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.

 

Ever Seen a Fraudclosure Auction?

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Travlla
 




Why did she believe she did not have a debt to the bank?


She's asking for the original mortgage documents, which sometimes banks don't have or cannot easily locate because there is a mix of digital and hard-copies, and loans are sometimes sold more than once relatively fast. Not so much anymore, but before it was common.

She believes that because the bank did not have the original document to show her she no longer owed them money. Instead of consulting a lawyer she decided to stop paying... and lost her house.



Why did she not have the copy's of her contract with the bank?


This scam she's trying to play that others have tried is that they want the new loan servicer to produce the contract. Every mortgage has a specific portion that says they can sell the loan to whoever they want. 90% of all mortgages are sold, often to a GSE. Her belief is that if the new servicer of the loan cannot produce the original documents, then the loan is void and she owns the property.

Here's the funny part..

Let's assume the bank looses the original documents, the county list the BANK as the actual owner of the property. If you stop paying the mortgage, the Sheriff kicks you out and the bank retains the property as well as the tax liability. So if the agreement is lost, it wouldn't be you getting a free house, it'd be you getting your ass booted off the property and a foreclosure anyways. People seem to forget.. the bank buys the property, not you. There are laws to protect your rights as a homeowner, but at the very end of it all .. the bank owns it.



Why is she so surprised the bank is selling the house to recover the debt owed to them?


Because she's a moron.




posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 





Why is she so surprised the bank is selling the house to recover the debt owed to them?



Because she's a moron.


So Rockpuck how many times have you asked the bank to prove they loaned the money, where it came from etc? what's that? NONE! When was the money received and who received it when the contract was signed FOR MONIES RECEIVED? And you really ought to get some education on what it takes to make a valid contract. Signatures of both all parties, FULL DISCLOSURE, and proof of execution without fraud. lacking any of those elements the contract is null and void. it should be a simp0le matter for anyone to prove all those elements were met if they have a valid contract.

Someone's definitely a moron here but it is not her me or the person you were responding to!

Also you keep saying you can't beat the banks, think again... Judges and lawyers have been in collusion with the banks for decades but that is changing. Google can be your friend. Apparently the naysayers think repeating thier ignorance over and over makes it true... Sigh!

Here is just one site of MANY documenting the many people fighting the fraud and winning in various capacities



Banks' Lawyers Accused of Forging 1,000+ Deeds From HERSid and STOPForeclosureFraud...
NYSC Orders All Witnesses To Be Present, All Documents Demonstrating Exactly When Bank Acquired Possession of the Note and Mortgage
Fraudsters, you now have another MAJOR problem.
How a Whistle-Blower Conquered Countrywide
“It is the littlest of Davids beating the biggest of Goliaths.”
HSBC suspends foreclosure actions
May face unspecified regulatory actions or fines, after regulators found “certain deficiencies” in servicing and foreclosure procedures

www.msfraud.org...



www.google.com...


edit on 10-3-2011 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by schuyler
 


Why do you think the economy is melting down. IT IS BECAUSE OF THIS SCHEME. Wait till commercial so called fake loans hit the skids and derivatives. Please do your homework. Ask your bank to prove you were loaned money instead of just speaking in ignorance.


I saw the certified check for $100,000, for one thing. It was made out in the sellers name. The seller took that check and used it. He could convert it to cash, buy gold with it, or buy a new car. It's not my issue. Why do you keep insisting this money does not exist?

In fact, banks are required by the government to keep a certain debt to asset ratio. THAT'S one big issue with the banks right now. It worked out fine when prices were rising and people paid their mortgages. It did not work out fine when prices were falling, people stopped paying their mortgages, and banks wound up with houses worth less than the mortgages on them.

Not that I think banks are always stalwart organizations. They wanted to keep the loans rolling so they would lend to anyone on so-called "stated" (unproven) income by the borrowers. Now THERE'S an example of phony money where the banks actually accepted whatever the borrower told them. Why did they do this? Because Fannie Mae, etc. would buy up these notes no questions asked and the banks thought they were passing on the risk. That was stupid of the banks and I blame them for this.

Several banks in my area failed. Why? because they made risky loans to people who really could not pay combined with a recession which turned formally good loans into bad ones. The combination made them fail. Then you have yahoos like this woman who pretend they weren't actually loaned money, yet here they are sitting in an expensive house. She promised to pay as per the terms. She did not pay. She loses her house. I think that can be a very sad thing, but in her case, she deserved it.
edit on 3/10/2011 by schuyler because: fix quote



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 




So Rockpuck how many times have you asked the bank to prove they loaned the money, where it came from etc?


...I know they loaned me money, because I bought a house with money I certainly didn't have in cash.. And the person I purchased it from certainly got his money, because he used it as a down payment on another house..
And I am very certain I signed an agreement that the bank was to tender the funds to the owner in order for me to live here, in which for the next 30 years I'd pay it back..

I have the HUD docs to prove that. I have my mortgage to prove that. And I have the receipt from when my loan was sold to Bank of America 4 months after I first started paying.

All I see is people trying to get out of their debts .. I pay the debts I owe.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 


Thanks for illustrating the point, the check was written against your note, they deposited it into an account they failed to disclose. You gave them a note they gave a check to the seller, because they now had funds from your note. Where was the loan? There wasn't any The seller was paid in full hence you own the house while the bank makes millions selling the note and charging you for 30 years for the privilege of using your credit to get to make millions and increase thier assets by fractional reserve... Heck of a deal. It would all be legal since you agreed to it except for one thing. They led you to believe there was a loan when there wasn't that is called fraud.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 07:04 PM
link   
I find the whole "show me the note" game a distraction from the subject.

OP...regardless of WHO you are concerned with owning the note....did you or did you not make all your monthly payments?

If you answer "No" then you are not entitled to remain in possession.

What about renters? should they all ask to see the note for the apartment building they live in and stop paying rent in the process? oh the mayhem that would ensue.

I know a couple things about the industry and If your original loan was with greenpoint you were most likely a "b" paper or "sub-prime" loan, possibly stated income and most likely on a short term adjustable rate loan that adjusted up.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 

but, the note isn't standing, it's quite possible that they "shredded it to avoid confusion"...
the didn't use the traditional method to record the transfer of that note, instead, they created an alternative method...owned by the main players of the mess by the way....called MERS.
or, well considering that they have tried to repo the wrong houses (the owners of these houses have to incur outrageous lawyer fees to protect their property), two or more servicers have tried to repo the same house, MERs, whose own website clearly states that they own nothing, has claimed the right to foreclose...
well, what can I say, by some "experts" over 50% of the are in the MERS system, the notes have been detached from the deeds to the house, and it's gonna take over a decade to sort the mess out!!!
until it's sorted out, over 50% of the houses have deeds that are basically tarnished and possibly uninsurable. you won't be able to sell the house if a title insurance company won't insure it.....at least the person who is buying it won't be able to get a loan on it! and well, my home was valued at x amount of dollars, x amount was really y amount but then, any appraiser that didn't want to inflate it to that x amount was blackballed. then the whole mess blew up, and now the home if valued less than the y amount, and well...if they can't produce a clear note, then I got a feeling that the house is worth next to nothing!!
considering that the banks were given bailout money that probably could have paid for every mortgage in the country, I am sorry, but, they deserve a good legal fight if they want these houses!!
oh, and it's quite possible that the county will not show the proper bank as the owner, since like I said, the too big to fails set up their own little system to keep track of this....which, by the way, screwed the counties out of alot of money!!!




edit on 10-3-2011 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by schuyler
 


Thanks for illustrating the point, the check was written against your note, they deposited it into an account they failed to disclose. You gave them a note they gave a check to the seller, because they now had funds from your note. Where was the loan? There wasn't any The seller was paid in full hence you own the house while the bank makes millions selling the note and charging you for 30 years for the privilege of using your credit to get to make millions and increase thier assets by fractional reserve... Heck of a deal. It would all be legal since you agreed to it except for one thing. They led you to believe there was a loan when there wasn't that is called fraud.


And yet I hadn't paid them a dime. None. $Zero. They have no funds from my note. In your scenario I get a house for free simply by signing my name. The seller is long gone and the money is spent. He's happy. His creditors are happy. he actually thinks he just got real money and, indeed, he has. It's the bank "holding the note," and rightly so. It's going to take them over ten years just to break even on this deal. Oh, they'll make money for sure, both because the interest is front-loaded in case I sell early, and the total interest paid, if full term, is in the 40% range (In our hypothetical 15 year loan. Much more, of course for a 30 or 40 year loan) So, not such a bad deal for the bank--except they have to factor in bad debts from people like your friend.

Now, there is nothing in the Deed of Trust and nothing in the Promissory Note that gives the borrower the right to ask for extra paperwork. In fact, those documents say something like, "This is the full extent of the agreement between us." There is no clause that says "Borrower has the right to ask for and receive any paperwork she dreams up within X days." It's not part of the agreement. Those two documents constitute proof of the loan and nothing else is needed.

Dawnstar:

WHAT deed? I have the copies of the loan documents I signed. The bank also has copies. If they shredded them, silly them. The whole thing is recorded at the county records office and available online. If they can't find it, they can go look them up just like I can.

Here's the deal. The house is in my name already. It's paid for as far as the seller is concerned and as far as the county is concerned. There is no "deed" as in a rolled up piece of paper with a ribbon attached that says, "You, Schuyler, own this house." There never has been. The record is at the County Courthouse and believe me, they know who to send the tax statement to. The "Deed of Trust" is an attachment that gives the bank the right to foreclose if I don't pay according to the Promisory Note. It also sets conditions of my occupation of the house including that I will keep it up, etc. If you really read one of these things, it sets up a lot of restrictions on what I can do to the property. the Deed of Trust is like a Contractor's Lien, except that it doesn't take effect and is not invoked unless I default. If I pay off the loan, the bank is obligated by law to render unto me a "reconveyance" that states I have fulfilled all obligations under the Deed of Trust and title is therefore now unencumbered.

Now, this whole argument boils down to this dispute. hawkeye says no money was actually loaned. I say yes, money was actually loaned and a check was made out to the seller and there;s your proof right there. I also say that demanding proof that money was actually loaned is not part of the agreement and is a made up argument with no validity. It's a spurious argument that rests on obfuscation and deceit on the part of the borrower.


edit on 3/10/2011 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 

Thanks mate,it's what i 1st thought she's a moron


I sold my house a few years ago,the buyers got a bank loan,the cash went into my account and i was able to withdraw it and buy things,
I know that's in Australia,but surely the same applies in the US,if no money was loaned then how was the seller paid? If sellers were not paid i reckon we might have heard about it by now, as for being a slave for 30 years,no one forces people into 30 year house loans do they ? This silly hag wants to stop blaming others for her grandchild having no where to live and face facts, Her scam failed ,cry me a river

edit on 10/3/2011 by Travlla because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by dawnstar
 


It's very possible that the bank you pay the mortgage to doesn't have the original documentation on hand or in a file .. but it doesn't mean you don't still owe that bank the money for the loan. The only way I can fathom that you wouldn't is if you were paying to that bank and being asked by another for a monthly payment .. something that would be obvious no doubt.

Now let's assume you did want to try and play this game, ask the bank for the note etc proving they own the loan .. if you find out they don't own the loan, or cannot prove ownership of said loan, it's entirely possible you won't have to pay a mortgage until the owner is found. no doubt the bank that bought it would track it down very quickly. But NEVER stop paying your mortgage to play this game.. continue to pay.. and if you win the case by some lucky chance, you can sue for back payment. Personally, I doubt anyone would ever beat the banks .. I suppose you can try.. just don't screw your family over and claim victory before you go through the system -- pay your mortgage.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 



And yet I hadn't paid them a dime. None. $Zero. They have no funds from my note.


The note IS the funds.


In your scenario I get a house for free simply by signing my name. The seller is long gone and the money is spent. He's happy. His creditors are happy. he actually thinks he just got real money and, indeed, he has. It's the bank "holding the note," and rightly so.


The is where you fail to understand what has happened. In our fraudulent system what we call money is nothing but promissory notes. The dollar you have in your pocket is a promissory note, evidence of a debt, nothing more. That is why they are called federal reserve NOTES. What most people do not know is any promissory note is considered legal tender in our system enacted beginning with HJR 192 back in the 30's, yes even the ones you sign for your mortgage. So your note is as good as federal reserve notes for legal tender. This is what they do not want you to know, but it is all in the law. The bank does know this and takes advantage of your ignorance. This is something that needs to be studied as it is too much to explain here.

