Banks Hit Hurdle to Foreclosures

[tension]

Great job US. AG.. Would like to see these bankers,Loan Moder's etc. do some jail time
And get before 94 reg's and laws back on the books. With real enforcement!

Ref: Borrowers are successfully arguing that case as of updated May 31,2011 WSJ read.

Banks Hit Foreclosure Hurdle - WSJ.com

 

[uscitizen]

A clear cut example of overregulation by the liberals!

We know the banks own the mortgages because they say they do!

 

[The Rabbi]

And people wonder why the housing market isn't recovering.
It is because the gov't is playing stupid games like this, preventing banks from doing what needs to be done.

 

[tension]

oops

 

[tension]

A clear cut example of overregulation by the liberals!

We know the banks own the mortgages because they say they do!

Hmm? I understand that removing laws/reg’s back in 94 got us to this wonderful state of under regulated and screwed.
The reg’s and laws that were removed were the ones that would of allowed me not to enjoy the whole event! I think they was working pretty good from the 30’s till 94’. By allowing this open uncontrolled fleecing by the wall street and banks a good thang?

 

[The Rabbi]

A clear cut example of overregulation by the liberals!

We know the banks own the mortgages because they say they do!

Hmm? I understand that removing laws/reg’s back in 94 got us to this wonderful state of under regulated and screwed.
The reg’s and laws that were removed were the ones that would of allowed me not to enjoy the whole event! I think they was working pretty good from the 30’s till 94’. By allowing this open uncontrolled fleecing by the wall street and banks a good thang?

How old are you again? Did you miss the S&L crisis and the SOuth American debt crisis? I wouldn't call that "working pretty good."
The truth is that regs are ineffective in breaking the business cycle. But they do a lot to undermine business activity.

 

[tension]

thats an 80' thing and the tax payer paid the bill for it and that was there plan in first place by K-5 and there freinds.. modify laws so the crew could steel it. The event I am talking about is from 94 till know.
And if banks wanted to get moving they dail there 911 a lobbyest and by this mon. all fixed

 

[sparky]

that every fiat system in the history of fiat systems has failed , and failed do to plain human greed, is the ultimate answer to regulation here

resinding Glass Stegal (a Clinton era legislation, along with the likes of R Riech) in essesnce, allowed the time ho9nored 10-1 parameters of fractional banking to expand

thus the banking institution were able to take the public banking system, and by proxy any trust we placed in their hands, and invest it in commercial banking fiscals

the effects , which we are all living, are inarguably detrimental due to these actions

 

[expat_panama]

...every fiat system in the history of fiat systems has failed , and failed do to plain human greed,...

Yelling doesn't make it true. There are more 'fiat systems' active now than any time since the dawn of recorded history, so 'plain human greed' isn't nearly as powerful as greed people would have us believe.

What there really is more of is human goodness, cleverness, and the fact that good clever people can mess things up big-time. Humanity is interconnecting and once again learning how the newly created wealth brings more responsibility. Problems with people getting a home are solved by a global mortgage market. Now we got global mortgage paperwork problems and saying all is lost and people are bad is not a solution. Realizing that most home titles are sound and working hard to fix the ones that aren't is a solution.

 

[Mad Scientist]

From the link:

Banks trying to foreclose on homeowners are hitting another roadblock, as some delinquent borrowers (and many in good standing) are successfully arguing that their mortgage companies can't prove they own the loans and therefore don't have the right to foreclose (or the right to take payments).
These "show me the paper" cases have been winding through the courts for several years. But in recent months, some judges have been siding with borrowers and stopping foreclosures after concluding that banks' paperwork problems are more serious than previously thought and raise broader ethical questions.

If a bank can't show that they own the house they shouldn't be able to foreclose.

If I miss my car payments, Chrysler Financial can repossess my truck because they have the title. How can a bank foreclose if they don't have the title? Or accept payment for that matter? They can't and they shouldn't be able to. It doesn't matter if you're behind in payments.

When the Investment Banks bundles all those subprime mortgages and sold them many times over to different people and investors, they lost track of the title. Only the actual owner can demand payments and foreclose. That's what this case is really about and the Banks are beginning to get nervous.

 

[uscitizen]

A clear cut example of overregulation by the liberals!

We know the banks own the mortgages because they say they do!

Hmm? I understand that removing laws/reg’s back in 94 got us to this wonderful state of under regulated and screwed.
The reg’s and laws that were removed were the ones that would of allowed me not to enjoy the whole event! I think they was working pretty good from the 30’s till 94’. By allowing this open uncontrolled fleecing by the wall street and banks a good thang?

I was just being sarcastic/taking the RW stance.
Same thing in this case.

 

[The Rabbi]

From the link:

Banks trying to foreclose on homeowners are hitting another roadblock, as some delinquent borrowers (and many in good standing) are successfully arguing that their mortgage companies can't prove they own the loans and therefore don't have the right to foreclose (or the right to take payments).
These "show me the paper" cases have been winding through the courts for several years. But in recent months, some judges have been siding with borrowers and stopping foreclosures after concluding that banks' paperwork problems are more serious than previously thought and raise broader ethical questions.

If a bank can't show that they own the house they shouldn't be able to foreclose.

If I miss my car payments, Chrysler Financial can repossess my truck because they have the title. How can a bank foreclose if they don't have the title? Or accept payment for that matter? They can't and they shouldn't be able to. It doesn't matter if you're behind in payments.

When the Investment Banks bundles all those subprime mortgages and sold them many times over to different people and investors, they lost track of the title. Only the actual owner can demand payments and foreclose. That's what this case is really about and the Banks are beginning to get nervous.

The servicer forecloses, not the owner of the mortgage.
All of this is bullshit. There hasn't been one case where someone was foreclosed on who didnt deserve it.

 

[uscitizen]

From the link:

Banks trying to foreclose on homeowners are hitting another roadblock, as some delinquent borrowers (and many in good standing) are successfully arguing that their mortgage companies can't prove they own the loans and therefore don't have the right to foreclose (or the right to take payments).
These "show me the paper" cases have been winding through the courts for several years. But in recent months, some judges have been siding with borrowers and stopping foreclosures after concluding that banks' paperwork problems are more serious than previously thought and raise broader ethical questions.

If a bank can't show that they own the house they shouldn't be able to foreclose.

If I miss my car payments, Chrysler Financial can repossess my truck because they have the title. How can a bank foreclose if they don't have the title? Or accept payment for that matter? They can't and they shouldn't be able to. It doesn't matter if you're behind in payments.

When the Investment Banks bundles all those subprime mortgages and sold them many times over to different people and investors, they lost track of the title. Only the actual owner can demand payments and foreclose. That's what this case is really about and the Banks are beginning to get nervous.

The servicer forecloses, not the owner of the mortgage.
All of this is bullshit. There hasn't been one case where someone was foreclosed on who didnt deserve it.

"Deserving it" is not the issue here. The procedure of law of proving ownership is.

 

[The Rabbi]

From the link:If a bank can't show that they own the house they shouldn't be able to foreclose.

If I miss my car payments, Chrysler Financial can repossess my truck because they have the title. How can a bank foreclose if they don't have the title? Or accept payment for that matter? They can't and they shouldn't be able to. It doesn't matter if you're behind in payments.

When the Investment Banks bundles all those subprime mortgages and sold them many times over to different people and investors, they lost track of the title. Only the actual owner can demand payments and foreclose. That's what this case is really about and the Banks are beginning to get nervous.

The servicer forecloses, not the owner of the mortgage.
All of this is bullshit. There hasn't been one case where someone was foreclosed on who didnt deserve it.

"Deserving it" is not the issue here. The procedure of law of proving ownership is.

It is a nonsensical objection based on technicalities.

 

[Mad Scientist]

The servicer forecloses, not the owner of the mortgage. All of this is bullshit. There hasn't been one case where someone was foreclosed on who didnt deserve it.

The mortage servicer is no different than any other housing management company. I have one for my house in California. BUT THEY DON'T OWN THE HOUSE, THEY CAN'T FORECLOSE. Only the owner of the title may start foreclosure procedings.

That's the problem with many of these foreclosures, because the titles have been bundled and sold as security instruments, many times over, there are many different people and institutions making claims of ownership. You can't foreclose if you don't own the title.

You claim: "No one has been foreclosed on who didn't deserve it". Oh really?
Bank Tries To Foreclose On Owned Home - KCRA News Story - KCRA Sacramento

Nancy Willmes paid cash for her Tuolumne home in 2001. So she was quite surprised when Bank of America send her a notice of default on the property in February."I honestly felt like Bank of America was trying to steal my property," Willmes said.
She contacted Bank of America to try to find out why the bank believed it could foreclose on property she had purchased outright. Willmes has chain-of-ownership records, which show Bank of America had sold the property to Fannie Mae years earlier. Fannie Mae foreclosed on the previous owner, and Willmes purchased the property with cash from Fannie Mae. But Willmes said Bank of America did not care about the documentation.

This woman stopped the foreclosure proceedings but how many other people in the same situation do you think just gave up and figgered they couldn't fight the bank? I'd bet many thousands.

​

 

[Mad Scientist]

The servicer forecloses, not the owner of the mortgage.
All of this is bullshit. There hasn't been one case where someone was foreclosed on who didnt deserve it.

"Deserving it" is not the issue here. The procedure of law of proving ownership is.

It is a nonsensical objection based on technicalities.

"Technicalities"? Ownership is merely a technicality? You should go to work for a bank, you'd fit right in.

 

[uscitizen]

The servicer forecloses, not the owner of the mortgage.
All of this is bullshit. There hasn't been one case where someone was foreclosed on who didnt deserve it.

"Deserving it" is not the issue here. The procedure of law of proving ownership is.

It is a nonsensical objection based on technicalities.

yeah kinda like the Iraq war.

 

[uscitizen]

"Deserving it" is not the issue here. The procedure of law of proving ownership is.

It is a nonsensical objection based on technicalities.

"Technicalities"? Ownership is merely a technicality? You should go to work for a bank, you'd fit right in.

Be careful, do not question a corporate worshippers faith.
the god of mamman will mess up your debit card or something.

 

[uscitizen]

When I was growing up 0% financing was common. Most stores in my hometown had it.

 

[The Rabbi]

"Deserving it" is not the issue here. The procedure of law of proving ownership is.

It is a nonsensical objection based on technicalities.

yeah kinda like the Iraq war.

You're right. Objections to the war were based on mere technicalities. Good to see the Dums have learned a thing or two and don't let technicalities, like national interest, interfere in their warmongering in Libya.