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

To: monkeyshine

You know, it isn’t even a question of who holds “title.” The purchaser holds the title. The purpose of a foreclosure is to obtain that title. The only thing possibly fuzzy because of all the transfers of the loan is who holds the note and trust deed. But the trust deed isn’t “title,” it is a lien.

What is absolutely clear by the time these things get to foreclosure is that the one person who has no right to the house is the one sitting in it, who hasn’t made payments on it for many, many months. If two banks ultimately end up fighting over who owns the loan, it would not affect the home purchaser at all.


114 posted on 10/11/2010 10:36:42 AM PDT by lady lawyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies ]


To: lady lawyer

“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.


123 posted on 10/11/2010 10:42:34 AM PDT by BenKenobi ("Henceforth I will call nothing else fair unless it be her gift to me")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies ]

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