Foreclosure and distressed property topics

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
The people hired for REO dept's are not commissioned employees. They are along the lines off hmm....think government employees. Also both CFC and IMB have their REO dept's in Texas.
 
Today, I had a couple of frantic people calling me to help them save their homes. Not only did they bite off more than they can chew, they both also got a final summary judgt against them, which means they lost the case!!!



And they have no defenses and they have no money coming in, which is my usual requirements under which I usually take a foreclosure defense.



But they whine, my old mother and grandmother live there. The court doesn't care about that I say.



But I can get a reverse mtg. Nope, I say, not when you owe 400,000 and the house is worth 450,000 max.



And--get this--one owner of the property is in jail for medicare? medicaid? fraud, and naturally they seized all the accounts. Why of why didn't he, if he had all this money, pay off his house? Or, if he was being a con anyway, hide it in an offshore account?



If I were of a felonious nature, I would have another identity perking somewhere and be Suzy Smith at my luxury vacation house on some island where they don't have extradition, which I would visit often and become friendly with people who know me as Suzy etc etc.
 
<p>skeptic wrote:</p>

<p><em>This Costa Mesa, not Irvine. But does anybody else smell fraud? Check out the sales history, especially the 9/01/2006 sale:</em></p>

<p><em><a href="http://www.redfin.com/stingray/do/printable-listing?listing-id=1114926">http://www.redfin.com/stingray/do/printable-listing?listing-id=1114926</a></em></p>

<em>Sales History</em>

<p> </p>







<em><strong>Date</strong></em>

<em><strong>Price</strong></em>

<em><strong>Appreciation</strong></em>





<em>08/20/2007</em>

<em>$423,627 </em>



<em>-55.2%/yr </em>







<em>09/01/2006</em>

<em>$920,000 </em>



<em>320.0%/yr </em>







<em>07/11/2006</em>

<em>$750,000 </em>



<em>12.7%/yr </em>







<em>05/19/2005</em>

<em>$654,000 </em>



<em>21.8%/yr </em>







<em>10/16/1990</em>

<em>$37,000 </em>



<em>-- </em>












you know what's crazy -- even ignoring the obvious fraud in 06, this property went from being affordable for someone making slightly higher than minimum wage in 1990 to a home that requires $150-200k in income!
 
While looking up Adam's questions on HOAs, I found <a href="http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=civ&group=00001-01000&file=890-894">the state Civil Code section on rent skimming</a>.
 
Ok, one of the foreclosees has a defense.



Gosh, she didn't sign the mtg. So the lender only has an interest in a one half interest in the property, unless he can convince a court that it was all a mistake and reform the instrument.



So I will have some fun with this.



This defense will be a shockeroo for the lender, assuming the court will listen.



I have another one where one of the owners was not asked to sign the mtg. The title agency wrote some very nice letters--after all they goofed up--and under normal circumstances, I'd say, it's not worth the headache, go ahead and sign. This time I said don't. The payments are being made timely, but who knows what the future will bring?



In all the rush, title companies got very sloppy with all this.



What do you guys do in posting states when stuff like this happens?
 
I am curious whether there are large numbers of title examiners who are switching to finding and proving fraud. It seems that many would have the right background. For example, claiming to be an owner-occupant when you aren't can often be found searching the public records (e.g., you can't be an owner-occupant of 4 houses simultaneously). Appraisers might be able to find where the systematic overestimates were. It seems like a team of them could scan large numbers of loans hunting for this.
 
High end is feeling the pressure.

19 FRESCO, Irvine, CA 92603

List Price: $1,950,000

Last Sale: 06/15/06

Sales Price: $2,206,500

Bedrooms: 4

Full Baths: 3

Partial Baths: 1

Square Feet: 4,150

Lot Size: 7,500 Sq. Ft.

Year Built: 2006

Listing Date: 11/11/07

On Market: 0 day

Type: SFR

Status: ACTIVE

MLS #: S512471
 
3238 WATERMARKE PLACE, Irvine, CA 92612

List Price: $319,900

Last Sale: 08/31/06

Sales Price: $415,000

Bedrooms: 1

Full Baths: 1

Partial Baths: 0

Square Feet: 635

Lot Size: N/A

Year Built: 2004

Listing Date: 11/09/07

On Market: 4 days

Type: CONDO/TH

Status: ACTIVE

MLS #: S512528

*********************

40 DUET, Irvine, CA 92603

List Price: $579,000

List Price: $579,000

Last Sale: 09/25/06

Sales Price: $634,000

Bedrooms: 2

Full Baths: 2

Partial Baths: 1

Square Feet: 1,145

Lot Size: N/A

Year Built: 2004

Listing Date: 11/12/07

On Market: 1 day

Type: SFR

Status: ACTIVE

MLS #: S512604
 
I know, I suck for not keeping up with the foreclosures, but here are some recent gems to tide you all over.





21 Carpenteria 92602 REO 11/7 $867K





68 Autumn 92602 REO 11/7 $620.5K, the NTS amount was $717k.





30 Elderwood 92656 REO 11/13 $785k.





Oh the irony, 882 <em>Bear </em>Creek 92626 REO 11/13 $418.5K.


<a href="http://www.zillow.com/HomeDetails.htm?zprop=25516822">


16 New Haven 92620</a> REO 11/13 $401k. This one stinks of fraud.





And, there are at least 36 other Irvine properties up for auction, between now, and the end of the year.
 
The foreclosure estimates for October:





NODs 1342, 61 per day, a decrease of 6.4%. Yes a decrease, but the credit crunch is still a few months a way before the NODs arrive from it.





NTSs 961, 43.7 per day, an increase of 4.8%.





Trustee sales 521, 23.7 per day, an increase of 1.3%.





I will admit, it looks as if the foreclosures may slow down. At least for now, but I do think it will tick up as the resets and the credit crunch really hit.
 
<p>New York Times reports on something that Tanta was grousing about yesterday:</p>

<p>14 mortgages being foreclosed in Ohio Federal Court (why?) were dismissed by Judge Royce because the Plaintiff couldn't prove they owned the mtges. Apparently the increditble sloppiness has extended to not properly endorsing the notes and assigning the mtges to the assignees. The judge gave the Plaintiff lender a reasonable time to come up with the assignments of mtg and endorsements of notes. Defendant Deutche Bank either couldn't or wouldn't and the 14 mortgages were dismissed without prejudice to refile when they got their documents together.</p>

<p>I have a copy of the opinion, which is most interesting. Gretchen's reporting is, in this case at least accurate.</p>

<p>I personally am defending a case based on exactly the same circumstances. I have lots of other comments, but must do some work here.</p>

<p>One of my comments is:</p>

<p>I wonder if any of these mtges got assigned twice? This happened here in Miami on a multimillion dollar scale in the 80s. I know all about that one because my boss represented the evil lender, and I have always wondered if he knew more about it that he claimed.</p>
 
Pretend for a minute that you are an institutional investor and you have capital to invest. One of your choices is mortgage backed securities. MBSs have had a bad time lately, but you are a smarty and know to buy value when others are running. Hey, maybe you will bite. But, Wait! You get word that the judge is not allowing the paper holders to foreclose ... <p>


And you thought mortgages were getting tougher to get recently? Just wait until investors let this sink in.
 
<p>The main problem the mortgage market is going to have is really simple:</p>

<p>1. you have to rely on the buyers telling the truth and being able to manage their finances.</p>

<p>2. you have to rely on everybody above you in the chain taking their slice, did their job with astute competence, dotted their i's crossed the t's and wasn't just milking a paycheck.</p>

<p>Now ask yourself what percentage of your recent purchase or service interactions where done with 100% competence, let alone insightful astute perception.</p>
 
So if Deutche can't prove they hold the note, what happens next Liz? Do the homeowners just get to stop paying and squat in the thing forever ? How do you fix such a thing.
 
DB will prove they own the deed or the property, but it will take some time and they will have to abide by proper procedures, which is what they have neglected.
 
<p>Redfin shows different sale history</p>

<p>10/23/2007 $552,484 -20.4%/yr


02/05/2007 $650,000 >1,000%/yr


12/19/2006 $5,000 -74.2%/yr


09/03/2003 $432,000 14.6%/yr


06/17/1997 $185,000 --


</p>

<p>150,000+ </p>

<p>3 ACORN #85, Irvine, CA 92604


List Price: $499,900


Last Sale: 02/05/07


Sales Price: $650,000


Bedrooms: 3


Full Baths: 2


Partial Baths: 1


Square Feet: 1,448


Lot Size: N/A


Year Built: 1979


Listing Date: 11/15/07


On Market: 0 day


Type: CONDO/TH


Status: ACTIVE


MLS #: S512978


</p>
 
In Florida, and I guess everywhere there is judicial foreclosure, you aver in your complaint that you are the owner and holder of the note and mtg, and you attach a copy of the note and mtg, with any assignments showing the present plaintiff is the owner of the mtg.



Something called MERS was invented to get around to keep having to file assignments, which has its own problems and is not involved here.



The primary instrument is the note. So you also have to show a chain of endorsements on the note. I have not paid that much attention to the note in the defense of foreclosures, but be assured I will from now on. The mtg is security for the note. The mtg "follows" the note.



Therefore, you need both endorsements on the note and assignments of the mtg, and the latter are supposed to be recorded in the public records.



Since foreclosees seldom defend, the mtgee Plaintiffs have been extraordinarily careless.



If the notes are around somewhere it shouldn't be that hard to find them, and

stamp the endorsements on the back. It might be more of an issue, if some of the lenders have imploded and closed their doors. And it might be a future mission if

they are in bankruptcy and you have to convince the trustee in bankrupcy to endorse the backs.



If the notes truly can't be found you can reestablish the note by court proceeding, but you have to allege and prove various things, because it is a really serious thing to lose a note. This can be done as part of the foreclosure in Florida.



I suppose if a lender who should have endorsed the note didn't and is truly missing in action, you should be able to aver and prove that they bought & sold the note, but this is going to be quite time consuming.



The borrowers are going to lose sooner or later, but it's beginning to look like later might be much, much later.



And if they can never prove their case? Gosh, I don't know. They bargain with the borrowers and get them to sign something the borrowers can live with. Which is,

I suspect the thing they wanted in this lawsuit.



A couple of times, in private lendings, where there was an honest dispute over the terms of the note & mtg, I have had the borrower escrow with me what they think their monthly payment should be. Impresses the hell out of the judge. I think that if these borrowers really want to settle, rather than squat, they should be doing that.



I have a copy of the judge's decision, if anyone wants to look at it. whisper me your fax and I'll send it. I am so computer illiterate that I don't know how to post it.



The decision is totally unsurprising to me. It is really plain vanilla law.



And finally, with a the carelessness, indifference and fraud, I wouldn't be surprised to find that some have these mtges have been assigned multiple times.



The NYTs article said that one mtg had been assigned to 3 pools. I assume he meant something in the nature of one-third to each. But maybe not.
 
Hey Liz,





I have a (probably stupid) question: What if they foreclose on the deed of trust rather than the note. In other words, if entity holding the note (i.e., beneficiary) has changed, but the trustee has not, then sloppy assignments shouldn't matter so long as the trustee remains the same and the trustee is seeking the foreclosure, yes?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top