Axing the Bankers' Money Tree: Homeowners' Rebellion against Wall Street

reply to post by flavapor


i can only comment on the courts decition in two cases and i beleive that if all the conditions are meet the owner/resident/borrower
gets free and clear tittle without debt
this does not apply to all cases

seek legal advice from a lawyer who has used this defence before as this is not intended as legal advice only a debate about the implemetation of court findings and new legal challenges to existing laws

consult a legal specialist after reading this thread

xploder

The banks are giving people little choice in the matter. My loan is fine, for now, but let's look at an example.

1. I owe about 70% more than the home is worth
2. I have an 10 year arm with payment options
3. Currently my interest rate is less than 3%. The minimum payment which use to be neg ammorization now covers principal and most interest.
4. I accept that rates will rise and when this loan converts to a fixed rate, I expect rates will be back over the 6% range which will then make the ammortized mortgage payent well over my budget.

I would like to remove the risk of the option arm and move to a 30 year fixed rate at prevailing rates. I can afford to do so as the new fixed payment will not be much higher than I currently pay. However no lender will touch my loan for a refinance because I owe much more than the home is worth.

This leaves me in a difficult dilemna. I have MERS loan. Do I concede that one day I will lose the home when my loan converts to fixed and have all my payments go up in smoke or do I nip it in the bud now and challenge the loan, stop making payments and have cash for a new start?

The bank could prevent this and many other foreclosures by giving me a new loan at prevailing rates. In the process they could also get a new valid loan agreement signed. They also get about double the amount of the loan paid back over time so they aren't hurting for profit by doing this. Since the banks will not negotiate in this fashion then I think using the MERS defense is a valid tactic and one which I may choose to employ.

If the banks won't do it then the government needs to come in and do it. Refinancing at sub 4% rates for all homeowners who are upside down or in bad loans could be the solution for both the banks and the people.

reply to post by sligtlyskeptical


Your post is why we are screwed. You have almost zero accountability and it seems you know you signed up for a loan you could probably not afford over the life of the loan.

You mention at the end that they should give all the people with bad loans the edge for being bad and yet nobody ever says we should be taking care and helping the people who a good status. Why shouldn't everyone be able to get that loan then? Whats to protect business if everything if forced to be the same for all groups?

No matter what we are in trouble, if they let everyone off the hook because of bad loans then it cripples the US because its a domino affect of jobs lost and industries built on housing and mortgages. If we do nothing then we will continue down our current path and the people who stay in their houses will lose their value as millions lose their homes.

reply to post by whoshotJR


the path is set the only way out is to follow the letter of the law MERS brakes chain of tittle and cant foreclose the owner gets tittle and no morgage whos fault is it that MERS was set up?

the only way anybody learns a lesson from all this is to penalize those at fault

the borrower and the lender perpatrate fraud
MERS perpatrates fraud
the bank on sells the morgage without telling the borrower causeing fraud
the courts cant prosicute everyone so the inforce the law to the letter
no foreclosure on a fraudulent morgage

when everyone ownes their holmes they can be re morgaged
more money for consumers to spend

america is people in homes
america cant work with millions on the street and empty houses

how does it help banks if foreclosing lowers the value of the house and they cant sell it anywhay

xploder

reply to post by sligtlyskeptical


would you buy a house and let someone else take out fire insurance on it?

that would give someone else the benifeit of your miss fortune

mers is fire insurance on your home and they get paid when you fail
in fact MERS is to quickly resell your property when you do fail

if i made a bad loan should i not face the loss?

if all laws apply to the borrower

then all laws apply to the lender and trust me they would screw you with the same law if it was in their favour

should you expose the fraud and get a free house
is it a crime to not expose a crime you know of one
is leander fraud a crime

the intent of the borrower was to pay in full
the intent of the lender was fraud
the tittle transfer system to make it easy to perpertrate fraud is fraudulent in of itself

do two wrongs make a right

people should let the courts challange standing and find in favour of the lender

this is the letter of the law

please seek legal advice for legal matters and decitions

xploder

Originally posted by whoshotJR
reply to post by sligtlyskeptical

 

Your post is why we are screwed. You have almost zero accountability and it seems you know you signed up for a loan you could probably not afford over the life of the loan.

