Wells fargo keeps procrastinating on foreclosing after my bk

[klsy57]

My BK was discharged on May 1, 2011 and my mortgage was included. Six months later, I asked to sign a dil (via my former loan mod firm), and was told WF stated I had to put it on the market for four months(short sale) before they would let me. Well, it's been on the market 5 months, and WF has rejected all offers. Again, today I asked to sign a dil. WF response is I have to keep it on the market until mid July now, before they will consider a dil. What can I do? The house is uninsured and I'm still paying HOA and can't begin to rebuild credit until home is no longer mine (I moved out 7 months ago and WF changed the locks 3 months ago.

[IBroke]

How can they change the locks if it's still your house? Just curious...

[Bell30656]

This is one of the bad situations of home with an HOA after foreclosure. I suggest that you tell Wells Fargo that if they will not take the house back you are moving back in. Even if you do not intend to do so... Tell them you are either moving back in or renting it out and that they will have to go through all foreclosure proceedings. I know someone who is still renting the house out that was including in a 2010 bankruptcy. Bank of America just would not foreclose on it. They made B of A come to the house and remove the locks that they had put on it. Now after almost two years B of A has advertised the house to be foreclosed on in the newspaper.

[tobee43]

if the house was included with the bk you do not need to assist the bank in anyway whatsoever. if you surrendered the house it's theirs. i understand you if there is an HOA involved, one must keep up the dues, fees etc., until the house changes hands. but, in no way are you obligated to do anything more with WF. tell them go take a hike and they are in violation of the discharge and close order...that is assuming your bk is "closed". now, if it was considered an asset case until the house sells that is a different story.

it has been over 4 years and chase has not foreclosed on our property. they are not even close. they just begin to call me 2x's weekly to as me what my intentions are, where etc. at first since they caught me as i awoke from a nap i was taken back...after that call. they explain they know that the bk is closed and discharged but want to know now what are intentions are (we moved out just over 4 years ago) i said my intentions are to turn your behinds in for a violation of the US BK codes and violations of the discharge and closed order. they said...but oh NO...we are not attempting to collect a debt, i said then what is it you think you are doing by calling me after this house is surrendered, included and discharged in a closed bk?? not once, twice four times but a couple times a week. i told them this is also what they can do...finally foreclose, put their claim in the the FHA and there is also PMI on the mortgage and go collect their money from someone else.

she hung up..oh well.

[Bell30656]

Those HOA fees can really add up over a period of years. As long as the property has not been foreclosed upon it is still yours. If a couple Jehovah's Witnesses slip and fall on the property, you will be the one sued. If the HOA decides the grass needs mowed, you get billed. Empty, that property is a liability to you. I'd let Wells Fargo know that if they won't foreclose upon it, which causes them to become the owner for taxes, HOA fees, maintenance, insurance liability, etc., or I'd rent the property out. Wells Fargo knows that it is harder and costs more to foreclose upon an occupied property than it is to foreclose upon an abandoned property. In addition, they can't recover anything from you in the way of the mortgage.

If you rent it out, it could cause them to begin foreclosure proceedings. It doesn't happen quickly. You don't have to worry about a tenant being tossed out with a day's notice. Each state is a bit different but in most they are required to publish notice for 4 weeks prior to the foreclosure sale in the county legal organ (newspaper). Then they still have to evict after the sale, if it sells. This could be a temporary revenue stream for you.

[sh9730]

Tobee,

I think the OP understands what you were saying, but their problem is that many times the FORECLOSURE is a second negative mark on credit reports (seperate from the BK - although some DONT seem to get this second mark), and until this is entered, the OP cannot truly begin the credit rebuilding process. Especially if the OP wants to eventually buy another house it is important to get the foreclosure done as even if it doesnt get marked on the credit, banks will find the public record as to when the foreclosure occurred, and most have rules of how long after a FC (not BK) before they will issue another home mortgage.

[tobee43]

Tobee,

I think the OP understands what you were saying, but their problem is that many times the FORECLOSURE is a second negative mark on credit reports (separate from the BK - although some DONT seem to get this second mark), and until this is entered, the OP cannot truly begin the credit rebuilding process. Especially if the OP wants to eventually buy another house it is important to get the foreclosure done as even if it doesn't get marked on the credit, banks will find the public record as to when the foreclosure occurred, and most have rules of how long after a FC (not BK) before they will issue another home mortgage.

i see your point or OP's point, yes, sh9730, however,really if after the bk is closed and discharged and they put the foreclosure on AFTER, all one does is contact the reporting agencies as the foreclosure should not be on there as it's "after" the fact.

i have heard this happen many times and it's removed. although many times it never even makes it to the credit report since the mortgage is already, in many instances IIB.

not saying it doesn't happen, but it can be straighten out.

i'm aware there are many opinions about this matter. however, i'm hard pressed to believe that one would be find liable for a slip and fall if the bank has changed the locks and is maintain the property. when one has it reported and recorded in a federal BK court of law that the house has been duly surrendered and the case is closed and discharged, i would like to see case law that someone has been found responsible for anything to do with the house after the fact. with the exception of any HOA fees or dues etc. now, i'm not saying or implying it cannot happen, i have just never seen or heard of a case.

i know in many states if you post NO trespassing signs ..or enter at your on risk you are covered anyway. i have seen that happen in case law, and the trespassers were the ones found liable.

to me, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it is a duck. the bank is the duck here. if they are allowing people to enter the property that they have secured, i feel fairly confident the ex owner...really only owner in name due to the lack of the title change,e does not entitle the bank to be free and clear of all liability associated with this property they now have taken back.

again, i'm not saying it cannot happen, nor will not happen, i am just awaiting some case law where someone that was discharged and surrendered their home to the bank was held responsible.

and i will eat my words as soon as it happens

[sh9730]

Tobee,

Yes, I have seen people that say they get them removed later - but some DONT - and I dont think I ve ever seen actual real data saying putting it on as a seperate public record is incorrect reporting. What about pay and stayers that then later walk away. Really buy showing the FC as a seperate record it is not incorrect.

But regardless of the CR reporting, banks check other public records (lexis nexis, courthouses etc) for the actual FC date - and wont issue mortgages until however many years after THAT date.....

ETA - Im not saying a person would be responsible for any deficiency - merely that the actual date of FC is what the banks use to determine mortgage eligibility.

[tobee43]

Tobee,

Yes, I have seen people that say they get them removed later - but some DONT - and I dont think I ve ever seen actual real data saying putting it on as a seperate public record is incorrect reporting. What about pay and stayers that then later walk away. Really buy showing the FC as a seperate record it is not incorrect.

But regardless of the CR reporting, banks check other public records (lexis nexis, courthouses etc) for the actual FC date - and wont issue mortgages until however many years after THAT date.....

ETA - Im not saying a person would be responsible for any deficiency - merely that the actual date of FC is what the banks use to determine mortgage eligibility.

oh i was speaking about a deficiency, but any legal responsible if some had a slip and fall or something of that nature.

well let me add this....a bk stays on your credit record for 10 years while a foreclosure (if that is the worse senario) stays on your record for 7 years. i think that during that time period if one keeps a perfect credit rating after the bk there chances are just as good one way or another for getting another mortgage. actually, before all this mess happened years ago, i knew someone that did get a foreclosure, and THEN filed their bk, within 2 years (this is before the banks stopped lending to even the best people), but she did get another house!

way i figure it, the banks are going to have to realize they have so much inventory and many of the people waiting in line to buy houses may not have the best credit reports.

i think the banks make things up as they go. i also know someone who just recently with an 820 credit score, makes a ton of income, not be able to refi their house!!!! the truth!

bottomline, something, at some point is going to have to give, i hope!

[LadyInTheRed]

ETA - Im not saying a person would be responsible for any deficiency - merely that the actual date of FC is what the banks use to determine mortgage eligibility.

I suspect that is true. This is an often discussed topic and there has been conflicting information by people who claim to know what they are talking about. Some say that if you give up your house in BK, FHA guidelines use the date of your discharge, not the later foreclosure. Some say it is from the date of foreclosure. Look in the "Mortgage after BK" forum for many discussions.

We get more questions than answers here. But, it seems that what we get most is people posting that they were turned down for a mortgage because it hasn't been long enough since the foreclosure. If somebody has posted that they got a mortgage 2 years after a Chap 7 discharge even though the foreclosure was more recent, I don't remember or didn't see it. It doesn't mean it hasn't happened, but I would think if it has happened to BKforum members, we would read about it just like we read about people who are approved for credit cards after discharge.

i think the banks make things up as they go. i also know someone who just recently with an 820 credit score, makes a ton of income, not be able to refi their house!!!! the truth!

Yep.
Regardless of FHA and other guidelines, lenders can have stricter guidelines. I think the only way to know for sure whether you can qualify for a mortgage is to contact the underwriter for the lender.

As to the OP's issue with Wells Fargo, unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be anything that can be done to force a bank to foreclose any sooner than it decides to.

[tobee43]

Yep.
Regardless of FHA and other guidelines, lenders can have stricter guidelines. I think the only way to know for sure whether you can qualify for a mortgage is to contact the underwriter for the lender.

As to the OP's issue with Wells Fargo, unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be anything that can be done to force a bank to foreclose any sooner than it decides to.

exactly!