Lenders reject homeowners who apply for Obama plan

[BobMango]

www.fastevictionservice.com

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20091217/pl_mcclatchy/3380597

[BobMango]

Flores bought her home in 2006 for $352,000 . Records show that it has a current fair-market value of $99,000 . The new owner bought it for $78,000 at an auction Flores didn't even know about.

There's something seriously wrong here. Woman buys the place for $350K+, it's value drops to just under $100K. She makes the trial modification payments of more than $1,100 and the bank still sells the house, for $78K?!?!?!

What perverse incentives exist to push the bank to these kind of decisions?

[PacificBlue]

I'm speechless!

[justbroke]

I believe the that one of the problems is that the department handling foreclosures is not talking to the department that's doing modifications (loss mitigation). It's pathetic. Oh, yeah, loss mitigation does talk to foreclosures when they're done trying... only they forget to tell the borrower.

Also, that quick sale... is the issue I have with non-Judicial foreclosure (power of sale) States!

[PacificBlue]

On 2nd thought I'm not so speechless..

What's the difference in that and lets say... when Germany occupied France, and were kicking down doors and forcing people out of their homes are gun point and taking everything they wanted?

(I didn't retain much in school of world history when it came to war and war mongers. It was took sicking to me. So I may have the France part wrong). Corrections?

[justbroke]

What's the difference in that and lets say... when Germany occupied France, and were kicking down doors and forcing people out of their homes are gun point and taking everything they wanted?

The following;

1. The bank is not a Foreign Country (although it may be owned by one, and that's moot)
2. No doors are kicked down
3. No military involvement
4. A simple thing known as a (Promissory) Note was executed between the homeowner and their lender.
5. The lender did lend a substantial amount of money to the homeowner based on the homeowner paying them back.
6. The lender doesn't take "everything they wanted" (which implies that the lender is taking furniture, clothing, household goods)
7. It's not WWII

[PacificBlue]

Um, JustBroke.. it was sort of a rhetorical question, I was just comparing nightmares. However.... it makes it alright since money had exchanged hands, and no guns were involved. (yet, if a sheriff shows up at her door to boot her out.. wouldn't he be wearing a gun?)

I know, I live in a fantasy world where no one dumps on anyone, takes advantage of them and so on. I'm sure the bank did what was right by them, all they had to do was take the human factor out of it. I'm sure they knew this lady had no clue to the fine print reading with out notice she would be kicked out of her home.

Comparing them to a monster, mass murderer, (shilter) was wrong on my part. (sort of).

[justbroke]

Um, JustBroke.. it was sort of a rhetorical question,

I know. I was just making a joke. I forgot the smiley!

yet, if a sheriff shows up at her door to boot her out.. wouldn't he be wearing a gun?

Sheriff is irrelevant. He is a keeper of the peace, not a soldier violating the Third Amendment.

Comparing them to a monster, mass murderer, (shilter) was wrong on my part. (sort of).

Nah, it's just that when someone brings up anything related to WWII and the Nazi's... the thread is pretty much dead at that point.

[PacificBlue]

I know. I was just making a joke. I forgot the smiley!

Sheriff is irrelevant. He is a keeper of the peace, not a soldier violating the Third Amendment.

Nah, it's just that when someone brings up anything related to WWII and the Nazi's... the thread is pretty much dead at that point.

I knew you were my friend

Oh crap, I didn't want to kill the thread! (the nazi's comment).

[justbroke]

I knew you were my friend

Oh crap, I didn't want to kill the thread! (the nazi's comment).

I added some smileys!

[PacificBlue]

I'm just going to go crawl back under my rose colored rock now...

[Nanzee]

Well I had been wondering lately if we should have tried harder to "work" with the mortgage company - this makes me feel better about our decision to file a 13. Of course both decisions are fraught with things that could go wrong. Well, good luck to all of us!

[JustFileSuit]

(I didn't retain much in school of world history when it came to war and war mongers. It was took sicking to me. So I may have the France part wrong). Corrections?

Nope. You have it right. Also: Poland, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Holland, Austria, Sudetenland, and a long continuing list. After the door-kick,the sergeant would billet his troops as he pleased, confiscate the art, jewels, food (incl. cattle), fuel, and anything else. Oh, yes: the daughter...

Just lovely

[JustFileSuit]

[QUOTE=justbroke;361198]

[LIST=1][*]The bank is not a Foreign Country (although it may be owned by one, and that's moot)[*]No doors are kicked down[*]No military involvement[*]A simple thing known as a (Promissory) Note was executed between the homeowner and their lender.[*]The lender did lend a substantial amount of money to the homeowner based on the homeowner paying them back.[*]The lender doesn't take "everything they wanted" (which implies that the lender is taking furniture, clothing, household goods)

I would respectfully take issue with our esteemed colleague JustBroke. the comparison is not that far off.

First, I remind you that the original thread recited that the name of the purported "buyer" was "Shark Investments." That rather says it all. Now it turns out that "Shark" is not a bona-fide company, has no telephone or address, and when you track down their address of registry from the corporation records at the Sec. of State office it turns out to be some luxurious house with a swimming pool.

So much for "Shark Investments."

Getting past the bottom-feeders, it further becomes apparent that the original home-owner has been savaged by abuse of the judicial system - or, in this case, by parties who have set up the property with a trustee so that they can do a non-judicial sale of the property. And this is why you do not finance property with trust Deeds - it shifts control of your life and your home investment into the hands of a Trustee and what do you really know about that person or outfit?

