Comment

Comment by Thom Colby CA Brkr 888-391-5245 on February 19, 2011 at 10:06am

In California, SB931 was signed into law at the end of 2010 effective as of 1/1/2011.

In part it says:

580e.  (a) No judgment shall be rendered for any deficiency under
a note secured by a first deed of trust or first mortgage for a
dwelling of not more than four units, in any case in which the
trustor or mortgagor sells the dwelling for less than the remaining
amount of the indebtedness due at the time of sale with the written
consent of the holder of the first deed of trust or first mortgage.
Written consent of the holder of the first deed of trust or first
mortgage to that sale shall obligate that holder to accept the sale
proceeds as full payment and to fully discharge the remaining amount
of the indebtedness on the first deed of trust or first mortgage.
   (b) If the trustor or mortgagor commits either fraud with respect
to the sale of, or waste with respect to, the real property that
secures the first deed of trust or first mortgage, this section shall
not limit the ability of the holder of the first deed of trust or
first mortgage to seek damages and use existing rights and remedies
against the trustor or mortgagor or any third party for fraud or
waste.
   (c) This section shall not apply if the trustor or mortgagor is a
corporation or political subdivision of the state.

Comment by Tni LeBlanc (805) 878-9879 on February 19, 2011 at 9:52am

I'm so glad to see this type of litigation happening.  There is a lot of talk about fraud right now but this was a huge fraud and it was a concerted effort.  Many individual homeowners were defrauded by what went on.  People were led to believe that their neighbors could actually afford the homes they purchased which caused them to pay more.  I know people hate lawyers and lawsuits but there are some things only a good old fashioned lawsuit can address.  Congress had their chance and they did nothing - in fact they enriched the banks.  Let's see what the courts do.

Comment by Wendy Smith on February 19, 2011 at 7:30am

there are many mass joinder lawsuits being filed - here's a link to one involving BOA - there are, and will be, many others.  http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/02/15/prweb81...

 

mass joinder lawsuits are very different than class action lawsuits....and, from what I read (I'm no attorney) are much more effective

Comment by Kimberley Kelly on February 19, 2011 at 7:26am

Is Olympia Funding now Chase? 

Comment by Janie Booth on February 19, 2011 at 7:11am

Good point, Ben.

Further, I can see the homeowner say..."And yes, your honor, I saved the bank tens of thousands more by going through the agony of a short sale rather than just walking away and letting the bank bear the cost of foreclosing, holding and reselling. And what about all the money the servicers made by dragging the process on for everyone? And by the way, the guy at the bank told my attorney that it is not their policy to pursue the deficiency, but legally had to keep this language in their approval. And what about the 1099-C that they reported? I'd also like to see their records on the moneys they received from the loss from your and my taxpayer dollars?"

And when we see the banks actually doing this, look out for the backlash from the consumers.

Are we having fun yet?

Comment by Brian Peters Jr on February 19, 2011 at 6:59am

Which furthers my point that real equity, truly, in the finality of it, does not exist! So how can a bank sue you over something that never existed to begin with? 

 

These banks made an investment in PEOPLE, that that person would hand them money every month for the term, for building the house or purchase of the house. Banks should get over it, take settlements as they come and move along. How can a bank due over a RISK that was taken and they lost? Yes we have laws but we aren't talking about legalities, it really is about the principles.

Comment by Kevin - Greenville, SC on February 19, 2011 at 6:58am

Yep, I'd like to see some lawsuits filed because of valuations that didn't represent FMV, the homeowner being denied HAFA incorretcly, or another loss mitigation option that would have prevented FC.

Comment by Bettie Meadows on February 19, 2011 at 6:58am

I like what yiu said  Brian. We all must stick together and lowball. Great.  

Comment by Ben Benita on February 19, 2011 at 6:51am

I can't wait to see teh lawsuits filed by homeowners back AGAINST the banks:

 

"Yes, i did do a short sale and the deficienciy was $100k....BUT, YOUR HONOR, my deficiency would have only been $80k if the ding dongs at my bank had NOT taken 2 years to get my short sale completed...."

 

Going to be VERY interesting in the years ahead.

Comment by Brian Peters Jr on February 19, 2011 at 5:54am

The banks have been feeling the crunch. Now, the banks are just simply sandbagging for the coming storm which we haven't even felt yet. 

 

Don't shoot the messenger. 

 

The investors behind these banks will seek out anyway to collect. This is why we have bankruptcy. From this point on, have your buyers lowball until accepted. Deep discounts 20-30% of BPO. If we all do it, then we can all eventually start eating again. Until then, greedy Realtors/Brokers/Appraisers/Bankers will continue to feast until the well is dry. They are getting all they can. 

 

 

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 85
• 86
• 87
• 88
• 89
• …
• 164
• Next ›
• Page