A thread like this, in which the participants have gone to lengths to find more information is what makes ATS what it is. Instead of relying on just
her, the bank's or the sheriff's department's accounts members went out and dug for information. Sadly it is a reflection on our free press;
self-serving journalist that push a narrative because they want to see change rather than report the truth so the people can seek the change through
I have not the powers of ATS Gods, but I believe a well deserved applause is in order for those who sought information, regardless of the position
they may hold on the matter and presented it for anyone to make up their own minds.
Alright my gushing for the moment is over with and now back to the matter at hand.
It seems that the oft used term of 'ownership' is key here. From documents posted and statements, the home is still under mortgage. While she may
own the home, she is contractually obligated to fulfill terms. If we are to believe the PR statement from WF, then it seems they have 'run out of
options'. While gut-wrenching as the procedure of evicting someone out of a home is, contract law is important and if the contract was breached then
she has an uphill battle.
From the looks of things is the previous loan holder either sold off the loan or WF bought it out and they are now the principle lien holders to her
mortgage. This will have to end up in court (November 13th I believe) before we are purvey to all the facts of the matter.
We move to the sheriffs dealings in this. Her account is quite specific; officer of the law had a gun to her head, finger on the trigger and no
safety on. Quite the observation in my estimation and is, to my belief, a sensationalized account of what actually happened. While not entirely
impossible that the account is true, the overall actions taken by the sheriff's department in serving the eviction notice needs to be held accountable
and the truth should be brought to bear.
I believe as more continue to get to the truth rather than the he-said, she-said account of this, the better off we all will be and the knee-jerk
reactionaries will subside. It is cases such as these that remind me of John Adams when even calling for the independence of the colonies stood up
for the notion of law and defended the British on trial for their part in the "Boston Massacre" incident. Prudence and patience are needed here so
that it doesn't become a witch-hunt of either side.
After some digging, it seems that Mrs. Black filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Here is where the matter will ultimately get settled. If she (or her
lawyer at the time) didn't list her assets such as her home as part of the bankruptcy then again, she has an uphill battle. Also, even if after the
bankruptcy if she failed to follow the new terms then again, her battle is mounting against her.
Where it gets interesting is if the bankruptcy proceedings listed the original trustee of her mortgage and then later Wells Fargo bought that loan, I
am not sure how that all works out in the world of bankruptcy courts.
My only real question at this point is the court-order she is claiming that she had a stay. It would seem, in her defense that someone who is going
to bat for her would post for the world this order. In time we will find out all the information.
edit on 2-11-2012 by ownbestenemy because:
(no reason given)