SEE SCHEDULED AUCTIONS OF PROPERTY TO RISE FURTHER DEPRESSING HOUSING MARKET

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary CLICK HERE TO GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION REPORT

EDITOR’S NOTE: I keep wondering when someone is going to pick up on the fact that these “auctions” besides illegal in their premise are also illegal in their execution. At the auction, either someone pays cash or the “creditor” submits a “Credit bid” in lieu of cash. But the parties submitting the “credit bids” are not creditors and therefore have no right to submit a credit bid. Thus the issuance a deed following the “sale” of the property is void.
By ALEX VEIGA

LOS ANGELES — Fewer U.S. homes entered the foreclosure process or were taken back by banks in November, reflecting a seasonal pullback in foreclosure activity by lenders and mortgage servicers.

But for some homeowners already behind on their mortgage payments, the end-of-year slowdown isn’t likely to provide much of a reprieve.

The number of homes in foreclosure and scheduled to be auctioned hit a nine-month high last month, foreclosure listing firm RealtyTrac Inc. said Thursday.

The surge came about because of a spike three months earlier in homes entering the foreclosure process for the first time. And unless those borrowers find a way to get current on their mortgage payments, many of those homes will likely be sold at auction or end up being taken back by the lender.

“Despite a seasonal slowdown similar to what we’ve seen each of the past four years, November’s numbers suggest a new set of incoming foreclosure waves,” said RealtyTrac CEO James Saccacio.

All told, foreclosure auctions were scheduled on 96,540 U.S. homes last month, RealtyTrac said. That’s up 13 percent from October, but still down 17 percent from November last year.

Some states posted far higher monthly increases in scheduled home auctions last month. In California, they were up 63 percent, while in Washington they climbed 56 percent.

Those homes could end up back on the market as foreclosures or short sales, when a homeowner sells their property for less than what they owe on their mortgage. And that means more pressure on home values, because foreclosures and short sales typically sell for a lot less than other homes.

U.S. foreclosure activity slowed sharply starting in October of last year, after problems surfaced with the way many lenders were handling foreclosures. Specifically, signing off on home foreclosures without first verifying documents — a practice referred to as “robo-signing.”

Many of the nation’s largest banks reacted by temporarily ceasing all foreclosures, re-filing previously filed foreclosure cases and revisiting pending cases to prevent errors.

The pace of foreclosure activity continued to slow much of this year as major lenders worked toward a possible settlement of government probes into the industry’s mortgage-lending practices.

 

28 Responses

  1. Alys Cohen (Nat’l. Consumer Law Center) testimony == preview of the Foreclosure Review Forms (OCC) and she discusses things such as

    Fees are a profit center for Servicers etc.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/76022962/Testimony-of-Alys-Cohen-Before-US-Housing-SubCommittee-Alys-from-Nati-l-Consumer-Law-Center-12-13-2011

  2. @Enraged
    my tax assessor will not tell me entity paying taxes
    may have to get infor from discovery

  3. Neil i agree but how can we get the judge to see that way no mortgagee no lien

  4. @Nancy Drewe,

    I can find Corelogic, thank you. What I have not been able to find is where the money Corelogic uses to pay for real estate taxes and homeowner insurance premium comes from, in the absence of any payment by the homeowner for several years.

    Corelogic refuses to answer any questions about the source of the money or any particular property. The only way I was even able to find ut that they existed is by sending an e-mail to my tax assessor requesting the entire ledger since I purchased the property, 6 years ago. I got the ledger and ever single payment since the beginning was always processed by Corelogic.

    Who pays the funds used by Corelogic? Shouldn’t Corelogic be required to answer specific questions about my property under FOIA?

    Corelogic appears to be to payments what MERS is to land records: some computer system with membership attached.

    Has anyone investigated Corelogic and its role in this mess?

  5. You said

    “At the auction, either someone pays cash or the “creditor” submits a “Credit bid” in lieu of cash. But the parties submitting the “credit bids” are not creditors and therefore have no right to submit a credit bid.
    Thus the issuance a deed following the “sale” of the property is void.”

