Home Prices Still Spiralling down

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

CUSTOMER SERVICE 520-405-1688

EDITOR’S ANALYSIS: As this article demonstrates in sampling some counties in the Northeast, there is no indication that the prices of homes are stabilizing nor that there is any prospect of anything but further reductions in prices of homes. The reason is simple. Price is not the same as value. The value of the homes are still at least 15% lower than the current prices. Thus it is not difficult to recognize that when the market catches up with the current reality, the prices will come down to meet the actual values.

That is exactly how in 2007 I was able to call with precision, the collapse of the housing market, the collapse of the stock market and the freezing of the credit markets — and the resulting effect on some brokerage houses who neither loaned any money nor bought any of the bogus mortgage bonds they were selling, but rather created fictitious losses that were carefully manipulated to extract taxpayer money for toxic assets that could have been protected and improved but for the narrative created and controlled by the banks and servicers.

Brad Keiser deserves some credit here for predicting the actual order and timing of the crash of each investment house. All he did was put pen to paper and figure out how many time each investment firm was leveraged on the same bond pools. He was exactly right. You can see it on the DVD package we offer that describes securitization.

The more pernicious part of this process is that the capital sucked out of the economy by the banks (who are now reporting “profits” of high magnitude) this money was tucked away and NOT used to finance start-ups, expansion or even maintenance of existing business. Just as the clear policy of the banks and service is to foreclose on residential property, they have followed the path of starving new and existing capital for the sole purpose of favoring competition and financing the purchase of what is left after these companies die, laying off hundreds of thousands of workers.

As for the workers, they are still out there or giving up on finding a job that will pay anything for their household expenses after deductions of work-related expenses. Hence median income has no current prospect of stabilizing or increasing under the current circumstances. In fact median income continues to decline. A decline in median income means that there will be further decline in home values which in turns means further decline in home prices.

Add to this deadly cycle the fact that title to the “foreclosed” properties is very much in doubt, at best, and probably fatally defective at worst, and you have a very slow moving, downward market in residential home sales and financing for at least the next ten years. My projection is that overall, there will be at least another 30% drop in prices over the next 10 years. This will be offset by inflation averaging at least 3% per year under the best of circumstances. We have now more than tripled our currency volume and we still can’t get out of this mess. Follow the example of Iceland and watch what happens — huge fiscal stimulus to the economy, the banks taking the hit for their own misdeeds, the each household getting enough relief that they can start purchasing things besides  food.

Follow the examples of our own common law history and the homes that were the subject of wrongful foreclosure are re turned to their rightful owners and if someone wants to make a claim for collection or even foreclosure they still can — if they can prove each and every essential element of their case.

And it seems clear that nothing can stop this drag on the entire U.S. economy except the application of law. BUT the application law goes both ways. Having truth on your side makes no difference at all if you don’t present in the right way, at the right time and prove it. And THAT is the reason for the many negative positions taken by Judges. If you go in and concede that you know owe the money, you agree you failed (not refused) to make scheduled payments, and that you defaulted on the loan, the Judge really has very little choice except granting whatever motions the banks and servicers present. You have conceded your case away.

This is why you need title, securitization and forensic reporting from reliable third parties whose credentials are indisputable in court. Take these issues to your accountants and see what they think. You may come up with some surprising answers.

The point you need to know and believe is that the money went down one path and the documents went down an entirely different path so the banks could oversell the loans and the bets on those loans. This leaves the banks and servicers in a vulnerable position but it is a complex set of facts. You have about 30 seconds to get the Judge’s attention and 5 minutes to make your point. After that, expect nothing.

But the single-most important ingredient in the recovery is the resistance and fear of the borrowers who feel like deadbeats, and do not appreciate how they were used as pawns in getting  tons of money from investors that far exceeded the amount of their loans. There is a new diagnosis created by the authors of the book, Legal Abuse Syndrome. You all ought to look it up, and order it. They hit the nail on the head. Without the outrage shown in Iceland, our country’s finances will never be fixed.

www.businessinsider.com/home-prices-across-the-northeast-are-still-declining-2012-4

The Truth About The ‘Housing Bottom’: Home Prices Across The Northeast Are In Total Freefall

Keith Jurow | Apr. 16, 2012, 9:00 AM
For nearly two years, I have been warning in my articles posted on BUSINESS INSIDER that there is no housing bottom in sight.  I’ve been correct.

