Bank loses to "Deadbeat" homeowner

[netwrkranger]

Most interesting ..... note the amount of "spin" contained within the article. Seems the "problem" is growing for banks and the court system .

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...=patrick.n et

[sheisaceo]

This got past the spin masters unless that is by design, too.

[netwrkranger]

...is that the bank failed to produce the note (promissory). I smell hints of contract law, UCC, negotiable instruments law, and court procedures. Also note the trust relationship involved in a mortgage.

What struck me from the article was how a lawyer from the article says that requesting banks to produce the note is "a waste of time". I wonder how that is ?

Perhaps this can offer insight on how an individual can protect themselves against foreclosure in an equity court?

Regards,
netwrkranger

[sheisaceo]

Me thinks. I am thinking that the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 did that.

[netwrkranger]

There is a fantastic book called, "Your Bank is Ripping You Off" by Edward F. Mrkvicka, Jr. The author was a former bank president. The book provides some excellent insight on how banks conduct business on loans, mortgages, account fees, and more.

I would recommend this book to anyone before obtaining a mortgage. Additional insight can be gained by doing good reading on Contract and Negotiable Instruments Law since most people will be using FRNs, promissory notes, and sales agreements to obtain real estate (and land).

Afterwards, pay off the house as quickly as possible, correct your citizenship status, and perfect the land patent.

Regards,
netwrkranger

[Livefire]

Originally Posted by netwrkranger

...is that the bank failed to produce the note (promissory). I smell hints of contract law, UCC, negotiable instruments law, and court procedures. Also note the trust relationship involved in a mortgage.

What struck me from the article was how a lawyer from the article says that requesting banks to produce the note is "a waste of time". I wonder how that is ?

Perhaps this can offer insight on how an individual can protect themselves against foreclosure in an equity court?

Regards,
netwrkranger

At the end of the article, another lawyer, most likely a consumer advocate attorney, expressed concern over how the banks were regularly not showing up with the note! The point being that too many times the lack of the note not being challenged resulted in cases being pushed thru the courts.

This is a fantastic counter punch until the PTB revise the UCC allowing a lesser standard of proof.

[trooper2ls]

I think this type of thing is where we get that Deja-Vu effect. A few people do it successfully then all the sudden the rules change a little. Seeing it in the mainstream news must mean policy change is near.

..J

[David Merrill]

Quite true - the change in policy.

Follow through the attachments in this post:

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/131997-post25.html

I glanced at the article linked in the opening post and so get a look here:

http://www.financialsense.com/editor...2007/1124.html
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal...3029/146435/5/
http://www.ohnd.uscourts.gov/Clerk_s...forclosure.pdf

and here:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsev...n20080214a.htm

With this Fed link, you can get a look at the headlines lately on all the bulletins. Risk management about this "bundling" fiasco has become quite the sensation lately.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by netwrkranger

Most interesting ..... note the amount of "spin" contained within the article. Seems the "problem" is growing for banks and the court system .

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...=patrick.n et

Banks Lose to Deadbeat Homeowners as Loans Sold in Bonds Vanish
By Bob Ivry

When banks originally made the loans they used people's money from pension funds and savings accounts and they should be allowed to foreclose the loan as quickly as possible before the property depreciates in value any more,'' Saft said.

I would like to see him prove that one under oath.

Modern Money Mechanics

Of course, they do not really pay out loans from the money they receive as deposits.

If they did this, no additional money would be created.

What they do when they make loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange for credits to the borrowers' transaction accounts.

Loans (assets) and deposits (liabilities) both rise by $9,000.

Reserves are unchanged by the loan transactions.

But the deposit credits constitute new additions to the total deposits of the banking system.

Modern Money Mechanics p.6

[amenmesse]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Quite true - the change in policy.

Follow through the attachments in this post:

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/131997-post25.html

I glanced at the article linked in the opening post and so get a look here:

http://www.financialsense.com/editor...2007/1124.html
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal...3029/146435/5/
http://www.ohnd.uscourts.gov/Clerk_s...forclosure.pdf

and here:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsev...n20080214a.htm

With this Fed link, you can get a look at the headlines lately on all the bulletins. Risk management about this "bundling" fiasco has become quite the sensation lately.


Regards,

David Merrill.

I appreciate your posts DM, always knowledgeable reading. Going thru your one link
http://www.ohnd.uscourts.gov/Clerk_s...forclosure.pdf

I came across this footnote 3 at the bottom.

In the meantime, the financial institutions or successors/assignees rush to foreclose, obtain a
default judgment and then sit on the deed, avoiding responsibility for maintaining the property while
reaping the financial benefits of interest running on a judgment. The financial institutions know the law
charges the one with title (still the homeowner) with maintaining the property.

At the fed level I can see FDR doing this and restructuring the fed gov to be the interest collector while we the people at the state level still hold title but pay for the upkeep. But I'm having difficulty comprehending the indiviual relationship with a forecloser. If a successor forcloses wouldn't it make more sense to move out or is it perhaps just cheaper to stay and pay interest and this leads the people into peonage. Any more eloquent opinions on my concepts here? I'm thinking this is what Judge Wynkoop meant when he said "It will be through forms of law you will be lead into slavery." 4 July 1776. Thanks in advance.