GOOD VIDEO ON KING CAST: PRETENDERS PAINTED INTO A CORNER

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary

KINGCAST VIDEO ON MORTGAGE LITIGATION: PROOF OF OWNERSHIP

Besides the fact that our blog shows up in this 9 minute movie, I like it because it shows the frustrations of the homeowners who, as they say in the video, are forced to play by the rules, while the banks are not required to follow any rules. More videos like this, including the upcoming one from Cameron Baxter Films, will help to educate the public on the true nature of the issues.

In the non-judicial states, the position of the banks is that just because they could not possibly prevail in a judicial foreclosure doesn’t mean they can’t foreclose using non-judicial means applying the power of sale. If that were the intent of the non-judicial enabling statute it would be patently unconstitutionality and non-judicial sale would not even exist.

In both the judicial and non-judicial states the banks are taking the position that based upon a very technical hairsplitting reading of the UCC, property laws and contract law, it is possible for a non-creditor to foreclose, as long as they have the right paperwork. The fact that they have no right to the property or the proceeds from the property, according to the banks, makes no difference.

The problem that cannot be overcome even if their tortured reasoning was accepted, is that the actual initiation of the foreclosure would need to be bifurcated (split from) the sale itself unless the initiator of the foreclosure paid cash at the auction. As it stands now, non-creditors are “winning” the auction by (a) setting a minimum bid that is clearly unauthorized and (b) submitted a “credit bid” that could only come from the creditor. Thus the same party that said it didn’t need to be an actual creditor to start a foreclosure proceeding is pretending to be a creditor at the foreclosure auction.

The net effect, notwithstanding the sounds bites on TV, is that it is non-creditors that are getting a free house, and in no case has a borrower obtained a “free house” in the sense that they had no money in the deal. Any money the borrower had in the deal, even in the rare no-money down closing, is MORE THAN the money (zero) that the non-creditor has invested or at risk in the foreclosure or sale.

At least the homeowners made some payments, bought furnishings, window treatments etc, in many cases putting themselves even further in debt than the so-called mortgage loan. The foreclosing entity neither loaned them the money, nor funded any part of the transaction before, during or after the closing with the homeowner.

4 Responses

  1. Thank you.
    I am traveling right now and on a phone but will be back in touch. I am on a NENPA panel Google it this weekend and will mention this. Also an upcoming partnership w Todd Wetzleberger coming lets put the hammer down 10~4 Good Buddy.

  2. They will come to court when forced (they may drag you around the fencepost 10 times first) with the wet ink note. That’s not the end of the story, tho.
    If the note isn’t a very good imitation of some file copy, which is in my opinion 50/50, it still does not evidence a right to enforce that note by the guy who shows up with it. That must be the ‘quirk’ in the UCC which is referred to here. But, there are still defenses. If a note is handed over to B by A for collection or litigation ONLY, as is generally the case, B may not enforce. This is a colllusive, improper effort to invoke and impact jurisdiction. .

  3. That was good vid to get idea and get used to court appearance. It also showed me that the better was is prepared with concise data and objection to opposing side. The bank lawyer had a piece of paper that showed assignment I guess from a computer printout. Wouldn’t one object to that, where is the real signed contract between parties on the assignment. I mean real proof, not a piece of paper.

  4. That’s what we need more of–confrontations on video and courtroom footage. Kudos to Mr. King!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: