Ping - What will the new Republican House do?
Posted on 11/05/2010 3:41:32 PM PDT by Chunga85
If you're wondering why loan mods appear to be intentionally blown off, why banksters advise people to intentionally miss payments to get a mod and then don't deliver one, foreclosing instead, you only need to look right here:
3.12 Realization on defaulted mortgage loans CitiMortgage will use its best efforts, consistent with its customary servicing procedures, to foreclose upon or otherwise comparably convert the ownership of properties securing any mortgage loans that continue in default and as to which no satisfactory arrangements can be made for collection of delinquent payments pursuant to section 3.2. Consistent with the foregoing, CitiMortgage will use reasonable efforts to realize upon defaulted mortgage loans in a manner that will maximize the receipt of principal and interest by the certificate holders, taking into account, among other things, the timing of foreclosure proceedings.
If a deficiency action is available against the mortgagor or any other person, CitiMortgage may proceed for the deficiency. CitiMortgage may retain 25% of the net proceeds received from a mortgagor pursuant to a deficiency action as compensation for proceeding with the deficiency action.
Got that?
Citibank's PSA - the Pooling and Servicing Agreement - the document that specifies what they will do as a servicer if you default on your mortgage says that they will maximize the the amount of money they can get from you.
In fact it requires that they maximize the amount of money they can get from you.
It gets better.
The Servicer - that is, Citi - gets to keep 25% of anything they get from a deficiency action.
That's a hell of a lot of money.
(Excerpt) Read more at market-ticker.org ...
If you were wondering why HAMP is not helping, it's because the contracts the banks have with the mortgage security holders say that they must act in a way that screws you out of the maximum amount of money possible if you default, and even better, if you default, they foreclose and then are able to come after you in a deficiency action, they get to keep 25% of the money.
Yeah.
Guess what: I'll bet my last nickel that Geithner knew this full well when they put together the fraudulent program called "HAMP", and that the very design of it - requiring you to default first before you could get help - was put in that program specifically to enable these clauses to be exercised.
Yet another example of the banks robbing you.
Ping - What will the new Republican House do?
Then the homeowners deserve what they get.
Well they won’t be getting any help from zero which really isn’t a surprise given his take from the banks.
Obama administration sings new tune on foreclosures
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) — The Obama administration is singing a different tune about foreclosures.
A year ago, officials focused on stemming the foreclosure tide. Now they are touting the need for foreclosures to rebuild the housing market.
Continue
http://money.cnn.com/2010/11/02/real_estate/obama_administration_foreclosure_shift/
“Then the homeowners deserve what they get.”
Can you explain why?
This is misleading. In non-recourse states, there is no such remedy. In recourse states such as NY, the remedy is available, but very difficult to get a judge to sign and costly too. It’s already taking 568 days to get a judgment of foreclosure and untold thousands. To get a deficiency judgment and then attempt to collect it doesn’t make sense.
This is misleading. In non-recourse states, there is no such remedy. In recourse states such as NY, the remedy is available, but very difficult to get a judge to sign and costly too. It’s already taking 568 days to get a judgment of foreclosure and untold thousands. To get a deficiency judgment and then attempt to collect it doesn’t make sense.
They’re defaulting on their loans. They deserve to be foreclosed on.
BUT of course when it comes down to it, the bank can’t foreclose, because they destroyed the note and sold divisions of an electronic shadow purporting to be the note to multiple legal entities. The bank has no actual right to be the recipient of the mortgage payments anyway.
House-holders who’s wet-signature note has been destroyed should consider paying into escrow pending settlement of the note status.
And if it turns out that nobody holds the note then house-holders have little option but to consider a writ of adverse possession. I doubt they’ll ever get clear title in any other way - certainly not by paying their mortgage.
Okay, that title is just crying out for a Photoshop of you-know-who as Gordon Gekko.
You don’t get delinquent in payments to cheat your way into a government bailout.
I found this:
If a foreclosure situation arises, and the note can not be produced, mortgage lenders will try to establish ownership by filing a court motion invoking a law called “re-establishment of the note”. In this document, they actually admit the note was lost and they ask the court to re-instate the note in the name of the current lender. Here’s an example of a restablishment of note.
http://www.consumerwarningnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/re-establishment-of-note.pdf
Especially when you are negotiating in good faith with an alleged lender (who has received the lion's share of the govt. bailouts as a reward for their rampant fraud) to work out a deal that would be the most beneficial to everyone involved.
I’d love to see the damned banks in receivership and the banksters incarcerated with Ken Lay.
Yeah - that’s exactly what I meant...
All the major banks did. Maybe receivership is where those need be..
You see the dates on the action? The date of the “loss” and the orgination of the note are the same, thus is deceptive before a court.
They claim to have been in possession of the note at the time of its loss, yet the dates state otherwise and any judge or lawyer worth a damn would see it.
IOW, the note, securitized and sold into a MBS, means the plaintiff was NOT in possession of the note if it was securitized anytime after the 1/2/2007 date.
If I can find any part of that filing fraudulent, it means all of it is deceptive.
I sure don’t understand your idea that cheating the bank is any different than the bank cheating.
If you take out a loan to buy a house, you should pay back the money or give back the house.
When you buy a piece of real estate, certain instruments are held in trust until the note is satisfied. That trust enjoins both parties to perform according to the contract documents - but the bank didn’t. It’s a very hig probability the borrower will never own the home because the title is screwed up.
If I default, THEY get the house. That’s fair.
If they default, I get the house. That’s fair. Trouble is, I’ll never really own it without possible encumberances. The true holder of the original note just might show up some day. If I’ve paid the bank, should I also have to pay the legal holder of the note?
Come on - the answer to that is clear.
"If I can find any part of that filing fraudulent, it means all of it is deceptive."
**********************************************************
Interesting you should note that. I'm looking at a spreadsheet right now that contains, among other things, the details in which you show an interest for a single county over a 10 month period.
The assignments made before Lis Pendens = 5,838.
The assignments made after Lis Pendens = 14,135.
The sum of that equation (14,135 - 5,838) would indicate that a total of 8,297 foreclosure actions are fatally flawed on that element alone.
Hypothesis? Conjecture? Opinion?
Hardly, the raw numbers that populate this spreadsheet come directly from the county's clerk of court servers.
Numbers don't lie.
Just ask them to produce the ‘wet’ note as required. When they can’t asked them why they will either have to admit that they purposely destroyed and/or then used the shadow mortgage in a commission of a crime selling it mutiple times it mortgage back securities that are worth the paper they are written on.
There’s no judge going to over looked that the bank’s destoryed their own paperwork then used the fact that they had destoryed it in order illegally move/sell the mortgage.
That would be like giving a loan shark all the profits from his loans after he admits to loan sharking.
And it would be my presumption the 40% or so that are assigned correctly - for that county - were originated with community banks, not the behemoths - and it is likely these which are not securitized mortgages. That percentage works out to about the same as the MERS involvement.
Interesting, eh?
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.