Catch Up on Foreclosure and Mortgage News

“in today’s marketplace, they don’t want to mitigate damages, they want to mitigate liability to all the people from whom they received money, including the investors.” Neil F Garfield, livinglies.me

After a nasty bout of the flu I have returned to the world of the living. Here are some comments and links that you should be reading and thinking about.

When a Foreclosure Sells for Less Than Your Offer
http://homebuying.about.com/b/2013/09/18/when-a-foreclosure-sells-for-less-than-your-offer.htm

Editor’s Comment: The final sale of foreclosed property is nearly always less than that offered that preceded the sale. So what is the deal here? Why would anyone want to collect less on a loan where it is clear from the record that more was owed? The Banks obviously have a reason for wanting the foreclosure sale more than they want the money to “mitigate” damages.

Half of the the answer is they have no damages to mitigate because they never had any risk of loss, never funded the origination or acquisition of the loan.

The other half is that only through a foreclosure sale do they get cover for their PONZI scheme. Once the foreclosure sale occurs the money received by the Banks (instead of by the investors who put up the money in the first place) the Banks can point to a final  judgment and sale showing the Banks as the owners of the mortgage and note and not the investors, justifying the receipt the insurance proceeds, credit default swaps, guarantee payments from Fannie and Freddie, “sale” of the empty worthless mortgage bonds that were owned by investors but titled in the name of the investment bank under “street name.”

So it isn’t the mitigation of damages from loss on a defaulted note they are after it is the end of potential liability to refund insurance, credit default swaps, guarantees and sales. In the old days there would be no question that the bank would take the route that was most likely to mitigate the damages because going after a borrower for a deficiency judgment is usually not a good option. But in today’s marketplace, they don’t want to mitigate damages, they want to mitigate liability to all the people from whom they received money, including the investors. The more they mitigate damages on the loan the higher the potential liability for refunding money already paid by insurers, CDS, GSE’s, and the Federal Reserve.

Are you thinking about foreclosing on an assessment lien? Think twice
http://www.vahoalaw.com/covenant-enforcement-are-you-thinking-about-foreclosing-on-an-assessment-lien-think-twice.html

Editor’s Comment: Here is an example of incorrect legal analysis or more probably an article planted by the Banks who are terrified of losing all their mortgages to the one entity that has a superior lien to their alleged mortgage encumbrance — the condominium or homeowner association whose lien is simple, plain, and easily enforceable. The point of the article is that foreclosing on the lien will leave the association as the owner and potentially obligor on the note and mortgage. It ignores of course that the debt, note, mortgage and default were all fabricated.

The thing the Banks don’t ant is a head to head competition on foreclosure between two parties each of whom alleges superior lien rights. The association will have no problem demonstrating its lien rights, the ownership of the lien and the balance due after all offsets. It is a case of you show me yours and I’ll show you mine. After the association presents its case then the bank must present its case meeting the same burden or procedural compliance demonstrated by the association. They can’t. They will lose if the association attorney has been doing any research on securitized loans.

More news coming

Posted in Corruption, Eviction, securities fraud |