Judge James L. Shumate Orders Halt to Bank of America Foreclosures in Utah.

KCSG Television ^ | 6/5/2010 | Morgan Skinner

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

You are still missing the point. This case is done under Civil Law, not Criminal Law. The Tenth Amendment does not apply to people entering into legal contracts under Civil Law.

The terms of the contract are binding to the parties undersigned. If the bank decides to sell the contract to another entity, those terms are still enforceable under the original terms. The terms are also listed and spelled out in the contract that allows for the contract to be exchanged. It is perfectly legal to do so under Civil Law.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Exactly, I have dealt with one of these banks and they could care less all they want is your property.

They'd rather have your money. The last thing a bank wants is your house.

[Chunga85]

I invite you to read the link below by a brilliant attorney in Florida....have you ever considered that *maybe* you are venting your anger in the wrong direction?

If you have a securitized mortgage, delinquent or not, and don’t think something REALLY bad is going on...you ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM!

Snip>

They seriously think we are that stupid. What are they hiding from us?

Maybe that the banks have committed billions upon billions in tax evasion.

Follow what is happening in non-judicial states and you will see the arrogance.

They actually show us the blank note endorsement from the original lender yet no recording of the interest through the depositor to the trust.

Lack of standing?

Then when they are finished stealing the house they sell the loan from the unlawful foreclosing party(trust) that had no standing to F/C back to the trust through a POA to the servicer and effectively cover their tracks that the loan was never in the trust, they still stole the investors money, and they still claimed the tax exemptions under REMIC.

All while the Govt and IRS watch.

Snip>

I suspect the bash the homeowners crowd is conjuring some means of describing this as left wing “nanny” non-sense.

http://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/2010/05/irs-form-938-i-have-no-idea-if-this-is-important-but-it-sure-is-curious/

This is where we fight back...

http://www.foreclosurehamlet.org

[RegulatorCountry]

If the physical act of foreclosure occurs under Utah jurisdiction, then Utah law pertaining to legalities of foreclosure are jurisdictional.

Therefore, the judge is correct.

[stephenjohnbanker]

“He was a real estate developer who sold off almost all of his holdings in 2006-0”

I was a land developer in Phoenix, who sold “front line ready” buildable lots to the big developers. I sold out in 06, and at the same time, shorted

WAMU

Countrywide Thrift

D.L. Horton

KB Homes

LOL!!

[richardtavor]

Can someone here explain the situation? I do not understand why BOA can not foreclose if payments have not been made. But I must claim ignorance to the situation.

[kabar]

"The Court Order if allowed to become permanent will force Bank of America and other mortgage companies with home loans in Utah to adhere to the Utah laws requiring lenders to register in the state and have offices where home owners can negotiate face-to-face with their lenders as the state lawmakers intended (Utah Code ' 57-1-21(1)(a)(i).).

If the Bank of America would register in the state and have offices there so that homeowners could negotiate face to face with the lenders, then there would be no case. This is not about the contract provisions or altering the terms of the contract.

[RegulatorCountry]

As I understand the situation, the problem arises because it’s not actually Bank Of America that is attempting to foreclose, and the judge has rendered a decision that the actual holder of the deed of trust is the only party to which the home buyer is contractually obligated, and is the only party with legal standing to foreclose under Utah law.

[kabar]

"The Court Order if allowed to become permanent will force Bank of America and other mortgage companies with home loans in Utah to adhere to the Utah laws requiring lenders to register in the state and have offices where home owners can negotiate face-to-face with their lenders as the state lawmakers intended (Utah Code ' 57-1-21(1)(a)(i).).

If the Bank of America would register in the state and have offices there so that homeowners could negotiate face to face with the lenders, then there would be no case. This is not about the contract provisions or altering the terms of the contract.

[GladesGuru]

“B of A

Wells Fargo

Friend to the illegal immigrant

Enemy of the people.”

Could one accurately append “Friend of the NINJO” (No Income, No JOb) to your list?

;-)

[AAABEST]

A Utah resident who makes a legal and binding contract in another state is still held accountable to that state in which the contract was made, under the terms of the contract.

Oh really?

Try running an out-of-state insurance company, or perhaps a real estate development firm (or any type of business) and doing business in, say, Florida. You'll find out very quickly that regardless of where the firm is operating from, it has to comply with the law of the STATE OF FLORIDA. You don't get to skirt the laws of the state you're doing business in by resorting to technicalities as conjuring up the contract in your home state.

Also, if you've spent any time at all in real estate finance, you'd know that the promissory note is EVERYTHING. It is the singular legal document or "contract" you refer to that binds the borrower. The mortgage simply states the terms.

The judge is simply asking BOA to follow the laws of his state, as well as follow centuries of established law and produce a written contract.

[Alberta's Child]

If the bank decides to sell the contract to another entity, those terms are still enforceable under the original terms.

That's exactly right. Now go back to my earlier post to you and see what the implications of that statement are. If the original contract was signed under the auspices of Utah law, then the foreclosing entity has no right to ignore Utah law when it tries to enforce the terms of the contract.

Let's take this one more step, folks . . . What if the original mortgage were collateralized and sold to investors all over the world? Would anyone here on FreeRepublic relish the idea of having the United Nations oversee the enforcement of this contract?

[Alberta's Child]

I love “success” (at least on your part) stories like that. LOL.

[Any Fate But Submission]

“watching out for the “little people” and citizen’s rights”

The very act of interfering with the contract between an individual and the mortgage servicer/bond issuer/bond holder does great harm to the “little people”. If an lender/bond purchaser cannot be sure that they can foreclose on their collateral, sell it and get their money then there is considerable added risk added to the transaction. Risk equals higher interest rate and more restrictive lending. Higher interest rate and more restrictive lending means fewer “little people” can qualify for a loan.

So go ahead give all those who borrowed money the right to live in the house and not pay the bond holder. Eventually, if mortgages for loans are even available any more, they will be at 15% or a maximum of 70% loan to value or less like they had prior to the modern mortgage system instigated after WWII. It would never have developed if lenders/banks/bond holders were not allowed their contractual recourse.

[Rebelbase]

BOA is still dealing with the mountain of crappy loans they inherited through the Countrywide merger.

In most cases, Countrywide did not originate the crappy loans, they bought them to collect the servicing fees when other lenders dumped the loans off their books into mortgage back securities after the homeowners started to make late payments.

At the end Countrywide was top heavy invested in mortgage backed securities. The bust of 2008 started the avalanche that triggered foreclosures on a lot of their countrywide portfolio.

[RFEngineer]

“Correct, you’ll see a massive deflation of home values in this country as any bank that holds paper on a foreclosed (and vacant) home or piece of land will scurry to get out from under that paper and sell off those assets for whatever they can get for them.”

I think the judge has set “whatever they can get for them” to exactly zero, don’t you?

I’m less inclined to boo-hoo for borrowers than most folks on this thread it seems.

If the borrower doesn’t pay, this judge seems to think that it is ok. I say foreclose on them if the borrower doesn’t pay. If it’s the “wrong entity” foreclosing, let the courts sort that out later. If the borrow DID pay, then that can be cleared up as well.

If you think that letting “the little guy” steal from mortgage holders is good for him, just wait until “the little guy” has no job, no food, and lives in a ghost town, and then see who he blames. It won’t be “the little guy” who gets blamed - it’ll be all the businesses that have closed because they wouldn’t give “the little guy” their stuff for free just like the mortgage holders.

This judge is destroying the very people he pretends to care about - and the law he pretends to uphold.

[Chunga85]

Florida Supreme Court Tightening Foreclosure Rules

By Todd Ruger

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20100605/ARTICLE/6051036?tc=ar

snip>

“The Florida Supreme Court has reaffirmed its fight against the sloppy legal work being used to retake homes in thousands of foreclosure cases across the state.

A review of Manatee and Sarasota county cases showed attorneys for banks and lenders had widely ignored a new high court rule that requires them to verify — under penalty of perjury — the accuracy of allegations and paperwork in the foreclosure case.

When local judges started throwing out the foreclosure cases for that reason, some attorneys for lenders contended that the rule, created in February, was not yet in effect.”

I have one issue with this piece...the definition of “sloppy”: Marked by a lack of care or precision; slipshod

If this were “sloppy” the end result would not be the same millions of times!

This is INTENTIONAL and CAREFULLY planned! Florida is the Tip of the Spear!

In a nutshell, the article I link to above can be summarized:

Foreclosure Mills: Do we really have to follow the law?

Florida Supreme Court: YES you DO.

http://www.foreclosurehamlet.org

[Alberta's Child]

I think you've over-simplified the attitudes that a lot of folks have on this thread. Go back and look at my posts and see what is at stake here.

I'm 100% on board with the idea that the enforcement of contracts as an absolute necessity for any modern human society. But that enforcement goes both ways -- meaning (in this case) that the enforcing party has to play by the rules and not make a subvert the legal process by trying to change the venue for enforcement.

[Alberta's Child]

Correction to my last post there (see underlined text) . . .

. . . the enforcing party has to play by the rules and not make an attempt to subvert the legal process by trying to change the venue for enforcement.

[usconservative]

As for USConservative's point about a massive deflation in property values . . . he/she is probably right. But that just means those property values never should have been so high in the first place

Don't think for a second that those properties who's values (probably) shouldn't have been so high in the first place won't also affect other properties whether within the same market, secondary markets, or other regional markets. By comparison, the price deflation that's coming if this is allowed to continue will make what's already happened pale by comparison.