Posted on 10/03/2010 7:49:13 PM PDT by Lorianne
video 7:49
Grayson is pathological on so many, many levels.
He is a malignant liar, so I don’t buy any of his schtick.
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Nutjob or not, he’s been better on this issue than most democrats and he’s right, there has been some screwy stuff going on in the mortgage business.
A few years back before my mother had her place paid off the mortgage company (companies) were selling the debt back and forth so much it was hard to know who was getting paid. When she paid it off she still got bills from 2 different companies for over a year.
Banks foreclose on homes that they don’t own [warning, Grayson]
On this he may well be right. We are facing a National moritorium on foreclosures because of this very issue, and it could well be a major problem that we are only seeing the tip of right now. This week will tell the tale for sure, but it does not look at all good right now, and the long term implications are anything but clear.
No problem, we'll "create" and register any documents you need...
I got just what you need. Lender Processing Services’ DOCX Document Fabrication Price Sheet
...for a small fee...
In twenty-five million words or less:
In many states, banks cannot foreclose without the ORIGINAL paper loan documents in hand. Electronic copies do not suffice.
This means a homeowner in default can’t be compelled to move or pay. Translation-total loss of the loan balance for the mortgage holder.
DOCX will, for a fee, “create” (read forge) “original” paper documents and file them with the relevant county, providing a phony, but legal appearing paper trail to enable foreclosure.
Besides the glaringly obvious fraud, the REAL problem is that these documents include the ownership paper trail.
Once the system has been sufficiently contaminated with phony title documents, NO ONE can be sure they have clear title to ANY real property.
No clear title means you can not buy, sell, or get a loan on any property.
That just might hurt the housing market a little, doncha think?...
===========================================================
And that's the good news.
The end-game is even worse.
I read an article a couple of days ago where this indeed happened. The bank made it right.
I know of one person whose deed and mortgage were recorded in the wrong county. He’s lived in his house for 4 years, paid his mortgage every month but found out the title was never technically transferred from the prior owner. There is no record in his county of residence that he owns the property or has a mortgage on it.
“So...the $$ to buy these houses came from where exactly? “
If the loan was sold your question is irrelevant. In fact the loan was probably sold dozens of times so you have to show that you own it.
What you have to understand is that the securitization process broke apart two halves of the mortgage contract which everyone is still assuming are whole.
Let’s back up.
A mortgage used to be a secured loan on a piece of property. A bank would loan you money to buy real property, and in return, you would pledge the title/trust/deed to said property as collateral to the lender, which they could take as partial or whole payment in the event you ceased to repay the lender per the terms in the mortgage contract. The pledge is a lien upon the property, an encumbrance upon the right to sell or transfer the ownership of said property - if you want to sell said property, you needed to pay off the party who held the lien on the property, and when you did, they would clear the lien off the title/trust/deed and your sale would go forward.
Enter securitization and MERS. The banks wanted to bundle/slice/dice/mix/puree mortgages into RMBS-backed “securities” (like CDO’s, CMO’s and more conventional REMICs) to allow them to peddle more and more mortgages to the secondary market, which would allow them to keep the cream of the crop, sell off the crap, or, keep the fees for origination and servicing and transfer the risk of actual lending to someone else.
The trouble is that while these whiz kids on Wall Street were thinking about how to transfer the monetary benefits one way, and the risk the other way, they forgot that a mortgage instrument carries a whole ‘nother component to it: the lien transfer and the right to foreclose upon the property as remedy for default of the borrower.
This deficiency of transfer of the lien assignee and chain of right to foreclose has come to light, starting in early 2009.
The net:net is this: Just because you’re the company receiving the check (or missing the check) from the borrower doesn’t mean that you have the required documentation and chain of title/lien succession which gives you the right to foreclose as a remedy for the default by the borrower.
It has taken Grayson’s fall in the polls for him to cease acting like a nutburger. You’re correct that he is right. I’m familiar with ever case he cites in that video, and he’s not making any of them up.
I still think Floridians would benefit from his replacement, however.
I still think Floridians would benefit from his replacement, however
**************************************************
As a Floridian and an American, I totally agree with you.
Grayson should not be in elected to any public office.
Hopefully a newly-elected conservative will take up the gauntlet and run with it. This is not a new subject - even Republic Title announced they will no longer be insuring title on foreclosed properties of - think it was BofA or could be Chase, which has also called a halt in proceeding with their foreclosures.
You explained it better than I did. Good job! Should be an interesting time ahead on so many levels. Who needs a soap opera when we have our own ugly reality show happening!
Here’s a great piece of litigation out of Maine dealing with GMAC.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38656771/Federal-National-Mortgage-Assoc-v-Nicollee-Bradbury
A few points:
1. GMAC couldn’t be bothered to put the correct address on their affidavits.
2. GMAC submitted factually challenged affidavits and complaints before, was ordered by the court to clear them up, and came back with more documents were were missing material facts. Hint to lawyers: When a judge tells you to come back with a better complaint, perhaps that’s a sign to, I dunno, come back with a better complaint?
3. The law in Maine appears to be quite clear that a foreclosure notice needs to give the debtor a “right to cure” - ie, a payoff amount necessary to clear the lien. GMAC’s foreclosure notice apparently did not follow the Maine laws.
4. The defendant went to the trouble of having their lawyer depose the GMAC robo-signer of affidavits. This deposition showed that the robo-signer is violating federal and state rules of evidence in the submission of the affidavits, and further, is signing them without a notary present. The notary notarized the documents after the fact.
5. GMAC was asking for a protective order to have the deposition sealed, claiming that GMAC and its employees would suffer embarrassment from having the deposition of their employee published.
No, really?
The judge NB’s that a prior deposition of the same GMAC employee is already extant and in the public sphere.
The judge further expounds upon the bad faith shown by GMAC, that GMAC has been reproached by Florida courts for the actions of their robo-signer before in 2009 and 2006, and that the continuation of the practice of the “limited signing officer” signing these affidavits when he clearly has no personal knowledge of the facts contained in the cases constitutes bad faith.
6. Now, for the final flourish. The judge orders GMAC to pay legal expenses for the defendant, even tho her attorney is working pro bono. That’s an especially just touch here.
NOW, for all of you defending the banks in this, here’s your $65,535.00 question:
If the banks are on the up-and-up, and fully within the law, what possible purpose would be served by keeping the deposition of their “limited signing officer” out of the public eye?
NVDave speaketh the truth in a nutshell. The aftermath: There are probably over 100 million deeds of trust that are potentially at risk of a clouded title that, thus clouded, will be impossible to use as collateral for a loan, or, sell. Who will buy a home with a clouded title, eventuating a potential challenge to your ownership rights? This, and courts clogged with those illegally foreclosed upon, those in foreclosure, and those who for the first time ever looked at their deed of trust, vs. the title companies that guaranteed a clear title but did not deliver, will require major govt intervention that will include bailouts. It is potentially a very scary thing from what I’m reading.
In my mother’s case her insurance was paid along with the house payment. Somewhere along the line the debt owner stopped paying for the insurance and started pocketing the money. They continued to send statements but every so often they would get a statement claiming that the insurance had lapsed. Her next statement would claim everything was paid for.
In the end it was a tree falling on the house that saved her. She called to make a claim and was told that she didn’t have insurance and hadn’t for the last few years. She got an attorney involved and the lender suddenly decided to make things right rather than try to explain their mess in court. They sent their own insurance claims adjuster up here from Florida and gave her $30,000 which was about $10,000 more than she owed.
She paid off the house, fixed the damage, and figured that was the end of it. Unfortunately the mortgage companies continued to sell the nonexistent debt back and forth among themselves. This meant two more years of foreclosure threats on a house that she owned free and clear.
Bump! [Might help to check out null’s take, tiger.]
The bailout is the least of our worries.
Just wait until our 'betters' try to 'fix' the underlying problem.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.