Since when do banks have to follow laws?!?
http://www.foreclosurehamlet.org
B of A does not cooperate on mortgage adjustments, because they don’t have to.
B of A
Wells Fargo
Friend to the illegal immigrant
Enemy of the people.
What evidence do you have the banks were not following the law?
The judge is playing tyrant by forcing his narrow minded views
Congratulations taxpayer. Aren’t you glad now that you rewarded BACs moral hazard with a bailout instead of going bankrupt as they deserved?
The Judge felt so strong about the case before him, he issued the preliminary injunction order without a hearing halting the foreclosure process.
So if I had to guess, I'd say the judge was grandstanding to help the "little people".
The Bank of America is going to try to trump the state's rights position with the well-worn "federal government uber alles" commerce clause gambit.
I support the judge and admire his courage.
First they reverse a legal order to deport Obama’s aunt, now telling the banks not to foreclose. Enter stage left....Kagan.. The judiciary is out of control. BTW, which Obama apparatchik is Cuffy Miegs?
One would have to be here, to believe the turn of events in St. George, UT. When I got here in fall of 2006, things were booming. Fortunately, I am a procrastinator, and didn’t take my real estate expert sister’s advice to hurry up and BUY NOW. The truthful answer is that I was working so many hours, I was too damn tired to go house-hunting. Lucky for me, or I’d be prolly penniless and homeless.
Hard to see what good comes out of the judge’s order, though. There are so many vacant homes and commercial parcels.
And it’s only going to get worse here, as the amigos seeking to elude the new AZ immigration law are not only on their way.....they are now here. In full force.
Since when,
can a judge dictate civil law between a private loan contract and individuals involved in legal default proceedings covered under the terms of a legal and binding loan agreement?
This “judge” just declared all previously legal and binding sales contracts to be void. He has appointed himself to be above the law and in essence, he now IS the law.
OUTRAGEOUS!!!!
Since when did bank America, stop giving credit cards and loans to illegals.
The second part of the motion, Barlow filed, claims that neither the lender, nor MERS*, nor Bank of America, nor any other Defendant, has any remaining interest in the mortgage Promissory Note. The note has been bundled with other notes and sold as mortgage-backed securities or otherwise assigned and split from the Trust Deed. When the note is split from the trust deed, “the note becomes, as a practical matter, unsecured.” Restatement (Third) of Property (Mortgages) § 5.4 cmt. a (1997). A person or entity only holding the trust deed suffers no default because only the Note holder is entitled to payment. Basically, “[t]he security is worthless in the hands of anyone except a person who has the right to enforce the obligation; it cannot be foreclosed or otherwise enforced.” Real Estate Finance Law (Fourth) § 5.27 (2002).
If he is successful on this point the secondary mkt for mortgages will be crippled.
My first thought was in favor of BOA because if you borrow money you should pay it back or return the collateral. However, the judge does have a point about state laws being respected and if a bank does not want to abide by the state laws they should stop doing business in that state.
‘The second part of the motion, Barlow filed, claims that neither the lender, nor MERS*, nor Bank of America, nor any other Defendant, has any remaining interest in the mortgage Promissory Note. The note has been bundled with other notes and sold as mortgage-backed securities or otherwise assigned and split from the Trust Deed. When the note is split from the trust deed, “the note becomes, as a practical matter, unsecured.” Restatement (Third) of Property (Mortgages) § 5.4 cmt. a (1997). A person or entity only holding the trust deed suffers no default because only the Note holder is entitled to payment. Basically, “[t]he security is worthless in the hands of anyone except a person who has the right to enforce the obligation; it cannot be foreclosed or otherwise enforced.” Real Estate Finance Law (Fourth) § 5.27 (2002).’
Interesting,very interesting indeed.
Recontrust is a subsidiary of Bank of America that apparently is in the business of "owning" troubled mortgages. I don't think the company has ever lent a single penny directly to a home owner.
Under these circumstances there is likely to be a lot of dispute over which entity actually holds the mortgage on a piece of property, and therefore which entity has the right to foreclose on the property.
Why are Freepers so set on the idea that banks should have to tear up their mortgage contracts with their customers and give concessions or ‘make adjustments’?
Meanwhile, is this a local ‘states rights’ judge taking on the banking regulation order whereby national banks are indeed regulated nationally?
Judges like this are telling people "hey, go ahead and stop paying for your house, it's ok! I'll stop the bank from foreclosing on you!" This is why the number of "strategic defaults" in this country has gone from 19% to 32% in one year.
"Strategic Defaults" are done by those people who could otherwise pay for their mortgage and honor their legal commitment to the bank, but choose not to because the loan value is higher than the current home value.
You read that right: These are people that can and should be paying for their homes - they can afford it - but they choose not to which screws the rest of us who've played by the rules and paid for our homes.
This country is completely upside down from what it should be. What used to be wrong is now right, what used to be right is now wrong. What used to be a shameful thing to do (default on one's mortgage) is now considered "strategic."
The carnage that BO and his evil minion's have wrought upon this country will take decades to fix, if it can be fixed at all ........
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.
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.
Ping
If anyone in Utah pays another mortgage payment they are fools.
Pay up your obligations or go live on the street!
Most of the discussion focuses on foreclosure following a homeowner’s failure to make mortgage payments. Since this issue first became prominent, I have had a related question.
What happens if your mortgage and promissory note were properly issued and recorded along with a lien on the property. The mortgage was subsequently sold and collateralized and payments collected by a loan servicing company with no ownership in the actual note. When the final note is paid, what entity is responsible for and has the legal authority to release the recorded lien? Is there a real possibility that when many homeowners think they have paid off their mortgages, they will have problems receiving clear title to the property?
It seems the lack of a proper paper trail poses a risk for both homeowner and mortgage holder.