B.
During the process, it was found that Company A lost the legally binding note.
Company B could not complete the refinance without said note.

Somewhere after the findings, neither Company A nor Company B could legally claim or prove a valid debt on the house and a Release of Lien was given.

One could claim that the couple should have spent a good deal of money on a lawyer to track down the documents. But realistically, if the mortgage company didn't want to go through the effort (hence the Release of Lien), then why should they spend the kind of money a good lawyer would cost? It'd be one thing if the company said "lololol, your mortgage is for 5 billion dollars muahahahahahaha" without a note. Rather, the mortgage company said "Whoops. My bad" and shrugged it off as a clerical error. The amount has most likely been written off years ago.

So yeah, by all means, this couple won the "Clerical Error Jackpot" of a free house.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:42 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top