| Author |
Message |
|
|
dream home
 Guest
|
|
|
Blown Away
 Guest
|
|
|
Blown Away
 Guest
|
|
|
REOMA
 Guest
|
|
|
gmorin
 Guest
|
|
|
reowantedinma
 Guest
|
|
|
REOMA
 Guest
|
|
|
REOMA
 Guest
|
|
|
dream home
 Guest
|
|
|
REOMA
 Guest
|
|
|
IndyMaxed
 Guest
|
Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 2:49 am Post subject: Dealing with an insufficient/bad 90-day cure notice
|
Like 0
Dislike 0
|
|
I've followed this thread with some interest, but I'm not a frustrated potential buyer or industry insider like most here. I'm on the homeowner end. I'm quite willing to walk away from my home, just not while I legally still own it and therefore am responsible for both the home and the accumulating debt on it. I'm incredulous that some of buyers with an invalid P&S think it shouldn't matter whether the foreclosing bank is the actual holder of the mortgage. Ditto for those who want to avoid a second auction and collude with the bank to get it for the previous/invalid P&S price. Sue the bank that signed a P&S they should have known they can't honor on the incorrect sale attempt, rather than trying to circumvent the full process at the true sale.
It seems to me that if the validity of the foreclosure is in doubt for ANY reason, there is additional risk to the buyer, hence a lower price which causes the original homeowner to end up with a larger deficiency than they deserve. I am one homeowner who will make sure the bank adheres to the law, whether or not it affects my bottom line in the end. Furthermore, if the homeowner is not certain that the foreclosing entity holds the note, why should they even consider letting anyone inside to view the home? Not that most people let you in anyway, but a nice home with interior viewing allowed brings a higher price than one without, for any homeowner trying to minimize their deficiency. Would you like to let the general public into your own home based on a bank's false claim to hold your mortgage?
Anyway, I have had unbelievably inept banks...I'll call them Bank1, Bank2, Bank3, Bank4, Bank5 who have held my 1st. Bank1=original mortgage bank on note, Bank2=MainBank who I paid for years then stopped, Bank3=FDIC, Bank4=MainBank"Reborn", Bank5=GodKnowsWho
Bank6 (OK, OK, it's BoA) holds a HELOC 2nd. They are totally scrod and they know it: they offered to take 25% of the balance, all of which is way underwater. I declined, as none of the 6 banks ever seemed competent enough to get a deficiency judgment, and if they did, my ducks are in a row for a fairly painless Chapter 7 bankruptcy. So even if they're smart, it would not pay them to pursue the deficiency.
I had never heard of Bank5 until they mailed me a Soldiers/Sailors notice (11/9 answer return date) on 10/23 after filing it on 9/23. Nice honest bank/lawyers to hold it a month until the mailing deadline, in an attempt to gain some "competitive legal advantage" of surprise attack on a consumer who hasn't made a mortgage payment in 20 months, and is quite willing to dump the house and move on.
Bank4 had just mailed me another "we'd like you to apply for loan modification" letter/application right around the 9/23 date when Bank5 filed for Soldiers/Sailors. So I honestly question if/when the assignment took place. The Bank4 application gave me a deadline of around 10/23 to reply to Bank4, not to Bank5. Month after month, they had sent the same thing just dated a month later. Not once did they send me any offer of short sale, deed in lieu, cash for keys, etc. which are the only things I ever asked for, explaining that I don't currently have the income to qualify for a loan mod or refi.
Here is my history of 90-day right to cure notices: Less than a week after the 90-day notice law went into effect on 5/1/08, Bank2 sent me a 30-day delinquency/cure notice. Invalid, so I ignored it. Then they failed in a big way and the FDIC took them over. Then (while really owned/operated by the FDIC/Bank3) they must have figured out the 30-day notice had been bogus, and sent a 90-day cure notice riddled with problems: non-existent defunct bank name, didn't actually mail/postmark the notice within 90 days of the cure deadline, mortgage broker not listed, name/number of contact person not listed, etc etc etc. Eventually Bank4 sent yet another 90-day notice, with the same problems. Seems they enjoy mailing things about 4-7 days after they date them, thereby solidly failing to meet the Massachusetts notice requirement. I presume they'll provide affadavits that the mailing was done on the date of the letter, but that is a lie I can prove.
While I'd like to get out of the house and move on, I do have a lot of organizing, packing, storing/selling/disposing to do. And admittedly, living for free in one's own home at the expense of inept banks can become habit-forming. But on a most serious note, I need to be 100% sure that I correctly execute the timing of foreclosure and possible deficiency judgments, in relation to any decision to file Chapter 7 or not. It would be horrific if I filed Chapter 7 after moving away, to discharge any deficiency and any rent due the new owner during an eviction period, only to later find out that I still owned the home with new interest piling up post-bankruptcy not being discharged by the bankruptcy.
Anyway, I presume that Bank5 is assuming that the 90-day notice requirements of the 5/1/08 law were all met by Bank4, but they most surely were not.
Having just received the Soldiers/Sailors on Saturday, I guess I'll be calling attorneys today to see how to proceed to force them to start over at the 90-day cure notice step, verify the assignment date to Bank5, etc.
Anyone with experience or advice regarding taking advantage of a bad 90-day notice to delay the process? It would be appreciated, as I'm sure that even most attorneys haven't seen many cases involving notices as bad as the ones I got. Really, any 8th grader following a checklist would have written better notices and met the letter of the law which my bank(s) have not. |
|
|
shiv619
 Guest
|
|
|
dream home
 Guest
|
|
|
REOMA
 Guest
|
|
|
dream home
 Guest
|
|
|