Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Foreclosures Hit a Snag for Lenders
The New York TImes ^ | November 15, 2007 | Gretchen Morgenson

Posted on 11/15/2007 7:10:13 PM PST by givemELL

Judge Christopher A. Boyko of Federal District Court in Cleveland dismissed 14 foreclosure cases brought on behalf of mortgage investors, ruling that they had failed to prove that they owned the properties they were trying to seize.

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy
KEYWORDS: foreclosures; lenders
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-130 next last
To: Nervous Tick
I wonder if maybe a whole bunch of mortgages were pooled as collateral for some complex investment vehicle that in turn is owned by a whole bunch of investors. Thus, there’s a many-to-many relationship between investors and borrowers.

No, there’s a “trustee” of the pool who owns the mortgages for the benefit of the various investors. The exact term “trustee” might not be the exact term used, but this entity by whatever name “owns” the mortgage and can enforce the mortgage in the name of the investors.

Probably in this case the “trustee” appears to be Deutsche Bank or some entity controlled by Deutsche, which has not kept its paperwork in order.

As others above have said, the remedy is to get the actual ownership in the mortgage paper transferred and then Deutsche can sue.

Only problem I can see: what if the originator of the loan has gone out of business, or even if it is still in business but can’t find the file with the original mortgage in it?

If Deutsche can’t get the paperwork, they can’t ever enforce the mortgage. And they will probably be liable to the owners of the mortgage-backed securities. Ouch big-time.

As someone said above, the job isn’t done until the paperwork is finished.

41 posted on 11/16/2007 5:00:29 AM PST by Cheburashka (DUmmieland = Opus Dopium. In all senses of the word dope.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Cheburashka

My mortgage was purchased in 2002 and yes, I have an ARM which I had hoped to get out of. Closing was set - and I was laid off so no closing. I’m making my payment within the month it is due (but always late). Not so good for my credit. Asked Wilshire if they would agree to a skipped payment and put it on the end of the loan. They said no - that they do not have the power/authority to change the terms of my original note. Does this make sense?


42 posted on 11/16/2007 5:44:51 AM PST by GYPSY286 (Politicians must USE their heads or Americans will LOSE their heads.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

In my view, it’s not really funny. The whole system will go to hell if judges won’t enforce mortgages.
****************************************
Thats the point ,, they have been lax for 30+ years in enforcing the banks side ,, their paperwork has been deficient in the past and it was overlooked... The judge has decided that both sides have to comply...


43 posted on 11/16/2007 6:03:10 AM PST by Neidermeyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: TheLion

I would put this simply as ... The judge stated “NO TICKEE ; NO LAUNDRY!”


44 posted on 11/16/2007 6:07:07 AM PST by Neidermeyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Neidermeyer

It’s not an issue that involves the mortgagor, though. It’s only an issue between the security holders and the bank. It’s a question of who the security holders want to act on their behalf. To let the mortgagor off because the judge can’t figure out the answer to that tangential question is nonsense. If the judge is confused about it, then fine... require the money and/or foreclosed property to be put in trust until he has a clear answer to that question. There should not be any real doubt about it though. The money ultimately goes to the security holders, not the bank, and who owns the securities is not really in doubt.


45 posted on 11/16/2007 6:16:15 AM PST by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

actually this is not unheard of. It comes from slopping mortgage closings and incomplete papers.

This will be resolved as the lawyers now have to go back an find the defect and how they will be able to plead correctly.


46 posted on 11/16/2007 6:17:22 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

Possessing rights to payment does not imply right to the property itself. Without the note, DB can’t take possession of the property. This is not a systemic problem, it’s institutional laziness, and it seems the judge is telling everyone to get their sh*t in order before challenging the integrity of the court to look the other way.


47 posted on 11/16/2007 6:18:11 AM PST by Rutles4Ever (Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia, et ubi ecclesia vita eterna)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Rutles4Ever

My point is that it’s not DB’s rights anyway. DB is acting on behelf of the people who have a right to payment. They are merely an agent.

It’s sort of like if you hired a lawyer to handle a case for you, and he sent one of his associates to go with you to the hearing, and the judge refused to hear the associate because he can’t prove that he works for your lawyer. Who cares? You and he are there, and you’re telling the judge that he represents you. The judge doesn’t need to see the associate’s employment contract in order to decide the case.


48 posted on 11/16/2007 6:35:21 AM PST by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: bpjam
This is a clerical matter and not some matter of law. Its like showing up with a lawsuit in which nobody signed the last page attesting that it was written by them. Just sloppiness. This is a deadly serious problem because it means that the financial skull-duggery of selling CDOs was fraudulent. If the CDO does not own the deed of trust, then there is no "C" in the CDO.
49 posted on 11/16/2007 6:42:02 AM PST by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
Clearly the bondholders have a right to be paid from the properties.

No, they have a right to an income stream from a pool of bundled securities, such as BS361-350-121-0a31. That security receives the income from the underlying mortgage payments.

50 posted on 11/16/2007 6:46:22 AM PST by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
The judge doesn’t need to see the associate’s employment contract in order to decide the case.

Dead wrong. The plaintiff, Deutsche Bank, has to prove that there is a contract between himself and the alleged debtor. Under the statute of frauds all contracts for land have to be in writing. Deutsche Bank could not produce the contract.

Under the statute of frauds you cannot just allege that there was a contract, etc. You have to produce it. This is to prevent fraudulent lawsuits, which our courts are already rife with.

It is not a legal technicality.

51 posted on 11/16/2007 6:49:55 AM PST by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: steve86; Brilliant
Someone can sue to foreclose.

Yes, but in a court of law, only the person with standing can sue to foreclose. The person with standing is the person whose name appears on the deed of trust.

52 posted on 11/16/2007 6:51:17 AM PST by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

I absolutely agree with the judge, if you file for foreclosure you better damned well be able to produce the mortgage and note physically to the court that you have indeed the right to file foreclosure. Showing up with some document that just says one party agrees to sell to another party some note and mortgage is not proof that you actually hold the mortgage on the property and have legal right to foreclose.

This is elementary stuff, the judge did the absolutely right thing. Good ruling and it should have been handed down years ago.


53 posted on 11/16/2007 6:56:11 AM PST by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson

The same C can and has been used as collateral in multiple Pools... trust me this happens.. and while I’m sure those doing it will claim it was done by “clerical error”.. These are not isolated incidents and Greed played a role in more than a few of them.


54 posted on 11/16/2007 6:57:48 AM PST by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
The question of who technically “owns” the mortgage is somewhat academic, though, because the “owner” is merely a representative of certain easily identifiable bondholders who are entitled to be paid. Clearly the bondholders have a right to be paid from the properties. They can appoint anyone they want, and who they appoint is between them and the appointee, having nothing to do with the obligations of the mortgagor.

Absolutely FALSE. A NOTE and a Mortgage are not the same thing. Without the mortgage, that actually ties the note to the property, the note holder has ZERO authority to take the house when payments are not recieved. Without showing the court they are the true MORTGAGE HOLDER they have ZERO standing before the court to foreclose and take the property.

This is basic stuff, this judge made the absolutely right call and its amazing its taken this long for a Judge to come down with this ruling. No judge should be allowing a foreclosure hearing to procede without the plantiff physically producing the mortgage and proving they are its rightful owner.

55 posted on 11/16/2007 7:01:17 AM PST by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: HamiltonJay

The law specifically states that the mortgage follows the note. If you assign the note, you assign the mortgage.


56 posted on 11/16/2007 7:10:41 AM PST by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

If a particular party is, in fact, the rightful mortgage holder, it should be easy for that party to produce the legal documents required to prove that ownership. As soon as the alleged mortgage holder complies with the law, I’m sure the judge will let the foreclosure proceed.


57 posted on 11/16/2007 7:43:55 AM PST by seacapn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
In my view, it’s not really funny. The whole system will go to hell if judges won’t enforce mortgages

As long as the mortgage has been properly recorded they will be enforced. The suit just has to be brought in the name of the party who filed the original mortgage or these people have to show a proper assignment of the mortgage.

It is really no different than if you had a promissory note wherein you owed money to John Doe and Bill Smith takes you to court on the note. The judge is saying to Bill Smith, show me how you are entitled to sue on John Doe's note.

58 posted on 11/16/2007 8:15:28 AM PST by CharacterCounts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: givemELL
Saying that Deutsche Bank’s arguments of legal standing fell woefully short, the judge wrote: “The institutions seem to adopt the attitude that since they have been doing this for so long, unchallenged, this practice equates with legal compliance. Finally put to the test, their weak legal arguments compel the court to stop them at the gate.”

Hmmm, looks like if I could get this judge when the IRS comes after me for not paying my federal taxes, I could win. I like the way he thinks.

Maybe it is time to stop paying federal income tax.

59 posted on 11/16/2007 8:31:13 AM PST by RobRoy (Islam is a greater threat to the world today than Nazism was in 1938.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

>>In my view, it’s not really funny. The whole system will go to hell if judges won’t enforce mortgages.<<

I agree with you. However, it looks like in this case the judge was right. Laws are very specific. Someone will probably eventually foreclose. But this is not about the “squatter” getting off scott free. If that bank only has a letter of “intent” to buy the loan in a pool, but can show that they paid the original mortgage holder for it, they can “eventually” prove they are the ones that can foreclose.

IOW, SOMEONE will eventually foreclose.

OTOH, if the article was accurate when it said that some mortgages were in more than one pool, this little case exposed a MUCH bigger and potentially explosive problem. And it WILL become exposed as banks deal with this ruling.

I suspect there is a lot of scrambling going on in banks all over the world right now.


60 posted on 11/16/2007 8:35:39 AM PST by RobRoy (Islam is a greater threat to the world today than Nazism was in 1938.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-130 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson