"SJC upends rules on foreclosed properties; Ruling against lenders may have US impact" by Jenifer B. McKim, Globe Staff / January 8, 2011
The state’s highest court yesterday upheld a controversial Land Court ruling that calls into question the ownership of hundreds, possibly thousands, of foreclosed properties in Massachusetts and could affect how foreclosures nationwide are conducted.
In a 6-to-0 decision, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rebuffed the way lenders in recent years have conducted foreclosures — without having all the documentation in place at the time a property is seized. The justices affirmed a 2009 ruling that invalidated foreclosure proceedings involving two Springfield houses because the lenders did not hold clear titles to the properties....
Housing attorneys and state officials said the SJC’s ruling will increase pressure on major US lenders to prove they own mortgages before foreclosing, give homeowners seeking to fight foreclosures additional fodder for legal action, and further stall foreclosures in other states where similar litigation is pending. In cases where there is doubt about whether property was improperly taken, banks might even have to return homes to former owners.
It is often difficult to prove who owns a particular mortgage because millions of home loans were bundled into bonds and sold to investors during the housing boom, creating long and twisted paper trails....
See:
WALL STREET'S MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITY FRAUD DESTROYED BOTH THE US AND EU ECONOMIES!
BANKERS GONE WILD - HOW THE US GOVERNMENT HELPED WALL STREET GANG-RAPE AMERICA'S MIDDLE CLASS
Politicians profited along with the banksters, huh?
Boston lawyer Gary Klein, who represents many clients dealing with home foreclosure, called the ruling “a train wreck for the foreclosure industry.’’
What a s***ty industry.
***********
In addition to affecting people who have lost their homes to foreclosure, the decision could spur a wave of litigation from people who bought bank-owned properties. Many of them will want assurance that they own clear title to their homes, real estate industry specialists said.
Lenders have been under increased scrutiny since the fall, when some bank employees, now known as robosigners, admitted to signing off on thousands of documents a week without reviewing the papers.
Basically STEALING LAND!
Attorneys general in all 50 states are now in the process of investigating such practices.
The court said yesterday that its ruling applies to all foreclosures in Massachusetts — no matter when they took place — because laws governing proper foreclosure procedures have remained constant over time.
“All that has changed is the plaintiffs’ apparent failure to abide by those principles and requirements in the rush to sell mortgage-backed securities,’’ Justice Ralph Gants wrote in the decision.
Officials from the Real Estate Bar Association for Massachusetts said that by not placing a time limit on its ruling, the court has guaranteed a legal traffic jam....
Then LET THEYS THAT MADE THE MESS clean it up!
Secretary of State William Galvin said the court’s ruling boosts his efforts to get legislation passed that would mandate judicial approval of foreclosures. Massachusetts is one of 27 states that do not require a judge to sign off before a bank can take back a home. Galvin, who heads the state Registry of Deeds, also said he will work to make sure homeowners can easily access records to see who owns their mortgages....
Not that great a state after all.
--more--"
"In short what happened is that the banks started grabbing houses to recapitalize their balance sheets after the forced repurchases of fraudulent mortgage-backed securities. Judges started asking to see proof that the foreclosers actually held the mortgages being foreclosed on and the foreclosers filled out the appropriate forms to make it look like the title transfers were legal. What the court has just ruled is that filling out the correct forms after-the-fact is not valid. The foreclosers did not have the titles at the time the foreclosures were filed, so they are invalid.... and while many may celebrate that this is the end of the bankers' wealth confiscation, I have no doubt that the banks will scream for more taxpayer-funded bailouts, and no doubt the US Congress will comply. No doubt the bankers will appeal to the United States Supreme Court, which will implement the official US Government policy of fucking the American people to preserve the banks' capital structure. And no doubt the banks will immediately refile all those foreclosures saying, "Well, we have the titles now dammit!" One way or the other, the banks will steal your money to save themselves." -- Wake the Flock Up
And yet the paper says poor banks?
"Cost of lawsuits may weigh heavily on banks" by Linda Sandler, Bloomberg News / January 7, 2011
NEW YORK — The nation’s largest banks face billions of dollars in legal costs related to their role in the financial crisis, threatening their profits and the stock price gains they made in 2010, analysts said....
Bank of America, the largest US bank, and Citigroup, ranked third, are also besieged by lawsuits stemming from the credit crisis, brought by plaintiffs ranging from foreclosed-upon homeowners to institutional investors whose mortgage-backed bonds turned out to be money-losers.
Oh, the poor lying looters are besieged!
Related: Goldman Sachs' Rigged Gambling Game
Turns out they made money on both ends.
“They’re under legal attack,’’ said Richard Bove, an analyst at Rochdale Securities in Lutz, Fla. “They’re similar to the asbestos or the tobacco industry, and they’re going to be repeatedly sued in the next few years.’’
Oh, the poor babies!
JPMorgan’s third-quarter net profit of $4.4 billion, up 23 percent from the year earlier, would have been larger if it had not set aside $1.3 billion of pretax income for lawsuits and $1 billion for mortgage repurchases....
They "made" HOW MUCH in PROFIT last quarter?
Related: Banks may face $31b in additional buyback costs
--more--"
And now you understand how situations like this develop:
"Wary lenders denying short sales; Citing price concerns, many opt to foreclose" by Jenifer B. McKim, Globe Staff / December 20, 2010
Christopher and Linda Robbins were thrilled to find a buyer for their Watertown condominium this summer, believing they had engineered a graceful way to avoid foreclosure.
But the young couple’s hopes were crushed when their mortgage holder, JPMorgan Chase & Co., rejected the deal on the grounds the condo was worth more than the $240,000 the buyer was willing to pay.
Instead, the parents of two young children watched in anguish Sept. 16 as the bank foreclosed upon their home. Weeks later, JPMorgan put the home back on the market, priced about $7,000 below what the prospective buyer offered. Today, the family is gone and the house is empty.
Translation: They REALLY WANTED the PROPERTY ALL ALONG!
“We gave it 100 percent of an effort and tried our hardest,’’ said Linda Robbins. “It was the bank not willing to work with us.’’
And they "made" HOW MANY BILLIONS last quarter?
**************
As more homeowners attempt to stave off foreclosure by striking such deals, lenders are denying or delaying many of these transactions even when it appears the sales would be in their best interest, according to real estate agents and housing advocates....
Actually, no. WORTHLESS PAPER MONEY means NOTHING next to a HARD ASSET like a HOME!
JPMorgan Chase would not comment on the Robbinses, but said the company generally prefers short sales over foreclosures, because they cost less and benefit the community.
And SINCE WHEN have BANKS EVER CARED about the COMMUNITY?
What SCUM!!!!!
Ultimately, however, the bank’s responsibility is to get a “fair price’’ for a property, and sometimes that means seeking more than the short-sale price — even if it puts the sale in jeopardy, said spokesman Michael Fusco....
In the Robbinses’ case, they admit it was a mistake to borrow $292,500 to buy their Watertown home six years ago.
Yup. For ANYTHING!
Christopher Robbins, 30, who had recently finished a four-year stint in the Army, was a security screener at Logan International Airport in Boston. His wife held a job as a child-care worker.
TheySCREWED a VET and his family?
Yeah, $upport the troop$!!
They were approved for a loan that did not require income documentation or a down payment.
As if it were their fault and not the bank.
When they say sign here and we can put you in that house you love what are you supposed to do?
The monthly payments on their variable-rate mortgage began to rise immediately, and they soon fell behind on the loan. After failing to convince the bank to rewrite the loan, they opted for a short sale. Following the foreclosure, the Robbinses moved into public housing for veterans, blocks from their former home.
Just to add insult to injury.
“It is disgusting they couldn’t work with me,’’ Christopher Robbins said. “It puts a lot of stress on families where it could be avoided.’’
--more--"
At least you can take 'em to court!
"At housing court, final pleas to head off evictions" by Megan Woolhouse, Globe Staff / December 27, 2010
The homeowners facing eviction have already lost their houses to foreclosure but will not move willingly, clinging to a desperate hope that they can stave off eviction and find a way to buy back their homes.
The prospects are dim. Few, if any, can even afford a lawyer.
If foreclosure is the final chapter of homeownership, a court eviction hearing is the weary epilogue.
Just two years ago, hearings involving foreclosed homeowners were relatively rare, occurring once a month or less. But soaring foreclosures, which have continued to rise in recent months, have flooded the court with such eviction requests....
Some manage to postpone eviction, while others are not so lucky....
Usually, foreclosure is a kind of death sentence for homeowners. While state law protects renters living in foreclosed apartments from sudden eviction, banks are under no legal obligation to let former owners stay.
They are the ones who should be given a death sentence.
After the auction, residents get notices from the banks giving them 72 hours to move or face court-ordered evictions....
--more--"
What to do with all those empty properties?
Webster shows you the way:
"Shaming property owners to action; Webster desperate to ease blight of abandoned houses" by Peter Schworm, Globe Staff / January 5, 2011
The prospects are dim. Few, if any, can even afford a lawyer.
If foreclosure is the final chapter of homeownership, a court eviction hearing is the weary epilogue.
Just two years ago, hearings involving foreclosed homeowners were relatively rare, occurring once a month or less. But soaring foreclosures, which have continued to rise in recent months, have flooded the court with such eviction requests....
Some manage to postpone eviction, while others are not so lucky....
Usually, foreclosure is a kind of death sentence for homeowners. While state law protects renters living in foreclosed apartments from sudden eviction, banks are under no legal obligation to let former owners stay.
They are the ones who should be given a death sentence.
After the auction, residents get notices from the banks giving them 72 hours to move or face court-ordered evictions....
--more--"
What to do with all those empty properties?
Webster shows you the way:
"Shaming property owners to action; Webster desperate to ease blight of abandoned houses" by Peter Schworm, Globe Staff / January 5, 2011
Town officials have had little luck convincing property owners, in many cases banks or out-of-town residents, to destroy the houses or at least board them up. In angry desperation, they are turning to old-fashioned public embarrassment....
The move is an unusually creative response to a widespread problem, the spate of abandoned properties in communities hard hit by collapse of the housing market. In Webster, a working-class town of about 17,000 in Central Massachusetts, many people who bought during the bubble years simply walked away from their properties when values plummeted. Town officials say banks that foreclosed on the houses have done little to maintain them....
“They had no problem accepting the bailout, but they can’t find the money to secure unsafe buildings.’’
Because it was all about taking the property.
*****************
Many of the properties were abandoned years ago and have been condemned. Three of them are near downtown and draw frequent complaints from residents as eyesores.
Yeah, we have some of those 'round h're.
Police are often called to one three-decker where drug addicts and the homeless gather, selectboard chairwoman Deborah Keefe said. She estimated that the property, owned by Wells Fargo, has cost the town thousands of dollars in police time....
Yeah, all these HOMELESS PEOPLE and HOUSES with NO ONE LIVING in THEM!
Welcome to AmeriKa!!
A Wells Fargo spokesman said yesterday that the property has been moving through the foreclosure process and until recently was occupied, limiting the bank’s ability to make repairs. The spokesman said the bank planned to begin work on the building soon....
F*** you guys and your f***ing empty promises and excuses!
--more--"