"Item tendered for Discharge of Debt.

The instrument tendered to the bank and negotiated to the United States Treasury for settlement is an “Obligation of THE UNITED STATES”, under Title 18 USC Sect. 8, representing as the definition provides a “certificate of indebtedness…drawn upon an authorized officer of the United States,” (in this case the Secretary of the Treasury) “issued under an Act of Congress” (in this case public law 73-10, HJR-192 of 1933 and Title 31 USC 3123, and 31 USC 5103)"

"Sec. 8. – Obligation or other security of the United States defined

The term “obligation or other security of the United States” includes all bonds, certificates of indebtedness, national bank currency, Federal Reserve notes, Federal Reserve bank notes, coupons, United States notes, Treasury notes, gold certificates, silver certificates, fractional notes, certificates of deposit, bills, checks, or drafts for money, drawn by or upon authorized officers of the United States, stamps and other representatives of value, of whatever denomination, issued under any Act of Congress, and cancelled United States stamps.

The International Bill of Exchange is legal tender as a national bank note, or note of a National Banking Association, by legal and/or statutory definition (UCC 4-105 12 CFR Sec 229.2, 210.2, 12 USC 1813), issued under Authority of the United States Code 31 USC 392, 5103, which officially defines this as a statutory legal tender obligation of THE UNITED STATES, and is issued in accordance with 31 USC 3123 and HJR – 192 (1933) which establish and provide for its issuance as “Public Policy” in remedy for discharge of equity interest recovery on that portion of the public debt to its Principals, and Sureties bearing the Obligations of THE UNITED STATES."

"Senate Document No. 43, 73rd Congress, 1st Session, stated,

“Under the new law, the money is issued to the banks in return for Government obligations, bills of exchange, drafts, notes, trade acceptances, and bankers acceptances. The money will be worth 100 cents on the dollar, because it is backed by the credit of the nation. It will represent a mortgage on all the homes and other property of all the people in the nation.” (which lawfully belongs to these private citizens.)"


It's going to take them over ten years just to break even on this deal. Oh, they'll make money for sure, both because the interest is front-loaded in case I sell early, and the total interest paid, if full term, is in the 40% range (In our hypothetical 15 year loan. Much more, of course for a 30 or 40 year loan) So, not such a bad deal for the bank--except they have to factor in bad debts from people like your friend.


No they do not. The banks do not loose a dime on foreclosures they already made millions on your credit and duped you into paying twice the prices of the house again over 20-30 years. the bank brought nothing to the table but fraud. They have no money to loan they can't even loan their own federal reserve notes it is against the law for them to do so. So they dupe you into providng the fund with your note and then pretend to loan you money when it is your own credit (remember all notes are evidence of debt) that funded the entire transaction.


Now, there is nothing in the Deed of Trust and nothing in the Promissory Note that gives the borrower the right to ask for extra paperwork. In fact, those documents say something like, "This is the full extent of the agreement between us." There is no clause that says "Borrower has the right to ask for and receive any paperwork she dreams up within X days." It's not part of the agreement. Those two documents constitute proof of the loan and nothing else is needed.


No one is asking for new paper work they are asking for them to provide the original paperwork and prove they are performing according to the contract and actually provided a loan of thier own money to the borrower o as claimed. If you say I owe you money and cannot provide the contract proving it how do you think any court would rule? Yet the same judges that would slap you will collude with banks to defraud me when I ask the same of the banks.


Dawnstar:

WHAT deed? I have the copies of the loan documents I signed. The bank also has copies. If they shredded them, silly them. The whole thing is recorded at the county records office and available online. If they can't find it, they can go look them up just like I can.


The note is not recorded and is the basis of the whole contract. If they or anyone who claims to own the note cannot provide the note then there is no contract. There is a reason the banks shred them and that is to hide the fraud. To date no bank has ever been able to produce the note. That is why there are thousand of law suites as I provided in the links in a previous post.


Here's the deal. The house is in my name already. It's paid for as far as the seller is concerned and as far as the county is concerned. There is no "deed" as in a rolled up piece of paper with a ribbon attached that says, "You, Schuyler, own this house." There never has been. The record is at the County Courthouse and believe me, they know who to send the tax statement to. The "Deed of Trust" is an attachment that gives the bank the right to foreclose if I don't pay according to the Promisory Note.


Really? Prove it by providing the original note the contract is based on. Copies are not legal documents and also there is only one name on the note not two so the note itself is not a contract. No banks can do it nor will they even if they could because it would expose the fraud they are all in collision with.


It also sets conditions of my occupation of the house including that I will keep it up, etc. If you really read one of these things, it sets up a lot of restrictions on what I can do to the property. the Deed of Trust is like a Contractor's Lien, except that it doesn't take effect and is not invoked unless I default. If I pay off the loan, the bank is obligated by law to render unto me a "reconveyance" that states I have fulfilled all obligations under the Deed of Trust and title is therefore now unencumbered.


However you reconveyed the house to the bank FOR MONIES RECIEVED at the closing table when you had not received any money, and how can someone who does not own the house reconvey it? Because you did own it and had just paid in full for it when you signed the promissory note, then you gave it away to the bank being deceived that you had somehow gotten a loan.


Now, this whole argument boils down to this dispute. hawkeye says no money was actually loaned. I say yes, money was actually loaned and a check was made out to the seller and there;s your proof right there. I also say that demanding proof that money was actually loaned is not part of the agreement and is a made up argument with no validity. It's a spurious argument that rests on obfuscation and deceit on the part of the borrower.


Everyone knows writing a check does not prove there is money in an account. You can say what you want in your ignorance and it is the reason people like you walk into banks every day and get defrauded by this same scam and it is the reason this whole country is going down economically! Because otherwise intelligent people refuse to look at the facts and educate themselves. I have spent years showing people who bring up these same uniformed arguments that what I say is 100% true. I show them in their own contracts and they are shocked and dismayed to see it in black and white.



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by howmuch4another
I find the whole "show me the note" game a distraction from the subject.

OP...regardless of WHO you are concerned with owning the note....did you or did you not make all your monthly payments?

If you answer "No" then you are not entitled to remain in possession.

What about renters? should they all ask to see the note for the apartment building they live in and stop paying rent in the process? oh the mayhem that would ensue.

I know a couple things about the industry and If your original loan was with greenpoint you were most likely a "b" paper or "sub-prime" loan, possibly stated income and most likely on a short term adjustable rate loan that adjusted up.


I find the unwillingness of the majority of Americans to do any research and continue to just reinforce thier belief and speak in thier ignorance when many are trying to help them by exposing the fraud a sad commentary. Sadly we would not be having this conversation unless millions of Americans were out of work and losing thier homes BECAUSE OF THIS SCAM and decided they had nothing less to lose and started looking into things. And sadly you will not consider it until your number comes up and you lose your job and are unable to pay your fraudulent mortgage and risk losing the home that was paid for by you with your credit because that is all there is in our system credit.

This is why its all melting down and will completely fall apart this is the root cause of it all yet so many just flippantly mock and dismiss it all thinking they have it figured out... Sigh. So many have no idea how bad it is going to get. The feds, states, towns, and cities, are all broke and living in external credit. look around you at the budget fights in you states? Wisconsin is only the beginning as the welfare crowd get cut off thier benefits. Do you thik it will all go away? So sad Americans will not even help themselves because of thier own ignorance.


I wonder how proud many will feel when they are wondering where their next meal will come from or where they will sleep etc. It's happening to millions as we speak, it just has not hit critical mass yet...

Congratulations several of you have succeeded in getting me a bit down thinking about all the ignorance out there when I have been doing pretty good lately. Well I hope you all have your food storage, water, and retreats prepared. I really would love to be wrong here but I know I am not unfortunately.



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 02:20 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 

Get the poor hard done by women
to track down the previous owner of the house,if they were never paid for the house,they will happily tell the world,if they tell the world the bank paid them,your and her claims are BS



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 03:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Travlla
 



Educate yourself. You are speaking in complete ignorance.



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 03:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by Travlla
 



Educate yourself. You are speaking in complete ignorance.

Educate myself LOL,so I'm like the scam hag and get my house sold from under me for non payment,no thanks i look after my family,Do you have a mortgage? if so stop paying and see what happens,see if your real/imagined claims saves you,yes put your money where your mouth is,your talking the talk,lets see if you can walk the walk,



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 03:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Travlla
 


More ignorant bile spewing forth from your mouth. Why is it you presume to know what I have done in spewing your ignorance? And if you actually paid attention she stopped the sale of her own house using the method of simply asking for proof of claim. These sales have been stopped many times it is all over the internet. Yet fools still mock and peep. I love it when ignorant fools who have never even read thier mortgage papers and signed them in thier ignorance act like the have a clue and then come on here and open their mouths and remove any doubt they are fools...

Rock on buttercup...
edit on 11-3-2011 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 04:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by Travlla
 


More ignorant bile spewing forth from your mouth. Why is it you presume to know what I have done in spewing your ignorance? And if you actually paid attention she stopped the sale of her own house using the method of simply asking for proof of claim. These sales have been stopped many times it is all over the internet. Yet fools still mock and peep. I love it when ignorant fools who have never even read thier mortgage papers and signed them in thier ignorance act like the have a clue and then come on here and open their mouths and remove any doubt they are fools...

Rock on buttercup...
edit on 11-3-2011 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)


Ok I'll ignore the insults spewing from your cake hole,the only thing i have presumed about you is that your passionate about this subject,You do what you think is right and i will do likewise,I pay my debts,others don't,no skin off my nose,



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 

the question is....
who is entitled to the possession of the house if the owner stops paying the note....
and well, I am not gonna get into the deed/title but much deeper, if you search the net long enough you will find sources that express concern for our property rights, regardless if we pay our mortgage or not...

one thing is for sure, when I pay off my mortgage, someone will have to sign off that the mortgage is paid for it to be lien free. just like they needed the signatures to be able to foreclose....
is the person who signs off on it gonna be someone who is entitled to have the right to sign off, or just another brain dead robosigner who have no idea what they are signing, because they have the records so screwed up, they have no idea who should be signing the paperwork.

and it's quite possible that no, your county clerks office doesn't have an accurate record when it comes to your house, since everytime that mortgage switched hands it was supposed to be recorded.....and it wasn't, no at the county clerks office...it was at some great computer network called mers.....


I ain't never said that I think I have the right to the house....what I am saying is that the banks have neglected their responsibility they had to me, and their neglect may have diminished the value of my house beyond belief....
in which case, I don't want the house, and I don't see where I owe them any money....
it's kind of like a you break, you buy bit.



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye

Originally posted by howmuch4another
I find the whole "show me the note" game a distraction from the subject.

OP...regardless of WHO you are concerned with owning the note....did you or did you not make all your monthly payments?

If you answer "No" then you are not entitled to remain in possession.

What about renters? should they all ask to see the note for the apartment building they live in and stop paying rent in the process? oh the mayhem that would ensue.

I know a couple things about the industry and If your original loan was with greenpoint you were most likely a "b" paper or "sub-prime" loan, possibly stated income and most likely on a short term adjustable rate loan that adjusted up.


I find the unwillingness of the majority of Americans to do any research and continue to just reinforce thier belief and speak in thier ignorance when many are trying to help them by exposing the fraud a sad commentary. Sadly we would not be having this conversation unless millions of Americans were out of work and losing thier homes BECAUSE OF THIS SCAM and decided they had nothing less to lose and started looking into things. And sadly you will not consider it until your number comes up and you lose your job and are unable to pay your fraudulent mortgage and risk losing the home that was paid for by you with your credit because that is all there is in our system credit.

This is why its all melting down and will completely fall apart this is the root cause of it all yet so many just flippantly mock and dismiss it all thinking they have it figured out... Sigh. So many have no idea how bad it is going to get. The feds, states, towns, and cities, are all broke and living in external credit. look around you at the budget fights in you states? Wisconsin is only the beginning as the welfare crowd get cut off thier benefits. Do you thik it will all go away? So sad Americans will not even help themselves because of thier own ignorance.


