41 replies to this topic

[Steve Heard]

"Do you see that it's not a matter of how the bank was going to get paid on the short-sale vs. the foreclosure? They buyer wasn't requesting that bank to loan him the money to buy. The bank was going to get paid the full amount on the day of close of escrow."


This would be a true statement IF they owned the loan or called the shots.

Many times, only servicing the loans.

Maxine seems to think that the bank had two offers, one for a financed borrower at $310K, and the other for cash from an investor at $214K, and they took the $214K because it was cash.

My point is that they had ONLY the $310K offer, and whether it was financed or cash, they would have received that amount at close of escrow.

They did not have a $214K offer from an investor until the moment they auctioned it off.

[Redone]

My theory is that unless you work in that dept on a daily basis, you really don't know what or why things happen the way they do.

[doj_gal]

Ugh...I really need to learn how to block certain individuals on this forum. For the longest time I did not want to so that I would not miss parts of the conversation but some people are always negative nellies and I do not see how they can go through life like that!

Any ways, Steve I totally agree with you. The banks or investors are not communicating with each other well, if at all. They are making many mistakes and they are out and out ripping off the general population of homeowners. They should take the best offer, not look for government handouts after foreclosing. I understand why they are doing it though, but it doesn't make it right. The sad thing is the banks have demonized these homeowners making them look like horrible people for defaulting on their loans when in fact it's just smoke screen so that they can continue to be incompetent and greedy...with their fingers in their bums!

[Steve Heard]

[/b]
Steve, what you are not looking at is the fact that loans are bundled up and sold to investors. They are not held by the bank unless the bank is paid to service them. Rarely these days is a bank holding your mortgage.

That means that investors (in the stock market) are being much more picky about what houses they will invest in and maybe have lowered those numbers considerably.

I don't know everything about the housing industry. But I know the banks are not going to hurt themselves over foreclosures. I have enough sense to know they have a motivation for what they do.

And frankly, you being in the real estate business, should know this more than most.

Maybe, just maybe, mortgages can not be sold to investors as often as they used to be. The question is, who owns the title to that house or the loan? They are the ones who call the shots and make the deals. Maybe they don't see the wisdom of buying as many mortgages as before?

I'd tighten my belt if I were you, because the best financial advisors say it may take ten years for a housing recovery. You may want to get a second job. Those boom years in the real estate market won't be happening again for a long time.

Does your wife work? You said your kids are grown, so she need not be home with them....lucky for you. The people hit really hard are those with young children, day care bills, shoes every four months, prom dresses.....count your blessings!

Maxine, this isn't a matter of bundling mortgages nor whether an investor on the banking side wants to invest in mortgages. They already own the mortgage and someone is offering to pay them $310,000 to settle the debt. They are instead dragging their feet, shuffling paper, passing the buck and finally taking their chances at the court house steps and often taking less. In this case, $96,000 less than they were offered.

In some cases, no one makes an offer at the court house steps so they go unsold and end up bank-owned, listed as foreclosures, or REO's on the market. They are often abandoned, vandalized, sqatted in, neglected and hurt the neighborhood real estate values.

Had they accepted the short-sale, they would have made more money, cut their losses and their liability and the neighborhood would not suffer so much.

It doesn't make sense to anyone. The banks themselves aren't even defending the practices, promising to get better in the future.

Enough of these cases have come to light that the government.

Thanks for the belt-tightening advice. I think belt-tightening is a good idea for everyone. As for business, no I don't need a second job. Enough people have been driven from the industry that there is still room for professionals who take their jobs seriously, as do I.

I'm actually doing fine, but I can always use more referrals and always appreciate them. Who do you know who wants to buy or sell a home, or who perhaps might be able to use the advice of a real estate professional?

[supermom]

Maxine, this isn't a matter of bundling mortgages nor whether an investor on the banking side wants to invest in mortgages. They already own the mortgage and someone is offering to pay them $310,000 to settle the debt. They are instead dragging their feet, shuffling paper, passing the buck and finally taking their chances at the court house steps and often taking less. In this case, $96,000 less than they were offered.

In some cases, no one makes an offer at the court house steps so they go unsold and end up bank-owned, listed as foreclosures, or REO's on the market. They are often abandoned, vandalized, sqatted in, neglected and hurt the neighborhood real estate values.

Had they accepted the short-sale, they would have made more money, cut their losses and their liability and the neighborhood would not suffer so much.

It doesn't make sense to anyone. The banks themselves aren't even defending the practices, promising to get better in the future.

Enough of these cases have come to light that the government.

Thanks for the belt-tightening advice. I think belt-tightening is a good idea for everyone. As for business, no I don't need a second job. Enough people have been driven from the industry that there is still room for professionals who take their jobs seriously, as do I.

I'm actually doing fine, but I can always use more referrals and always appreciate them. Who do you know who wants to buy or sell a home, or who perhaps might be able to use the advice of a real estate professional?

---There was a show on a week or so ago, about the practices of thes banks and the law suit. I think it was 60 minutes. An investigative show. Briefly uncovered some incredibly poor moral banking standards.

The real truth behind the stalling, and the forged signatories and lack of proof in paper handling is that the investigation has found that the banks got so greedy in the last 15 years--that most of them never completed their paperwork.

They can't really prove they own the mortgages on these homes they are foreclosing on.

The families are saying hang on--by law-you can make me move out, but you can't sell my home unless you freaking prove to me you are the owner.

The government has found out that if enough families file this paperwork in court, it will be worse than the Grapes of Wrath--

They initiated their own investigation and suggeste buying off the dispalced homeowners by getting them to sign away any further ownership arguments with a bribe of money (settlement).

That is what this is. Making the banks pay for never following through with their paper trails. Another clear case of the terrific mishandling of lending laws by many, many corporations and investors all over the United States.

[M.E.G.]

Supermom,

I have heard that also, and that lots of the legal paperwork is nowhere to be found, when asked to provide it.

M.E.G.

[caligirlz]

---There was a show on a week or so ago, about the practices of thes banks and the law suit. I think it was 60 minutes. An investigative show. Briefly uncovered some incredibly poor moral banking standards.

There's an article in the Sac Bee about people trying to sue the banks & not being very successful.
"Local judges, though, have traditionally been resistant to these types of fraud claims."

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/04/17/3558269/owners-desperate-to-save-homes.html#storylink=omni_popular

[supermom]

Supermom,

I have heard that also, and that lots of the legal paperwork is nowhere to be found, when asked to provide it.

M.E.G.

Yes, there was a auditor on the proram who said that just citibank alone could end up with hudredds of millions of dollars in lawsuits, trying to protect their assets from lawsuits based on lack of ability to prove right of recovery.

The woman said it could end up costing nearly a hundred billion dollars to resolve this issue with the 12 banking institutions, 100 mortgage companys named and the hundreds of investment brokers across the country who are involved in the paper trails of 1 million homes that have been foreclosed on improoperly.

The courts actually settled lower than the recommended settlement in this case, if you can believe that.

[Redone]

Yes, there was a auditor on the proram who said that just citibank alone could end up with hudredds of millions of dollars in lawsuits, trying to protect their assets from lawsuits based on lack of ability to prove right of recovery.
The courts actually settled lower than the recommended settlement in this case, if you can believe that.

It's ironic to me that an entity would have to prove recovery when the homeowners are not making payments. This is why judges are throwing these out. No evidence of payments made means the homeowner has no claims on property as well.

[The Average Joe]

It's ironic to me that an entity would have to prove recovery when the homeowners are not making payments. This is why judges are throwing these out. No evidence of payments made means the homeowner has no claims on property as well.

I agree. People are casting the "evil banks" as the problems, but the bottom line is that although they may have gotten sloppy with their paperwork, that does not mean they have no claim against the delinquent home buyer. This just seems like lawyers using technicalities to obscure the pertinent facts.