View Full Version : did this couple get a "free" home?
MoeMoe
03-23-2011, 01:54 PM
http://realestate.aol.com/blog/2011/03/22/couple-owns-home-after-one-payment-due-to-foreclosure-glitch/?icid=main%7Chtmlws-main-n%7Cdl3%7Csec1_lnk1%7C207050
interesting real estate law loophole
Nanuk
03-23-2011, 03:11 PM
I can't help disliking the couple after reading the story and hearing them describe themselves as "victims" who bought more house than they could afford because the bank made it so easy. And the recurring theme of their story was that because they had hard times, they are somehow owed this. The decision does seem inequitable though, especially since the fault--his signing for his wife--was made by him and not the bank. But sometimes the undeserving score a windfall and this seems like one of those times.
Did you check something like Snopes to see if they gave it a true or false rating?
http://realestate.aol.com/blog/2011/03/22/couple-owns-home-after-one-payment-due-to-foreclosure-glitch/?icid=main%7Chtmlws-main-n%7Cdl3%7Csec1_lnk1%7C207050
interesting real estate law loophole
Chutney Daftcraft
03-23-2011, 04:04 PM
They met with a representative from CiTi who allowed him to sign for her. I place the blame with that person.
And can anyone blame them? They hit hard times, found a savior of a loophole, and jumped right into it. EVERY person reading this would do the exact same thing if they were in that boat.
Nanuk
03-23-2011, 04:23 PM
[QUOTE=Chutney Daftcraft;256982]They met with a representative from CiTi who allowed him to sign for her. I place the blame with that person./QUOTE]
Oh course you blame the person who watched instead of the person who did it. The bank representative wasn't the guy's boss. They were equals at that table. An invalid contract should just rescind the contract and give the house back to the bank as-is.
But then you always seem to cheer when someone gets something for nothing, especially if it harms some evil faceless (to you, anyway) corporation. We've got to work on that.
AAT53
03-23-2011, 04:46 PM
They met with a representative from CiTi who allowed him to sign for her. I place the blame with that person.
And can anyone blame them? They hit hard times, found a savior of a loophole, and jumped right into it. EVERY person reading this would do the exact same thing if they were in that boat.
I wouldn't. I would take advantage of the loophole as a bargaining tool then attempt to work with the bank. I would let them know that I would either continue and end up with the house for free or we could renegotiate the mortgage to reflect the current actual value of the house.
I would be tempted of course, but I firmly believe that in the end I would live up to my financial obligations to the best of my ability.
Nanuk
03-23-2011, 05:17 PM
I wouldn't. I would take advantage of the loophole as a bargaining tool then attempt to work with the bank. I would let them know that I would either continue and end up with the house for free or we could renegotiate the mortgage to reflect the current actual value of the house.
I would be tempted of course, but I firmly believe that in the end I would live up to my financial obligations to the best of my ability.
I'm with you. Honor and Integrity matter. And for those who don't have those, Karma's a bitch, too.
Chutney, if you tried to get over on someone like that, within six months, Anita Bryant would move into the house next door to you.
BigTom
03-23-2011, 08:22 PM
Ain't this country grand. Buy a house you can't afford, falsify your credit application, cry about being a victim, and then weasel out of paying what you owe. It makes me feel like a real dumbass for living within my means and working my ass off to pay my bills on time.
My last mortgage I signed alone. How was the agent supposed to know I was married or not? Glad to hear they're fixing this law.
And I don't quite understand why invalidating a mortgage would mean the homeowners no longer have to pay for the house. Sure, the lender might have to take them to court, but that should only be a formality.
MoeMoe
03-23-2011, 11:46 PM
And I don't quite understand why invalidating a mortgage would mean the homeowners no longer have to pay for the house. Sure, the lender might have to take them to court, but that should only be a formality Absolutely do not understand that part!! Sorry...forgot Snopes..will remember from now on.....and yes Nanuk.....absolutely agree...I do anyway.
Chutney Daftcraft
03-24-2011, 08:25 AM
But doesn't the article say he signed for her? I doubt the bank accepted the documents with her area just blank on all the documents...
That's clearly the fault of the person who handled the 'closing'. They were paid by the bank to make sure that the documents were legit, and they failed to live up to their obligation. If a cop lets a person go from a traffic stop who is clearly drunk, and they go on down the road and injure someone, who is more at fault? The drunk driver, or the cop?
So, either lose your home, or jump into a loophole to keep your home for nothing. I refuse to believe that most people have the integrity to walk away from their home when they can get it free and clear. We're still animals with basic survival instincts.
Chutney Daftcraft
03-24-2011, 08:32 AM
Chutney, if you tried to get over on someone like that, within six months, Anita Bryant would move into the house next door to you.
I do have crazy luck like that, which is why I avoid engaging in bad behaviors. Karma's got my ass on speed-dial.
And dude, seriously, just because I don't fault them for doing what they did does not mean I don't have integrity myself. They made the best out of a bad situation, and sometimes, that's really all you can do. If they did this in the beginning with the sole intent of having this outcome, then that's obviously fraud, and I cannot agree with that.
Magzwv
03-24-2011, 11:03 AM
They met to sign papers at a food court??? I thought WV was primitive! Iowa has us beat. I've had to go to the mortgage company/banks legitimate office in order to finalize paperwork AND my spouse had to be there with me or no go. This is very odd.
Chutney Daftcraft
03-24-2011, 11:32 AM
Our last mortgage was closed in our gazebo in the back yard. Regardless of the setting, our closer watched us BOTH sign the documents and essentially did what she was paid to do.
Kensey
03-24-2011, 12:34 PM
They met with a representative from CiTi who allowed him to sign for her. I place the blame with that person.
Oh course you blame the person who watched instead of the person who did it. The bank representative wasn't the guy's boss. They were equals at that table. An invalid contract should just rescind the contract and give the house back to the bank as-is.
Mortgage contracts are odd beasts, though. The bank never owns the house unless they foreclose, so there's no "giving back" the house to the bank if the mortgage isn't valid to start with. The sales contract with the seller is separate (at least in theory) so if that's all in order they wouldn't get the house back either.
As far as assigning blame, the bank officer has a duty to the bank (and its investors) to make sure all the i's are ditted and t's are crossed. So while it may not be solely his fault, he's the guy on whose shoulders the on-the-ground responsibility for getting it right rests, not least because he is supposed to know the law inside and out in this area, at least enough to do a routine purchase right.
My last mortgage I signed alone. How was the agent supposed to know I was married or not?
The same way they know whether the house is as described in the purchase contract: they go and look. You think somebody can't tell from a quick credit check whether you might be married? I guess you could try to hide a marriage from your bank, but it's likely they'd notice something in your credit history that would make them ask, and if you lie about it, now you've committed fraud.
And I don't quite understand why invalidating a mortgage would mean the homeowners no longer have to pay for the house. Sure, the lender might have to take them to court, but that should only be a formality.
They can, but they can only get an ordinary lien against the house just like anybody could get for any debt owed -- they can't force a sale, demand payment before one, or pursue eviction proceedings. Once a mortgage is declared invalid the bank loses a lot of power over the debtor.
On the other hand, if the bank does get a lien, the title to the house is encumbered and it can't be sold without some sort of satisfaction or release of the lien. So if this couple has to sell to resolve their financial issues, now the bank has leverage again.
MoeMoe
03-24-2011, 01:14 PM
My Husband signed this mortgage for me, but I had to have all these papers notarized, giving permission for him to do that....guess that could be the reason.
Chutney Daftcraft
03-24-2011, 01:36 PM
I wouldn't. I would take advantage of the loophole as a bargaining tool then attempt to work with the bank. I would let them know that I would either continue and end up with the house for free or we could renegotiate the mortgage to reflect the current actual value of the house.
I would be tempted of course, but I firmly believe that in the end I would live up to my financial obligations to the best of my ability.
I'm not trying to jump you or anything, but you have conflicting statements here (in bold).
I also have a question. Say you've found this loophole, and the bank tells you to eff off. Then what? Would you stay (for free, presumably) or would you pack up your belongings, your husband and children, and just leave your home when you don't *have* to?
It is an odd predicament.
Kensey
03-24-2011, 02:33 PM
Say you've found this loophole, and the bank tells you to eff off. Then what? Would you stay (for free, presumably) or would you pack up your belongings, your husband and children, and just leave your home when you don't *have* to?
By doing so, the bank is refusing to mitigate its damages, which puts them in a dicey position legally all by itself, and they can lose out completely if they try to go after a debt that is clearly unenforceable. Yeah, they could always get the lien and wait, but any judge at that hearin who's not asleep at the bench is going to hear that they refused to refinance and want them to explain why.
Chutney Daftcraft
03-24-2011, 02:39 PM
In the way this worked out, can the bank even report the delinquency/default on their credit report? (since it was 'voided')
Bruce
03-24-2011, 03:10 PM
But doesn't the article say he signed for her? I doubt the bank accepted the documents with her area just blank on all the documents...
If a cop lets a person go from a traffic stop who is clearly drunk, and they go on down the road and injure someone, who is more at fault? The drunk driver, or the cop?
Seriously? SERIOUSLY???? Only the person behind the wheel is responsible. Period. A cop could get a false reading from a breathilizer and it would be an honest mistake. But there is NO mistake that a drunk person CHOSE to get behind the wheel drunk. By the way, no cop that I know of would knowingly let someone drive if they were drunk. Also, it would be like blaming the gun manufacturer if someone kills someone else with a gun. As Judge Judy would say "Ridicalas!"
Kensey
03-24-2011, 03:16 PM
Seriously? SERIOUSLY???? Only the person behind the wheel is responsible. Period. A cop could get a false reading from a breathilizer and it would be an honest mistake.
But that's not the scenario proposed. If it weren't a mistake -- say the guy blows way over the limit but the cop for some reason lets him go anyway, knowing without doubt that he's drunk -- then yes, the cop bears some moral responsibility for his later wreck as well.
Chutney Daftcraft
03-24-2011, 03:27 PM
That's why I said 'clearly drunk' instead of 'suspected of being drunk'.
A Day in the Life- The Beatles (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWLeKNc2GZM)
AAT53
03-24-2011, 03:53 PM
I'm not trying to jump you or anything, but you have conflicting statements here (in bold).
I also have a question. Say you've found this loophole, and the bank tells you to eff off. Then what? Would you stay (for free, presumably) or would you pack up your belongings, your husband and children, and just leave your home when you don't *have* to?
It is an odd predicament.
I don't see them as conflicting statements. I would not use the situation to get a free house, but I would use it to negotiate a deal with the bank that benefits us both. It isn't a 100% either way conclusion, but it benefits both sides. The bank doesn't get $0 and I (as the owner) would not be upside down on my mortgage. So, I would take advantage of the opportunity to renegotiate, but I wouldn't leave the bank totally in the hole.
If the bank refused and we couldn't come to an agreement, then yes I would move. Actually, I would move as long as the bank signed an agreement where they would not put anything on my credit report and that I would not owe them any funds. I would explain that since I could (by law) take the house for free then they were being stupid to not work out a fair deal, so I will give them the house but then we are even.
As long as nothing goes on my credit report then it would just be a matter of buying another house (at today's market value), so no harm no foul for me.
Chutney Daftcraft
03-24-2011, 04:21 PM
Wow. That made perfect sense. And you're a better person than I, because when the bank refused, I would go into showdown mode on them. I would get the house, immediately sell the house, buy a hot tub, fill it up with cash, get naked, get in it, and take photos of me swimming in their money and send them to the people who refused to negotiate with me.
But that's just over-the-top fantasy. I'd probably just take the house after they refused to renegotiate and just live there for the rest of my/our life. I'm not 10% proud of that, but that's probably what I would do if in the situation. I'd be the nice guy by leaving/willing the house to the same bank in the event of our death. It's not like we have anyone to leave it to, anyway...
Nanuk
03-25-2011, 09:07 AM
Just because someone else doesn't go over backwards to "negotiate" with you, I'm not seeing were that gives you a moral right to steal from them.
But hey, if you can sleep nights after taking something of value from someone else that you didn't pay for or otherwise earn, that's your thing. Some people can twist things in their own minds to justify wronging others. I've never been one of those people.
Magzwv
03-25-2011, 09:37 AM
... taking something of value from someone else that you didn't pay for or otherwise earn, that's your thing. Some people can twist things in their own minds to justify wronging others. I've never been one of those people.
That is exactly why you are a conservative. And that is exactly why you work hard for a living. You are responsible, accountable, and have integrity. There are GENERATIONS of individuals, born into the entitlements, that feel it is their RIGHT to have things handed to them. Hell, Unions have been some of the worst offenders over the years! Look at Wisconsin, they think it is a RIGHT to be given large pensions, extravagant benefits. (and they eat their own... Hoffa anyone?)
The obligation to protect true 'human rights' for ALL has long been forgotten. It has become glutonous, narcissistic greed that people now construe as a RIGHT!!! MINE MINE MINE! ALL OTHER'S BE DAMNED. I don't care that others will have to pay (Most don't have a clue that others ARE paying for their greed!)
Holy hell, morally and ethically we are doomed as a species. We are truely on the path to destruction of our species. It is extraordinarly sad.
Bruce
03-25-2011, 01:26 PM
But that's not the scenario proposed. If it weren't a mistake -- say the guy blows way over the limit but the cop for some reason lets him go anyway, knowing without doubt that he's drunk -- then yes, the cop bears some moral responsibility for his later wreck as well.
I can't imagine a cop ever doing that. You're right it would partially be his fault in that case. I would go even further. I'd fire him and bring him up on charges of involuntary manslaughter if that person caused a death.
Bruce
03-25-2011, 01:29 PM
That is exactly why you are a conservative. And that is exactly why you work hard for a living. You are responsible, accountable, and have integrity. There are GENERATIONS of individuals, born into the entitlements, that feel it is their RIGHT to have things handed to them. Hell, Unions have been some of the worst offenders over the years! Look at Wisconsin, they think it is a RIGHT to be given large pensions, extravagant benefits. (and they eat their own... Hoffa anyone?)
The obligation to protect true 'human rights' for ALL has long been forgotten. It has become glutonous, narcissistic greed that people now construe as a RIGHT!!! MINE MINE MINE! ALL OTHER'S BE DAMNED. I don't care that others will have to pay (Most don't have a clue that others ARE paying for their greed!)
Holy hell, morally and ethically we are doomed as a species. We are truely on the path to destruction of our species. It is extraordinarly sad.
Hey I like this guy, where did he come from? :)
The golden spoon is also not just about money... around here things seem to work with what is mine is mine and what is yours is mine. The laws also seem to work in favor of protecting that attitude... to the point of when you try to protect what is yours, you wind up being the one in trouble. Fun game (looking at it any other way can drive one to drinking).
There are GENERATIONS of individuals, born into the entitlements, that feel it is their RIGHT to have things handed to them.
The obligation to protect true 'human rights' for ALL has long been forgotten. It has become glutonous, narcissistic greed that people now construe as a RIGHT!!! MINE MINE MINE! ALL OTHER'S BE DAMNED. I don't care that others will have to pay (Most don't have a clue that others ARE paying for their greed!)
Holy hell, morally and ethically we are doomed as a species. We are truely on the path to destruction of our species. It is extraordinarly sad.
littlewing
03-25-2011, 03:23 PM
That is exactly why you are a conservative. And that is exactly why you work hard for a living. You are responsible, accountable, and have integrity. There are GENERATIONS of individuals, born into the entitlements, that feel it is their RIGHT to have things handed to them. Hell, Unions have been some of the worst offenders over the years! Look at Wisconsin, they think it is a RIGHT to be given large pensions, extravagant benefits. (and they eat their own... Hoffa anyone?)
The obligation to protect true 'human rights' for ALL has long been forgotten. It has become glutonous, narcissistic greed that people now construe as a RIGHT!!! MINE MINE MINE! ALL OTHER'S BE DAMNED. I don't care that others will have to pay (Most don't have a clue that others ARE paying for their greed!)
Holy hell, morally and ethically we are doomed as a species. We are truely on the path to destruction of our species. It is extraordinarly sad.
EXCELLENT observations!!!.....
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.1 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.