Banks seize 288K homes in Q3, but challenges await

[cory777]

Source: Associated Press

LOS ANGELES – Lenders seized more U.S. homes this summer than in any three-month stretch since the housing market began to bust in 2006. But many of the foreclosures may be challenged in court later because of allegations that banks evicted people without reading the documents.

A total of 288,345 properties were lost to foreclosure in the July-September quarter, according to data released Thursday by RealtyTrac Inc., a foreclosure listing service. That's up from nearly 270,000 in the second quarter, the previous high point in the firm's records dating back to 2005.

Banks have seized more than 816,000 homes through the first nine months of the year and had been on pace to seize 1.2 million by the end of 2010. But fewer are expected now that several major lenders have suspended foreclosures and sales of repossessed homes until they can sort out the foreclosure-documents mess.

On Wednesday, officials in 50 states and the District of Columbia launched a joint investigation into the matter.


Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101014/ap_on_bi_ge/us_foreclosure_rates

---

The news site with Teeth! http://activistnews.blogspot.com/

[Rex]

1. Good old fashioned capitalism; taking care of each other so the social network

stays in place and society can run...oh, nm.

[sweetapogee]

7. question?

I know capitolism sucks but in my case, I have a conventional 15 year fixed rate and an excellent credit score, never missed a payment either. And I have quite a bit of eq in my house. Yet still, my mortgage is held by fanny M., I really don't know why that is. But, Isn't that (fanny M) really the the same as the government holding my note?

[Travis_0004]

9. Yes

Lets say you have a loan for 100k dollars. A bank is required to hold cash reserves of a certain percent on that loan. (Which is why banks want people to open savings accounts, CD's etc). If the bank holds on to your loan, they are unable to issue further loans.

So the solution was to create Fannie Mae (and later Freddie Mac). Those were government sponsored enterprises (not owned by the government), who bought mortgages, bundled them up, and resold them. The government now owns Fannie Mae, when they failed in 2008, but the government never wanted to own them. When the market stabilizes, the government will probably release those companies, and they will once again be privately owned.

When your bank sold you your mortgage, it was more profitable to make a small profit off you, then sell it and issue a new mortgage to somebody else, then to simply hold off on your mortgage for 15 years.

Your banks choice to sell your mortgage has nothing to do with you, your payment history, or credit score.

[Aaria]

2. People have to educate themselves, if the company that you are making your

loan payments to does not have a clear title to your property, then they have an unsecured loan. Which means they can't foreclose on you. Google MERS educateyourself. The banks are hoping that you will stay dumbed down, it's been working for them for quite a while.

[No Elephants]

3. They can't foreclose if tihe note (original signature, not a xerox) is lost, either. Make them

produce it.

[Yupster]

13. So let's say you got a mortgage through PNC Mortgage

or some other mortgage broker, and they quickly sold the note to Fleet who later sold the note to Fannie Mae.

Now PNC went broke in 2008 and they shredded their original loan documents or stored them somewhere.

So you should stop making payments and keep the house?

That doesn't sound right.

What difference does it make whether they have the original loan document or not if the facts of the case are clear?

A lawyer will always stand on any loophole they can find, but it sure doesn't seem to make any sense to me.

And if you don't make your payments, you shouldn't be gifted the house.

[slackmaster]

8. Nobody is going to get a free house because of a paperwork snafu

Documentation problems may delay foreclosure, but they won't stop it. In the long run, when it comes down to a pissing contest between you and a corporation that can afford fancy lawyers, you will lose every time.

If you took out a loan, that means you owe money to someone until the loan is paid off. If you stop making payments, then whoever presently owns the note is entitled to foreclose.

[Aaria]

10. They already have been.

[Samantha]

12. I thought that was part of the problem

In some cases, it is not the mortgages at issue, but the literal IOU's. If they do not have the note, and many do not, the issuer of the mortgage has the problem. One has to produce the note or the IOU to foreclose on the home.

I saw an attorney on C-SPAN who represents a class of homeowners (I guess we use that term loosely now) challenging the right of the mortgage holder to foreclose. He said it was his intention to insure the homeowners end up keeping the homes. I hope he wins. Somehow, somewhere those who evade the law have to learn a hard difficult lesson. It doesn't pay. Yes, people who borrow money and say they will pay it off over a certain term should not receive a free house. But many have defaulted not out of an unwillingness to pay but an inability. The difference between them and the mortgage holders I am talking about, is that their default was and is an unwilling one. The mortgage issuers did not have promissory notes executed and recorded by the states' recorder of deeds because they wished to avoid paying the fees. That is not only illegal; that is truly stupid.

[MannyGoldstein]

4. Stop whining

Record banker bonuses this year thanks to $12 trillion in taxpayer cash.

Thanks chumps!!!

Most sincerely yours,

A. Banker

[ixion]

5. A modern day Grapes of Wrath is coming our way

:(

[northernlights]

6. the more they get away with, the more brazen they become

until one day we all wake up. And then they find themselves goliaths, totally outnumbered and surrounded by their former victims.

No wonder the filthy rich end up so paranoid.

Thieving scum.

[Lance_Boyle]

11. So there will be court challenges, and maybe the wrong bank foreclosed in some

cases. The court cases will resolve the issue of who (by which I mean which bank) was entitled to each property. Seems pretty clear to me that in each case the party entitled to the property will not be the former occupant who failed to pay the mortgage.