Re: No. Don't drink the Kool-Aid (nt)

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

75+ Yrs Interest Rates

Fillable Forms

Archived Articles

Dingbat Retirement Plan

Links

Contact / Map | Priceline Tips

About Us

Home

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Forum Board ] [ FAQ ]

Re: No. Don't drink the Kool-Aid (nt)
Posted by Rod Ciferri on August 01, 2011 at 9:15 PM
In Reply to: Re: No. Don't drink the Kool-Aid (nt) posted by Kristine-CA on August 01, 2011 at 10:13 AM
: Well, Jr. Counselor, I'm all for creativity when solving real estate problems. But what problems are you solving? You are just creating problems. This is not attractive in the legal profession. Do your employers and clients know and approve of this scheme? Yuk, yuk, yuk.

: : : There are some holes in your theories, some the size of the Grand Canyon, but do let us know how it turns out. Owners in foreclosure transfer their property all the time, before and after trustee's sale.....it doesn't make the lien go away or put someone else in line for title. A lender or third party purchasers at sale can and will be able to evict you, with or without a deed. You say the difference is that you have a deed. But almost every foreclosed owner in CA has a deed.
: : : An unlawful detainer suit will not help either party with title issues. You will be defendant in an unlawful detainer, so you would have to object on grounds that the lender or 3rd party is not an eligible party to evict. Good luck with that one.
: : : You have some very whacked notions about MERS and produce the note strategies for CA. You might want to do a little more research on what cases have set precedent for lenders/servicers and note possession.
: : : Happy researching and happy trespassing. Kristine
: : : : : : : Ok, sorry. I'm in California. A non-judicial foreclosure sale has been started against a property. Assuming that sale is void, and I buy a quitclaim deed from the "former" owner post-sale
: : : : :
: : : : : On the surface, it sounds like a guru's 'system'.
: : : : : Proceed with extreme caution.
: : : : Guess I would be the "guru" on this one. I'll let you know how it goes. Caution is certainly warranted. A lender who bought back at a foreclosure sale would probably see me as a trespasser. The difference is I have a deed.
: : <>
: : Are you sure you didn't mean to say MERS is whacked? Have you been involved in real estate prior to the 2001 or so? If so, you know what MERS has done is turn the hundreds of years old title and assignment system on its head.
: : I may be whacked, but if I'm whacked, so are most the Attorney Generals for the various United States. They seem to be whacked enough to think the banks, through MERS have systematically screwed them out of billions in recording fees. I agree. Seems the banks agree too (now that they are settling with the Attorney Generals).
: : It used to be, and still is, that assignments of real estate interests had to be recorded. Clearly, MERS disagreed. Now they're paying the price.
: : The US Bankruptcy Courts sitting in California have already laid it all out. In order to apply for a stay, the lender has to show standing, which it can't if the debtor objects.
: : The Courts of Appeal are starting to come around too.
: : When a homeowner initially buys he/she owns the property free and clear after all liens are cleared. Immediately thereafter the bank gets its security interest with a deed of trust and the homeowner has a reversionary interest. If that deed of trust is void from the beginning, the bank's security interest fails and the property reverts back to the homeowner.
: : Any investors on the forum who are holding their properties long term may want to seriously consider getting a quitclaim from the foreclosed owner (may have to go back a few owners to find clear title). Otherwise, you don't even know what entity may come out of the woodwork to sue you (and they will, once they get civil and criminal immunity from the government). The servicers, originators and brokers that are foreclosing are not the secured party and, consequently, have no standing to do so.
: : I've been studying this problem for a while. I know what I've posted here has holes. The scope of the fraud is so large it's difficult to lay it all out here in one shot.
: :
Problems solved:
1. Banks inventory of empty houses that nobody will buy for more than market value (the amount of the loan) will go down. Supposedly bad for the banks, but, hopefully they've wisely invested their bailout trillions. Good for everyone else, which brings me to
2. Below market rate rentals. Instead of a bunch of empty houses exemplifying a dying neighborhood, those houses can be occupied again. People who couldn't afford to pay the bank's pie in the sky price tag can now live there.
3. Blight in the neighborhood will be lessened. No more crackhead attracting vacant houses. Again, bad for the banks because they can no longer list them as an asset valued at the ridiculous loan amount. Good for everyone else. With people loving and maintaining their homes the neighborhoods will revitalize.
Ok, your turn, Kristine; what were those problems you were talking about?

