No free house here
In Reply to: Re: Slighty Off Topic but of interest none the less: posted by Darryle-Ca on July 30, 2011 at 6:10 AM
Pineda v. GMAC did not provide the plaintiff with a free house. The loan in question here was in a HELOC in 2nd position. The lenders were not seeking foreclosure as they had already charged it off. The plaintiff sought to prevent any kind of deficiency judgment. No case law was established here as the defendants agreed to settle. Although they settled with serious strong arming from a judge. Strong arming is not case law, however. The lenders had no equity and lost nothing except a lot of legal $$.
Not even really close to a CA case with a free house. Care to try to again? :)
: : I'll bite. I'd like to read a lawsuit, in CA, proving that the property was "Free and Clear" from the beginning. Please post or send me any relevant names or case numbers.
: : There is a bizarre and consistent insistence on the existence of these cases and never, ever any facts. I'm all ears and eyes. Please post a case that proved that a CA property was free and clear from the beginning.
: : : : : Which facts are you referring to?
: : : : I believe it's a myth that the end result of a lawsuit will be a "Free and Clear" house. It's a fact that I don't know of ONE CASE where someone sued the bank in California and has won a "Free and Clear" home.
: : : You’re right, there’s not ONE CASE in California where someone has successfully sued a bank and won a free and clear home.
: : : However, there are those who have filed lawsuits, proving that their properties were “Free and Clear” from the beginning.
: Please read,Pineda Jose L v GMAC et al Docket Report 08-cv-05341-AHM-PJW.
Post a Followup:
Copyright © 1997-date("Y"), InnoVest Resource Management
InnoVest Resource Management, 4569-A Mission Gorge Place, San Diego CA 92120-4112
(619) 283-5444, Fax (619) 283-5455