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 ...
The outcome based appraisal was the “seed” that grew into this entire mess....
The over-inflated value was used as the basis for AIG’s Credit Default Swaps.
The “lenders” were made whole 30X over by insuring this over-inflated collateral and then FAILING to cover!
Ha Ha!
Ping
Couldn't agree with your post more. Spot on.
If anyone in Utah pays another mortgage payment they are fools.
“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.”
I do think I understand.
Are you implying that folks actually paid, and are being unjustly foreclosed upon in a far-off venue when they paid their mortgages?
If that is the case, then sympathy and redress can be applied.
If not, then this is simply “the little guy” cutting his own throat with the assistance of the judge.
The judge does not help “the little guy” by letting him live there without paying the mortgage. People don’t understand this. Future “little guys” will be denied access to even reasonable credit.
Because as part of the mortgage contract the borrower signed was a piece of paper that said the mortgage could be held or sold by the original mortgage lender, and that the borrower was still bound by the terms of the contract if that happened.
Assuming the borrower signed that piece of paper (and they had to in order to get the loan in the first place) then I don't see where this judge has the right to do what he did legally.
Now, if you want to talk about whether or not the new mortgage holder can prove they hold the paper to the mortgage, I'm with ya. I worked for a large bank with a huge mortgage operation for four years and I know all about how mortgages were broken up, securitized as packages and sold as investments. When this happened, contracts and papers were digitized and transferred between lending institutions. What often did not follow or lagged behind was the physical paper. It is this narrow part of the transfer of assets that the courts are focusing in on.
Here the courts have to rule/decide on what constitutes a mortgage holder "holding the paper" vs. what does not. Some courts will accept the mortgage transfers and copies of the digitized images of the original paperwork. Others are not, and that's what's causing much of the backlog in bankruptcy court.
Ultimately a Federal Court is going to have to determine the rules for establishing who holds the paper in order for these mortgages to be enforced and ultimately, this mess to get cleaned up.
My point is not whether it’s the borrower or the lender is ultimately “right” in this case. My point — and from what I’ve read the judge’s point — is that even the party that is “wrong” has a right to the proper due process in these cases.
Go back to my previous point about this. If the mortgage was securitized and ultimately sold to Robert Mugabe, does that mean the proper venue for the foreclosure proceedings is a Zimbabwe court?
Welcome to the Tower of Babel version 2.0, folks.
“Foreclosure Mills: Do we really have to follow the law?
Florida Supreme Court: YES you DO.”
“Foreclosure Mills” - aka property owners/capitalists.
This does nothing but reduce folks to “squatter” status.
It helps no one - not the lender, not the borrower. It will kill entire cities - nobody will pay their mortgage, and nobody will pay their property tax - let the municipality foreclose for tax non-payment and then sell to whom, and for what?
The only salient fact is “did the borrow pay as agreed” if not, then foreclosure should swiftly follow.
This is not to punish the delinquent borrower - they get to escape an obligation they cannot or will not pay - this is to ensure that society remains orderly, and local governments can provide whatever services people decide they want.
We are fostering “little Detroits” all over this country by focusing on legal technicalities to let people squat in homes they used to “own” as mortgage payers.
So you believe that Utah law does not apply to BofA when it does business in Utah?
The judge is applying Utah law as written, not inventing it wholesale like you imply.
I'm sure there are plenty of cases out there already (and if not, there will be) where multiple "lenders" attempt to foreclose on the same property.
“My point is not whether it’s the borrower or the lender is ultimately “right” in this case. My point — and from what I’ve read the judge’s point — is that even the party that is “wrong” has a right to the proper due process in these cases.”
My point is that it is an unreasonable legal technicality that harms the borrow and the lender, and society as a whole.
These folks didn’t pay their mortgage and should be foreclosed upon to move on and live their lives (hopefully) a bit wiser. We are fostering and encouraging a “scammer” mentality in our citizenry by letting them squat in homes they have no right to live in.
Apparently the judge can technically do this, but he is not helping anyone, or society.
As another poster pointed out “only fools will pay their mortgage in Utah”.
The Florida Supremes are not above being law unto themselves. They decreed that all foreclosures must go to mandatory mediation at $750 a pop, and raised the filing fee to $900 for filing foreclosure actions. Guess who will pay that next time they apply for a new mortgage?
“Why should this homeowner have his rights as a citizen of Utah abrogated simply because the original bank made a decision to sell the mortgage outside the state? “
How can you assert that he is the “homeowner” when he doesn’t pay the mortgage?
The former homeowner is a legally sanctioned squatter. He does not own anything. The identification of the true owner is being made unreasonably complex. It need not be so.
“I’m sure there are plenty of cases out there already (and if not, there will be) where multiple “lenders” attempt to foreclose on the same property.”
Don’t you think there would be fewer if people paid their mortgage, or didn’t try to squat in their former home when they didn’t pay their mortgage?
I can't believe I'm reading this from a poster on FreeRepublic. How can anyone who claims to respect the rule of law say that adjudicating a legal proceeding in the proper venue (state vs. Federal, in this case) is "an unreasonable legal technicality?" That's a basic element of our entire system of government here in the United States of America, isn't it?
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. These companies simply see this as a cost-cutting measure on their part (and the legal consequences and constitutional questions be damned) -- since it is easier for them to meet the legal requirements of one government entity than fifty different ones.
“So you believe that Utah law does not apply to BofA when it does business in Utah?”
Utah should have made it clear that assets of Utah businesses should be substantially discounted before they are sold to anyone outside of Utah.
I’m sure Utah business owners will appreciate this defacto result of the courts, and of Utah “law”.
Explain to us what happens if that “paper” he signed was sold multiple times.
“I can’t believe I’m reading this from a poster on FreeRepublic. How can anyone who claims to respect the rule of law say that adjudicating a legal proceeding in the proper venue (state vs. Federal, in this case) is “an unreasonable legal technicality?” That’s a basic element of our entire system of government here in the United States of America, isn’t it? “
I am equally incredulous at your stance, and your apparent inability to understand the basic concept of property ownership - which is THE fundamental underpinning to our entire way of life in the United States of America.
You seem to believe that the concept of property ownership is much much more complex than it actually is, or needs to be.
Any law that makes this concept unreasonably complex is wrong.
Can we at least agree that the “little guy” who doesn’t pay his mortgage doesn’t own the property he continues to live in?
I agree with you 100% on that point. But it isn't being made unreasonably complex by the "squatter" or by the Utah courts. It is unreasonably complex because of decisions that were made by the original lender as well as (potentially) decisions that were made by subsequent owners of the mortgage in question.
If I signed a mortgage with Podunk Bank in my home state . . . and it turns out five years later that the mortgage is now owned by a subsidiary of a sister company of a subsidiary of a major U.S. bank that is headquartered 2,000 miles away and chartered in a different state . . . how am I responsible for the "unreasonable complexity" of determining who the true owner of the property is?
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?
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.