This is a first for me.

I heard about a short sale seller who sold his house in 2009. Several years later, they find out that the buyer is selling the house. The previous owner loved that house and would like to buy it back.

Are there any rules to prevent him from doing so? He has already repaired his credit and in a better financial situation today than before.
 He doesn't know who the current owner is....but he has been driving by the house he lost, and found out it's going on for sale.

Comments?

We have been helping agents all over the country process their short sales and THIS IS A NEW SITUATION:

We were working with a smaller bank and THEY ACTUALLY ASKED US TO HELP THEM WRITE THEIR APPROVAL LETTER!!!

Yep, first short sale the bank had ever done.

They asked us what documents they needed to see, and, asked us to send them a copy of an approval letter from another bank so they could see what it looked like.  The short sale was quickly approved and the approval letter was of course almost word for word from what we told them.

Needless to say - WE GOT THAT SHORT SALE APPROVED!!!!!

All my best to everyone helping homeowners......if you are having "short sale headaches", contact me so I can help!!!

Sincerely,

Ben Benita

Ben@ShortSaleShop.net

855-50-SHORT

www.ShortSaleShop.net

Does anyone have an executive contact at Franklin?  

Thank you.

There was a little known Supreme Court decision that did not receive the same fanfare as some of the other cases before the Court. The recent property-rights ruling went in favor of landowners and land developers. The ruling could have far-reaching effects on how government handles property owners’ decisions that “cause wider harm or social burdens” on the community. The case, Koontz v. St. Johns River Management District, revolved around the property owner (Koontz)’s desire to develop about four acres of a 14.9-acre wetland property. When Koontz sought a permit for the development from the local water management district (St. Johns), he was told that he could choose either to develop only one acre or pay for contractors to make improvements to government-owned wetlands in the same watershed in exchange for a full permit. Koontz opted to take neither option and sued, saying that his property was essentially “taken for public use without just compensation” because he was not able to develop his land without agreeing to “extortionate demands.”

Backed by the National Association of Home Builders, civil liberties groups, and property-rights advocacy groups, Koontz’ case spent 11 years working its way through the legal system. The Supreme Court ended up siding with Koontz, saying that the local watershed “impermissibly burden the right not to have property taken without just compensation” by creating a set of parameters around the receipt of the desired permit that prevented Koontz from using his own land for his own benefit. The vote was 5-4 in favor of Koontz, with Justice Alito writing in support of the decision that “land-use permit applicants are especially vulnerable to…coercion…because the government often has broad discretion to deny a permit that is worth far more than the property it would like to take” and that “government…may not leverage its legitimate interest in mitigation to pursue governmental ends that lack an essential nexus and rough proportionality to [social costs of the proposal]”.

Not surprisingly, many property owners are breathing a collective sigh of relief that their rights are being further defined and protected, but critics of the decision warn that the ruling sets a dangerous precedent since technically no physical thing was taken away from Koontz. Justice Kagan, who wrote the dissenting opinion on the case, said that the ruling “threatens to subject a vast array of land-use regulations….to heightened constitutional scrutiny” and “I would not embark on so unwise an adventure”.  Why an I am not surprised that Justice Kagan dissented on this.....

Paddy Deighan, J.D. Ph.D

http://www.homesavers.pro

Well, the happy news out of BofA’ville just never seems to end. Last month I read that according to their CEO, Bank of America’ problems are behind them!!!! Really??  Wall Street is buying it but I am not!!! Recent litigation has revealed numerous statements by former Bank of America employees that are ASTOUNDING and SHOCKING!!!

According to Bank of America employees, the lender offered employees incentives for sending homeowners into foreclosure rather than modifying their loans!!! Special!!! The BofA employees stated under oath that they were “told to lie to homeowners about loan modifications and were rewarded for sending homeowners to foreclosure rather than modifying their loans”. The allegations and incriminating statements are part of the evidence being presented in a federal class-action lawsuit brought by homeowners against BofA. The homeowners say that the lender deliberately “thwarted their attempts to take advantage of the federal Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP).” Former employees of BofA involved in the suit testified that they were “instructed to deny modifications for no reason, to pretend they had not received documents they received, to hold documents and then claim they were too old, and to cancel trial modifications for ‘nonpayment’ even when all payments had been received.” The employees also reported that the bank “drilled” into them that the longer loan modifications were delayed, the more fees the bank could collect, even if this meant “lying to customers.”

The mortgage workers reportedly received cash bonuses and gift cards for meeting quotas for sending distressed homeowners into foreclosure. Not surprisingly, BofA has denied all of these allegations and pointed to the fact that it has, so far, helped the most homeowners under HAMP of any lender. “[BofA] is committed to assisting customers at risk of foreclosure,” said spokesman Rick Simon via email. A former loan collector for the bank disputes this claim, saying that he received $500 for every 10 customers he put into foreclosure and adding that other collectors received gift cards to Target and Bed, Bath & Beyond for putting homeowners in trial modifications into foreclosure.

Paddy Deighan J.D. Ph.D

http://www.homesavers.pro

Well, it seems there is a bit of hypocrisy coming out of Washington for a little change of pace. President Obama announced his nomination of congressman Mel Watt (D-NC) for director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA).  Many homeowners around the country were delighted by this selection because Congressman Watt has a history of supporting principal reduction in loan modification programs.

The hope is that he will continue this position during his tenure as head of the FHFA. Current acting director of the FHFA, Edward DeMarco, has refused to allow Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to include principal write-downs in their loan modification arsenals. Demarco argues that the practice not only jeopardizes the American taxpayers, but also rewards poor payment history and sets a bad example. Now Watt could be causing problems in this area himself. During his confirmation hearing in the Senate last week, Watt said that while he would not preemptively refuse to engage in write-downs, he also would not endorse the policy. Instead, he promised to “study carefully how that decision [to not do write-downs] was reached, what it was based on, and then I would build on that new information…and make a responsible decision.”

Not surprisingly, Watt’s apparent reluctance has upset many home owners who believed that he would definitely approve the controversial measure to engage in principal reductions as part of a loan modification program. He has been accused of backtracking and failing his constituents. This is particularly alarming since Watt was a vocal critic of DeMarco’s policies as a congressman. Watt responded that while it was his responsibility to support write-downs as a congressman because he had many underwater borrowers in his district, as director of the FHFA he would have to be “a strong advocate for taxpayers”. Watt is likely treading lightly around this issue because one presidential nominee to replace DeMarco has already been blocked.

As my Mother was known to say, “We will see what we shall see”

Paddy Deighan J.D. Ph.D

http://www.homesavers.pro