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup:

Name : E-Mail : Subject :
Comments: : : Well, Jr. Counselor, I'm all for creativity when solving real estate problems. But what problems are you solving? You are just creating problems. This is not attractive in the legal profession. Do your employers and clients know and approve of this scheme? Yuk, yuk, yuk. : : : : : There are some holes in your theories, some the size of the Grand Canyon, but do let us know how it turns out. Owners in foreclosure transfer their property all the time, before and after trustee's sale.....it doesn't make the lien go away or put someone else in line for title. A lender or third party purchasers at sale can and will be able to evict you, with or without a deed. You say the difference is that you have a deed. But almost every foreclosed owner in CA has a deed. : : : : An unlawful detainer suit will not help either party with title issues. You will be defendant in an unlawful detainer, so you would have to object on grounds that the lender or 3rd party is not an eligible party to evict. Good luck with that one. : : : : You have some very whacked notions about MERS and produce the note strategies for CA. You might want to do a little more research on what cases have set precedent for lenders/servicers and note possession. : : : : Happy researching and happy trespassing. Kristine : : : : : : : : Ok, sorry. I'm in California. A non-judicial foreclosure sale has been started against a property. Assuming that sale is void, and I buy a quitclaim deed from the "former" owner post-sale : : : : : : : : : : : : On the surface, it sounds like a guru's 'system'. : : : : : : Proceed with extreme caution. : : : : : Guess I would be the "guru" on this one. I'll let you know how it goes. Caution is certainly warranted. A lender who bought back at a foreclosure sale would probably see me as a trespasser. The difference is I have a deed. : : : <<You have some very whacked notions about MERS and produce the note strategies for CA>> : : : Are you sure you didn't mean to say MERS is whacked? Have you been involved in real estate prior to the 2001 or so? If so, you know what MERS has done is turn the hundreds of years old title and assignment system on its head. : : : I may be whacked, but if I'm whacked, so are most the Attorney Generals for the various United States. They seem to be whacked enough to think the banks, through MERS have systematically screwed them out of billions in recording fees. I agree. Seems the banks agree too (now that they are settling with the Attorney Generals). : : : It used to be, and still is, that assignments of real estate interests had to be recorded. Clearly, MERS disagreed. Now they're paying the price. : : : The US Bankruptcy Courts sitting in California have already laid it all out. In order to apply for a stay, the lender has to show standing, which it can't if the debtor objects. : : : The Courts of Appeal are starting to come around too. : : : When a homeowner initially buys he/she owns the property free and clear after all liens are cleared. Immediately thereafter the bank gets its security interest with a deed of trust and the homeowner has a reversionary interest. If that deed of trust is void from the beginning, the bank's security interest fails and the property reverts back to the homeowner. : : : Any investors on the forum who are holding their properties long term may want to seriously consider getting a quitclaim from the foreclosed owner (may have to go back a few owners to find clear title). Otherwise, you don't even know what entity may come out of the woodwork to sue you (and they will, once they get civil and criminal immunity from the government). The servicers, originators and brokers that are foreclosing are not the secured party and, consequently, have no standing to do so. : : : I've been studying this problem for a while. I know what I've posted here has holes. The scope of the fraud is so large it's difficult to lay it all out here in one shot. : : : : Problems solved: : 1. Banks inventory of empty houses that nobody will buy for more than market value (the amount of the loan) will go down. Supposedly bad for the banks, but, hopefully they've wisely invested their bailout trillions. Good for everyone else, which brings me to : 2. Below market rate rentals. Instead of a bunch of empty houses exemplifying a dying neighborhood, those houses can be occupied again. People who couldn't afford to pay the bank's pie in the sky price tag can now live there. : 3. Blight in the neighborhood will be lessened. No more crackhead attracting vacant houses. Again, bad for the banks because they can no longer list them as an asset valued at the ridiculous loan amount. Good for everyone else. With people loving and maintaining their homes the neighborhoods will revitalize. : Ok, your turn, Kristine; what were those problems you were talking about?

[ 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.

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