Are there any strategies to hasten foreclosure?

[AngelinaCatHub]

A really simple explanation of quit claim deed. When you have a Deed, you own the property 100%. There is a caveat. A lien of a mortgage. A mortgage is an agreement and within this agreement, you agree not to transfer this property without their knowledge and it may even be denied as the new people who assume the mortgage (unless you wish to pay it) may not have the funds or ability to do so. Therefore, you just cannot give your property away unless you remove this lien by satisfaction of mortgage.

Once the property is unencumbered by a lien, you can give it away, burn it down, or blow it up (check local ordinances, LOL). A quit claim Deed is a sloppy but legal way to say, you got it, no guarantees and "as is".

I have given quit claim deeds and it is really a non issue. If you do give something over with bad stuff attached, that is what a law suit is about.

So, you just cannot bail out of your house even though you own it legally. You are stuck with it until your Deed changes names. Hope this helps. 'Hub

[debee]

My understanding is that the loan agreement between the lender and I would end with the bk as would any responsibility I had to honor it. The house is surrendered and I have no further obligation.

Suppose, the gang member whose Mom owns the house next door has lots of friends who live off the radar and who would be happy to move in and use the house until the bank came for it. That guy has no expectation of "traditional" ownership. He's got a legal crash pad until the place is sold.

There'd be nobody to sue me - gang member knows the situation going in & accepts it, no money has changed hands, there's been no misrepresentation of facts, and I have no relationship/agreement with the bank since the bk. The property was surrendered at that time. I'm off the title so if the weeds grow, the gang has to do the mowing.

Personally, I don't think the weeds would have any time to grow because I suspect the bank would stop dragging their feet (if they had been) and foreclose asap to protect their investment in the property.

[tobee43]

My understanding is that the loan agreement between the lender and I would end with the bk as would any responsibility I had to honor it. The house is surrendered and I have no further obligation.

Suppose, the gang member whose Mom owns the house next door has lots of friends who live off the radar and who would be happy to move in and use the house until the bank came for it. That guy has no expectation of "traditional" ownership. He's got a legal crash pad until the place is sold.

There'd be nobody to sue me - gang member knows the situation going in & accepts it, no money has changed hands, there's been no misrepresentation of facts, and I have no relationship/agreement with the bank since the bk. The property was surrendered at that time. I'm off the title so if the weeds grow, the gang has to do the mowing.

Personally, I don't think the weeds would have any time to grow because I suspect the bank would stop dragging their feet (if they had been) and foreclose asap to protect their investment in the property.

again...i just must be missing the point of what your trying to do.....it's like something is left out in the middle...

hub explained it i think really well...you are in fact stuck with this house until your name is released from the deed itself and that will NOT happen until..1. there is the sheriff's sale and they transfer deed......or 2. the house gets sold by the bank....or 3. the bank agrees to sign the warranty deed and release.

[debee]

lol. this is getting funny. feels like we're going round and round on this. i'm not sure there is any more value in the discussion.

here in california you can quit claim property with liens attached as long as you add something to that effect in the write up - there's a legal term for it, i forget what it is - but basically you just say "with all the liens and encumbrances, etc" and you have to follow the other stipulations such as the grantee must accept and be of sound mind and you get it notarized and recorded and then you're no longer the owner at that point. it's a fact out here. it brings a legal end to a person's association with the real property (but not the note).

but i just found out that the city where the properties are located considers the lien holder responsible for the property as soon as they file the notice of default. so we won't be fined for letting the grass grow, etc and we had a consult this morning as well and we will not be required to pay taxes or insurance either.

so all that worry for nothing!