    Sadly this is not the case in non-judicial states!

    I watch two lawyers for foreclosure mill and bank lie to a judge this week.

    I was stunned!

    The Foreclosure mills and banks can do what ever they want but I will continue to do what ever is needed to keep them tied up in court. I am so tired as Enraged said 4 years of my life have been taken by this fight it has changed my life, and my children’s life forever. I trust no one anymore.

    My new mantra about this staying in this fight tired or not is ……

    If not me who?

  6. CoreLogic – First National Financial – ServiceLink

  7. Steve the onething about Barack Hussein Obama he is like all the demagogues. He always has somebody else to blame. He blames Bush He blames Geithner He probably would sell his Mother for a few bucks.

    NEVER AGAIN

  8. @Abby,

    Does your “paying entity” have a name such as Corelogic?
    That’s what has been paying my real estates taxes and insurance since I stopped making my monthly mortgage payments. I was afraid of being without homeowner insurance and I sent the Ins. Co. a check last year… I got it back with a note stating that Corelogic had already processed that payment. Likewise for my real estate taxes

    When I do research on Corelogic, I can’t find where the money they use is coming from. They don’t answer inquiries of any kind and it makes everything even more… nebulous…?

  9. The part about President Barack Obama saying Wall street wasn’t criminal is because they covered their bases. Bush in Feb. 2004 took away state anti-predatory laws while more and more no doc stated-income loans were on the rise.

    http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/10/pre-emption-of-state-anti-predatory-lending-laws-led-to-more-foreclosures/

  10. @Enraged
    Oh yes, I almost forgot to add that some entity who participated in my foreclosure, and it is allegedly a done deal, keeps sending me bills for ‘forced place insurance’, when the land records at the county recorder clearly state for a number of years that I am no longer the owner of the property. How bout that??

    and when there was a major pipe rupture, I called the alleged new property owner (the securities trustee denied they were and added they were indemnified) to find out if I should take care of it or they would. the CEOs office of another involved entity was irate with me. I paid $1100 to fix the problem for the home that is no longer in my name. Should I bill them or what?????

    very confusing

  11. @Enraged
    precisely! I’ve been checking my property tax records since I was foreclosed upon in 09, still in home and fighting, and ‘some entity’ is continuing to pay the annual property taxes. When I get to the right point in time, I will find out which ‘entity’. Don’t think the security trustee is supposed to be paying property taxes. It will get interesting.

    Yes, there will be finger pointing.

  12. This has nothing to do with Democrat or Republican.

    BARACK OBAMA IS A DEMAGOGUE. THE MOST DANGEROUS POLITICIAN (Bullsh@t artist).

    President Barack Obama has argued, as recently as last Sunday on “60 Minutes,” that what happened on Wall Street wasn’t criminal. “Some of the most damaging behavior on Wall Street,” the president told Steve Kroft, “in some cases, some of the least ethical behavior on Wall Street, wasn’t illegal. That’s exactly why we had to change the laws.”

    Please read the full article.

    http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=656C8EEB-CE79-4C81-BC5D-73F207202B43

    NEVER AGAIN

  13. We are the lenders not the banksters. With our signatures we allowed unknowingly (Fraud) the Banksters to borrow money against our Notes.
    Borrow money from multiple investors, security etc…. That is why they are supposedly still broke. The used our Notes just like a check. But a check that was never really endorsed (NO SIGNATURE IN THE BACK OF THE NOTE, OR STAMP JUST LIKE A CHECK). So they could use it multiple times without oUr knowlege they are not even Debt Collectors the Banksters. They are Borrowers from both Ends. Kinky Mother F@ckers.

    NEVER AGAIN.

  14. Up until Fidelity National Title made a big announcement that they will not insure any foreclosed deeds from Bank of America, Fidelity was knowingly insuring Forged and Fraudulent deeds and getting away with stealing properties., since most of the true homeowners didn’t have the means to fight Fidelitys corrupt attorneys or were afraid to go pro se

    All the fraud by Fidelity and its subsidaries are coming to the surface. Keep fighting. .

    Have any of you had bad dealings with Fidelity ?

  15. Not Just Standing – Standing at Inception
    Posted on December 14th, 2011 by Mark Stopa

    http://www.stayinmyhome.com/blog/2011/12/not-just-standing-standing-at-inception/

    On the heels of two similar decisions just a few weeks ago,http://www.stayinmyhome.com/blog/2011/11/happy-thanksgiving-from-floridas-fourth-district/ Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal just issued another ruling which explains the need for a bank to have standing to foreclose, not just in general terms and not just when it moves for summary judgment, but at the inception of the lawsuit. McLean v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, issued today out of the Fourth District, does the best job of any foreclosure case I’ve read so far, at least in Florida, of explaining the distinction.

    I strongly encourage everyone to read the opinion, but I’ll summarize. http://www.4dca.org/opinions/Dec%202011/12-14-11/4D10-3429.op.pdf

    Generally, the issue of whether the bank had standing at the inception of a foreclosure case arises in one of two contexts. The first is where the bank contends it has standing to foreclose based on an Assignment of Mortgage, yet that assignment post-dates the filing of the Complaint. This was the fact pattern in McLean, and the Fourth District makes it clear that such an assignment is insufficient, particularly without proof that the actual transfer of the Note/Mortgage took place prior to the suit being filed. In other words, it’s okay for an assignment to post-date the filing of the Complaint so long as the actual transfer of the Note/Mortgage took place before suit was filed, and the bank must present evidence of that transfer to prevail.

    The second and perhaps more common fact pattern is where the bank relies on an indorsement that was executed after the original Complaint was filed. (The indorsements are always undated, so how can you tell if the indorsement post-dates the Complaint? Easy – compare the Note attached to the Complaint, which often has no indorsement, to the ”original” Note filed thereafter, which usually does.) As the McLean court explained, this fact pattern also requires dismissal:

    if the evidence shows the Note was indorsed to Chase after the lawsuit was filed, then Chase had no standing at the time the Complaint was filed, in which case the trial court should dismiss the instant lawsuit and Chase must file a new complaint.

    In either scenario, i.e. whether the bank’s standing is based on an Assignment of Mortgage or an indorsement, the bank must present evidence that it acquired the requisite standing before it filed suit, failing which a summary judgment of foreclosure would be improper. In other words, even if the homeowner doesn’t know when the indorsement was executed, if the bank can’t/doesn’t prove when it was executed, then it cannot foreclose.

    Notice how the court calls for an evidentiary hearing? In my view, the evidence from the homeowner would be simple. I’d have my client testify that the copy of the Note attached to the Complaint that he/she was served with did not have an indorsement. (This is easy – the Complaint is in the court file.) This would put the onus on the bank to prove it obtained the indorsement before filing suit even though the copy of the Note attached to the Complaint did not have that indorsement. In other words, a bank representative would have to testify when the indorsement was obtained, and trust me – that’s easier said than done.

    One fascinating part of the opinion is the court’s indication that this issue can be addressed via a motion to dismiss. To illustrate, did you notice how the court kept saying the homeowner raised these arguments via motions to dismiss? Then, perhaps most tellingly, the court held:

    where a mortgage foreclosure action is based on an assignment that was executed after the lawsuit was filed, the plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action. In such cases, the proper course of action is for the plaintiff to file a new Complaint.

    The term ”failed to state a cause of action” is critical here. This is, quite simply, the clearest indication yet from any Florida appellate court that a plaintiff’s lack of standing at the inception of the case can be brought via a motion to dismiss.

    It’s an exciting day for foreclosure defense, folks – and yet another reason to keep fighting your lawsuit.

    (By the way, if you check my old blogs, here http://www.stayinmyhome.com/blog/2010/12/when-foreclosure-lawsuits-are-frivolous/ and http://www.stayinmyhome.com/blog/2011/08/the-solution-to-court-funding-problems-case-dismissed/ here, for example, you’ll see I’ve been arguing “standing at inception” in foreclosure cases for years. It’s terrific to see the arguments I’ve been making for so long are being adopted by Florida’s appellate courts.)

