It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by jerico65
I saw this story with the title, "Three words to stop foreclosure" and the only three I could think of were, "I gotta gun!"
Originally posted by Jnewell33
what happens if the company simply cannot produce the note. I understand this is unlikely but what if, you know. very interesting to say the least.
Originally posted by loam
reply to post by northof8
Originally posted by northof8
People like this need to be taken out of their homes and flogged period.
Why punish only one side?
Both ends suffer from delusions of entitlement...
When wrong-doers attack one another, I'm not sure I ever pick a side to cheer. Do any of you?
[edit on 24-2-2009 by loam]
Originally posted by loam
reply to post by northof8
M'kay. Check.
Careless consumers are scum.
What I am also saying is careless institutions are scum too.
You blame only half of the equation. I blame both halves.
Originally posted by northof8
Its almost like we have an Atlas Shrugged scenario brewing here.
Originally posted by northof8
reply to post by spinkyboo
This is America. Most of these people that are in sad shape have no one to blame but themselves. Yes, people at the top are to blame for investing in these losers but it's in no way my fault so I have no problem calling a spade a spade.
I have no credit cards, I have a 2002 paid off Jeep that I was the original owner on and I have my home. I am not in debt like these idiots that can't read. I have no compassion for those that would expect me to pay for their mistakes.
Move out of the home and go rent because that is exactly what you are if you can't pay your mortgage.
Why is it that this is being encouraged? It's like this thread tells people to screw their fellow tax payer and wear that as a badge of honor. Do you know that is stealing from the people like me who actually played by the rules? And this thread laughs in the face of people like me?
I am supposed to feel sorry for these people? I don't and I never will.
Originally posted by northof8
reply to post by spinkyboo
This is America. Most of these people that are in sad shape have no one to blame but themselves. Yes, people at the top are to blame for investing in these losers but it's in no way my fault so I have no problem calling a spade a spade.
I have no credit cards, I have a 2002 paid off Jeep that I was the original owner on and I have my home. I am not in debt like these idiots that can't read. I have no compassion for those that would expect me to pay for their mistakes.
Move out of the home and go rent because that is exactly what you are if you can't pay your mortgage.
Why is it that this is being encouraged? It's like this thread tells people to screw their fellow tax payer and wear that as a badge of honor. Do you know that is stealing from the people like me who actually played by the rules? And this thread laughs in the face of people like me?
I am supposed to feel sorry for these people? I don't and I never will.
Originally posted by crw2006
I dont understand all the anger in these posts. For the bank to produce the note is the law and they have to do it if they are asked. Why get mad about it?
Originally posted by Rockpuck
Originally posted by Jnewell33
what happens if the company simply cannot produce the note. I understand this is unlikely but what if, you know. very interesting to say the least.
Contract is Void, as there is no signed contract that states you in fact owe anyone anything.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 4-561 / 02-1889
Filed September 9, 2004
CHASE MANHATTEN MORTGAGE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
LYNN E. GOODRICH and LEANA M. GOODRICH,
Defendants-Appellants,
HOME FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK, U.S. BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, and GENERAL SERVICE BUREAU, INC.,
Defendants.
III. Discussion.
Several of the separate contentions articulated by the Goodriches posit that the summary judgment record was insufficient to support the summary judgment and decree of foreclosure. Central to these contentions is the mistaken notion that a judgment of foreclosure could not be entered because Chase failed to produce the original of the promissory note. Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.961 contemplates that judgment on a note may be entered without production of the original note if the court so orders. The district court did by order authorize the foreclosure despite Chase's failure to produce the original note. Thus, we conclude the summary judgment record was not insufficient to support the judgment of foreclosure despite Chase's failure to produce the original of the note. Our resolution of this issue is strongly influenced by the fact that the Goodriches make no contention that either Chase's Lost Note Affidavit or the foreclosure decree misstated any term of the promissory note.
The Goodriches further contend the original promissory note found after entry of the judgment of foreclosure constitutes newly discovered evidence which they have not had an opportunity to inspect for authenticity. The court record discloses the note was filed by Chase and thereby made available for inspection after the judgment was entered. We find it significant that the Goodriches acknowledge they have not availed themselves of the opportunity to examine the document even after it was made part of the court file in this case. As noted above, they make no argument that the terms stated in the original note differ from the terms of the contract found by the district court. Accordingly, even if the original note could be viewed as newly discovered evidence, the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that such evidence did not justify vacation of the judgment against the Goodriches.
The due process claim asserted by the Goodriches is also without merit. When they withdrew their resistance to the motion for summary judgment, they waived any claims that the nature and quality of the evidence produced by Chase failed to adequately support the judgment against them. Included among the claims thus waived is the claim that the Goodriches were entitled to cross-examine a witness called by Chase to testify.
We have reviewed all other arguments and claims raised on appeal by the Goodriches and find they were waived or without merit.
AFFIRMED.
Originally posted by BlackOps719
reply to post by Jnewell33
Well Im not positive on this, but if a bank cant prove that you owe them any money then it would be awful difficult for them to take the house back.
It goes like this - Bank - "Hey, you owe us $200,000"
Customer - "Prove it"
Bank - " Oh crap, we can't"
Customer - "See ya in court then"