For further information please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688
===============================
The logic escapes me. here we have the Massachusetts attorney general looking out for the interests of people who PURCHASED property where the seller was an entity that had successfully prosecuted a VOID FORECLOSURE. But there is no mention of the original homeowners who lost their home in a VOID FORECLOSURE. The policy here is transparent: the risks and losses of the mortgage meltdown are to be borne strictly by the homeowner, not the perpetrators and not investors who “purchased” property from a bank that lacked a title to the property because of a void foreclosure.
If the foreclosure is void, exactly how is the attorney general going to help? The offer is to help clear title for the new purchaser. How are they going to do that when title was never legally transferred and where the entire foreclosure was based upon sham loan documents and a sham default and sham parties offering self serving statements and documents naming themselves as creditors when in fact someone else was the creditor. And what happens to the the real creditors? If we are so scared about what happens to our financial system why are we not allowing the investors in mortgage backed securities to recover more of their investment? Since that would involve more modifications and short-sales, that would benefit the homeowner too.
The policy is clear — when in doubt screw the homeowner and the investors who funded the deals.
Filed under: foreclosure |
The bomb was finding out we Granted a Warranty Deed to the Capital Asset Funding Company…kinda like depositing or selling the title to them.
Any hoots thee made us the Warrantors of Title …
First American Title (FAT) and BAFInancialC were running his credit reports
We know FATs position and BAFinancialC is the one who purports to make the advances on tax and ins I pay.
Talk about bed buddies…
JG… After Countrywide put the account into a manufactured default and slandered title and BAC s arrogance of refusing payments because of a disputed $12000 they claimed the account had a $12000 default when they merged with CW.
Nope! It was current! I faxed them the proof and refused to pay the $12000.
Anyway I was fed up with their BS and qualified for my own loan to pay them off my husbands loan because they screwed his credit.
We don’t do business with people like that.
Incompetent! Greedy! Criminals!
Everything else I learned after that because I hired an Attorney.
The sellers estate POA attorney swapped out the Warranty Deed to my husband and I for a Trustee Deed Granted to my husband and (POA) lawfirm.
Confirmed by the Trustee of sellers estate.
She had to hire her own attorney.
She lived out of state and let her parents attorney sign as POA at closing…she was not there.
How to read a title policy (cursory – from old memory and not one in front of me. yes, I’m stalling on doing stuff I don’t want to)
The declarations page tells one who is the seller and buyer of what property (legal description and street address). It doesn’t generally address how that seller took title. Prob includes assessor’s tax parcel id #. The title co. should check the contract for any discrepancies (as should the lender). Gives the name of the insured parties (buyer, lender. with a purchase, there are two policies: the owner’s, which insures the borrower and the lender’s which insures the lender as to matter of title.
Recites the amount being insured in lender’s policy (I think)
REQUIREMENTS, Schedule A, I think:
Title co must check public record re: buyer, seller, borrower.
if a purchase, calls for a warranty deed from seller to purchaser exactly as their names appear on the purchase contract. If different than legal name, generally borrower or seller must sign all loan docs “Mark Brown aka Mark C. Brown”. Title company must have a copy of the purchase contract.
Probably a photo id (which is a lender requirement, anyway) for seller,
buyer, borrower
calls for or otherwise says it will insure a (first) mtg in the amt of $X pursuant to the purchase contract or loan amt sought by borrower if refi
calls for the release of specifically identified seller existing loans and or encumberances. Title companies like to issue these checks or wires themselves to assure the payoff. Acc to that person not here anymore, these payoffs weren’t made. If not, imo the lender took charge of the payoff but still it had to warrant the payoff to title or else title didn’t insure their loan was first or maybe at all. Maybe the crooked lender didn’t care since they knew the score and would benefit.
if refi, calls for same as to borrower’s existing loans and or encumberances
Requires any tax or other liens (mechanics, hoa, lis pendens, child support, other judgment liens, etc) to be paid off. If a tax lien or judgment lien incl child support, will include those for both buyer and seller or borrower if refi.
sometimes calls for the subordination of another existing loan (generally an existing 2nd not being paid off when the borrower wants to refi the first)
Requires county taxes to be paid thru date of closing. The title company generally orders a ‘tax cert’ from the county assessor to ascertain the amt of taxes and their payment status.
