Posted on 06/06/2010 6:42:28 AM PDT by Chunga85
(St. George, UT) June 5, 2010 – A court order issued by Fifth District Court Judge James L. Shumate May 22, 2010 in St. George, Utah has stopped all foreclosure proceedings in the State of Utah by Bank of America Corporation, ; Recontrust Company, N.A; Home Loans Serving, LP; Bank of America, FSB;
snip>
The attorney’s for Bank of America promptly filed to move the case to federal court to avoid having to deal with the Judge who is not unaccustomed to high profile cases and has a history of watching out for the “little people” and citizen’s rights.
(Excerpt) Read more at kcsg.com ...
“As an FYI, it’s worth noting that these attempts by major U.S. companies — regardless of whether they’re banks, insurance companies or manufacturers — to use the Federal legal system to override state courts represent a far more pernicious and destructive trend in our society than the “squatting” you describe”
I do think you have a point here - though the fundamental issue of giving legal sanction to “squatters” is a much bigger (but different) issue than you seem to understand.
“You mean I should just pack up my bags, leave the property, and throw away the legal protections that I am entitled to as a citizen of my own state — just so all these other entities can save themselves the trouble of unraveling their own financial chaos?”
You left out a key point - if in the above scenario you have failed to pay your mortgage, then the answer is “yes” - because you are definitely not the owner.
That's exactly the point, fella. If the concept of property ownership is as important as you say it is (and I agree with you 100%), then why would we ever grant any concessions to a bank or other foreclosing entity that refuses to abide by the property laws of the state in which it is conducting business?
“The complexity of these cases isn’t a function of the number of people failing to pay their mortgages. “
It is exactly a function of the number of people failing to pay their mortgages, combined with the number of people who want to still live in a house as if they DID pay their mortgage.
Do you think Utah would have ruled in this way if the homes in question were vacated by the former owner - and were standing empty?
That's a lot of baloney -- because even if I am not the "owner" of the property, I still may have rights to recompense, financial remuneration, etc. depending on the disposition of the property by the "real" owner. If I default on a mortgage with an outstanding balance of $30,000 and the property is worth ten times that amount, then who is actually the owner of the property and what rights do I have as a so-called "squatter?"
If the homes were vacated there would have been no ruling at all -- because there would have been no court case to speak of (at least in terms of a case where two different parties were contesting legal points).
“That’s exactly the point, fella. If the concept of property ownership is as important as you say it is (and I agree with you 100%), then why would we ever grant any concessions to a bank or other foreclosing entity that refuses to abide by the property laws of the state in which it is conducting business?”
You refer to “bank or other foreclosing entity” when you should be saying “property owners”.
You are defending what is in my opinion the indefensible. The guy who didn’t pay his mortgage is irrelevant - if he wanted the property he would have paid for it.
if he simply wants to live in it, without paying rent or mortgage, then you are “granting sanction” to the squatter.
That is the problem with your argument. Sure, there are families affected when you enforce property ownership laws. That is what this ruling is all about - the emotional reaction of throwing people out of homes that they don’t own or pay for.
There are devastating societal consequences for doing what this judge is doing.
“If the homes were vacated there would have been no ruling at all — because there would have been no court case to speak of (at least in terms of a case where two different parties were contesting legal points). “
Oh, so right and wrong is decided by the courts? I guess it is in Utah.
A lot of these discussions are ultimately going to end up being completely pointless anyway. I believe we are about to enter another phase of the collapsing real estate market where things are going to go from confusing to downright bizarre. I've already seen signs of this in commercial real estate . . . where a borrower fails to make payments on a mortgage for months, and yet the mortgage holder (owner) refuses to even bother foreclosing -- because the cost of owning the property from a functional standpoint (i.e., maintaining it and paying taxes on it) isn't even worth their while to go through the foreclosure process.
“That’s a lot of baloney — because even if I am not the “owner” of the property, I still may have rights to recompense, financial remuneration, etc. depending on the disposition of the property by the “real” owner. If I default on a mortgage with an outstanding balance of $30,000 and the property is worth ten times that amount, then who is actually the owner of the property and what rights do I have as a so-called “squatter?” “
If there is an excess after a foreclosure sale, it will be refunded to you under law. Why wouldn’t it?
But you don’t own the property if you don’t pay the mortgage. Do we at least agree on this small but important point?
Under what law -- state or Federal (isn't that the basic point of contention in this Utah case)? ;-)
But you don’t own the property if you don’t pay the mortgage. Do we at least agree on this small but important point?
Absolutely.
“If you don’t have a clear title to property (or hold a mortgage on it) then you aren’t the property owner — plain and simple.”
Ah, but this judge has taken “plain and simple” and made it impossibly complex. It is in the best interest of the law and for society, and for localities to make is “plain and simple” to identify who actually owns the property.
This judge is engaging in populist BS - and running roughshod over property rights to do so.
If the law were “plain and simple” as it should be with property matters, there would be no argument. Thanks to the judge, it’s much more difficult to determine simple concepts.
“Absolutely.”
Ok, so we mostly agree, I think. I probably have less tolerance for the political populism that is at the root of this entire argument.
“Under what law — state or Federal (isn’t that the basic point of contention in this Utah case)? ;-) “
Both, or either. It doesn’t matter, as long as the property is returned to the rightful owner - the excess money to the previous owner, and the property itself to the bank/mortgage holder.
This hypothetical (house worth more than mortgage at foreclosure) is the vast minority of these cases, I think we can agree.
If that is the case (and I might agree with you on this), then financial instruments such as collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs) and collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) should be absolutely prohibited by law.
Keep in mind that Federal and state laws can't even keep up with the complexity of these instruments (which is one more reason why all of these cases are now being contested in various courts). Do you realize that there are still some broad legal questions (with enormous implications) about whether these things should be subject to real estate law or to securities law?
The judge is merely following the law. Did you read the article?
Pay up your obligations or go live on the street!
Agreed. More and more cases are cropping up that point to fraud, collusion and protection.
www.msfraud.com
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.