I wonder how proud many will feel when they are wondering where their next meal will come from or where they will sleep etc. It's happening to millions as we speak, it just has not hit critical mass yet...

Congratulations several of you have succeeded in getting me a bit down thinking about all the ignorance out there when I have been doing pretty good lately. Well I hope you all have your food storage, water, and retreats prepared. I really would love to be wrong here but I know I am not unfortunately.


wow....now that there is a rant that has nothing to do with my post. It is interesting how emotionally you are defending your "friends" situation and that you didn't correct me when I asked you if YOU had made your payments or not.

Good luck. I hope you find a home for all your cats.



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   
Hawkeye is one of these "quote" respond, "quote" respond "quote" respond guys. I'm not. I can't wade through that junk especially since it makes no sense whatsoever. He's also a divisive and irritating character in that he continually calls people names, calls them ignorant, and generally does whatever he can to anger you. I find this method of argument dispicable at best and it certainly violates the laws of logic. I couldn't be around a guy like this physically. He could easily drive someone to violence. He seems incapable of debating without high emotion and sneering, and this makes him ineffective.

Hawkeye insists there's no real money here. He says the Promissory Note IS the money and that is spontaneously created by the Note itself. Am I not correct here so far? He also says the bank makes "millions" off of my $100,000 loan. Surely that is hyperbole. They "make" about $40,000 if they are lucky. He also says I have been hoodwinked into 30 years of "slavery" over a fraudulent deal.

Where's the beef?

Should I get a free house out of this deal? If there is really no loan and if I really am not obligated to pay it back, then I just got a $110,000 house for a down payment of $10,000. Talk about fraud. THAT would be fraud. Why should I get a free house out of this deal? Bear in mind that our seller is happy and content.

I see one area where I think Hawkeye gets his idea. It's just that he runs with it in the wrong direction. It's the BORROWER who is doing the sleight of hand here, not the bank. Upon closing the borrower is the one who gets full title to the property, just like Hawkeye says. Check. Then it is the BORROWER who immediately puts up the property that is now his as collateral for the loan he has not yet paid. That's the miracle part of the transaction. If you went to the bank and said, "Give me $100,000." they would demand you put up some collateral. here the thing you are buying is itself the collateral. (same thing with a car loan.)

This is all recorded at the County Clerk's office so that no one can come back later and say it never happened. The Deed of Trust gives the bank the legal teeth to enforce repayment of the loan. It acknowledges the collateral. The Promissory Note is also recorded and proves to the world that you, sweetheart, signed this thing and said you would pay according to the terms, and here it is right here.

Let's take the bank out of the equation for a moment. Let's say I borrowed this money from my mother-in-law. Exact same loan. Exact same interest rate. Exact same Deed of Trust. Exact same Promissory Note. Exact same recording at the County. The only difference here physically is that my mother-in-law's name is in the place of where the bank's name would go. No difference. Now go ask my mother-in-law if she thinks this money was spontaneously created. Heavens, no, it was not. Her bank account is now $100,000 less rich than it was before.

But she has a pretty cool asset now because if I pay as promised, she stands to make about $40,000 on this deal. It will give her a steady income and her net will be $140,000 for making that $100,000 loan. But my mother-in-law comes to realize the next year that she maybe shouldn't have done that because suddenly, for whatever reason, she decides it would be best to have that $100,000 in her bank account rather than wrapped up in my house. Now, I've been paying on that loan for a year, so she has collected over $5,000 in interest from me, since the first few years are mostly interest, so she calls up my Uncle and says, Hey, Unk. Have I got a deal for you. I've for this $100,000 Promissory Note from my son-in-law and it's only a year old. How about of I sell this note to you for, say $95,000, and you take over servicing this loan? You'll make about $35,000 on this deal. So Unk gives Mom $95K and I begin sending payments to Unk instead of Mom, OR, maybe just keep sending payments to the same P.O. Box I already have.

How is this scenario different from a bank and how, more importantly, does it change my obligation to pay back the $100,000? EVERYTHING on paper is exactly the same. Only the name of the payee is different. I've actually done this. It's not hypothetical.

The one overriding question I have that has not been answered is this: Why am I entitled to a free house?







 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join