PROFITS BEING MADE ON FORCED SALE OF PROPERTIES

TOP READER PICKS FOR SERVICES AND PRODUCTS

“My mortgage was $124,000…property was titled to the lender after foreclosure and conveyed to Fannie Mae for $132,000…property was then transferred to new purchaser for $156,000…all my equity was lost because lender would not work with me…am I entitled to any portion of Fannie Mae’s profit in selling my house?”

ANSWER: The answer is a qualified YES, but there is a wrinkle here. The scenario you have described is being reported by other readers as well. It is rare that any profit occurs in the forced sale of a home in foreclosure. At least it WAS rare. But the work done by Charles Koppa has shown that this is happening all over the country in one form or another. First of all the only party that can bid without money (called a “credit bid”) is the the party to whom the money is owed. THAT is not happening. The “credit bid” is submitted by a party who has no financial stake in the loan. And then the property is titled to yet another entity and frequently transferred to still another entity or person, rewarding them for playing in this scheme.

So the first thing is that the “credit bid” was invalid and that under the applicable state law, the bid was completely ineffective to cause title to be issued. Check with a local licensed attorney who is very well versed in property law before you take any action, since this is general information and opinion and not an opinion on your case.

The second thing you want to do is check and see if the foreclosure was fraudulent to begin with — see the recent posts and comments on that. It is entirely possible that not only was the paperwork fabricated, forged and wrong, it was based based upon a presumed default that never occurred or was cured by third party payments that mitigated the loss.

The third thing you want to do is consider an action (lawsuit) to recover the excess. Every note and mortgage and state law I have ever seen states quite clearly that if the proceeds of sale exceed the obligation, the homeowner gets the rest. In that case you might also be entitled to recover attorney fees and costs.

What I worry about is lawyers and pro se litigants making it tougher for those who actually have done their homework. If you are going to attack these events and get your house back in a quiet title action and/or recover damages, punitive damages, treble damages, attorney fees, for rescission, fraud, predatory loan practices, violations of TILA or whatever cause of action you pursue you MUST NOT ASSUME that because of news stories you are a winner and the other side is the loser. You must prove your case. THAT is why people are getting title searches, securitization searches, title reports, securitization reports and analyses of there loan and foreclosure by competent experts.

If you don’t have the facts in the form that can be admitted into evidence, you have nothing. If you do have the facts in the form that can be admitted into evidence your chances of winning or settling on favorable terms are immeasurably improved.

6 Responses

  1. to Stanly Putra in Racine:
    This may be a bit hyper-technical, but it is entirely possible that the outfit that wire-transfered the funds to the closing entity is NOT the true lender. Where the funds are warehoused funds from a warehouse lender, I would suggest that the Transferor is in actuality a Broker, an intermediary who ironically now has an “utmost duty of care” and a “fiduciary duty” to you, the client and borrower.

    Assume: some Bonds ere pre-sold to “investors,” say in Norway. The funds flow to some pond-scum bank in NY. Now the funds flow outward to consolidating entities, such as a warehouse lender. That entity furnishes the funds for the “loan sellers,” who are just wearing a mask as a lender, but are in reality without their own money at risk. So the paper “lender” is in reality just a broker.

    Sue them all.

  2. http://www.scribd.com/doc/38849156/ONEWEST-S-DOUBLE-ASSIGNMENT-Debtor-s-Objection-to-Onewest-filing-for-Relief-from-Stay10-06-10-DOUBLE-ASSIGNMENTS-MARRIED-BUT-DEFACED-DOT-SA

    HOW BAD IS THIS. IN STATE CASE FOR 1 YEAR AND THEN GET A NEW ASSIGNMENT AS SINGLE SOLE AND SEPARATE. THAT ERROR WAS PART OF MY CLAIMS TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPT OF INSURANCE. THEY ACTUALLY REVIEW THE CASES.

  3. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? MY HOUSE SOLD TO A THIRD PARTY FOR $0 DOLLARS (THIS HAPPENS TO MANY HOUSES IN CA), THEN THE SCUM SUCKING ASIAN THIEVES SOLD IT FOR LIKE $500K. ONCE AGAIN NEIL YOU ARE WRONG OF COURSE THERE’S PROFIT IN FORCED SALES WHY ELSE WOULD THEY BE DOING OTHER THAN GREED.

  4. Sir I am sitting the same way . There was an article in Wisconsin Law Mag about 28 U.S.C. § 2410(c). This is a Fed law that says any loan by the Gov. has to have a one year redemption period. The ada in Milwaukee was not sure but I would certainly use it to overture the Foreclosure and sale.
    When you closed ask the closing company for a copy of the wire that funded the loan. This is the true lender.
    Stan
    Racine, Wi. 53406

  5. Mr. Garfield.. is it possible that Fannie or servicer tacked on additional fees such as legal fees, late payment interest etc.

  6. So, does one file a complaint against the note holder only? Not the servicer.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: