It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
In essence, the ruling upheld that those who had purchased foreclosure properties that had been illegally foreclosed upon (which is virtually all foreclosure sales in the last five years), did not in fact have title to those properties. Given the fact that more than two-thirds of all real estate transactions in the last five years have also been foreclosed properties, this creates a small problem.
Here are the key components of the Bevilacqua case:
1. In holding that Bevilacqua could not make "something from nothing" (bring an action or even have standing to bring an action, when he had a title worth nothing) the lower land court applied and upheld long-standing principles of conveyance.
2. A foreclosure conducted by a non-mortgagee (which includes basically all of them over the last five years, including the landmark Ibanez case) is wholly void and passes no title to a subsequent transferee (purchasers of foreclosures will be especially pleased to learn of this)
3. Where (as in Bevilacqua) a non-mortgagee records a post-foreclosure assignment, any subsequent transferee has record notice that the foreclosure is simply void.
4. A wholly void foreclosure deed passes no title even to a supposed "bona fide purchaser"
5. The Grantee of an invalid (wholly void) foreclosure deed does not have record title, nor does any person claiming under a wholly void deed, and the decision of the lower land court properly dismissed Bevilacqua's petition.
6. The land court correctly reasoned that the remedy available to Bevilacqua was not against the wrongly foreclosed homeowner but rather against the wrongly foreclosing bank and/or perhaps the servicer (depending on who actually conducted the foreclosure)
Originally posted by JRedBeard
So are we going to have to bail out the banks (again) who can't afford to settle on all of their lawsuits?
Also how can this be tied in to some of the debates about Physical vs electronic titles and all of that?
I know a family who still has never paid a dime on their mortgage because the bank is all tied up trying to produce their actual title...
Think the two issues could overlap?
So who has to pay?
Who gets to own the homes?
So what sort of investments are the investment managers at insurance companies making? Well, we know the insurance culture isn't fond of extreme sports, and as it turns out their not very enterprising when it comes to their investments either – let's just say their passive, they like fixed income, you know, a few muni's, maybe some treasuries, but above all, they like commercial bonds for their fixed income (and perceived safety), especially those which are derived from Residential Mortgage Backed Securities, or RMBS's.
Historically, title insurance companies almost never pay out. When was the last time you heard of a title insurance policy actually being used? Over the decades, it was nothing more than a simple entry on the closing HUD statement when real estate was bought or sold. Homeowners didn't' "shop" the policy, and they had no idea that when it showed up on their closing statement, that their lawyer was also a broker for the title insurance company, collecting some 70% of the premium – if they knew that, than they would know that their attorney might also have a conflict of interest when he oversaw / received the title exam, and the selection of the policy.
So why were those underwriters so quick to get off the phone, as soon as we "dug a little deeper" into their criteria? Well, it's because their options don't look too good – in fact there are only two:
a) Acknowledge that the titles to 60 mln. plus homes are badly clouded and not insurable. In which case the entire operation of writing policies, taking in premiums, investing the float in MBS's, so that mutual funds can take in funds from various and sundry retirement accounts of home owners and buy your stock suddenly stops.
b) Pretend like your not aware of the problem and deny or use the more complex version "deny, deny, deny". In this operation, business can continue, at least for a while – although when the final reckoning comes, the problems will be many orders of magnitude larger.
Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
So who has to pay?
Who gets to own the homes?
This is why you buy Title Insurance.
Of course - the article goes on in a linked segment to explain far, far more....
Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Wow. And Massachusets is a pretty influential state politically. I wonder what will happen when this case reaches the supreme court, as it quite likely could.
This could send more financial shockwaves worldwide.
Sorry, I'm a bit slow on the technical jargon so I'm looking for layman's terms.
Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
Ive never heard of the dailybail... Its an interesting ruling, one of which is bound to head to Federal Appeals courts. The ruling doesnt affect courts outside of the state.
Originally posted by watcher3339
That's huge. It is also a testament to the fact that our country, for all its problems, is not actually broken. We have a system in place to address grievances. It can be slow. It can be better. But it beats anarchy hands down.
This is the way to punish the crooks.
Nobody is above the law.