You mention at the end that they should give all the people with bad loans the edge for being bad and yet nobody ever says we should be taking care and helping the people who a good status. Why shouldn't everyone be able to get that loan then? Whats to protect business if everything if forced to be the same for all groups?

No matter what we are in trouble, if they let everyone off the hook because of bad loans then it cripples the US because its a domino affect of jobs lost and industries built on housing and mortgages. If we do nothing then we will continue down our current path and the people who stay in their houses will lose their value as millions lose their homes.

No. What I am saying is that the banks can fix this. They choose not to. This makes people do what they have to do. If they work with me just a little they will own a new legally enforcable loan. If they don't then they lose $150k + costs. Is it really better for the economy to take these losses rather then to work with folks to make things right? Making people's loans affordable would help the economy in a large fashion. This would be good for the housing industry. Let the loans fail instead and the economy and housing will continue to be held back.

here is an idea instead of blaming banks and the government don't finance a loan using your house as collateral. don't take out that mortgage. don't sign for a loan with 30% interest. it's not exactly the banks fault that suckers squander their homes for a little bit of cash, they just profit from others stupidity. sell your house, sell your gold, then what? what's left? cash 4 kids.com ? sell your soul top dollar paid? people can cry all they want but when it comes down to it you signed on the dotted line, and no one made you. great job, have fun apartment hunting.

[edit on 1-9-2010 by 2weird2live2rare2die]

reply to post by 2weird2live2rare2die


Yep, my apartment complexes and mobile home park occupancies have skyrocketed. I've had to go out and buy more mobile homes for my empty lots since the bubble burst.

reply to post by topdog30


that is my plan, to someday get into real estate. a lot of jobs will someday be phased out but people will always need a place to live. plus with more people losing their homes and the economy it seems like a good career as bad as that sounds.

To clarify, I think that allowing banks to sell mortgages on the market is a huge flaw in the system and a result of regulatory failure. It's also unfortunately a HUGE profit model for certain shady businesses.

I think the ability to sell a contract you made with somebody, to somebody else, then allow the buyer of the contract to change the contract, is not only ethically wrong, but should be illegal. That is where regulation SHOULD be stepping in.

Moving on from that though, if you took out a mortgage with Bank X and Bank X abides by its end of the contract, so should you.

In saying that I can see where you are coming from if you think that selling these mortgages then having these people be allowed to change the rules of that contract is fundamentally wrong. I agree with that.

If banks are to be allowed to sell these mortgages, the regulatory policy should be that there can be no changes made to the contract unless both parties sign off on it.

If I buy a house with a mortgage for 200k at 6% or whatever it is, then they sell it and the buyer decides they are going to raise the rates or call it in, that should be illegal. Whatever agreement was originally made should not be allowed to be altered, regardless of who buys it.

reply to post by grimreaper797


i thank you for your post
i agree that both parties should be bound by the original agreement they signed

when foreclosure is the banks only way to sort the contract
(instead of refinance) then the fact the bank had broken the contract by on selling the MBS without makeing the borower aware should be a consideration that the bank had already broken contract

if the banks were resonable this approach would not be neccesary

if the borrowers could pay this approach would not be nessesary

america is people in houses not banks with empty houses

the banks broke contract and commited fraud

they should re negotiate the original contract at todays prices
as they were the party that breached contract and state property laws

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER


Just to be clear, I don't have a problem with them selling the contract. I just think the buyer of the contract should be held to the same original terms. The bank that sold it shouldn't even be in the equation at that point.

If bank A sold the mortgage to Bank B, Bank B should be in complete control of the payments and all that jazz, but they shouldn't be allowed to modify anything without written agreement from the mortgage buyer.