InnoVest Resource Management's Foreclosure Forum

Home Discussion Board "Hands-On" Training Title Holding Trust Annual Reunion Speaking Schedule Store Foreclosure Fundamentals Code References 50 State Foreclosure Basics Foreclosure Glossary Foreclosure Statistics 70+ Yrs Interest Rates Fillable Forms Archived Articles Dingbat Retirement Plan Links Contact / Map About Us Home

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Forum Board ] [ FAQ ] Re: CA Foreclosure question on 2nd Posted by Kristine-CA on April 08, 2009 at 6:14 PM In Reply to: CA Foreclosure question on 2nd posted by Billy F on April 08, 2009 at 4:52 PM Billy F: the lender has no recourse but is acting like collectors often do. I suggest not speaking with them on the phone at all. If Tiburon is a collection agency, then you can request that they not contact you by phone. However, if they bought the note or somehow are part of WF, then they have business with you and they do have the right to call you. You have the right not to speak to them. I also suggest that you do not engage in any discussions regarding residency. They will of course threaten to sue if they believe that fraud was involved. Which loan is foreclosing on the 17th? The first or the 2nd? : I purchased a condo in October 2005 as my primary place of residence in San Jose, CA. I have two loans (80/20) with Wells Fargo Home Mortgage (1st) and Wells Fargo Home Equity (2nd). Both of these loans are "purchase money" loans and I have never refinanced. I lived in this condo as my primary place of residence for about 6-7 months, then moved out to rent the condo out. I was notified that the foreclosure sale date has been set to April 17, 2009. I received a call from Tiburon Financial (they have been hired by Wells Fargo Home Equity) to secure the balance of $64K that I owe on the second loan. The person I spoke to threatened me that I must pay this balance or accept a settlement. If I understand CA law correctly, because the 2nd was a “Purchase Money” loan, isn't their only recourse is to take the property back? I can prove I lived there as my primary place of residence for the 6-7 months I lived there, but Tiburon Financial is saying I must prove I have lived at this condo for the whole duration from when I purchased the condo. Can somebody shed any light on this situation? Any advice and information you can provide would be greatly appreciated. Thank you Follow Ups: Re: CA Foreclosure question on 2nd Billy F 9:05 AM, 04/09/09 (3) Re: CA Foreclosure question on 2nd Craig in LA 7:28 PM, 04/09/09 (2) Re: CA Foreclosure question on 2nd Kristine-CA 9:56 AM, 04/10/09 (1) Re: CA Foreclosure question on 2nd Craig in LA 6:01 PM, 04/10/09 (0) Post a Followup: Name : E-Mail : Subject : Comments: : Billy F: the lender has no recourse but is acting like collectors often do. I suggest not speaking with them on the phone at all. If Tiburon is a collection agency, then you can request that they not contact you by phone. However, if they bought the note or somehow are part of WF, then they have business with you and they do have the right to call you. You have the right not to speak to them. : I also suggest that you do not engage in any discussions regarding residency. They will of course threaten to sue if they believe that fraud was involved. : Which loan is foreclosing on the 17th? The first or the 2nd? : : I purchased a condo in October 2005 as my primary place of residence in San Jose, CA. I have two loans (80/20) with Wells Fargo Home Mortgage (1st) and Wells Fargo Home Equity (2nd). Both of these loans are "purchase money" loans and I have never refinanced. I lived in this condo as my primary place of residence for about 6-7 months, then moved out to rent the condo out. I was notified that the foreclosure sale date has been set to April 17, 2009. I received a call from Tiburon Financial (they have been hired by Wells Fargo Home Equity) to secure the balance of $64K that I owe on the second loan. The person I spoke to threatened me that I must pay this balance or accept a settlement. If I understand CA law correctly, because the 2nd was a “Purchase Money” loan, isn't their only recourse is to take the property back? I can prove I lived there as my primary place of residence for the 6-7 months I lived there, but Tiburon Financial is saying I must prove I have lived at this condo for the whole duration from when I purchased the condo. Can somebody shed any light on this situation? Any advice and information you can provide would be greatly appreciated. Thank you [ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Forum Board ] [ FAQ ] WWWAdmin 2.0a © 1997 Matt Wright and DBasics Software Company, All Rights Reserved

Information provided by this website is for informational purposes only and is not a substitute for professional advice. Please consult your investment advisor and/or attorney before entering into any transaction. Read our privacy policy.

Copyright © 1997-date("Y"), InnoVest Resource Management
http://www.foreclosureforum.com

InnoVest Resource Management, 4569-A Mission Gorge Place, San Diego CA 92120-4112
(619) 283-5444, Fax (619) 283-5455