Posted on 01/07/2011 7:59:01 AM PST by cowtowney
*BANKS LOSE PIVOTAL FORECLOSURE CASE IN MASSACHUSETTS HIGH COURT *MASSACHUSETTS TOP COURT DECIDES CLOSELY WATCHED IBANEZ CASE *MASSACHUSETTS DECISION MAY AFFECT FORECLOSURE-CRISIS CASES
(Excerpt) Read more at zerohedge.com ...
Extra points for innovative use of capitalization though.
I don’t know why it was moved from Breaking News. This is a huge legal decision which was just announced. Stocks are rocking.
Good. The banks need to take a SERIOUS hit in this. Banksters need to go to jail, and the banks need to be restrained from pursuing any foreclosures on properties for which they cannot provide a crystal clear paper trail demonstrating actual ownership of the debt in question.
Sorry about the caps. It was the wire feed that I copied and pasted. I don’t like all caps either.
I am stunned that so many Freepers are falling for the Cloward-Piven approach to banking. The LEFT and the affordable housing whores have a motive: to take over the banking system for illegals, minorities, and white deadbeats.
Who is going to pay for this? Not the banks. Bernanke will print money and put it in bank reserves. So, we will pay for all of this with INFLATION.
Why should banks be forced to modify mortgages? If you go 90 days late (or even 180 days late), you think you have the RIGHT to stay in the house?
I do not work for the big banks or any bank.
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=176735
The Massachusetts Supreme Court just dealt a negative ruling to the banks in the closely-followed Ibanez case, which challenged securitization standards. It’s pretty straightforward: The banks didn’t have the proper paperwork to foreclose, says the court. Hence, no legitimate foreclosure.
More info here:
Why are we so excited about deadbeats who don’t pay their mortgage getting to keep their homes?
What kind of precedent does that set?
FR becomes stranger every day.
You are missing the point. The banks committed fraud. Whether the mortgage holder paid their mortgage is important. That’s not the main issue here. Don’t be distracted. Read the article.
“If you go 90 days late (or even 180 days late), you think you have the RIGHT to stay in the house?”
If you buy a house without bothering to get a legal title, do you have a right to sell it, or control who lives in it?
I’m not sure I understand your response. All this ruling says is that the banks or other entity must have legitimate legal “title” to the mortgage in order to foreclose on it. It simply upholds the law as written which requires that someone actually own the mortgage in order to foreclose on same.
This is only a problem for the mortgage purchasing entities if they were careless about their paperwork. Someone decided somewhere that they could write a blanket document and transfer title that way. Obviously not, the laws concerning transfer of real property cannot be circumvented in this way. Each mortgage must be assigned individually and properly. Good ruling in my opinion.
The asterisks were a nice touch too.
I, in turn, am surprised and depressed by how many FReepers haven't got the first clue as to what they are talking about regarding all this.
Do I think banks have the right to foreclose on debts they don't own? No.
Do I think banks should have to actually prove that they own the debt? Yes.
Did the banks do incredibly stupid, unethical, and illegal things when they, among other things, bundled and sold mortgages like so much paper, maintained sloppy or non-existent paper trails for what they were doing, and forged paperwork? Yes.
Should the banks have to follow the rule of law? Yes.
Should banksters get a free pass for committing fraud and using the power of the state to preferentially pay them off and protect them from the consequences of their own stupidity? No.
If you can't understand these simple points, then maybe you should better inform yourself before commenting.
you are correct, and the remedy is simple, All Home loans are no longer secured by real property, and said debt can now be discharged in bankruptcy and NO EFFECT on title to real property. The Banks screwed themselves, they deserve to go down in flames, but we still need to address the out and out FRAUD they committed.
Which brings up an interesting question: If the bank fraudulently obtained a mortgage, without bothering to obtain (or perhaps even FORGING) the proper title paperwork and other legal necessities, therefore rendering itself unable to actually prove that it owns the debt, yet still tries to foreclose on it, doesn't that make the *bank* the "deadbeat"?
Yup.
That’s the way I see it too.
Wait till soemone decides bad paper means the supposed owner might not have clear titile or the right to sell, etc.
Then watch the invective turn.
Dow Jones down 18 at 11:20 EST, what’s a rock ?
“Good. The banks need to take a SERIOUS hit in this. Banksters need to go to jail, and the banks need to be restrained from pursuing any foreclosures on properties for which they cannot provide a crystal clear paper trail demonstrating actual ownership of the debt in question.”
You are making some sweeping generalizations. I believe the heart of the problem is resistance to change. The mortgage industry especially local government involvement with the industry is dominated by paper documents and slow, labor intensive processes. The MERS system emphasizes electronic documents and streamlined workflows to reduce transaction costs. The MERS system may have its share of problems but I think that its usage has strong benefits to consumers to reduce high transaction costs in the mortgage industry.
Your proposal seems to favor deadbeats who are resisting foreclosures. The vast majority of foreclosures involve individuals who stopped paying. Many of these individuals have little or no equity in the property. The foreclosures will return the property to the real owners (note holders).
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.