We have a client that owns a 20 unit Cape Canaveral efficiency apartment building. The property is about 1500 feet from the beach. Units rent weekly and monthly. They are clean, neat, and safe. Great temporary or long term housing for singles or couples in need of interim housing, or find themselves in "economic transition." If you know of anyone, including any church groups, unions, or outreach groups that support people need, please let me know or have them contact the property managers, Marie or Tammy, at (321) 783-6652.

Geat information and analysis.

Rick D. Misitano, Senior Paralegal of the Law Offices of James M. Bosco & Associates has made excellent points concerning the need for an original note.

Borrower can demand authentication of a copy of the note through RESPA and TILA.  Use of a Qualified Written Request turns up the heat on lenders/servicers as well.  Courts are beginning to turn MERS away from enforcing notes, deeds of trust or mortgages, as MERS is not the real party in interest, because it does not have pecuniary interest in the note.

Via Rick Misitano (Law Offices of James M. Bosco & Associates):

A growing number of homeowners around the country are using a foreclosure defense that may help them retain their homes. It’s called “Produce the Note” and we want you to know this is not a mere technicality that should be treated lightly by the lender or by the Court.

Everyone needs to understand the importance of this issue. When a lender can’t produce the original note, allowing a foreclosure to proceed puts the homeowner at risk of owing that debt again to another party in the future. Therefore, great caution must be taken before a judge can allow someone who can’t produce the original note to cash in on your home.

What if Your Lender CAN’T Produce the Note?

So, what happens when the lender tells the Court it can’t produce the original note, because it is lost? Let’s start with the basics. If a lender wants to foreclose on a property, it has to be able to show that it is, in fact, the appropriate person to whom the money is owed. That right to foreclose belongs ONLY to the person who has legitimate POSSESSION OF THE ORIGINAL NOTE - not a copy, not an electronic entry, but the original note itself with the original signature of the person(s) who allegedly owes the money along with appropriate raised notary seal and signature. So, if you are faced with a foreclosure, you have every right to demand that the person or entity trying to take your property, first prove to the Court that they have the legal right do to so in the first place by proving they have legal possession of the original promissory note.

In my opinion, an original mortgage note is much like legal tender and should be guarded and protected as such by the person holding such an asset. Loosing an original mortgage note is like loosing a $100 bill or a gift card or a lottery ticket. What if I scratched that million dollar ticket and just stuck it somewhere and misplaced it? Do you think I could just show up at lottery headquarters and claim my prize without having the winning ticket? The same principle applies to the person or entity claiming to be the legal holder of an original mortgage note. He who holds the note holds the key.

What the Lender Must Do

What often happens, however, is that the lender claims it doesn’t have the original note, because that note has been lost or destroyed. If the lender is making such a claim, the law requires the lender to prove all of the following under the “Uniform Commercial Code”, which is a set of laws governing commercial transactions that many states have adopted. It contains a specific provision on this subject (Section 3-309) which states that a person can enforce a promissory note without having the original, BUT only under certain limited circumstances.

1. The person or entity has to swear and attest that it no longer has the original note;
2. The person or entity has to prove that it was properly in possession of the note and was entitled to enforce it WHEN it lost possession of the note;
3. The person or entity has to prove it didn’t “lose” possession simply because it transferred the note to someone else (i.e., it’s not really lost); and
4. The person or entity has to prove that it cannot produce the original note because the instrument was destroyed or its whereabouts cannot be determined or it was stolen by someone who had no right to it.

All of these matters have to be definitively proven by the person or entity trying to foreclose on the property. It is not the obligation of the borrower to prove or disprove any of this. The borrower can challenge the right of the person or entity trying to foreclose and demand proof.

The Court’s Important Role

It is up to the Court to determine whether the lender has satisfactorily proven why it no longer can produce the original note. The Court also has to be satisfied that when the original note was lost, the person trying to foreclose on the property had possession of the note at the time it was lost. Until the Court has been satisfied of all of this, the foreclosure cannot proceed.

It is also important for the Court itself to understand that this issue is not merely a “technicality” and the judge should not be satisfied with anything less than full proof of this issue. The Court itself needs to appreciate the fact that if it should agree that an original note has been legitimately lost (and allows the foreclosure to proceed) it is the borrower who is still at risk.

Why? Because incredibly, even if a Court has found that the original note is lost and the foreclosure sale is finalized, if someone later turns up with the original note and proves that it is the proper holder of the note, and not the person who foreclosed on the property, the original borrower is STILL LIABLE.

