intersting... I have a very small mortgage (made a large down payment and have been sending double payments every month). I'm one of the losers that bought a house I can afford on a conventional mortgage. Still, it'd be neat to get a 30-40k principal reduction though, to offset my MtM loss on the house... I wish there was a way to do it without ruining credit. Although I pay cash for everything (no need for credit), I still perceive value in having good credit. Maybe I'll be over that at some point.
Free and clear after 10 years - that is a very strong claim.... any support. Adverse Possession law is a bit tricky. Respa - Here is the real question - if you have a right to a recession - how do you get a new loan to pay back the old one if you are upside down? There were many lawyers doing this on a contingency in and up market. I do not know of one - in a down market. I get calls from lawyers in other states with clients in San Diego all the time on this subject. I ask how do they know I will get paid. Not a single one has an answer. I am not into putting my name on title with my client. -- I agree you do not need a lawyer to fight a foreclosure and yes some lenders can not prove they own the loans. but - what is your end game?
Defense to 'Adverse Possession' claim that will ensure that 99.9999999% of all such legal actions will fail: Permissive Use - If the actual owner has granted the claimant permission to use the property, the claim of "adverse possession" cannot be deemed "hostile" and thus fails. All mortgagees (the one receiving the mortgage; i.e. the bank or lender) give permissive use of the house or condominium to the mortgagor (the one signing and giving the mortgage to the mortgagee; the borrower).
Can you send that link this-way? If anyone has a referral in Detroit PM me - wouldn't mind sitting down and seeing what kind of moves can be made. -k
Karl - there was one case that gained a ton of notoriety - it was either in Minnesota or Wisconsin, I do believe. Anyways, a STATE COURT Judge (Circuit Court for most of us - Superior Court for some), and we all know that lower state courts don't really matter that much, seized upon an obscure principle and ruled for the mortgagor (against the bank). That decision was overturned on appeal, and the attorney representing the homeowner was sanctioned. Regardless of the law or how it should be interpreted - the banks and insurance companies own the court system. Don't let claims to the contrary fool you.
I've heard several cases in the past 12 months where homeowners have gone to court and the judge asked to see the physical note to the house - the judge wouldn't even accept a copy from the lender. In almost every case the lender couldn't produce the documents and the ruling was for the homeowner. If this is consistently the case, since there is enough precedent, I'm curious to see how much the lenders are willing to bargain so as not to get totally bent over on their writedowns.