Yet one analyst after another has been proclaiming that the housing bottom is finally here.  This is nonsense!

Many of these “experts” have skin in the game and hope to lure you back into the market. They base their assumptions on the fact that housing prices seem to be falling more slowly.  They’re not.  Take a look at these shocking numbers I uncovered in the last two weeks:

SINGLE-FAMILY HOME PRICES IN THE NORTHEAST
February 2012

Location      Avg. Price Per Sq. Ft     Change from Feb. 2011
Connecticut
Fairfield County              $260           down 16.6%
City of Bridgeport              $86           down 17.3%
City of New Haven              $88           down 31.2%
City of Hartford              $72           down 10.1%
Westport              $311           down 30.3%
Greenwich              $481           down 34.8%
Darien              $354           down 19.3%
New Canaan              $371           down 10.1%
Branford              $126           down 41.4%
Glastonbury              $161           down 19.1%
Simsbury              $129           down 13.2%
Massachusetts
Framingham              $157           down 9.2%
Newton              $313           down 13.5%
Scituate              $215           down 16.5%
Rhode Island
Providence              $101           down 5.5%
Warwick              $120           down 12.2%
Pawtucket              $91           down 18.3%
New York State
Westchester County              $276           down 10.1%

Source:  Wm. Raveis & Co. – raveis.com

These are real, raw numbers, not an index like Case-Shiller.  They come from the largest family-owned brokerage firm in the northeast — Raveis and Co. whose reputation is impeccable.  I spent several days reviewing the terrific raveis.com search tool and found similar price declines in more than 150 towns and cities.

Sales volume was way down in most towns in the northeast.  To my surprise, inventories are up substantially from a year earlier.  All that talk last fall about shrinking MLS inventories is history.  Listings are soaring in most towns.

Some people I speak with are skeptical about these numbers.  Check them for yourself if you think I’m making them up.   Go to the raveis.com homepage and the drop-down menu for “Housing Data.”  Then hit the link to “View local housing data” and this will take you to their search page where you can see the latest sales and price statistics for towns in seven northeast states.  You’ll be as shocked as I was.

Here is my warning:  Prices are crumbling and homeowners have perhaps six months to decide what to do.  I strongly suspect that a year from now will be too late.

37 Responses

  1. The reason home prices continue to spiral down is that there is no demand. No one wants to buy a house anymore and or no one can qualify for a loan anymore. They have too much other debt or they are going bankrupt. They would rather rent or move in together in crowded conditions and extended families. Cash is king and cash for cash flow is king. No one wants to be in debt to the banksters anymore either even if they can qualify. You can be sure anyone who has been foreclosed on will never deal with the bankster again. Eyes get opened with the first delinquent payment. Those who pay on time do not have a clue until it happens to them.

    The prevalent point of view of govt, mainstream, press, financial “experts” economists, mortgage brokers, real estate brokers, banksters is that foreclosures must be facilitated in order for the real estate market and the economy to recover. Whether this is nefarious or well intentioned it keeps coming back to bite. It’s a negative feedback loop (there’s an economic term for that which I can’t think of right now).

    The only way to get out of this is to keep people in homes and stop foreclosures frankly all foreclosures right now fraudulent or otherwise. The fraud must be identified at its root not just the paperwork – mod – servicing – sanctions, settlements, bribes for what is considered to be legitimate obligations to legitimate “lenders”. “Someone” may be owed but that “someone” is not who is doing the modifying, collecting or foreclosing. Until this gets dealt with the party is over even for the brokers.

  2. @carie:

    You said “I believe the judges have been told to never side with the homeowner no matter what.” I believe that also, especially after my experience. Essentially, the judge was just humoring me, meaning that the whole lawsuit was a charade designed to make me feel like I got my day in court and then when they grew tired of it, the judge just pretended like there had never been any discovery and ruled against me summarily.