SCHEDULE B: Exceptions
what the title co will not insure or will insure for add’l fees (by way of an
endorsement to title policy – some things they will not insure for nuthin)
Easements shown by public record
Unrecorded interests
CC&R’s / bilaws of hoa
encroachments shown by public record
any matter(s) not shown by public record
Lay opinions and I prob missed stuff.
To at T, far as I know, all banksters get a title deal called a “Trustee’s Foreclosure Sale Guarantee” prior to foreclosure. it’s pretty much just like a title commitment (aka prelim) and shows what is needed to insure and what won’t be covered. They’re issued relatively close to the date of the sale – on info and belief – and so wouldn’t necessarily have called for the missing assgts of NG’s post as those might have been done between the NOD and the issuance. If not done by the date of issuance, the assgts would’ve been called for. If called for and not done, the title company is not insuring nothin’. Imo attorneys (and pro se’s) should try to get them since they might be of some benefit. But no bankster should file a nod without an assgt in the first place. The only question for me is voidable v void. I believe void and I also believe filing a nod without an assgt is slander of title, whatever that’s worth (Jan?) post-foreclosure.
Someone commented on an older post that the borrower has no injury because of a lender’s failure to do this or that. Before anyone takes that lying down, might be a good idea to make sure ‘injury’ is required in any given situation (other than jurisdiction, that is). Slander of title, for instance, may not require proof of injury. I get a ticket for jay-walking though I’ve only offended the law against it.
SC: “So Seller (my husband) sells me full price with no warranty to quality or quantity of title… No Warranty Deed or Title Ins available?
Oh yeah…I will jump right on that.”
The plot thickens. I give or at least have more questions. So s got the deed (QC?) from the alleged trustee and then gave (‘sold’) the house to you using a warranty deed to get the loan? It looks like collusion, sorry to say. Or maybe not. If he got a nothing qc deed which he accepted for value in good faith and the lender wanted a warranty deed, I think the lender and title would be the colluders. S sells you full price? Did he use a qc or warranty deed? I can’t tell, but now it’s sounding like another qc. Did your husband happen to be the ‘trustee’ for the deceased estate?
shadowcat – it would be very unusual for a lender imo to make a loan based on a quit claim deed (v warranty deed) to a purchaser on especially an arm’s length transaction. So if that’s all the seller gave you, it was a red flag for the sophisticated, i.d., title and lender (but not necessarily to you, if that’s what you got). If on the other hand you were given a warranty deed by the alleged trustee, it might rise to fraud. At any rate, a qc deed only conveys any interest the grantor has. If he has none, obviously it conveys none.
shadowcat said “What a scam bidding low to cover the damages and charging the losses to homeowners in Judicial states that allow deficiency judgments.”
well, now. pretty sure there’s something about the amt of (an alleged) credit bid that one may argue relevant to the deficiency judgment. I can’t remember what it is, but anyone faced with it might want to crack the books on the amt re: the amt of a lender’s bid.
shadowcat, you know you make me nuts sometimes, right? You keep dropping bits of your deal but not enough so anyone can weigh in. From memory over the years: you and your spouse, “s”, bought a house owned by someone who died after he or she became the owner. The house was marketed and you and s bought it. What you got was
an alleged trustee’s deed which I took to be the trustee of the decedent’s estate. But that person might not actually have had any authority to sell to you. Nevertheless, s signed a prom note for a loan and you and s executed the dot or mtg. The loan went into default and at some point, an issue re: your title came up. In the coll instrument,
you represented that you owned the house (or were going to own after closing) on the purchase.
You did this in good faith, relying on the trustee’s auth to sell you the house.
if this is factual, the ones who are on the hot seat are the title company and the lender to the extent either or both relied on the ‘trustee’s’ authority without evidence of that authority. (A loan underwriter must review the title commitment as part of underwriting the loan). The true owner, whomever that would be, as well as anyone who did anything without authority (“trustee”) would also be liable imo. I really can’t say beyond speculation the so what of getting a loan on a home you believe in good faith you own but don’t. But, I can say this: with a purchase, unlike a refinance, the buyer or seller pays for title insurance (‘owner’s policy’) for the buyer’s benefit (with a refi, there is only one title policy issued and it’s for the lender’s benefit). There should have been a claim available to make on that owner’s (really for buyer) policy if the person who sold had no authority.
