It really isn’t much different than the way the foreclosures themselves are done. After a roulette spin on the LPS Desktop program for foreclosures, a “lender” is selected and appoints itself through a series of LPS generated documents. Now we have a new beneficiary or a new mortgagee.
Then we have the new beneficiary designate the trustee who acts as a foreclosure agent instead of a trustee. Despite the fact that the trustor disputes the substitution of trustee and notice of default and notice of sale, the beneficiary has essentially appointed itself as the trustee, contrary to every known law allowing non-judicial foreclosure.
Then comes the requirement for “independent foreclosure review” which is as independent as the above-described foreclosure process. This should be challenged in court for breach of the statutory duties under the note and mortgage (and add as alternative pleading that the note and mortgage are denied and should be cancelled), and breach of the OCC and 50 state settlement.
Banks hire themselves for independent foreclosure review just like they appoint themselves beneficiaries, mortgagees an substitute trustees. Why hasn’t someone asked the question “Why are all trustees changed? Are the original ones all bad? Is that an indicator that the original trustee who often served as closing agent, know about the irregularities and defects in the original closing? Does this subject the title companies to liability they now deny? Does this reflect the fact that the mortgage lien was never perfected and therefore could never have been foreclosed?
Doubts About Independent Foreclosure Review Spread
http://www.propublica.org/article/doubts-about-independent-foreclosure-review-spread
Search Our Blog
Categories
Contact Our National Headquarters Phone: 844-583-5339
Connect with us
Contact Our National Headquarters
- 844-583-5339
- Available 24/7
-
200 S. Andrews Ave. Ste. 604
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301