  3. @tony

    you said;

    “…When one sells a right in an instrument they are not selling the note, but the right to “collect” payments. Remember right to collect is just that collect. You can sue but you have no enforcement right of taking someones home if they dont pay you…”

    Exactly. A right to collect does NOT mean they have the right to take your home—A credit card company doesn’t have the right to come and take the clothes you bought with your credit card after you lose your job and can’t pay…this is the heart of the foreclosure madness.

  4. Tony,

    What specific transcripts? Do tell!

  5. What is funny the most is when people write “the money is owed to somebody” this is false. Any that can read I urge them to read transcripts from when justice Marshall was sitting of the supreme court.These transactions are nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

    The way modern Mortgages and so called deeds of trust work and this goes all the way back to the days of lord hardwicke in the common law you can not assign a note for the law does not recognize it.

    As for Justice Marshall read his opinions on mortgages and deeds of trust, and then say some one is owed money. When one sells a right in an instrument they are not selling the note, but the right to “collect” payments. Remember right to collect is just that collect. You can sue but you have no enforcement right of taking someones home if they dont pay you.

    People need to stop pause and look back into the transcript of these judges and find out if what lawyers say now is what the judge meant. 9 times out of ten it isn’t. They just muddle waters.

  6. You would think we Investers would cash out our stocks, Bonds. IRA’s and drain our 401Ks and pensions and pay off our mortgages after the way we have been defrauded? Well… we wanted to, and we tried. The Gov and the Banks have our backs against the wall. They need our money to fund new mortgages, so we cant have it back to pay off our own….. 🙁 We Can Not cash out at all or can not cash out without significant penelties or hardship. But Guess What? …. We can borrow against our own Money for a fee of course. HaHaHa … Yep! Its time to put the Brakes on Wall Street, Congress and the Banks and Take Back Our Wealth! They are stealing our retirements, our equity in our homes and charging us higher taxes to litagate each other to death while they make record profits? Oh yeah … Congress agreed it would be unfair to charge the “Wealthy” taxes on “Stolen Money”…. so they voted down the Buffett Bill. Congress Members aka Stock Holders have screwed us all. The Joke (Price Tag) is on us, Taxpayers, Homeowners and Investers alke…. I’ve been screwed all the way around, there is no sides. Only a Fight for Justice ….. Without Violence!

  7. @las vegas

    I’m with you—here’s a good one—the foreclosure mill said (when I demanded to know who was current creditor): “MERS was your original creditor, and the Trustee (of the securitized trust) is your current creditor”…talk about TOTAL BS…a total impossibility that a Trustee is a creditor—but, this is how they get away with forecloser/home theft in CA…

  8. Tnharry,
    Bully for you! You are truly a wise and judicious investor. But you make a very big leap that has been demonstrated to be incorrect and not the way things were done when you say “they transferred the note and/or securitized it and transferred it just like the note and deed of trust provide for.” That’s exactly what they didn’t do–even though notes and DOTS are legally inseparable, they treated them as though they were through the use of MERS. And that’s where the clouds on the titles were created. My DOT says that the Note can be transferred “together with” the DOT. Really, that goes without saying, as the DOT is but an incident to and inseparable from the Note. But these banks now want to claim that MERS “held” (i.e., was the beneficiary/mortgagee of) the DOTs/mortgages while other parties–trusts, other banks, pension funds, etc.–held the Note. That’s exactly what the Defendants argued in my case.

    However, that is legally impossible, according to all the authorities and statutes. And that’s where I think the bifurcation argument derails–the Notes and DOTs were not bifurcated because it is legally impossible for them to be bifurcated (Carpenter v. Longan, etc.), but the banks treated them as though they were and are. That’s the real issue. That fake bifurcation that is the hallmark of MERS is the true fraud.

  9. @z

    I believe the judges have been told to never side with the homeowner no matter what—because chaos would ensue from the precedent—and God forbid we have a little chaos—especially when it would mean the banks would go down overnight…but it’s going to happen sooner or later…the can can’t get kicked down the road forever…eventually the road ends…

  10. @tn

    But the contract is a TOTAL LIE with regards to funding.

  11. @tnharry

    Okay money is owed to someone, agreed. Not everyone’s situation is the same, but why when we asked who our creditor is were we told “MERS is original creditor” but not who current creditor is?

    And when we asked how much do we owe, we were given 3 different amounts.

    Bottom line, why are we prevented from knowing who and how much?