There may be other considerations, but that’s where I’d have started. My guess is Owner died, maybe intestate, and a relative decided to skip probate and just sell the house. If fraud were involved, it may defeat any sol or whatnot. At any rate, that’s what it looks like from your comments here over time. And of course, these are lay opinions. I don’t know if you ever took my suggestion to talk to a title company (unrelated to your deal) about your title or lack thereof.
Charles reed: “Now that Eric “MERS” Holder….”
Laughing my tail off. Good one!
thanks, tu!
Apparently the banksters didn’t have assignments when they either initiated f/c or completed it. DOES that make the f/c’s void or merely voidable? Makes a diff, right, since one may be subject to a sol and or res j and the other not? NG is saying void.
How long does one have for void? Forever? Til an innocent third party has acted to its detriment and laches might kick in? (But when – if – a truly innocent third party has acted to its detriment, the house may be lost, but a cause of action still exists (with a remedy other than getting the house back)?
DOES laches come into play with ‘void’? I know our host is busy, but seems to me he misses some opps to clarify / explain some things.
Gerry Spence
How to argue and win everytime youtube
Trespass Unwanted
Okay, but let’s just say abc foreclosed without an assignment of the dot where law (and a contract) requires an assignment of the dot prior to f/c’ing. i can only surmise the ag would be standing on the innocent purchaser doctrine, (yeah, yeah, I didn’t read the pdf doc), but since public record (recordation) is notice as a matter of law, I’m hard pressed to believe such reliance is appropriate; public record would show the foreclosing party was bereft of an assgt. Therefore, the purchaser had notice. The fix is the path of least resistance, I guess, and I see nothing lawful about it (did I read it was another consent order?) unless there’s some reliance on the sol being up for the borrowers to do anything about their unlawfully taken homes.
Time for some more of that Cole Porter. I’m thinking “Anything Goes’ maybe should replace our national anthem. Every now and then I see some show or event which includes a rendition of our national anthem, and as an American, I’m moved (somewhat to my surprise, I admit, since I got pretty cranky over Viet Nam, the sudden, large rise in gas prices back in 79, 400 dollar toilet seats, etc.) One way or another, it’s no small loss to me to feel Mr. Porter’s song is more appropriate. It’s sure as hell discomfiting to read decisions like one I read last week (the matter seemed to be decided entirely on the basis of the borrower’s default – heck with standing) and to firmly believe it and its kin are a reflection of a significant and unprecedented prejudice. (If the law were upheld, imo MERS would be toast. i can’t believe how many judges have rattled off,
parroted, the banksters’ propaganda about what mers is. Really? Didja’ read that agreement – for starters?)
I’ve said before “Under all is the land and under the land is the law”. I actually believed that.
Some may have already seen the amicus pdfs on this page by each case mentioned.
http://www.consumerfinance.gov/amicus/
Summary in the Supreme Court section (bottom)
July 22, 2014, an amicus in Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.
The Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. § 1635, gives borrowers the right to rescind certain transactions “by notifying the creditor.” If a creditor fails to provide the required forms and disclosures by closing, TILA provides that the right to rescind expires three years after the consummation of the transaction or upon the sale of the property, whichever occurs first. The government’s amicus brief argues that a consumer can exercise the right to rescind within three years as provided by TILA by notifying the creditor, and need not also file a lawsuit within the three-year period in order to rescind a transaction.
Summary in the Federal Courts of Appeals section (top)
Apr 13 2012, 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, Sherzer v. Homestar Mortgage Services
Apr 13 2012, 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, Sobieniak v. BAC Home Loans Servicing
Apr 13 2012, 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, Wolf v. Fannie Mae
Mar 26 2012, 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, Rosenfield v. HSBC Bank, USA
The Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. § 1635, gives borrowers the right to rescind certain transactions “by notifying the creditor.” If a creditor fails to provide the required forms and disclosures by closing, TILA provides that the right to rescind expires three years after the consummation of the transaction or upon the sale of the property, whichever occurs first. The Bureau’s amicus brief argues that a consumer can exercise the right to rescind within three years as provided by TILA by notifying the creditor, and need not also file a lawsuit within the three-year period in order to rescind a transaction.
Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life, Free, Independent, State, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino
Faith,
Maura Healey did, indeed, use it: ” When a party conducting a foreclosure does not strictly follow the foreclosure laws, the foreclosure is “void.” People who purchase properties after a void foreclosure may have a title defect that could prevent them from refinancing their mortgage or selling the property.”
http://www.mass.gov/ago/consumer-resources/consumer-information/home-and-housing/void-foreclosures-consent-judgment.html
Strictly from the standpoint of the law, there is no such thing as a “void foreclosure” until declared so by a judge, as a result of a judge’s ruling on law and evidence, in a court of law. The only way out is a legislative decision setting the clocks once and for all. As far as I know (and correct me if I’m wrong) MA legislature hasn’t ruled to reset the clock to “before MERS”. US Congress has backed MERS all the way to foreclosure and the judicial has had to apply Congress-enacted laws.
Under the circumstances (again, correct me if I am wrong) any AG making such a sweeping statement, without being backed by case law, is making an enormous mistake that will cost her political career. Our Constitution provides for three branches of government, independent from each other and serving definite roles. There is a reason for that.
I’ll wait for the results, endorsed by all three branches of government. I’m that kind of a stickler. Served me well thus far…
ETolle
I know im getting that but im the right side of the written black letter law
And im not getting screwed on procedure they are, I know, they know the judge knows and the fat lady will sing before I leave court, I made myself a promise.
Mass.gov void foreclosure relief
Shame I hope she feels shame
Christine,
I am very sad to say that Maura Healy has used the term -void foreclosure- on a website to help buyers of foreclosures clear their titles.
So, the LL source of that poorly understood tidbit is…
http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2015/05/03/new-mass-ag-puts-up-webpage-offering-anyone-who-purchased-a-house-with-a-void-foreclosure-a-clear-title-by-emailing-the-bank/
Which does refer to the following judgment.
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS,
Plaintiff,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., BAC HOME
LOANS SERVICING, LP, BAC GP, LLC,
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., CITIBANK,
N.A., CITIMORTGAGE, INC., GMAC
MORTGAGE, LLC, WELLS FARGO BANK,
N.A., MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION SYSTEM, INC., and
MERSCORP, INC.,
Defendants.
Read the entire judgment: nowhere does the inane expression “VOID FORECLOSURE” appear. Some seriously intellectually-deficient spin put on a perfectly clear, legal document!
The extent of intellectual dishonesty in this country to make a buck at any cost (this site is FOR SALE. Meaning that it is a MONEY-MAKING enterprise and it is run as such) is staggering.
Garfield picked up a juicy tidbit with his kind of spin, from a money-making website, and didn’t bother to investigate it: he put it on his money-making website, counting the number of visits as “visitors”. He just cut-and-pasted (honorably giving credit to where he got it from but don’t be fooled: he’s just covering his ass like any paranoid attorney this country manufactures for want of manufacturing anything else) and… added his own self-serving spin to the self-serving source he got it from.
If the cult members don’t get the system and how the Garfields of this world use it for their own profit, and if the system swallows them alive… whom do they have to blame?
Never mind! There’s always someone to blame. The national sport in this country.
The day cult members finally realize they were screwed all the way to Timbuktu, Garfield might want to move far, far away… What a morally corrupt society!
Indefinite( Re)hypothication
Is there an admission here.
Purchasers of stolen property are in unconsummated contracts and can rescind their signature as the clock has not started, not started for three days nor three years.
Unconsummated means all the terms of the contract is not fulfilled.
They bought something they could never own.
They may be able to get the pretender to tender and the.look for property with clear title, having stayed somewhere for free as a tenant since they were deceived and could never own the place.
These purchasers of stolen (foreclosed) property have in their own paperwork that the title insurance company was not insuring the title and that no company would sell them homeowners insurance (clue – they are not home *owners*).
But they thought they were and tried to clear title.
AG has no power or authority to grant stolen property to another.
Disgourge the pretender of all fund received for renting property that does not belong to them to another.
The.people who thought they were buying property were renting, so they can’t sell and get.equity that belongs to the real owner.
They can sue whoever they paid (do a rescission damce aand CFPB the pretender to make sure they get a.response) and move somewhere else and rent stolen property.
rescind their signature due to the discovery a loan that is not fully consummated. The home was not delivered as part of the transaction.
I don’t know any thing.
I don’t know legal things either.
