Are there any strategies to hasten foreclosure?

[tobee43]

Eminent Domain is how the Government Takes property, Adverse Possession is how an individual can gain title to property by actually living on it notwithstanding that someone else actually owns it. However, that is really off topic.

As for a warranty deed, in essence, what you did is simply a Deed in Lieu. That is one option, but as you found out, the bank has to "agree" to it. The question here is whether there are any tactics that can be done to "force" the issue in a legal sense, and the answer is no. But, filing complaints with FHA, FDIC, and various bank regulatory agencies is one way to go.

my understanding and I KNOW you will guide me and correct me if i'm wrong...is that the deed in lien and warranty deed are different instruments...

A warranty deed...or a grant deed... is a pretty basic deed that, for the most part, states the seller owns the property and there are no liens (debts, etc) against the property that will be transferred over. It is stating that the property is legally owned and there are no hidden tie-ins the buyer should be aware of. This deed ensures buyers that the property they are buying is actually owned by the person they are dealing with and they won't be met with any surprises later on. Furthermore, if another person were to try to claim the property down the line, the warranty deed would legally protect the new buyer and the buyer would be entitled to compensation from the original seller. The warranty deed is used in the majority of property sales.

On the other hand, quit claim deeds..or deeds in lieu. are presented to these buyers instead by a person who does not necessarily legally own the property, but instead holds responsibility for that property. Such instances where this can occur are upon a death when the property is transferred as inheritance, or when spouses are both on the name of the deed and a divorce is occurring. Quit claim deeds, unlike warranty deeds, do not offer a great deal of protection to the buyers of the property. In truth, they should be avoided unless you know exactly what you are doing and have experience in buying and selling property.

i'm probably wrong, but enjoy the learning part...and i'm so confused with all these DEEDS!!!

you had mentioned the

here is the principal of adverse possession, but that works in the opposite way. If you occupy a piece of property in a way that is obvious to the actual owner and do so for 7 years (or whatever time frame the state provides), then you can apply for title to that property.

so that just confused me a bit...which is relatively very easy to do nowadays...


forget the fha....the bank needs to have filed the claim...which they have not although the mortgage had pmi...it is a process and one that the chase will not follow...the fdic was useless....so on i truck!!!!!


i think it might be best for me to go with your idea...with the hay!!!!

[HHM]

Deed in lieu is simply a name for a particular process (not a specific instrument). When a person does a deed in lieu, what they are transferring is a warranty deed (one reason banks rarely accept Deed in Lieu is because of the risk of other lien holders). In any event, the difference is that in a Deed in Lieu, the bank agrees to "accept" the deed. What you did was a Deed in Lieu of foreclosure.

The tactic that periodically gets kicked around here is the idea of the homeowner simply filing a quit claim deed (deeding property to bank( with the county recorder without any consent from the mortgage lender. That move is legally insufficient.

[AngelinaCatHub]

Unfortunately, no way to speed up foreclosure or arbitrarily transfer the title of the home.

Bottom line, you are stuck. Real estate law, in general, is very statute driven. Which means anything and everything to do with real estate ownership is all based on statute (as opposed to common law). There is the principal of adverse possession, but that works in the opposite way. If you occupy a piece of property in a way that is obvious to the actual owner and do so for 7 years (or whatever time frame the state provides), then you can apply for title to that property. But there are no provisions that I am aware in reverse. Also, we are dealing with security interests, not ownership issues. Unless the state provides for some sort of statute of limitations on enforcing a lien (I am not aware of any), then you simply wait for foreclosure or sell it.

My favorite tactic, put some hay stacks at the front door, and photograph yourself with a can of gasoline and a lighter and send that photo to the bank

Not to Hijack the thread, but we have extensive knowledge of Adverse Possession. In our estate planning, three people who purchased land from the family 30+ years ago claimed the easement in their deed was null and they owned five acres of meandering trail they had been using to go to and from. They even had orange trees and gardens on our property.

After warning them for three years to simply sign a declaration that the easement was true and correct, I would allow them the use of the property. They claimed they had a prescriptive easement and ignored me. I simply bush hogged their easement, with their gardens and sawed the orange trees down and fenced the five acres.

