Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Wayne Brooks on July 16, 2013 at 2:29am

Douglas, I completely agree with trying the keep the auction.com gangsters out of our short sales.  I don't believe it  helps the banks in any way, and we know the issues it causes on our side of the fence.  But, don't get caught up in the "interfering with agency/interfering with a contract syndrome.  It's an impotent grasp by some to stop this, and simply creates a distraction that will go nowhere. It makes a good sound bite, but nothing more. A lender  doesn't have to approve a short sale, and can dictate ANY legal process, procedures, etc. required in order to give approval. And whatever incentives the lenders/servicers are getting from the gov't, is a very. very small percentage of losses, which is real money lost by the pension/retirement funds etc. (my state lost Billions in their investment funds) not just numbers on a spreadsheet.  The incentives cover only a portion of the admin costs of getting these done, and not much else.

I believe that when we mix in falsehoods in with our legitimate arguments, it diminishes the credibility of our legitimate arguments. Just my opinion.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Douglas Juenke on July 16, 2013 at 5:41am

HI Wayne,

 Thanks for the insight but your are incorrect. The banks can turn down the short sale no question, they however, do not have the right to void existing contracts between parties. If they are given that right then ALL of our contracts are not worth the paper that we go to court over.  If they do not want to approve the short sale because the "net" or some other reason then tell us up front and let's move on but to have buyers in contract for months ( was over 8 months for my buyer when auction.com entered the pic) and then be told to bad so sad you are now nothing is going to end up in the courts and then the question is, "who is the wrong doer?"  As for the monies lost, you are also correct to a degree, real money has been lost but not nearly as much as the public has been lead to believe. Banks are STILL submitting losses to the TARP fund for reimbursements today and they also get to write off the "loss" dollar for dollar when in fact they may have received monies from the TARP fund.  I am not a bank basher and know the scope of the problem we have faced however, our contracts are supposed to be sacrosanct and legally BINDING on the parties that sign them and for entities to void them at will is a giant legal problem. Did you wonder why the banks are not doing this auction thing? They are bound by the NMLS and that prohibited them from doing this kind of thing, so they "Sold" the non-performing loans to entities that are not bound by the mortgage settlement.  If we allow our contracts to voided now by banks we MUST allow for ALL  entities to have that ability. Will our contracts now have to state that BANKS  have the right to cancel every aspect of our agreement and then include language that says it ONLY applies to banks.  If we allow one, we must allow all. How about banks dictating to buyer that they MUST use one of their "certified" buyer agents, even though the buyers are working with an agent of their choice........  If we allow one, we must allow all.  Probably the best local real estate lawyer in our area has said point blank, what these banks are doing is 100% ILLEGAL in terms of contract interference and "torturious interference" and few other things he spilled out.  He was surprised that NAR?CAR did not take a bigger issue with this happeneing because it is about to make all of our contracts worth nothing.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Wayne Brooks on July 16, 2013 at 7:19am

Well Douglas, I guess we can just agree to disagree. But, requiring a certain process to be followed is not "voiding a contract". If this were true, then simply requiring a higher price than was contained in the contract, would have the same effect. I understand some attorneys, just like real estate agents, like to claim the Tortious Interference position, simply because it is a popular rallying cry. Any credible attorney knows this is not true. I've actually been down the Tortious Interference road as I was threatened with this when I was exposing some local scammers to the homeowners they were dealing with here in south Fl. It just doesn't apply in this case.
Hopefully we can find a legitimate way to convince the banks not to go this route. I think it's "the good fight", but a different approach would be better.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DESCHUTES REALTY on July 19, 2013 at 7:39am

I have an Ocwen shortsale.  They contacted my Seller directly through the mail and let him know they were planning to foreclose and had a Portland, Oregon Attorney to start the process.  We faxed in the shortsale package, I think it got lost, two weeks later I kept asking for some kind of recognition, none came. I left a voice mail message on the VP's voicemail (Ron Ferris)  on Memorial Day weekend and he got back to me on the next business day.  I've had great response and help from Amisha Anderson  214-874-2564.  Be sure to have the account number and the social security number of the client.  And of course, if the Buyers still want THAT house and since the market has improved and they're willing to negotiate at fair market value subject to appraisal; let her know that.  Good luck. 

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page