I only have opinions.
Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life, Free, People, State, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino
Equatible Mortgage vs Legal Mortgage
Deb, daily we’re being shown that all things are legal…even the illegal ones….
Wow its unbelievable thing is this should never even be necessary if all things were legal
You nails as always Jan!
Especially First American Title!
I mean really.. the borrower purchased lender and homeowner title ins and FAT TOOK THE FEES!
They even run your credit reports…hmmm?
The old owner…Right!
Off record/no recorded Notes with the Mortgages.
Off record liens.
Unrecorded Warranty Deeds.
Unrecorded Trustee Agreements.
MIA POA Agreements.
Etc etc etc….
Tort by Trespass
Breech of Contract
Why is only Mass. seeing this as a problem? Where is the CA AG when her people need her? Where are the other 48 AG’s on this?
What Mr. Garfield is describing would seem to be the confluence of two streams: (1) religious conservatism, and (2) requiring the Banks to make good on their sales contracts to the new buyers.
A seller (“Bank”) has the ability to make good the sale of something they had no right to sell, by paying the previous owner a Satisfaction sum. In essence, the Bank is buying the title from the previous owner and then issuing proper title to the new buyer. If there was some 3rd-party title insurance, then presumably a subrogation claim of some form is going to be made onto the insurer, who will have to step up to the plate and make a money payment to somebody, either the Bank for their new deal with the old owner, or to the previous owner.
In practice, I predict that the title insurer (especially if it is First American Title) will instead sue the old owner in the name of the Bank, and by pouring on the legal steamroller, attempt to crush the old owner – who in most cases can be expected to not even answer the Complaint. Such a Complaint would, ironically, be styled as a “Quiet Title” lawsuit, or possibly an “equitable mortgage” claim. Since most Judges have no clue what an “equitable mortgage” is, and the homeowner also has no clue, it will become whatever patent nonsense some law firm hired gun for First American says it is (most probably Edwards Wildman Palmer, now merged into Locke Lord; both firms are pigs of the first order).
The second prong is a form of pseudo-religiosity, where the A.G. takes the position that the old owner was a deadbeat, he did not pay, so therefore he righteously deserves to have his equity stripped and be beaten up, because as a deadbeat he is a sinner and sits with Satan. you get that mentality with old Judge Doty sitting on the federal bench out in Minnesota, who plays that to extremes. Doty brought old-style Calvinism to the Bench and used his religious thinking as the foundation for decisions allowing law firms working for Wells Fargo and Bank of America to actually fabricate Assignments right in their offices in Minnesota, and even sign their own names to the Assignments – and accept them as “evidence” of transfer! At one point one brave soul went to bat for local homeowners (I recall his name was Butler) and he got absolutely hammered with hundreds of thousands of dollars in Sanctions from the bench, and run out of practice. This is what happens when you let some 86-year-old coot sit as a trial Judge in court. There is a reason they make airline captains retire at 65.
So that’s how they fix Ibanez for the rentier class….
Who would have thought? They used to do this sort of thing in smoky backrooms after hours.
Nobody wants to talk?
Ok… Time to get my hands dirty.
8 inches and rising but not faster than the weeds.
Time To Garden!
Many Blessings to All
Why else would they reject sales of full price or above?
Short Sales?
Deed in Lieu s?
What a scam bidding low to cover the damages and charging the losses to homeowners in Judicial states that allow deficiency judgments.
So Seller (my husband) sells me full price with no warranty to quality or quantity of title… No Warranty Deed or Title Ins available?
Oh yeah…I will jump right on that.
Hell I GRANTED THE WARRANTY DEED TO TRUST and signed a mortgage to allow a secured lien on this property … No lien?
So the buyer has title issues ?
And the Homeowner has title issues?
Buyers Bewtitle.For the low price of $
. No Warranty to Quantity or Quality of title.
Homeowners told they have a problem… Can’t Sell…Hire an Attorney
Neil is so right when if the foreclosure was not done correctly than how is the AG going to help the new buyer legal owners to the property. Now that Eric “MERS” Holder is gone does the Justice Dept join in on Lynn Szymoniak lawsuit?
Voidable. …
VOID FORECLOSURE? Writing ridiculous assertions in all caps doesn’t make them any less ridiculous. And again, could we have the source of that poorly understood tidbit?