Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jason Ellis on September 6, 2012 at 6:24am

Only his income was used to qualify for the loan.  He is the only person that signed the note "promissory obligation".  So he is the only one liable for the debt (or his estate).  THe wife has a "vested interest in the property" ie married to him so she had to sign the mortgage -- In a foreclosure everyone that is on the mortgage is served the complaint. 

Permalink Reply by Erinn Frisbie on September 6, 2012 at 6:38am

and since he left no will and there are no other assets to process through probate, there is no estate and no executor of the estate.

Permalink Reply by Thom Colby CA Brkr 888-391-5245 on September 6, 2012 at 6:34am

Erinn -  Do you have a copy of the Deed of Trust  for the Mortgage ?  I just sent you a Friend Request - if you send me the address, I'll get all the original docs and send to you.  [email protected]

Permalink Reply by Erinn Frisbie on September 6, 2012 at 6:36am

I do have the deed of trust and the living seller IS on the deed, however not on the note according to the bank.

 

Permalink Reply by Thom Colby CA Brkr 888-391-5245 on September 6, 2012 at 7:01am

If it's the property I think it is, I see both names and both signatures .  I would tell Wells / World to show you the Note / Deed with only the deceased husband on it.  I'll bet they can't..........

Permalink Reply by Erinn Frisbie on September 6, 2012 at 7:04am

You're right they can't... because they are NOT honoring the 3rd party authorization

Permalink Reply by Thom Colby CA Brkr 888-391-5245 on September 6, 2012 at 11:26am

Erinn, 

I would send a copy of the "Note / Deed of Trust" you have in your possession, along with the 3rd Party Authorization, and let them dispute it.  Your client might also want to have an attorney look at it.  If this was one of the original World Savings Loans, they likely cannot find the original docs!

 

Best of luck,

Thom Colby

Broker / Owner, and Negotiator

Palm Desert & Newport Beach, CA

888-391-5245

 

 

 

Permalink Reply by joe beauchamp on September 6, 2012 at 3:33pm

I would step it up to the WF escalation team or executive area to get the matter cleared up. And if the person stonewalls, I would give a deadline and let him know after that a QWR will be on its way, and since he and the others you talked with refused to produce the note of disagreement, WF's legal dept will have no ability to use their usual defense of "frivolous fishing" and will need to produce a lot more than just the note or face heavy consequences.

Different states have different laws about estates, and in NJ, very different laws about the ownership of their "marital domicile". Not sure what the argument is there - you either have a will or probate or an executor - the state doesn't just throw up its hands and say "keep it, we don't know what to do".

I don't know why you would want to be on the note - that is a $ debt. If you aren't on it, you don't owe it. However, the mortgage is on the property to back the note, so I suspect you and the bank are arguing about names on the mortgage, but unless the wording (or state law) is that survivorship says who is left has all rights to negotiate, the same problem exists no matter how many names are on that document - someone needs to represent the estate). So, what is this about? Is WF stonewalling so that they can foreclose and get the property? Do they expect it to be much easier to get the property after everyone living gives up? Or is there a problem because nobody represents and can sign for the estate?  Or, is this a file that has been abused by the banks and documents are not there so WF is doing the natural thing - stalling - forever?

I don't think the real issues are clear. This could be a low level jerk telling you his self-important opinion which is bull or there could be a somewhat simple fix behind it or WF has a bear of a file and a QWR will show what documents are missing, what illegal steps WF and others have taken and could result in the seller walking away with the property because WF/investor has violated too many laws to have any rights to it. They cannot ignore a QWR.

Good luck finding the problem and straightening it out.

Permalink Reply by Erinn Frisbie on September 7, 2012 at 4:27am

I have already gone to the executive team and they are being helpful in trying to clear up the matter. They will not produce the note because as they say "I do not have any right to view it as the 3rd party authorization is not signed by the actual borrower"

 

I understand your point about "why would you want to be on the note" however I am dealing with a very upset wife who is trying to do the right thing by not letting the house get foreclosed as she knows her late husband would NOT have wanted that. There was no will, no probate hearing, no trust. With right of survivorship one would think that the wife would take over. Wells is saying that only the husbands income and assets were used to qualify for the loan and that he is the only person on the note.

 

All I know as of right now is that I have been in contact with someone in the VP of short sales department who confirmed that the wife is NOT on the note and they are being helpful, I have a distraught client who I shocked by this news and I have to do what is right by my client... which is to continue the process and try to get this cleared up for her.

Permalink Reply by joe beauchamp on September 7, 2012 at 4:01pm

If you are not authorized to see the note, then you are not authorized to be told that the wife is not on the note. However, I've seen them bend the rules before.

You have a fundamental problem - WF does not believe you have anyone legally responsible for the estate - why is this still the case? You mention survivorship - that is not a given, that is based upon state law, wills, etc. So, are you saying that your state law is that w/o will, this property is controlled by survivorship and the wife legally controls it?  Then why is WF ignoring your state law? (print the law or point WF to it) Or are you assuming things which are not legally true? Someone is not facing facts.

It seems that worse case, the seller could consult an attorney to straighten this out. Either WF has to be told to obey the law or your seller has to correct something. (For instance, get the court to appoint an executor, probably the wife.)

Once you know that your seller is in the right, if WF continues to ignore you, the investor might be helpful to you. Beyond that, it is to a politician, news media - the really unfun last ditch stuff.