Posted on 10/17/2010 10:19:25 AM PDT by combat_boots
Edited on 10/17/2010 10:27:32 AM PDT by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
Most of you have probably heard by now about the family that was foreclosed on in California, their home was resold, refurbished, and they then effectively “stole it back” with their attorney and a locksmith breaking in and re-taking possession.
Conejo Capital Partners has published “the other side of the story”, and it makes several good points - some of which I believe deserve exposition and discussion:
On January 28, 2010 the property was sold thru a public auction at the trustee sale held at the Ventura County Court House. Each month this same process occurs thousands of times across the nation as a method for banks to take back or dispose of the property that is not being paid for. Conejo Capital was the “successful” bidder. Shortly thereafter the former bank issued the title and it was legally recorded with Conejo Capital Partners LLC as the new owner of the property. At the time all we knew about the property was that the former homeowners purchased it in 2001 for $539,000, and that they later refinanced it, pulling equity out, resulting in debt of roughly $1,000,000.
We start here. How do we wind up with someone who purchased a home for $500,000 then pulling another $500,000 in what amounts to phantom equity out?
Well, that’s simple: We had Wall Street banks that were more than happy to trade on this phantom, false, and maliciously-inflated “equity”, driven by a central bank and cronies in Washington DC that were all too happy to look the other way at rampant lawlessness for nearly a decade.
The genesis of this problem came there, but nobody - and I do mean nobody - wants to talk about that or take responsibility for it. Why not?
(Excerpt) Read more at market-ticker.org ...
I’ve asked the AM to replace the lede with this, as I am not very good with view source formatting replication:
“Most of you have probably heard by now about the family that was foreclosed on in California, their home was resold, refurbished, and they then effectively “stole it back” with their attorney and a locksmith breaking in and re-taking possession.
Conejo Capital Partners has published “the other side of the story”, and it makes several good points - some of which I believe deserve exposition and discussion:
On January 28, 2010 the property was sold thru a public auction at the trustee sale held at the Ventura County Court House. Each month this same process occurs thousands of times across the nation as a method for banks to take back or dispose of the property that is not being paid for. Conejo Capital was the “successful” bidder. Shortly thereafter the former bank issued the title and it was legally recorded with Conejo Capital Partners LLC as the new owner of the property. At the time all we knew about the property was that the former homeowners purchased it in 2001 for $539,000, and that they later refinanced it, pulling equity out, resulting in debt of roughly $1,000,000.
We start here. How do we wind up with someone who purchased a home for $500,000 then pulling another $500,000 in what amounts to phantom equity out?
Well, that’s simple: We had Wall Street banks that were more than happy to trade on this phantom, false, and maliciously-inflated “equity”, driven by a central bank and cronies in Washington DC that were all too happy to look the other way at rampant lawlessness for nearly a decade.
The genesis of this problem came there, but nobody - and I do mean nobody - wants to talk about that or take responsibility for it. Why not?....”
Like our three branches of Federal Government, it seems local judges have also thrown out the US Constitution.
It’s a shame the bank could only forclose on the house, and not the stuff they got with the cash out refi.
If you have a case (for example, if you don't have a mortgage with the company that is foreclosing, or if you properly tendered payment, but they refused it), you can get it to trial. However, most mortgages have a provision where you WAIVE your right to a jury trial in the event of a dispute with the lender. It is not unconstitutional to deny a jury trial where the parties have waived that right.
The other thing that comes into play is that actions relating to mortgages are actions "in equity". The "Equity" Courts were a class of cases where English judges were allowed to do justice based on a set of equitable principles, instead of following strict legal rules. It's where we get the term "equity", which is the amount of value that a court of equity would give a homeowner after taking into account the principal owed.
The Constitution guarantees jury trial in actions that are tried by jury in English courts of law as of 1789. Mortgage disputes were not in that class of action. Therefore, there is not a constitutional issue that applies to many of those disputes.
Denninger talks out of his posterior sometimes.
mark
Actually, refis and HELOC losses and the like can most certainly be recouped via garnishment of wages. Depends on the state, though.
Nice post but as you will (have?) learned this is not a good venue for financial posts.
Where does it say that?
The 7th Amendment.
The 7th Amendment says: "The Constitution guarantees jury trial in actions that are tried by jury in English courts of law as of 1789."?
You must have a different copy than me.
First of all, everyone has a different copy than you. The 7th Amendment says:
"In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."
I think you quoted a summary version of the amendment. Look it up.
I suggest you do further reading as to what was meant by the words "suits at common law". You can start here. And I suggest you get better sources for your Constitutional citations, and stop thinking you can read it AND understand it without consulting anything. Even the Founders had to review hundreds of pages of the Federalist Papers to understand what it all meant, and still, it is disputed. It is understandable in many ways by laypeople, as it was intended to be, but there are many aspects that need to be studied to be understood in context.
You THINK I quoted a summary? I quoted you
As for the rest of your warbling Mr. Arrogant, your kind of interpreting of the 7th Amendment gets us a 2nd Amendment protecting muskets issued up until 1789.
You are truly clueless. Go to the Federalist Papers if you want contemporary confirmation of what the 7th Amendment means. I do believe that the Constitution should be interpreted according to the original intent. That does not mean that "arms" means only "muskets" any more than States does not include Ohio, or "speech" does not include internet writings. Don't make stupid arguments rebutting something that was not said. Admit you were wrong, read the authorities, and say "thank you, I learned something today".
And duh, you responded as if you didn't recognize it.
That does not mean that "arms" means only "muskets" any more than States does not include Ohio, or "speech" does not include internet writings.
And "suits at common law" doesn't mean "...jury trial in actions that are tried by jury in English courts of law as of 1789." See how that works?
But it does. Study it, then say thank you.
Aah, but it doesn't. And I won't be thanking you, but I will tell you what your arrogant mouth can kiss.
Answer this: does the second reference to the "common law" in that amendment refer to the common law as it was settled in 1789? A simple yes or no will suffice.
I know the answer, why should I answer a question for a guy who is not willing to listen to what the settled law on an UNCONTROVERSIAL and CLEAR point of law is? On matters on which I have expertise, I’m here to teach, to those who are willing to learn. To putzes, not worth my time.
Yet you're not answering it. Why? We both know why. You got trapped and now I can expect post after post of tap dancing, sophistry, and obfuscation from you can't I?
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.