    Mark Stopa Esq.

    http://www.stayinmyhome.com

  16. “The trust company holds legal title for the benefit of investors.”

    ???

    WHAT INVESTORS???

    They most certainly are NOT the creditor–right, ANONYMOUS?

  17. …and yet, in the name of the “Deutche trust”—OneWest,FSB continues to get away with stealing homes…

  18. Deutsche has been doing this crap for quite a while now:

    http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2010/04/family_files_lawsuit_against_b.html

    “…It’s like the Wild West right now in the foreclosure industry,” he said.
    Deutsche, however, said it played no role in the dispute, and that the alleged actions came under the purview of American Home Mortgage Serving, which took over service of the loan from Ameriquest.

    Deutsche acts as a trustee and has an administrative role in such cases, but has “no beneficial ownership stake or interest in the underlying mortgage loans,” spokesman John Gallagher said.

    The trust company holds legal title for the benefit of investors.
    Gallagher said loan-servicing companies, not the trustee, “are responsible for foreclosure activity, maintenance of foreclosed properties and resale of foreclosed properties.”
    A spokeswoman said they could not comment…

  19. Fraudclosure Mill- Just Who Is Your Client Anyway?
    December 17th, 2011 | Author: Matthew D. Weidner, Esq.

    http://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/2011/12/fraudclosure-mill-just-who-is-your-client-anyway/

    A question that must be asked in every foreclosure case is just who hired the Plaintiff mill that is prosecuting the case…and who is paying that mill?

    There has been a battle raging for years now between consumer attorney warriors who have been working to crack the secret relationship between their attorneys and the fake plaintiff that is named in the foreclosure lawsuit.

    We’re especially cracking this relationship when judges start asking real questions or start putting the plaintiff actually comply with the Supreme Court’s rules.

    My head almost exploded clear off my body last week when I heard a foreclosure mill exclaim to a judge when questioned about how she was going to get a complaint verified:

    “But we don’t represent the Plaintiff, we represent the servicer!”

    This is exactly the case and this is precisely the problem. Well, here’s where things get even more interesting. The referrals don’t come from the servicer, they come from a computer….and that’s a problem….or at least it should be if state bars and judges really started digging into this. It’s one of the backstories that’s running behind the Nevada Attorney General v. LPS Lawsuit, first addressed by my friend, Nick Wooten and a dude named Bubba Grimsley, see this article in HousingWire:

    The alleged splitting of attorney fees between foreclosure law firms and third-party mortgage servicing providers is the subject of another lawsuit, bringing the number of cases filed on this issue to five within the past seven months, said Nick Wooten, an Alabama-based plaintiff’s attorney involved in all of the cases.

    By mid-May, Wooten said he expects to file 10 to 12 additional cases, making similar allegations about what he claims are illegal, split-attorney fee arrangements between mortgage servicing outsourcers and law firms. The cases are concentrated in the Northern District of Mississippi, the Southern District of Alabama and the Northern District of Florida-Pensacola division.

    NICK WOOTEN
    http://www.housingwire.com/2011/04/22/lawyer-intensifies-fee-splitting-battle-against-mortgage-servicing-providers

    And what did the banksters do when confronted by these allegations? Why they attacked the attorney that dared to challenge them? From another article in HousingWire:

    An Alabama circuit court judge denied a motion Wednesday from Lender Processing Services (LPS: 14.30 -17.53%) for sanctions against attorney Nick Wooten and also declined to seal a transcript and default services agreement at the heart of Wooten’s cases.

    LPS alleged in April http://www.housingwire.com/2011/04/26/lps-fires-back-with-motion-seeking-sanctions-against-alabama-attorney that Wooten, who is suing LPS in several cases on behalf of homeowners, used confidential information from a bankruptcy case he was handling between Larry David Wood and Karen Wilborn Wood against Option One Mortgage, and filed multiple lawsuits against LPS in other states using that information.

    http://www.housingwire.com/2011/05/12/judge-declines-to-sanction-lawyer-involved-in-lps-fee-splitting-cases
    KEEP AT THEM NICK!

  20. @Abby,

    Too funny! It spells out the duties and obligations for banks in their capacity as owners, servicers and trustees… but in the great majority of the cases, banks will never admit to what their true role is, other than to collect monthly payments.

    In order to comply with OCC, they will have to declare and prove who and what they are with respect to the property they intend to foreclose on.

    What I expect to happen is endless finger pointing to avoid paying real estate taxes and maintenance on the foreclosed or soon-to-be-foreclosed property. Something along the lines of “Not my job! I’m ONLY the (servicer, trustee, whatever gives them the least duties…) The “owner” in the guidelines appear to have the bulk of the responsibilities, as it should be. How much do you want to bet that, all of a sudden, not one bank will admit to owning anything any longer?

    Isn’t that what they’ve been doing all along? It is MY property when i can seize it and cash in on it but it THEIR property (whoever “they” are) when time comes to pay up.

    Another one of those exercises in futility that will clog the courts.

    Spell out who you are in the food chain and play that role from A to Z. And by the way, while you’re at it, prove it!

  21. occ offers guidance to ceo’s of banks on potential issues with foreclosed properties—lots of nuggets in this!!

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/75943102/OCC-Offers-Guidance-to-Ceo

  22. Exactly, Aman—NO LENDER, NO CREDITOR.
    WE ARE AWASH IN A SEA OF SHARKS…CALLED DEBT COLLECTORS…

  23. And that, Carie, is exactly why I ended up suing my servicer. it was time to call their bluff and stop being a hostage.

    So far, they have stolen 2,102,400 minutes of my life by forcing me to think only about them and the terrible things they threatened to do to me, all the time, every second of my past 4 years.

    The way I finally started looking at it was pretty simple: whether I sue or not, they are stealing my life. My time vanishes, no matter what. If I do nothing to stop it, I have, in essence, “given” them that time of my life. Who the hell “gives” his time in America? No, we all learn that TIME IS MONEY! I’m going after what’s mine.

    Stealing from a thief is taking back one’s own.

  24. Carie what Lender? It is being taken away by the so called “Debt Collector”

    There is no lender. Actually we the Borrowers are the “Lender” without our signature the Banksters could not get a loan or multiple loans for our Note.

    A GOOD BANKSTER IS A JAILED BANKSTER. ‘

    NEVER AGAIN.

    A VOTE FOR OBAMA IS A VOTE FOR A BANKSTER

  25. “And unless those borrowers find a way to get current on their mortgage payments, many of those homes will likely be sold at auction or end up being taken back by the lender.”

    NOT THE LENDER!!!

  26. They are trying to steal my house the same way…I have asked over and over for proof of real creditor…they keep saying the same damn thing: “We are servicing your loan which is part of a pool of MBS blah blah blah…

    I even told them “I want to pay full amount to real creditor—please provide me with contact information.”
    “Nope, sorry—can’t do that…you’ll have to make the check out to ONEWEST BANK,FSB.”…yup, a friggin’ debt collector…

    How long can they get away with this crap?

    They ignore the TILA FDCPA laws…because they can and they have been.

    “I don’t have to tell you who real creditor is because of privacy laws.”

    “I can steal your house and any house I want because no one is stopping me…”

  27. EDITOR’S NOTE: “I keep wondering when someone is going to pick up on the fact that these “auctions” besides illegal in their premise are also illegal in their execution. At the auction, either someone pays cash or the “creditor” submits a “Credit bid” in lieu of cash. But the parties submitting the “credit bids” are not creditors and therefore have no right to submit a credit bid. Thus the issuance a deed following the “sale” of the property is void.”

    What “someone” are you talking about, Neil? We ALL KNOW there are NO REAL CREDITORS involved in ANY of this illegal activity.
    It’s ALL BS. EVERY DAMN BIT OF IT.

    The stuff they have gotten away with recording at all of the county recorders office’s is ABSOLUTELY CRIMINAL.
    They keep getting away with it every second of every day.

    The foreclosure machines need to be STOPPED. NOW.

  28. It sure seems like we’re getting to the tipping point here ,, looks like the banks are getting desperate and are willing to push anything through at any price to grab what they can,, while they can..

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: