Another story on no legal basis for foreclosures

Discussion in 'Economics' started by Mr Pain, Oct 14, 2009.

  1. Mr Pain

    Mr Pain

    A Massachusetts Land Court justice's ruling today puts into question the ownership of hundreds -- and possibly thousands -- of foreclosed properties in the state.
  2. MattF


    I'm reading the ruling right now as I live in this state.

    And it's making my head spin on how this stuff worked in this case (and I'm sure on god knows how many others).

    Either way, this has caused a complete and current mess. Inventory has dried up. P&S's have been canceled on people without recourse. REO's on the market are probably in question now if they were actually "rightly" foreclosed upon, and if not need to be "re-foreclosed."

    Granted an appeal is in the works. Still this calls a lot into question.
  3. We should bring the republicans back to "deregulate" the Court system.

    Honesty and rationality in any part of the system is a fatal weakness in Crony Capitalism.

    Time to spread some good 'ol republican crookedness and cronyism into the courts. Can't have bad talk about the banks and their inherent socialist right to steal. Time to round up the tea-baggers and bus them around to support their corporate masters.

  4. Mr Pain

    Mr Pain

    The banks which foreclosed were not the legally recorded mortgage holders when they foreclosed. This doesn’t seem that difficult to me. You have to be the recorded mortgage holder in order to foreclose. If you aren’t you can’t legally foreclose. The judge has it right. If they want the law changed see the legislature, he is enforcing the law as written not legislating from the bench. The fact that the financial industry went totally amuck during the Bush years does not mean they get to ignore a law. If they have the horsepower maybe they can get it changed.

    I just saw this.

    It is great
  5. .."and title companies have refused to insure them."...
    This could get interesting.
  6. Mr Pain

    Mr Pain

    Key point.

    Massachusetts is a recourse state so you can be sued

    From the decision

    “To accept the plaintiffs’ arguments is to allow them to take someone’s home without any demonstrable right to do so, based upon the assumption that they ultimately will be able to show that they have that right and the further assumption that potential bidders will be undeterred by the lack of a demonstrable legal foundation for the sale and will nonetheless bid full value in the expectation that that foundation will ultimately be produced, even if it takes a year or more. “

    This makes perfect sense. What investor is going to go bid high on this foreclosure under these conditions? By undertaking these actions they are forcing a lower price which hurts not only the true note holder but wipes out the debtors interest and makes them responsible for a bigger deficiency balance.
  7. ammo


    dig deep enough and they may find out that when these mortgages were bundled into credit default swaps, the same bundle was sold to several buyers culminating in the greatest swindle in history. Now if you had spent the last 12-18 months trying to sweep that under the carpet, would you allow these cases to be dug up , its not even fully buried yet,the higher courts will overrturn this on appeal
  8. I seriously doubt that. Federal District Judges have been ruling against foreclosure plaintiffs w/out proper documentation, and Federal Bktcy Judges have also.
  9. ammo


    it would be interesting, if they could find enough cases nationwide and put up a large fight, how the big courts would way in , with big gov seeming fully pro banks right now
  10. This has been occurring in a number of states - all with the same ruling. You need to prove you own the property before you can foreclose, that means original signed documents. Christ we sign nine copies of everything at closing, wtf is the problem RE industry?

    It's not the consumers problem there was piss-poor records keeping and no systems to keep tabs on the lender's documentation.
    #10     Oct 15, 2009