  12. And another thing I have been wanting to express here on Living Lies…there’s been a lot of talk on these pages about how x, y, and z homeowners have lost their cases because they didn’t plead something exactly right or didn’t say the magic words or use the proper incantation or whatever. That’s bullshit. I know this from personal experience now.

    In my case, and surely in many if not all other cases, the judges simply do not even consider the arguments and evidence of the homeowners. It’s very easy to find for party A in a lawsuit if you pretend the arguments and evidence of party B don’t even exist. The judge’s order in my case said that “the mortgage follows the note,” which is exactly what I said, those exact words, in one of my briefs. In other words, the judge AGREED WITH ME but ruled against me anyway. After saying, correctly, that the mortgage follows the note, the judge went on to say that it was fine for only the mortgage/deed of trust to be transferred to Bank of America while Fannie Mae held the note–that just does not compute, according to the judge’s own logic. What the hell am I supposed to say to that, when the judge acknowledges that I am right about the mortgage following the note, but that it really doesn’t have to?

    It’s like if I as Plaintiff say “The sky is blue.” The judge says “I agree, the sky is blue.” The Defendants say “The sky is red.” Then the judge says “Judgment for the Defendants.” That’s what the judge did in my case. Actually, it’s even worse than that, because MERS agreed and admitted in discovery that the sky is blue. But the judge did not acknowledge even once that MERS said that, apparently because he was hell bent on finding for the Defendants who claim that the sky is red even though I, the judge, and even the Defendants themselves know very well that the sky is blue.

    So I know that’s off-topic, but just wanted to throw that in there. Apparently even if you DO speak the magic words and hold your mouth right, it doesn’t matter

  13. tnharry … wise move on your own mortgage. 🙂 ….

  14. so @zur, @etolle, and @carie – the fact that they transferred the note and/or securitized it and transferred it just like the note and deed of trust provide for is the basis for your argument for voiding the notes?? do you see a problem with that?

    “Had we known that there were investors involved and that the bank was just another of many middlemen, we could have gone to the investors for a “loan” instead of the bank.” – how does that matter? you made a choice to deal with Bank A rather than Bank B. they’re all choices.

    i bought a house in the last year myself. i went with a local lender who doesn’t securitize, transfer, or otherwise do what got so many in trouble. in fact, my DOT doesn’t even have MERS on it. it was my choice to do that. of course, i acted with the benefit of having seen all of this unfold, and very few had any reason to be suspcicious of MERS or transfers.

    my point is though, that no one was prevented from going to Bank B or the “investors” for the loan. either they weren’t lending directly or you didn’t know about them. but the idea that you signed a note with Countrywide and don’t think you should owe whomever they transferred the note (that specifically allows for transfers) to now is preposterous.

  15. Just came across this case from LA County that would seem to be a death blow to MERS in CA, from Trout v. Taylor. Anyone seen this used anywhere?

    “….it has been definitely decided in this state that under our statute of frauds the name of the grantor or grantee or a description of the property cannot be inserted by an agent for the grantor, in the absence of the latter, unless the agent’s authority be in writing. If the authority of the agent be not in writing, his insertion of the name of grantor or grantee or description of the property does not pass the title. (upton v. Archer, 41 Cal. 85 [10 Am. Rep. 266]; Vaca Valley etc. R.R.”

    http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19340430_0040189.CA.htm/qx

  16. And when I say that we were baited into thinking that the bank was lending us some of its own money, here’s what happened in my particular case. The “lender” on my Note is Countrywide Bank, FSB. The week that my “loan” was “funded,” Countrywide ran out of money and had to be loaned money from a consortium of banks. This was August 2007. Here’s the story:
    http://money.cnn.com/2007/08/16/news/companies/countrywide/

    How can Countrywide be a “lender” when they actually were a borrower? That’s a pretty good racket–call yourself a “lender” and then borrow money to “lend” to people. In other words, Countrywide had to borrow to “lend” to me. The article above notes that what Countrywide did was “an unusual step.” Well, of course it is. If you or I run out of money, we can’t lend any. Not so with Countrywide–they borrowed to lend.

