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.
Oct. 9 in federal bankruptcy court in the Southern District of New York. Ruling that a lender, PHH Mortgage, hadn’t proved its claim to a delinquent borrower’s home in White Plains, Judge Robert D. Drain wiped out a $461,263 mortgage debt on the property. That’s right: the mortgage debt disappeared, via a court order.
So the ruling may put a new dynamic in play in the foreclosure mess: If the lender can’t come forward with proof of ownership, and judges don’t look kindly on that, then borrowers may have a stronger hand to play in court and, apparently, may even be able to stay in their homes mortgage-free.
Originally posted by American_Soviets
I've heard about this several months ago, and my understanding is this: You signed a mortgage with the original lender. The lender then went around and bundled your mortgage together with a bunch of other mortgages and sold it to huge sovereign wealth funds, hedge funds...whatever financial institution. Not only did some people not sign an agreement but the banks were paid. Also, since the banks sold your mortgage, how is it the banks can foreclose on the home?
So in other words, it's not the end of the banking institution. Just the end of fraud and rampant greed.
Originally posted by Divinorumus
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
I highly doubt that. The faked pandemic has been staged to frighten and keep everyone home during martial law to prevent all that public rioting that would otherwise result this winter when our dollar collapses and becomes rejected around the world for any more imported oil and goods ... and thus our federal and state governments begin to go bankrupt.
Anyhow, the judges make the call in these mortgage cases, and a missing "original" document is no big deal, it is only the BEST proof of ownership/title but it is certainly not the ONLY proof available. This is just a case of a judge giving a home owner a little more time to get their act together. Eventually the guy will loose his home if he doesn't settle up. Heck, he can't even sell it now himself because of this mess, ha, who would buy it?
Judge Robert D. Drain wiped out a $461,263 mortgage debt on the property. That’s right: the mortgage debt disappeared, via a court order.
Originally posted by Genfinity
If you play by the rules and you keep a high standard of morals and ethics, you will lose.
Originally posted by Genfinity
Is this a slime ball way to victory? Well, you are dealing with a slime ball organization. You think they wouldn't slime ball you?
If you play by the rules and you keep a high standard of morals and ethics, you will lose. You'll score points with God but you will lose on Earth.
Originally posted by Divinorumus
Originally posted by Genfinity
If you play by the rules and you keep a high standard of morals and ethics, you will lose.
Lose? Well, I suppose, depending upon what you are playing for. Sorry, but I'd rather be living in a tent under a bridge than to rip others off, that would make me no better than them big evil corporations. Instead of one Madoff, a whole bunch would be better? Sorry, but that's not the kind of world I want to see, where everyone is trying to justify ripping others off all the time, where two wrongs apparently make a right.
Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
Did you even read the story? The judge CANCELED THE MORTGAGE.
Originally posted by Divinorumus
Never the less, that did not mean I did not owe them, particularly morally. The judge can and does rule on these technicalities, and in damn near every case I've seen they rule in favor of what is just and right, and some lost paperwork doesn't mean it makes it just and right for one to be entitled to discharge their promise and obligations.
Everybody knows who owns what and who owes who, regardless of any missing original paperwork. To scam those that lent the money to us on our promise of repayment simply because of a technicality, some lost paperwork, doesn't seem morally right.
That would make us no better than that Madoff thief, we would be stealing other peoples savings and investments. I doubt many would take advantage of others like that in these cases of minor technicalities, but you know there will be some dirt bags that will, and know that those that do are ripping the rest of us off.
Originally posted by Divinorumus
Originally posted by Genfinity
If you play by the rules and you keep a high standard of morals and ethics, you will lose.
Lose? Well, I suppose, depending upon what you are playing for. Sorry, but I'd rather be living in a tent under a bridge than to rip others off, that would make me no better than them big evil corporations. Instead of one Madoff, a whole bunch would be better? Sorry, but that's not the kind of world I want to see, where everyone is trying to justify ripping others off all the time, where two wrongs apparently make a right.
If the lender can’t come forward with proof of ownership, and judges don’t look kindly on that, then borrowers may have a stronger hand to play in court
To be sure, many legal hurdles mean that the initial outcome of the White Plains case may not be repeated elsewhere
Securitizations allowed for large pools of bank loans to be bundled and sold to legions of investors, but some of the nuts and bolts of the mortgage game — notes, for example — were never adequately tracked or recorded during the boom. In some cases, that means nobody truly knows who owns what.
The case is an alert to lenders that dubious proof-of-ownership tactics may no longer be accepted practice. They may even be viewed as a fraud on the court.
In the secondary market, there are many cases where assignment of mortgages, assignment of notes, don’t happen at the time they should. It was standard operating procedure for many years.”
Judge Drain concluded that what had been presented to the court just did not add up. “I think that I have a more than 50 percent doubt that if the debtor paid this claim, it would be paying the wrong person,” he said. “That’s the problem. And that’s because the claimant has not shown an assignment of a mortgage.”
Either they will return to court with a clear claim on the property — including all the transfers and sales that are necessary in the securitization process — or they won’t be able to produce that documentation. If they do produce it, they will then have to explain why they didn’t produce it before.