[tobee43]

lol. this is getting funny. feels like we're going round and round on this. i'm not sure there is any more value in the discussion.

here in california you can quit claim property with liens attached as long as you add something to that effect in the write up - there's a legal term for it, i forget what it is - but basically you just say "with all the liens and encumbrances, etc" and you have to follow the other stipulations such as the grantee must accept and be of sound mind and you get it notarized and recorded and then you're no longer the owner at that point. it's a fact out here. it brings a legal end to a person's association with the real property (but not the note).

but i just found out that the city where the properties are located considers the lien holder responsible for the property as soon as they file the notice of default. so we won't be fined for letting the grass grow, etc and we had a consult this morning as well and we will not be required to pay taxes or insurance either.

so all that worry for nothing!

your right...and i believe that is what we were attempting to tell you the entire time...you simply are no longer responsible...period. i'm from calif...and under the laws there fairly well along with the other 2 states i have resided it...you'll be fine.

good luck with your bk

[debee]

It's funny tobee because there's a lot of contradictory information on the forum. One person says you need liability insurance, another person says you need to maintain the property so you don't get fined by the local authority, etc, someone else says you don't need to do anything, and so on. So I never take any one person's word on anything. It's not personal. I just think of the differing opinions given as items to research and/or discuss with the lawyer.

It's a relief.

[tobee43]

It's funny tobee because there's a lot of contradictory information on the forum. One person says you need liability insurance, another person says you need to maintain the property so you don't get fined by the local authority, etc, someone else says you don't need to do anything, and so on. So I never take any one person's word on anything. It's not personal. I just think of the differing opinions given as items to research and/or discuss with the lawyer.

It's a relief.

well...actually you did have an excellent atty's advise that answered you on this forum....;)

and, don't be fooled i have worked for atty's for years and half of them can't even balance their check books....

[debee]

Sorry Tobee, but I was on the phone with the city of Fresno this afternoon and even though the lien-holder has to "register" the property once the NOD is filed, the "owner" is still financially responsible.

The owner is responsible for having the grass cut, keeping vandals out, trash clean-up and so on. That means the owner better have insurance too.

If the owner doesn't do it, the city can levy fines, pay someone else to do it and then bill the owner. All of that would have to be paid. Not included in bk. So we can't just walk away.

And the only way out of being the "owner" aside from foreclosure (voluntary or otherwise) is the quit claim deed.

[tobee43]

Sorry Tobee, but I was on the phone with the city of Fresno this afternoon and even though the lien-holder has to "register" the property once the NOD is filed, the "owner" is still financially responsible.

The owner is responsible for having the grass cut, keeping vandals out, trash clean-up and so on. That means the owner better have insurance too.

If the owner doesn't do it, the city can levy fines, pay someone else to do it and then bill the owner. All of that would have to be paid. Not included in bk. So we can't just walk away.

And the only way out of being the "owner" aside from foreclosure (voluntary or otherwise) is the quit claim deed.

once the property is discharged this simply is not true...the town can tell you all they want.,,,which you have neer mentioned so i assumed not applicable.

call an atty...since the one here that explained it to you correctly can only just do that, explain to you how it works by law. the only exception is HOA dues.

personally, i have been through this situation..i'm NOT forclosed and the property has been sitting 2.7 years...i am not billed, i am NOT called by the town, i have no responsiblity now...

my undersanding between the two situations is i am discharged....that is the key factor here...i have vacated....surrendered....and discharged the property.

enough said....good luck sorry to see you have to pay costs that you shouldn't.

[debee]

When filing bankruptcy and surrendering property, we are not really giving the property back. We're just giving a statement of intention in reference to secured property. There's no change in ownership at that point. Even after discharge, we are still the owner.

Until a transfer of ownership (voluntary or involuntary) takes place, we remain responsible for personal liability and city code violations. Any fines related to code violations that come up after filing are not included in the bankruptcy discharge. Of course, neither are lawsuits generated after someone gets hurt on the property.

Cathy Moran (CA lawyer) has an article to this effect published at bankruptcy law network, and there's a NY lawyer (Peter Orville) who published an article claiming in NY if you ignore the city code violations, you can end up in jail.