    And one might say, “Well, it doesn’t matter where Countrywide got the money, that’s none of your concern.” Of course it’s my concern: 1) It was never disclosed to me that Countrywide was not the true source of my “loan” and 2) after tapping this $11 billion in loans, Countrywide is now beholden to their creditors, who will ultimately affect how Countrywide deals with me, i.e., by not giving me a modification, etc. 3) I am by extension now bound to Countrywide’s creditors–unbeknownst to me, because after all, my “loan” docs say over and over that Countrywide is the “lender”–and I did not agree to be bound to Countrywide’s creditors, without whom they couldn’t have purported to “loan” me their own money.

  17. Would any of you like to be in my daughters shoes? Having to satisfy not only her mortgage but the previous contractor liens and 2nd mortgage of the previous owner in order for her to pass on clear title. They put her in this situation, there was no choice for her but to be involved in a lawsuit now for 5yrs. She is ready to sell and move on … but the only way is to become a forced landlord and rent out the property she thought she bought, to pay off a debt she is obligated to pay. Yea…. they sold her the American Dream alright… Someone Tell Me again, where there are no Victims here?

  18. “Had we known that there were investors involved and that the bank was just another of many middlemen, we could have gone to the investors for a “loan” instead of the bank.”

    Exactly. They weren’t/aren’t lenders, they’re high-priced loan flippers.

  19. Tnharry,
    Voluntary or not, the lack of disclosure as to the true nature of the transaction–i.e., that the “loan” was false debt/money out of thin air/part of a securities package–should void the contract, i.e., the note. You’re a lawyer–you know that disclosure is everything in a business transaction/contract.

    We were subjected to a bait and switch–we were baited with the idea that a bank that had money was loaning some of it to us and that it was just a regular, run-of-the-mill mortgage transaction. And though there are problems with even that scenario given the nature of “our” fractional reserve-based monetary scam system, that scenario is what most people thought they were getting into and voluntarily agreed to. The switch occurred when we tried to work something out with the bank and were told that the investors wouldn’t allow it, etc. Had we known that there were investors involved and that the bank was just another of many middlemen, we could have gone to the investors for a “loan” instead of the bank.

  20. Ian …. This is still happening today. They NEED you to refinance or sign a loan mod. The Lender and the Origional Title Insurer NEED you to do this! Our gov guarentees these loans with taxpayer money. Our gov is bailing out banks and ins co.’. Our Gov NEEDS you to sign! Why? you ask ….. because the Ins Co.’s Major Stock Holders were the Banks, JUST LIKE MERS! They NEED your signature somehow. They need you to ADMIT they are the crediter (Bank N.A. paying off Bank N.A.) ex.. Citi refi’s existing Chase mort and pays it off for you in a refi.) Now you have admited who the Crediter/Lender is and give them lien to your title. BUT..BUT…. you are also relleasing any liability for the previous Bank N.A. Errors to title. The new lenders policy list those exclusions AND IF AN ISSUE ARISES OUT OF IT … YOU THE HOMEOWNER ARE LIABLE! The Insurance Co’s are the next Big Bail Out …. or will Taxpayers and Homeowners put a STOP to it!

  21. The point is—if the contract was/is a LIE—shouldn’t it be voided?

  22. @ tnharry, read all 85 pages of the following paper entitled, “MERS: The Unreported Effects of Lost Chain of Title on Real Property Owners”, then we’ll talk, K?

    It has been widely reported that MERS has broken or severely diluted the chain of title for real property records, but what does this mean? To understand the importance of the chain of title to a property and the complexities of land boundaries we need to look no further than the advice given to practicing attorneys.

    “To properly evaluate a case, counsel and survey experts often must examine chains of
    title for all properties subject to the dispute. In the case of a boundary dispute, it may be necessary to search the chain of title back to a patent to determine paramount title or to
    locate true boundaries.”

    As is readily apparent, a broken chain of title will have adverse effects on adjoining properties and in many instances the boundaries of properties within an entire neighborhood. Attorneys are advised to “seriously consider not taking the case or withdrawing from it.”

    If attorneys are advised to “seriously consider” withdrawing, how will the common victim of MERS (by proxy) get relief? The complexity of the problem is obvious. As lenders and title insurers pass responsibility back and forth, property owners who purchased a foreclosed property that had been in the MERS system (and now have broken chains of title) and their neighbors will be forced into expensive and complex litigation in order to determine their boundaries.

    Who will be financially responsible for the litigation to quiet title? This White Paper documents the importance of a chain of title and the far reaching effects of a lost chain of title.

    And E. still thinks we should hang the creators of MERS, even if just for thinking they could pull this crap over everyone in the first place. It’s a device for theft, pure and simple.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/61543981/MERS-The-Unreported-Effects-of-Lost-Chain-of-Title-on-Real-Property-Owners-and-Their-Neighbors

  23. Nowhere in my “mortgage” contract does it say anything about false default debt, collection rights, or securitization. It only mentions a “funded loan”…so—how exactly did I “volunteer” to be involved in the GREAT LIE?

  24. here’s just one problem i have with the “false debt / not a loan” scenario – you entered into it voluntarily. you used the subprime loan to either take cash out of the equity, comprise the 20% of an 80%/20% purchase, or paid off a prior mortgage via refi. in all of those options, not only was it a voluntary transaction, but you received a benefit for the “loan”. how do you explain away whatever the benefit received was while maintaining the “not a loan/no money exchanged” argument?

    and really – how do you get passed the voluntary issue? maybe it was a terrible deal, maybe it was a bad idea or a bad rate, maybe value dropped out and the 2nd suddenly put you underwater. but the transaction was voluntary, presumably was an informed choice, and you could have walked away at any time. in fact, you may have had a right to rescind involved.

  25. special warranty deed warrants title during the time they owned it only. virtually all foreclosure property is transferred that way since it reflects the “involuntary” nature of the transfer to the bank. unless you see specific exclusions in the “owner’s” title policy, the title policy makes up for the difference between general warranty deed and special

  26. carie- the collection rights to false default debt actually began during the S&L crisis in late 80s early 90s, and in fact was used as a roadmap for those who concocted the current scam. Bear Stears and affiliates were big default debt buyers back then. Imagine, if someone just paid off their ‘mortgage’ this year, which they took out in 82, they paid for the last 25 years to someone who paid 5cents on the dollar for it back then. Of all things…….

  27. Kathy Charlotte- well I sure am glad that someone agrees with me! Kathy, the title insurance industry up until this ponzi scheme has been a sleepy, little-noticed flea in the armpit of the real estate business. Title insurance is lucrative because, no one ever makes claims. Never. But buyers are required to purchase title insurance. By whom? State law enacted at the behest of the title insurance industry. Furthermore, there is considerable confusion on the part of many, including many on this blog, as to the difference between a homeowner’s title insurance policy, and a lender’s title insurance policy.
    I would begin a dialog with your state licensing authority or regulatory agency, nice and calm and simple, include a copy of the title policy, and reiterate the fact that the details of the policy were not explained. In other words, who on earth would purchase a property and PAY for title insurance which, in fine print of course, absolved the title insurance company of any duty to cover claims for securitization, clouded title, bogus recorded or nonrecorded AOM, MERS baloney and who knows what else? Especially when 90-95% of the loans in the US were securitized? No one would ever buy anything, ever again if the truth were known.

  28. @z

    “…subject to the whole game of finance…”

    We were SHOVED into the “game of finance” UNBEKNOWNST to us when we “signed on” in the subprime (MERS) freakshow…we THOUGHT we were getting a good old fashioned FUNDED LOAN—not just giving some bastard company COLLECTION RIGHTS TO FALSE DEFAULT DEBT WHO WOULD EVENTUALLY FIND A WAY TO STEAL OUR HOME.

    But, like ANONYMOUS says—it all started with the GSE’s—so we get NO JUSTICE.

  29. @e tolle – i’ll grant you that MERS can be blamed for title issues, but legal description/boundary issues are not part of the MERS mess. that’s completely separate and apart from the foreclosure debacles, and was happening well before MERS and securitization

  30. Well, the shady real estate guy bought MY property at auction in Dec. for $339,000. He kicked me and my family out eventually (even after I went into great detail with him about how and why the foreclosure was illegal)—he painted the place and took out all my lovely plants—and it is now listed at $425,000!!! What a joke…guess he didn’t fix the slab leak or tent it for the termites…not to mention the gas line and wiring issues…wow.
    He must have done some kind of “special warranty deed” also—because the title is definitely clouded—with the usual BS docs…ahh the housing industry—pure insanity…

  31. This article reminds me of something that’s been brewing in my mind for a while. The last two sentences of the article, especially:
    “Here is my warning: Prices are crumbling and homeowners have perhaps six months to decide what to do. I strongly suspect that a year from now will be too late.”

    I get what he’s saying–people made bad investments, i.e. their houses, and as any savvy businessperson would do, homeowners would do well to cut their losses. In short, we the public are treated as though we are corporations unto ourselves, signing legal papers (notes, tax returns, security instruments, etc.) and what not. The fact is, most of us want no part of that way of thinking–we just want a place to live and raise our families. The nicer the better, of course, but that’s only natural.

    But here’s the problem–as I said, we’re treated like corporations at the time of the signing of the note and the making of the payments,but as soon as we get behind in payments, our corporation-like status is suddenly gone, and we have to do what the banks and government says or we lose our property and/or go to jail. Or have our money summarily taken via garnishment. In other words, we are allowed and encouraged to participate in this corporate-like behavior but with none of the benefits of being an actual legal corporation.

    Again, the whole problem for most of us–generalizing from me, of couse–is that we don’t really want to play the investment game. We just want a place to live. We should be able to have that without having to be subject to the whole game of finance.

  32. A friend inherited a small acreage plot in the boons of NC recently. She asked me to look into what this property holds for her. From satellite imagery I could see that there’s a mobile home halfway squatting on her land. A local surveyor familiar with the land confirmed this in a drive-by. I inquired about the situation to a local attorney who came back with, “The squatter’s adjacent property was purchased in 2007 from Chase as a foreclosure. The titling and descriptions are all screwed up. Good luck.”

    Few people understand that the MERS Debacle isn’t just about one property. If property A is screwed, so are B,C,D, and E that surround it. And it shouldn’t have to be “Buyer Beware”. It should be – Hang the Creators of MERS”.

  33. Great joke, BSE, except that Congress ARE the terrorists!

  34. Iris and Ian, You have both just hit the nail on the head …. this is my daughters situation (1st time buyer). She bought the property in 07, closed with attorney. Attorney did not tell them of this special warranty deed (BAD TITLE). Low and Behold, less than 90 days after closing …. here comes the 1st party (of many to follow), claiming ownership. No Home Buyer, should be set up by the entire system for failure I see this situation from both sides of these transactions. DISMANTLE THE BANKS! REMOVE THE PUBLIC OFFICIALS INVOLVED! SEND THEM TO JAIL! AND GIVE THE PEOPLE JUSTICE!

  35. Just got this in an email

    SO, I’M STUCK IN A TRAFFIC JAM…Nothing is moving. Suddenly, a man knocks on my window. I roll down the window and ask, “What’s going on?”

    He says “Terrorists have kidnapped Congress, and are asking for a ten million dollar ransom. Otherwise, they are going to douse them all with gasoline and set them on fire. We are going from car to car, taking up a collection.”

    “How much is everyone giving, on average?” I ask.

    The man replies, “About a gallon.”

  36. Iris- the ‘special warranty deed’ isn’t so special. It should be called a ‘special exlusionary deed’. The title insuror probably is refusing to warranty (not guarantee) any foreclosed property purchases due to chain of title problems with the mortgage,note,MERS, forgery, illegal notarizations, etc. You know, the whole ball of wax.
    The entities which committed these crimes can simply go out of business. But, the current homeowner (purchaser) and the former homeowner (you) cannot just cease to exist. Follow all the blogs to see what you can do to get your home back. Get all your courthouse docs, and all the new homeowner’s courthouse docs. Study them. Check to see who in the chain of title was out of business at the time they were ‘signing’ or ‘attesting’ to this and that. Keep us posted.

  37. SPECIAL WARRENTY DEED-

    CAN ANYONE TELL ME WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? MY PROPERTY IN FLORIDA FORECLOSED 9/2009. NEW HOMEOWNER BOUGHT MY PROPERTY 6/2010. I CHECKED COUNTY CLERK OFFICE NEW HOMEOWNER PURCHASED MY HOME UNDER A SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: