What's your story?  Is your client being forced into Auction.com?

Views: 18946

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Perhaps I am "over-simplifying" this issue, but it seems to me that there is a simple two step solution:

1) Contact someone with the short sale department at NationStar, and verify if this actually a requirement in the short sale process ( can also probably get this information from the borrower(s) - it should be in their application paperwork? ); and

2) If the borrower(s) are not comfortable with using auction.com, and it is indeed a requirement for the short sale, the borrower can simply decline and let the home/property be foreclosed on.

Since when does the borrower (owner) "dictate" how the Lender does business? Especially when they have asked to Lender for "help" with the loan/mortgage? Did the borrower not voluntarily sign the mortgage?

I am a consumer/buyer and have purchased one completed foreclosure via auction.com, and am under contract for a short sale property which was also "sold" via auction.com, with BofA as Seller. Contrary to what seems to be "popular belief", auction.com does not complicate the process, at least from the Buyer's side.

The issue is its a real estate contract with the BUYER who has no relationship with the lender.

 

The Short Sale Addendum is vague about the steps for "approval"  There is no teeth to hold the lender accountable for timeliness etc. There are no rules and there is no law I know of. It is a real estate transaction not a mortgage as it involves the sale of real property and the lenders are making decisions in that tranaction without a license. Its been allowed to go on.

 

As the buyers agent is unable to adequately represent the best interest of the buyer as their communication with the lender is restricted it could be construed as an ethics violation and fought by trade associations.

 

Complicating the process is a misnomer. The process is the valid real estate contract with the short sale addendum. The addendum and its vagueness is the problem.

Well Bill, I understand your frustration as a buyers agent or a buyer but this part of the transaction is between the seller and the bank and does not include the buyer.

The buyer does sign that they understand that and also that there is no guarantee that the transaction will be approved by the bank.

We are speaking to the idea that the bank and its servicers are working illegally against the borrower and its agent.

There is no valid reason for a buyer or their agent to be involved in this part of the transaction unless they have agreed to pay the difference in the defenciency

I understand your argument I was replying to Thoms statement about buyers authorizations in general and why they would be helpful. I understand whats going on and what you need to do to stop it. What differences in deficiency theyre being forgiven.

 

I would be careful if I were you Gregory since, at least in the sited cases here, they are selling properties illegally. You could,in the end of this, lose those properties.

Gregory, you are missing the point. It is not about complicating the process. It is about interfering with an existing contract between the Seller and the Listing Agent. Problem is Auction.com was not a party to the Listing Agreement and the Servicer is prohibited by law from engaging in the practice of real estate.

You need to clarify the default procedure in the mortgage thats what lets the lender in. If theyre entitled under that you have little argument because of the SSA.

Id think your issue is Bad Faith. Trick is for me in what? Id argue and explore that once the contract is signed its done pending approval. Thats that. Interference in that other than the BPO affects the buyer and thats the Bad Faith. Tie it all together is the challenge. The counter argument will be so what? Whats the harm? So if you have buyers who walk and you had to sell the house for less and your end suffers thats part of the harm.

ny has already sued nationstar and got a restraining order not allowing auction.com to sell notes.  nothing yet on short sales or reo's

Every Realtors Association should take that case to their state Attorney General and push for local action.

That would end it pretty fast

At this point of the sale the bank is not the owner of the home and have no right to tell the seller how to sell the home, I have told Nation Star that we are going after them for interference and they backed down, it's time to bring this to NAR's attention,

and ron what if they then drag their feet or ridiculously counter?  my seller is within a few months of auction date.  they are concerned to battle this!  it just shouldn't be!

A justice for New York’s Supreme Court has ordered Nationstar to stop the auction of some of its mortgage notes through Auction.com.

KIRP LLC, a major investor in six residential mortgage-backed security trusts sponsored by Residential Accredit Loans, filed a complaint against Nationstar over its selling of non-performing loans backing securities.

Nationstar held two two-day auctions on February 19 and March 4. A third was scheduled for March 11, but Justice Eileen Bransten authorized a temporary restraining order to stop the final sale and transfer of loans and to prevent further auctions.

In its filing for a restraining order, KIRP argues that as master servicer, Nationstar has the authority to foreclose

or modify the loans, not to sell them. The memorandum goes on to note that the loans auctioned off were sold at steep discounts, causing financial harm to investors.

“It appears from the prices posted on the website that the bulk auction sales, not surprisingly, resulted in sales of the loans at significant discounts,” the filing reads. “Plainly, Nationstar’s dumping of Trust assets in bulk at fire sale prices through a two-day internet auction is not an act taken “in the best interests of the Certificateholders.”

An analysis of the case by Barclays holds that although most servicing agreements list alternatives to foreclosure on non-performing loans, it isn’t always clear whether or not those lists are exhaustive—in other words, engaging in an unlisted alternative (such as a sale) may or may not be allowed.

“There are two parts to the allegations made under the lawsuit. First, that the lawsuit alleges that note sale is not an option available to the servicer, and second, that the sale is harmful to the interests of the investors in the trust relative to other alternatives,” Barclays said. “While it is clear that a violation on the second part would seem to go against the duties of a servicer, it is less clear whether the sale is an option available to the servicer or not.

“It is also unclear what the courts will decide and if the decision could be applicable across the board, given the wide variation in the language of the servicing agreements. ... We will continue to follow this case to look for more guidance from the courts.”

RSS

Members

© 2024   Created by Brett Goldsmith.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

********************************** like buttons ************************