Special offer

Banks Holding Off On Foreclosures To Verify Legal Standing

By
Education & Training with Law Offices of James M. Bosco & Associates

In some states, lenders can foreclose quickly on delinquent homeowners. There are 23 states that use use a judicial process before a lender can take away someones home. These judicial states require the verification of documents including the need to verify and prove who actually owns the original promissory note. (Now... there is a novel idea). This is an issue we have been trying to educate homeowners on for the past several years. I know we have been sounding like a broken record, but in light of all the recent media coverage the past few weeks, you can hopefully see why.

Many mortgage lenders seeking to foreclose on homeowners (and the foreclosure attorneys representing them) are bringing forward foreclosure actions without the legal standing to do so. When a lender can't produce the original note, allowing a foreclosure to proceed puts the homeowner at risk of owing that debt again to another party in the future. Why mortgage lenders (or the attorneys representing them) decide to bring forward such actions against homeowners without having the rights to do so in the first place is beyond me! Bringing forward such an action (with no legal standing to do so) only puts the foreclosing lender (and the legal counsel representing them) in tremendous legal jeopardy and could also equally subject them to very substantial monetary damages (should a homeowner challenge their potential fraudulent actions in a court of law). Since Massachusetts is a non-judicial state regarding foreclosure, it would have to be up to the homeowner being foreclosed on to file a law suite against the foreclosing parties in order to challenge their lender's actions. Unfortunately, many unsuspecting homeowners (who are not aware of their rights) will lose their homes to a fraudulent foreclosure unless they stand up for themselves and challenge such an action!

It is important for Courts to understand that this issue is not merely a "technicality" and a judge should not be satisfied with anything less than full proof of this issue. The Court itself needs to appreciate the fact that if it should agree that an original note has been legitimately lost (and allows the foreclosure to proceed) it is the borrower who is still at risk. Why? Because incredibly, even if a Court has found that the original note is lost and the foreclosure sale is finalized, if someone later turns up with the original note and proves that it is the proper holder of the note (and not the person who foreclosed on the property) the original borrower is STILL LIABLE! Someone took your home and the Court allowed it because it believed that the lender proved that the note was lost and it was the proper party. Then someone legitimate shows up in the future with the actual note and you still owe that person or entity the money even though your property was taken with the blessing of the Court. How fair is that? It's not! Trust me; this is a very serious issue regarding foreclosures!

Whether or not a homeowner owes the money is not what is in question here. We all know the homeowner owes the money to "someone". However, they have every right to definitively know who that "someone" is. It's not like they are looking for a free ride. In fact (at least with our clients) it has been quite the contrary. They have been reaching out to their alleged lender for months asking for their help and assistance with no results. This is due to the fact that their loan is part of an asset backed security package that was sold on Wall Street and potentially belongs to multiple people and/or entities that technically requires each party to agree to modify any of the terms that could affect their bottom line. These people/entities (usually big time investors and speculators from all over the world) have no clue as to what investments they own and don't own (leaving the banks and servicing companies wondering the same thing). Trust me, it's a BIG mess!

I am just happy that President Obama had enough sense to veto the Notary Bill congress tried to quietly pass in the middle of the night (in favor of these mortgage lenders) that could have helped banks speed up foreclosures while stripping away rights of homeowners and individual states (essentially condoning the bank's fraudulent acts).

If this topic is of interest to you, check out the Massachusetts Foreclosure Prevention Group located on Facebook to learn why this is such an important issue. You may also find other helpful information on my ActiveRain blog as well.

All the Best,

Rick D. Misitano

Charlie Ragonesi
AllMountainRealty.com - Big Canoe, GA
Homes - Big Canoe, Jasper, North Georgia Pros

Our President does not get enopugh credit for standing up to special interests in favor of working folks. i am glad you brought up OBama and his correct veto

Oct 11, 2010 10:19 AM
Christina Sheppard
Solid Source Realty GA| Metro Atlanta |www.CSHRealEstate.com - Douglasville, GA
Real Estate Consultant

Thanks so much for posting this.  You have made this issue simple and clear.  I voiced my concern to the President about the Notory bill and I too am happy he did not sign it into law. 
I don't think it's fair for banks to try to change the rules in the middle of the game.  This is a big mess and it will take a while to clean up!

Oct 11, 2010 05:39 PM
Anonymous
Jesse

Well in Northern Va the "where's the Note" defense is not holding up too well apparently:

 

http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/legal-services-lawyers/15178240-1.html

 

"Alexandria lawyer Christopher E. Brown has been challenging foreclosures on a theory that the party that is attempting to foreclose is not a "proper party" under Virginia law.

The point he tries to make is the "person who's here before the court is not the right person. " The note itself is sold, many times over, creating layers of authority to plow through to find a proper party.

"Somebody up the line has to be the owner," Brown said. In it's simplest form, the argument is: "I took out my loan with Jim and Bob has shown up to sell my house," Brown said.

But Virginia federal courts have not been receptive to what one Alexandria federal judge called a "show me the note" claim. Senior U.S. District Court Judge Claude M. Hilton said in Zambrano v. HSBC Bank USA Inc. (VLW 010-3-275), that the idea that defendants must come to court and prove their authority or "standing" to foreclose on the secured property is contrary to Virginia's non-judicial foreclosure laws. Zambrano is just one of the foreclosure cases Brown is appealing to the 4th Circuit."

 

Any comment on this Rick?

Oct 20, 2010 04:12 AM
#3
Rick Misitano
Law Offices of James M. Bosco & Associates - Lowell, MA
Defender of Homeowners

Hi Jesse:

Thank you for the comment!

Each state has very different laws regarding foreclosures. In non-judicial states, it is up to the homeowner being foreclosed on to file a law suite against the foreclosing party in order to challenge their lender's actions. Unfortunately, many unsuspecting homeowners (who are not aware of their rights) will lose their homes to a fraudulent foreclosure unless they stand up for themselves and challenge such an action! Much of a homeowner's potential success with such a claim greatly depends on how they or their counsel approach the argument with the judge.

I have laid out many examples that can be derived from my previous blog posts on how this issue should be approached and explained. It is also important to research issues surrounding mortgage and foreclosure fraud that may have been documented in your own state and use those as examples which further support the importance of the court's understanding of this issue. There is also much case law that has already been laid out across the country that could also be referenced to support the argument (let alone all of the recent media coverage all over the place regarding banks and their fraudulent paperwork)!

If a court allows a lender (with no proven legal standing) to foreclose on a homeowner, it could enable the wrongful investor to fallaciously acquire a family's home, enabling the unlawful investor to grossly profit from their actions with intentions of seeking surplus reimbursements by a variety of potential means (such as seeking government bail out money, filing a mortgage insurance claim, pursuing a deficiency judgment, requiring a promissory note and potentially stripping homeowners from any equity remaining in their home).

More and more courts across the country are now beginning to understand and realize that this issue is not merely a "technicality" and should not be satisfied with anything less than full proof of this issue. During the past few years, some courts believed lender's stories of original promissory notes being "lost or destroyed" and have moved to finalize foreclosure sales simply by taking the lender's word (only to have other people or entities later turn up with the original note (proving that they were the proper holder of the note) and not the person or entity who foreclosed on the property originally, leaving the original borrower still liable). More judges are now realizing and appreciate the fact that if they should agree that an original note has been legitimately lost (and allows a foreclosure to proceed) it is the borrower who is still at risk.

Oct 20, 2010 07:11 AM