Posted on 10/11/2010 9:13:41 AM PDT by ex-Texan
Well of course she did!
40 hour week x 4.3 weeks in a month = 172 hours in a month.
8000 mortgages to review / 172 hours = 46.5 per hour. Or about 1.3 minutes per mortgage.
The person responsible is not the lady who fessed up, although she should no doubt have blown the whistle. It's whoever assigned her to process this number of documents knowing there was no way it could be done properly.
BTW, here in FL the problem extends well into the judiciary, who have rubber-stamped tens of thousands of foreclosures, refusing in many cases to even hear defense evidence that the documentation is faulty or fraudulent.
And, I guess you can't comprehend the simple difference between "contract law" and "criminal law"?
So failure to uphold a contract is a crime? Do you really think someone that has been frugal and played by the rules all their life, and then comes under financial hard times (like getting laid off from their job, something that is pretty common lately) and has trouble paying their mortage (because they can't find another job in this economy) is a criminal!!!! Should the government have the authority to fine that individual or even throw them into prison for failure to uphold a PRIVATE contract between two individuals?
Failure to fulfill a contract is not a crime, it is a civil tort (in case you didn't notice, civil courts ARE legal courts, but not criminal courts). Breaking a legal contract IS NOT the same as breaking a criminal law.
You cannot lump everyone that is failing to pay their mortgages into the same group (people commiting fraud). Individuals that cannot pay their mortgages, because they fell on hard times (and there are plenty out there in this economy) are not criminals nor are they committing any type of fraud.
“If two banks ultimately end up fighting over who owns the loan, it would not affect the home purchaser at all.”
Ma’am, with all due respect.
Would you wish to continue doing business with a bank that had defrauded you? Anytime a bank sells property that they do not actually own is fraud, and ought to be punished.
Look at it this way. If you cannot sell the house because you don’t actually have the deed, and you can no longer trust the bank not to lie to you, how fast do you think housing prices are going to drop?
This is no different then having crooked scales, and selling short.
*yikes*
This has taken on the quality of the Surreal. It’s bizaare.
Of course, when Hopper finished, Walken proceeds to blow his brains out.
I'm pretty sure Freepers have seen this coming and been discussing it since at least the 2002 primaries.
Yep, and it is just one more step for the ethically challenged bankers to start paying mortgagees that are part of the cheaply acquired MBS to go into foreclosure, as that generates a better profit for them than collecting mortgage payments for the next n years.
The banker never held the title. And the banker didn’t sell the “property.”
The home purchaser holds title — usually a warranty deed. The bank paid for the house, by lending money to the home purchaser. The bank usually holds a note and a trust deed. But the trust deed is not “title,” it is a lien that can be recorded.
In order to spread the risk of all the crappy loans that bankers have been forced to write under the Community Reinvestment Act, they began bundling the loans — some bad, some good — and selling and reselling them en masse. So the original hard copies of the paperwork have not always followed the ownership of the loan.
The purpose of the foreclosure proceeding is to obtain title, which resides in the home purchaser who has not made a payment for many, many months. The foreclosure also clears away any subordinate liens, like the second and third mortgages that some people took out, which are now, in all likehood, worthless.
By the time it gets to foreclosure, the only person who clearly has no right to the house is the person sitting in it, not paying back the bank that advanced the money for the purchase. The business over who holds the loan paper doesn’t really affect the home purchaser. It might mean (but probably not) that two banks will end up fighting each other, but that’s all. But, some lawyers have exploited this to allow deadbeats to remain in homes they are not paying for.
There has been no attempt to “defraud” the homeowners.
You are 100% correct. I was mistaken about the movie title. But you recalled the scene exactly. And understood my drift precisely. LOL, LOL !
Can I be honest?
The one couple we know that lost their home, and *all* their equity, we're two of the hardest working people we knew, that purchased a home 50 miles from work, because it was "AFFORDABLE".
Don't believe some of these people that try to convince everyone that millions losing their homes are all, deadbeats.
It's bullsh*t.
Bingo! "The dog ate my homework" doesn't work in when the judge wants to see the mortgage & note. Or, it shouldn't.
I have already explained why the banks aren’t “defrauding” the homeowners. The only claim of “fraud” is that some bank officers have signed affidavits attesting to the documentation without actually checking the documents. All this is doing is allowing people to stay in — and retain title to — houses that somebody else has paid for.
You are right. The borrow who defaults should have his home forclosed upon.
But by whom? It has to be the person to whom he owes the money, and then only if that person has the title to the home as collateral.
Otherwise the problems are obvious. If the home is resold by the forcloser, the new owner has no way to title of the home. The title holder has no further recourse to that property, or, the title holder will go after the forcloser at some future date for selling the home he had no right to sell, etc etc..
You are dreaming if you thing that foreclosure generates “profit” for the banks. Usually, every foreclosure means a huge loss.
“Any banker who sells property to which they do not actually own title to the deed, should lose the value of the entire house in a court settlement.”
But, then, under your logic, the title should revert to the person who originally held the valid title, NOT the mortgagee.
So the bank gets screwed, the buyer gets screwed, and the “seller” walks away with the money?
I’ve got a neat idea. Why don’t we work this out WITHOUT all the effing lawyers, old west style.
Sheriff: Martin, did you intend to sell this house to Gordo?
Martin: Ayep.
Sheriff: Gordo, did you intend to buy this house from Martin?
Gordo: Sure did, Sheriff.
Sheriff: And did you borrow the money from Nialls the banker to do so?
Gordo: Sure did, Sheriff.
Sheriff: Nialls, did you lend Gordo the money and he agreed to repay?
Nialls: Yes sir, Sheriff.
Sheriff: Fine. Gordo, pay Nialls the money or I’ll throw you in the blasted jail.
Oh I know it is. When it comes down to taking care of myself and my family or taking care of a bank, the bank will ALWAYS lose.
“What if people are paying a mortgage to someone who doesn’t actually hold title to the property? Sounds to me that most lenders are not capable of selling an unencumbered deed.”
You are correct, but there are many right here of FR who say: Tough! To bad for them! Those people got the short end yeah but we made sure that the ‘dead beats’ didn’t get a free house.
“You...you’re part eggplant.”
“You’re a cantaloupe.”
Bye, Dennis.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXjcf47y-zk&feature=related
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.