Weekly/biweekly Michigan legislative action thread
Posted on 01/02/2013 2:01:13 PM PST by Neidermeyer
KIM v JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NA .....
The Court of Appeals, DONOFRIO, P.J., and STEPHENS and RONAYNE KRAUSE, JJ., reversed, concluding that because defendant was not the original mortgagee and had acquired the loan by assignment rather than by operation of law, defendant was obligated under MCL 600.3204(3) to record the assignment of plaintiffs’ mortgage to it before foreclosing by advertisement. The Court of Appeals determined that defendant’s failure to record the assignment rendered the sheriff’s sale void ab initio. 295 Mich App 200 (2012). The Supreme Court granted defendant’s application for leave to appeal. 491 Mich 915 (2012). In an opinion by Justice MARILYN KELLY, joined by Justices CAVANAGH,MARKMAN, and HATHAWAY, the Supreme Court held: When a subsequent mortgagee acquires an interest in a mortgage through a voluntary purchase agreement with the FDIC, the mortgage has not been acquired by operation of law and that subsequent mortgagee must comply with the provisions of MCL 600.3204 and record the assignment of the mortgage before foreclosing on the mortgage by advertisement. Any defect or irregularity in a foreclosure proceeding results in a foreclosure that is voidable, not void ab initio.
(Excerpt) Read more at courts.michigan.gov ...
READ
The bank should stop making mortgage loans. Every bank in Michigan should.
Ah, so who are the FReeper chumps who are actually paying your mortgage?
May more of this collateral fraud be exposed.
/johnny
they got what they deserved.
The bought a loan and then tried to avoid the document tax stamps throught the fiction of a “servicing agent” who did not own but did own the note.
It was sold on the “foclosure value” of the appraisal which the bank knew was an inflated fiction.
The edit to the headline, indicating that (some) transferred MORTGAGES are voidable, is not borne out by the body text.
Rather, the court seems to have ruled that FORECLOSURES are voidable where the new holder of a mortgage debt has failed, prior to foreclosing, to comply with “MCL 600.3204(3) [by] record[ing] the assignment ... before foreclosing by advertisement.”
But i don’t see anything indicating that any such foreclosure, once voided as having been begun without that recordation, cannot be re-begun AFTER that paperwork is filled out ... ?
Shorter version: There’s a big difference between forcing the note-holder to start the foreclosure all over and avoiding the entire underlying debt.
those who took out mortgages still owe what they borrowed
One of the goals of the Marxists is to invalidate contract law. Credit will then become unavailable.
This bears repeating:
Unless those foreclosed upon can prove that they were in compliance with the major terms of the mortgage...including all the repayments terms...they should not get the houses back or any other form of compensation.
Wouldn't that play right into the government's hands. The government could then issue their own mortgages and in effect own the properties. We could eventually be reduced to landless serfs working for the lords and ladies of the ruling class.
BS. If the lender does not have the NOTE to prove ownership then they have no interest. Someone is holding the note and they can come forward for payment. How would you like to payoff your house and the bank say they don’t hold the original note for cancellation.
isn’t that where this ruling is headed anyways?
what is the difference between government doing it and a court forcing it to be done?
The banks made a hell of a mess by buying and selling debts.
I figured the game out when I paid my last payment only to be hit with foreclosure threats from 2 different servicing agencies within a month. The saving grace for me was having everything in order after threatening Wells Fargo with a lawsuit after a tree fell on my house and finding that I wasn’t insured despite my premium being included in my payment. (They got caught pocketing the money)
those who took out mortgages still owe what they borrowed
Of course, assuming the real owner can be determined. These lenders thought they were above the law. A very small percentage are being held to it. The lender rights the contract, if they don’t like the results, it’s their own fault. Now if only actual people who committed fraud in the robo signing scandal would actually do real time.
Interesting post & thread.
Assuming you have kept records of payments that prove you are up to date, and have the original paperwork when you took out your mortgage, you should be proof against any judgement.
Now if you didn’t uphold your end of the deal, and missed some payments, you could be in trouble.
There are so many shoes yet to drop from the gluttony/thievery going back to the 90's...much is being held back from the public(mostly because of the current occupant of the White House)by a compliant media along with a business(fraud)partner treasury/Federal Reserve, not to mention a reprehensible executive, legislative, judicial governing class.
"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before"...Rahm Emanuel
Someone else said it best..."our Founders would have been shooting by now"...at the very least there should have been(should still be)a whole'lot of folks going to jail.
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.