Now in FL, Adverse Possession is difficult if not impossible, but is on the books. Here is how it works: first it MUST be adverse. You ask and are told NO. Then you live on and don't move from the trespassed property. You then pay land tax on that property for 11 years. Then you can file for a Deed adversely. If no one complains, a Deed is issued.

What makes this impossible is, if you do not ask permission and no answer advising you that the owner says no, the law states that it is assumed that permission was implied by law, therefore nothing adverse was done as permission to use was granted and the land cannot get taken adversely. What is stupider is, if the owner must state you are not given permission to use, then for eleven years does nothing to get you off the land, he deserves to lose it. I have never heard of anyone getting land by Adverse Possession here or anywhere else.

The folks who claimed they owned our land by the use of 30 years found out the hard way, and even though it took me some effort and a little expense to prove the point that possession is NOT 9/10th of the law, ownership is, I enjoyed that exercise.

[debee]

We had a neighbor once who quit claimed his house to his nephew. There was a big family kerfuffle over it and the transfer was opposed by other family members. In the end, the nephew prevailed. Although no money changed hands, the house was his and he sold it.

I understand that a quit claim does nothing to remove a lien on the house, and I understand that the person to whom the property is granted must accept the property and since a lender is not likely to do this, people stuck in foreclosure wouldn't get anywhere just quit claiming the property back to the bank.

BUT I am not clear on why you can't quit claim it to a person who is willing to accept it, and then record it, and move on with life. As if the person were your nephew. I know in one of my loan docs it indicates that quit claiming the property to someone else is considered a default and will bring on the foreclosure proceeding.

I can't find anything online about this either - except warnings to old people NOT to quitclaim their houses to strangers, or contractors, or people promising to help them out of foreclosure because once it is done, even in the case of fraud, it's near impossible to get ownership back.

[tobee43]

Deed in lieu is simply a name for a particular process (not a specific instrument). When a person does a deed in lieu, what they are transferring is a warranty deed (one reason banks rarely accept Deed in Lieu is because of the risk of other lien holders). In any event, the difference is that in a Deed in Lieu, the bank agrees to "accept" the deed. What you did was a Deed in Lieu of foreclosure.

The tactic that periodically gets kicked around here is the idea of the homeowner simply filing a quit claim deed (deeding property to bank( with the county recorder without any consent from the mortgage lender. That move is legally insufficient.

thank you...i appreciate the clarification and it is a bit confusing.

i'm still going to continue to fight and attempt to get our names off the deed...if for nothing else it's the principal to me. i have to do it...if they would just foreclose already, i would not have the issue. however, chase actually approached us, after the discharge and surrendering, after the premises being vacated for over 2 years...2 weeks after the discharge chase tells me i re-opened a loan mod and would we like to reaffirm the mortgage. confusing to say the least, as we now do not even reside in that state.

onward and forward we go.....this is uncharted waters...and i feel like we are swimming all alone and surrounded and for the sake of you hhm...(i'll say...or reword it the phase), barracuda...LOL!!!

[tobee43]

Not to Hijack the thread, but we have extensive knowledge of Adverse Possession. In our estate planning, three people who purchased land from the family 30+ years ago claimed the easement in their deed was null and they owned five acres of meandering trail they had been using to go to and from. They even had orange trees and gardens on our property.

After warning them for three years to simply sign a declaration that the easement was true and correct, I would allow them the use of the property. They claimed they had a prescriptive easement and ignored me. I simply bush hogged their easement, with their gardens and sawed the orange trees down and fenced the five acres.

Now in FL, Adverse Possession is difficult if not impossible, but is on the books. Here is how it works: first it MUST be adverse. You ask and are told NO. Then you live on and don't move from the trespassed property. You then pay land tax on that property for 11 years. Then you can file for a Deed adversely. If no one complains, a Deed is issued.

What makes this impossible is, if you do not ask permission and no answer advising you that the owner says no, the law states that it is assumed that permission was implied by law, therefore nothing adverse was done as permission to use was granted and the land cannot get taken adversely. What is stupider is, if the owner must state you are not given permission to use, then for eleven years does nothing to get you off the land, he deserves to lose it. I have never heard of anyone getting land by Adverse Possession here or anywhere else.

The folks who claimed they owned our land by the use of 30 years found out the hard way, and even though it took me some effort and a little expense to prove the point that possession is NOT 9/10th of the law, ownership is, I enjoyed that exercise.

wow...hub that was a "journey to the center of the law"....

[tobee43]

We had a neighbor once who quit claimed his house to his nephew. There was a big family kerfuffle over it and the transfer was opposed by other family members. In the end, the nephew prevailed. Although no money changed hands, the house was his and he sold it.

I understand that a quit claim does nothing to remove a lien on the house, and I understand that the person to whom the property is granted must accept the property and since a lender is not likely to do this, people stuck in foreclosure wouldn't get anywhere just quit claiming the property back to the bank.BUT I am not clear on why you can't quit claim it to a person who is willing to accept it, and then record it, and move on with life. As if the person were your nephew. I know in one of my loan docs it indicates that quit claiming the property to someone else is considered a default and will bring on the foreclosure proceeding.

I can't find anything online about this either - except warnings to old people NOT to quitclaim their houses to strangers, or contractors, or people promising to help them out of foreclosure because once it is done, even in the case of fraud, it's near impossible to get ownership back.

deb...i know that one of the reasons we waited over 2 years to file is we needed to be able to legally answer "NO" to the questions in the body of the bk petition....we had owned another piece of property with someone for over 15 years...we had all been on the deed...we only owned a small share...however, we needed to protect the other owners because the courts could have forced a sale of the property to liquidate assets for the bk. (as it turned out this property was negative equity anyway, so the in essence there would have not been a forced sale).

however, we could and would NOT take that chance with respect to protecting the other owners...therefore we did exchange or do a quick claim deed...with explanation and proof that the other parties involved had also been listed on the deed during the entire ownership of that property. we were forthright with the trustee providing all the backup documents dating back the 15 years....showing the courts that these were in fact "true" owners as well...it was a complex issue. that's all i can tell you.

if you don't do this exactly correct...the trustee will absolutely pick up on it...

[debee]

tobee: I don't think I would have the guts to quit claim anything PRIOR to filing bk. I have nerves of wet toilet paper.

I was originally posting about using a quit claim after a bk. In the case where the bank doesn't foreclose. I worry about ongoing expenses post-bk and ending up back in debt again because the bank drags their feet on the foreclosure. Hypothetical: bk is discharged, taxes are up-to-date, bank has not foreclosed, property is vacant, so why not quit claim to someone who knows the bank will foreclose and doesn't care. Someone who doesn't expect true ownership and someone with nothing to lose if the city tries to fine them for weeds. Like a homeless person or the recently released from prison no plans to go straight felon nephew of my third cousin's neighbor.

[tobee43]

tobee: I don't think I would have the guts to quit claim anything PRIOR to filing bk. I have nerves of wet toilet paper.

I was originally posting about using a quit claim after a bk. In the case where the bank doesn't foreclose. I worry about ongoing expenses post-bk and ending up back in debt again because the bank drags their feet on the foreclosure. Hypothetical: bk is discharged, taxes are up-to-date, bank has not foreclosed, property is vacant, so why not quit claim to someone who knows the bank will foreclose and doesn't care. Someone who doesn't expect true ownership and someone with nothing to lose if the city tries to fine them for weeds. Like a homeless person or the recently released from prison no plans to go straight felon nephew of my third cousin's neighbor.

LOL!!!!!! gotcha....oh...yeah...NOPE...i would not do that unless the your actual name was removed from the deed...no way. it's like if the bank catches up to you it would be like selling something you don't own....a no no..i really think

YOU let me know....then because i'm in that exact position...i still have the deed in our names and the bank has a case number with the court an actual docket number for the foreclosure and had not foreclosed. i would not dream of doing a quit claim or any type of transfer even tho i'm discharged...it's not mine to redeed....that's why i'm trying to get our names off the deed.

[debee]

Yeah, I think SELLING it post-bk (via quit claim) would be bad news, but I am not so sure about "gifting" your ownership interest. Isn't it true that Bk erases the deficiency/debt issues, but leaves you as owner? That's the very problem right? You don't have to pay but you're still the owner of record in the county offices. So it really is your house still. You can live in it or you can quit claim it. It really is your to redeed. You could even sell it, presuming you could get enough money to bring to the table to get the lender to remove the lien.

I searched quit claiming on avvo for lawyer feedback in my state and what I came away with was that a person can quit claim their ownership interest to anyone for any reason.

Still, I'm not positive. I'm not saying "For sure, we can do this." Instead I'm wondering, if we can't, why not exactly? What law would be broken? What could the bank do besides foreclose which is the very thing we want them to do anyway?

[tobee43]

well, all i can say is this if you sell something that you know the bank owns and you don't....i would say by any other name it's call...yuck..fraud...since you know you no longer have the house...

i have done everything to get our names off our deed..to no avail...however, at this point....what is your point as to exactly why you want to do this????

we do, or did...now i'm not really caring that much...but it's more principle that the bank just refuses to take our names off...silly, considering the fact we have no legal or financial obligation... why are they NOT attempting to collect the pmi....or attempting to at least put the house up for sale??? it's like an oxy moron..really.

[debee]

The bank has a lien. The owner is you. You do own that house that your name is on.

We could all just sell our properties instead of having the foreclosure hassle if we could just find someone willing to pay off the lien amount. It would be perfectly legal to do that. The bank would be happy and we would be happy. The problem for most of us is that we are upside down on the homes and can't find buyers.

When you say your name is on the deed, what you are really saying is that you are still the "owner".

A quit claim just gives away your ownership interest. It does not remove the bank's lien.

When you quit claim something, you are just filling out a form, having it notarized and recording it at the county office. You don't have to "sell" anything or take any money to do that. No fraud there.

The hard part, I think, is finding someone (mentally capable) who wants it in these circumstances.

In my case, I am just thinking about options because the prospect of being responsible for property post-bk worries me. The money, the distance to the properties, and the stress of never knowing when it would end. It comforts me to have a plan B. So I am looking for one.

[tobee43]

the bank holds the lien on the collateral which is the house....the only thing you really own is actually the mortgage.....but i guess you can say your name is on the deed ...and it's yours...

i still actually don't get it....we surrendered the house...so i have no obligations financially or for any other reason...it's now the banks.

in one of my PP's i explained what my daughter did....we put it together like a rent option to buy...but we are in effect attempting to get the "new" owners to assume the mortgage.

in our case, since the house is already surrendered and we are 1700 miles away...it's the banks problem not mine...the mortgage was discharged.

once you have been discharged the ONLY financial obligation you may have will be HOA fees...other that that...you are DONE.

[debee]

I wish we would be 'done' here with a bk, but as long as our name is on the title we could be sued by someone who injures themselves on the property, or fined by the city for letting the grass grow too long, or failing to remedy vandalism, etc

[tobee43]

I wish we would be 'done' here with a bk, but as long as our name is on the title we could be sued by someone who injures themselves on the property, or fined by the city for letting the grass grow too long, or failing to remedy vandalism, etc

no we can't...i have sent a certified letter although i know it really doesn't matter....stating to chase that they have been put on notice to LEAVE the premises until they either sign a release or take our names off the deed....that was really ONLY for me...since we are no longer responsible...and you sound exactly like me a few months ago.

don't misunderstand deb, i'm still on a mission.....i will and i mean it...i WILL get my name off that deed.

no one has the answers here...i have posted and posed the situation over and over....


we really have NO liability NONE...we are DONE...the bank MUST have insurance on the property NO us...nor you...honest...and OF course you can't find anything on this....we are some of the first.

how scary is it when chase doesn't even KNOW what a warranty deed is????

we are discharged, done....surrendered now it's the banks. REALLY!

i'm a bit ocd about it, but like i said last week i explained the situation to the office of the controller of currency in wastington dc....they are OVER the ftc and every governing agency with banks...I HAVE NEVER HEARD OF THEM!!!!

here...call them...1 800 613-6743 ....they supposedly oversee all the banks and i explained to them chase and they said they will help...doubt it, but it's worth it...i have been to fha, i have been to watchdog agy set up that state for bank abuse...i have filed 4 complaints with the ftc.....so here i go again!!! want to come...ROFL!!!