That’s right. Someone took your home and the Court allowed it because it believed that the lender proved that the note was lost and it was the proper party. Then someone legitimate shows up in the future with the actual note and you still owe that person the money even though your property was taken with the blessing of the Court. Trust me, this is a very serious issue regarding post foreclosures and post pre-foreclosure short-sales. It has happened to three of our own clients! These homeowners had the need to sell their property by means of a negotiated short-sale (so they could avoid a foreclosure) only to find out that the entity claiming to have the legal right and authority to enter into such negotiations and accept such settlements sold their note to another entity and weren’t even aware of it. Several months later, the newly assigned lenders (now claiming to be the rightful owners of our client’s original notes) have since come forward and have also filed suite seeking to recover their entire outstanding principle balances owed to them (prior to the homeowners closing their short-sale transactions with the wrong note holders).

How fair is that?!?! It’s not! And that’s why homeowners need to start fighting back when someone is trying to take their home by foreclosure, especially since an overwhelming percentage of mortgages granted over the last 3 to 5 years have been packaged into securities and re-sold and re-assigned numerous times since the inception of the borrower's original note and mortgage. In some states, homeowners have better than a 50/50 chance of being successful in defending themselves against a completed foreclosure. Why wouldn’t anyone who owns a home do everything in their power to protect and defend it?

All the Best,

Rick D. Misitano, Senior Paralegal
Law Offices of James M. Bosco & Associates
Methuen Executive Park
240 Pleasant Street
Methuen, Massachusetts 01844
Phone: (978) 687-8804
Fax: (978) 687-8872
boscolaw@comcast.net

Valencia, Santa Clarita, Los Angeles Region and Active Rain Real Estate Professionals do you have clients that are facing mortgage defaults, short sales, foreclosures, or mounting credit card debt, and you need someone to speak with before speaking with them? Are your client being bombarded by mailings for quick fix scams and they are looking to you for advice? The Law Offices of Louis J. Esbin offers to Real Estate Professionals an "Open Phone" or "Open Email" policy that allows you to ask questions and not receive a bill. When your client schedules a consultation, you are invited and encouraged to attend the meeting, because you are the one that they will ask what to do. Bankruptcy, foreclosure and mortgage and deed of trust laws are complex and the remedies we can offer your clients are real. We have the highest success rate in removing (stripping) liens and confirming Chapter 13 plans. Our clients keep their homes so that you can sell those homes when the time comes. We work with our real estate professionals who refer client to move a short sale through after a client files Chapter 7. There is a way of moving the process through the title process with the least amount of anxiety. Ask us how! When experience counts, count on experience - Santa Clarita's only resident practicing Certified Bankruptcy Specialist. Check out the exhaustive information on our new website.
The solution to the current and prospective ongoing foreclosure crisis and failure of the banks to effectively modify loans lies, quite simply, in an ability of the Bankruptcy Courts to do the following with respect to home mortgages when an individual or couple files for relief under Chapter 13 or Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code for the purpose of saving their home residence: (1) Value the real property that is claimed as the principle residence of the debtor to an amount based upon not only a customary appraised valuation, but valuation based upon affordability – the amount after regular household necessary expenses that remains to pay for housing. The traditional Fannie/Freddie Guidelines are a start. (2) Remove from the residence any lien, be it voluntary, statutory, or judicial, that is not otherwise secured by any (not a dime) of equity in the residence; (3) Allow the debtor to confirm a Chapter 13 or 11 Plan based upon their current ability to service the balance of the mortgage that has been reduced, based upon an interest rate that is set over a period of 40 years at an interest rate equal to two points over that which banks are allowed to borrow from the Federal Reserve (the Fed Funds Rate); (4) Require that the debtor remain in the Chapter 13 or 11 for a period of 5 years, during which time all mortgage payments must be kept current and all real property taxes must be paid through the Chapter 13 or 11 (so as to assure payments) and all personal income taxes must be kept current, so as to assure the treasury is funded; and (5) Allow student loans to be paid as a priority debt in the same class as taxes and domestic support obligations and allow the court to reduce the interest rate charged on student loans down to the actual costs of funds to the banks making the loans, as those loans are guarantied by the government and otherwise nondischargeabie in bankruptcy; otherwise risk free. What happens to the liens that have been “stripped” away from the residence? Those liens are not effectively “stripped” until the debtor has satisfied in full all mortgage default payments due under the Chapter 13 or 11 Plan and has fulfilled all other obligations due under the Chapter 13 or 11 Plan. Those liens are not treated like general unsecured debt, because they are not, and they are not treated as secured debt either, because they are not. They are separately classified and broken down in the following priorities: (1) statutory tax liens; (2) the undersecured portion of the mortgage that has been reset; (3) the wholly undersecured mortgage that once may have been a HELOC; and (4) the judicial lien. If at any time during the Chapter 11 or 13 the debtor seeks to sell or refinance the property, the lenders whose liens are stripped or principal reduced to the value of the property would share in the equity on a sliding scale from 50% in the first year down to 10% in the fifth year. In this way home ownership is spared, foreclosure are reduced, and families are protected against the ravages of the financial ruin that is at the root of the rising (and ever rising) divorce rates.
 Page 5 of 14  « First  ... « 3  4  5  6  7 » ...  Last »