InnoVest Resource Management's Foreclosure Forum

Home Discussion Board "Hands-On" Training Title Holding Trust Speaking Schedule Store Foreclosure Codes 50 State Resource Data Foreclosure Glossary Foreclosure Statistics 60+ Yrs Interest Rates Fillable Forms Archived Articles Dingbat Retirement Plan Links Contact / Map Home

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Forum Board ] [ FAQ ] Re: Improperly Reversed Sale? Posted by Rick Harmon on November 08, 2003 at 4:35 AM In Reply to: Re: Improperly Reversed Sale? posted by SeanW on November 08, 2003 at 3:55 AM : : : ****************************************** : : Sean, I don't know, either but I'll take a stab at it. Maybe someone else out there will have a more definative reason, too. : : Possible explanation: Lenders and foreclosure trustees, operating in litigious environments (especially here in CA) may feel that Husband'd BK applied to his spousal interest. I'm, presuming that he named the secured creditor in his filing in order to stop the BK and that his BK was not merely a random coincidental filing. It appeared to the lender that he intended to stop the sale. : : A) Absent any other evidence that he did not, in fact, have any form or true interest in the property, they reversed the sale. Lender may have seen an overly influential BK judge or BK Trustee could cause trouble and force a sale reversal or be subjected to defamation of title to the property. : : B) Or maybe an overly-cautious trustee sale officer agree to reverse the sale and not being clear about the fact of the prior QC from H to W. : : Also, you weren't clear as to whether this reversal was voluntary on the part of the F/C trustee or was a result of court action. I suspect the former. Am I right? Or, I could be completely wrong. Anybody got a better answer? : : Rick : :---------------------------------------------------- : Rick, it was purchased tenancy by the entirity, and N.C. like most states has a remaining spousal interest even after divorce. But he quitclaimed to his wife. What interest could he have? That's what I don't understand. : You're right that he listed the house as his on his BK filing. But I don't think he owns any interest in the house and his BK is invalid. (I've noticed other mistakes in it too. He shows the 2nd lienholder's claim amount twice.) : I'm not giving in, yet! I'm talking with the 2nd. They know how close they came to getting wiped out last month, and sound willing to bargain. ****** Sean Here's my take on the Spousal interest theory. H signs a QC deed as of a certain date. Most title co's here would require another QC deed that would release any spousal interest that accrues after that date during the marriage. If this couple had obtained a divorce decree concurrent with the recording of the QC deed I think we'd have a more valid transfer. Also, F/C trustees don't have a lot of time to sit around and theorize (like you an I do) and, since they typically represent a client and abhor lawsuits from any angle, they take the easy way out. Lastly they are probably exposed to the T/S 3rd party buyer, too. If this were merely reverting back to the lender, the latter might go along with the potential defective sale and tough it out (what I always try to do). Of course, our legal counsel is pretty conservative because one day he's representing me and the next day he could be fishing with the BK judge. Attorneys get to do that. They never invite me along, either (even when I promise not to get seasick). Rick Follow Ups: Post a Followup: Name : E-Mail : Subject : Comments: : : : : : ****************************************** : : : Sean, I don't know, either but I'll take a stab at it. Maybe someone else out there will have a more definative reason, too. : : : Possible explanation: Lenders and foreclosure trustees, operating in litigious environments (especially here in CA) may feel that Husband'd BK applied to his spousal interest. I'm, presuming that he named the secured creditor in his filing in order to stop the BK and that his BK was not merely a random coincidental filing. It appeared to the lender that he intended to stop the sale. : : : A) Absent any other evidence that he did not, in fact, have any form or true interest in the property, they reversed the sale. Lender may have seen an overly influential BK judge or BK Trustee could cause trouble and force a sale reversal or be subjected to defamation of title to the property. : : : B) Or maybe an overly-cautious trustee sale officer agree to reverse the sale and not being clear about the fact of the prior QC from H to W. : : : Also, you weren't clear as to whether this reversal was voluntary on the part of the F/C trustee or was a result of court action. I suspect the former. Am I right? Or, I could be completely wrong. Anybody got a better answer? : : : Rick : : :---------------------------------------------------- : : Rick, it was purchased tenancy by the entirity, and N.C. like most states has a remaining spousal interest even after divorce. But he quitclaimed to his wife. What interest could he have? That's what I don't understand. : : You're right that he listed the house as his on his BK filing. But I don't think he owns any interest in the house and his BK is invalid. (I've noticed other mistakes in it too. He shows the 2nd lienholder's claim amount twice.) : : I'm not giving in, yet! I'm talking with the 2nd. They know how close they came to getting wiped out last month, and sound willing to bargain. : ****** : Sean : Here's my take on the Spousal interest theory. H signs a QC deed as of a certain date. Most title co's here would require another QC deed that would release any spousal interest that accrues after that date during the marriage. If this couple had obtained a divorce decree concurrent with the recording of the QC deed I think we'd have a more valid transfer. Also, F/C trustees don't have a lot of time to sit around and theorize (like you an I do) and, since they typically represent a client and abhor lawsuits from any angle, they take the easy way out. Lastly they are probably exposed to the T/S 3rd party buyer, too. If this were merely reverting back to the lender, the latter might go along with the potential defective sale and tough it out (what I always try to do). Of course, our legal counsel is pretty conservative because one day he's representing me and the next day he could be fishing with the BK judge. Attorneys get to do that. They never invite me along, either (even when I promise not to get seasick). : Rick Optional Link URL: Link Title: Optional Image URL: [ 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 © 1997-2003, 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