2. Kicking in the door: if the homeowner was not home, you can bet that the two tough guys who showed up with the loud knock would have done precisely that.

3. While there was a Promissory Note at one point, it certainly was not between the homeowner and Shark Investments. "Shark" did not even buy the Note to be the Holder; it just bought the underlying collateral at the trustee sale, which the homeowner did not even know about and had no opportunity to address, or even to scuttle by for example a USBC Filing. So much for the imputed "good faith and fair dealing inherent in all contracts" which is implied in the Promissory Note.
The point is that lenders and borrowers alike have duties and obligations to each other, and selling the collateral to Shark Investments (whoever they are) is not precisely a demonstration of Good faith and fair Dealing.

4. "taking everything they wanted" - actually, that is precisely what happens. Assume the homeowner, not knowing about the "sale" and being led to believe that there is a re-structuring ongoing, goes off for a short vacation. the new "owner" Shark Investments shows up, busts down the door, and literally tosses the goods out onto the sidewalk. There,. it gets picked over by whoever is around, including street people, the unscrupulous neighbors, and even the goons working for "Shark." I fail to see how that materially differs from "Shark" taking the goods for themselves (and they probably do, by the pick-up truck load). Theft by conversion is still theft, even if you choose to sugar-coat it.

Now you know why my motto is: Just File Suit! And yes, in this scenario, I would certainly sue "Shark" as being willful participants in title fraud.

[justbroke]

First, I remind you that the original thread recited that the name of the purported "buyer" was "Shark Investments." That rather says it all. Now it turns out that "Shark" is not a bona-fide company, has no telephone or address, and when you track down their address of registry from the corporation records at the Sec. of State office it turns out to be some luxurious house with a swimming pool.

A name doesn't mean anything. Apparently this is a "small" corporation of perhpas one investor. Whether they call themselves Shark Investment, Piranha Real Estate, or Fleeced Incorporated, this has absolutely nothing to do with neither their legitimacy nor their bonafides. (You say "no address", but apparently they do have an address as required as a registered corporation in any State.)

Getting past the bottom-feeders, it further becomes apparent that the original home-owner didn't read any of the contract language in either their Mortgage, Note, nor the terms of any pre-modification agreement.

I fixed it for you.

2. Kicking in the door: if the homeowner was not home, you can bet that the two tough guys who showed up with the loud knock would have done precisely that.

I can bet? Or, you can bet? I wouldn't bet on it. For an occupied premise, you must follow the guidelines for eviction in your particular locale. Did you know in most locations, you must be able to prove abandonment? How do you do that? You put seals on the doors and wait 7 days (or your statutory period based on your local tenancy laws). If the seals aren't broken, then you may enter and declare the place abandoned.

3. While there was a Promissory Note at one point, it certainly was not between the homeowner and Shark Investments. "Shark" did not even buy the Note to be the Holder; it just bought the underlying collateral at the trustee sale, which the homeowner did not even know about and had no opportunity to address, or even to scuttle by for example a USBC Filing.

Wow, you jump from a position that since the investor doesn't hold the Note, they don't own the property. Nice. If only that were true. The Note is irrelevant in the context of ownership (check up on your laws concerning Deeds).

So much for the imputed "good faith and fair dealing inherent in all contracts" which is implied in the Promissory Note.

Imputed good faith... in a contract? There's nothing ever implied in a contract, and contracts go so far as to make a statement that they don't imply anything not codified within the contract. As a point in case, there is something in most Promissory Notes (tied to mortgages) that's known as the Power of Sale clause. In some States, the holder of the Note need not re-notify the owner that they are exercising that power. (For full disclosure, these days I write contracts for a living.)

The point is that lenders and borrowers alike have duties and obligations to each other, and selling the collateral to Shark Investments (whoever they are) is not precisely a demonstration of Good faith and fair Dealing.

Yes, like the borrower reading their Mortgage and Note. Or, like the borrower not sticking to the terms of the Note which indicates that they are to make a certain payment over a ceratin term?

4. "taking everything they wanted" - actually, that is precisely what happens.

Huh? And what you mentioned never happened, so it's just speculation.

Now you know why my motto is: Just File Suit! And yes, in this scenario, I would certainly sue "Shark" as being willful participants in title fraud.

How? The investors purchased the Deed (not the Note) at a sale conducted by the (lender's) Trustee pursuant to a Power of Sale clause. Attack the Trustee if you have grounds that the (lender's) Trustee exercised the Power of Sale clause of a Note that you (as borrower) signed and were aware of... outside the terms of the contract.

I must be in some sort of Political Issues Forum. This is over when you equate a bonafide and registered company as "Hitler" or Nazis kicking in doors because the purchased a home legally.

Do you know what 90% of the problem is... no one reads anything. No one reads the Mortgage an Note (I did... every single paragraph, and even questioned the closer on some things). No one understands (or reads) that the Mortgage company actually says in the letter on modification that "foreclosure actions will continue".

For those who are blind or actually can't read... I feel sorry for them. For everyone else who comes here and say that they didn't read something... who's fault is that?

I'm all for justice where there is an injustice. I think your position is the "SoSueMe" position no matter if the facts show otherwise. To tell you the trust, we don't have all the fact in this particular case.