This is the final part – at least for now – in a series on
our nation’s current foreclosure debacle. In the first installment, I explained
what’s behind the recent headlines regarding foreclosures that are being frozen
nationwide – the fact that the mass robo-signing of legal documents deprived
homeowners of their rights, and now gives them leverage with lenders. In the
second part, I introduced you to Hugo San Martin – a homeowner who was
foreclosed on even though he’d made his payments on time. In this story, we’ll
explore other potential problems that could strengthen and lengthen what’s
starting to be called “foreclosure-gate”.

 

I’ve been doing a lot of reading lately on foreclosure
issues, and a lot of it takes the tack that while it was an unfortunate
procedural error that foreclosure files were signed, witnessed and notarized by
people unfamiliar with their contents, these problems should be easily sorted
out. And that in a matter of weeks the foreclosure factories can once again
start churning out the paperwork. (In fact, Bank of American has already thawed
their foreclosure freeze.)

 

Here’s a quote from a recent editorial in the Wall Street
Journal:

 

    The affidavit was
supposed to be signed by the nameless, faceless employee in the back office who
reviewed the file, not the other nameless, faceless employee who sits in the front.

 

    The result is the
same, but politicians understand the pain that results when the anonymous paper
pusher who kicks you out of your home is not the anonymous paper pusher who is
supposed to kick you out of your home. Welcome to Washington’s financial crisis
of the week.

 

In other words, this isn’t a legal problem, it’s just
liberal political squealing. The editorial goes on to say, “We’re not aware of
a single case so far of a substantive error.”

 

Well, maybe the author of this editorial meet Kenneth Trent,
the foreclosure defense lawyer in the following news story. Check it out, then
meet me on the other side for more.

 

As you saw from the video, robo-signing might be just the
tip of a rather large iceberg. Because while some might argue that people
submitting documents to a court that they haven’t read is immaterial (albeit
not exactly legal), arguing that it’s OK to take someone’s house without
properly notifying them first is something else entirely. In addition,
systemically signing someone else’s name on legal documents is another major
potential fly in the ointment – and since this story broke, that’s been born
out: see Tired Robo-signers Let Coworkers Sign Their Names.

Ads by Google

FHA Streamline Refinance

See rates, fees, & costs (if any) New Customers Saved
$181/month!

freedommortgage.com/no-lender-fees

 

And when you ask Kenneth Trent, the lawyer from the video
above, even these problems pale when compared to another looming issue: whether
banks can actually prove that they’re the owners of these loans in the first
place.

 

Last July Trent filed a suit contending that David Stern’s
law firm violated the RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) Act
by foreclosing on thousands of homeowners on behalf of lenders who couldn’t
prove they hold the original mortgages – which means they didn’t have legal
standing to bring the suit.

 

When I talked to Stern’s lawyer, Jeffrey Tew, about this a
few weeks ago, he said Trent’s suit had no merit. In fact, he called it
“silly.” As you saw in my last story, Tew has also told the media that the
other issues raised by Trent were also invalid and that the Stern firm has done
nothing wrong.

What does it all mean?

 

This story is still unfolding, so it’s impossible to know at
this point where it will ultimately lead. But from the time I’ve put into this
story, here are some of my initial conclusions:

 

    This could become
a bigger issue than the banks and Stern’s representative would have you
believe, particularly in states with judicial foreclosure.

    Even as I write this, you can bet that the
ranks of foreclosure defense lawyers are swelling – and those lawyers are going
to find plenty of willing clients. Translation? Our overburdened courts may
soon experience a lot more contested foreclosures.

    If I were a
homeowner facing foreclosure, particularly if it was filed by one of the banks
that’s admitted wrongdoing or by David Stern’s firm, I’d probably at least talk
to a lawyer – especially if my goal was to negotiate a deal that might let me
to keep my house. Although I wouldn’t expect miracles. It’s unlikely, for
example, that your legal leverage would enable you to cut your mortgage in
half.

    If I were a
homeowner facing foreclosure, what I wouldn’t expect is to permanently enjoin a
lender from foreclosing. Ultimately, this will be sorted out and people who
haven’t paid their mortgages will lose their homes.

    If I were an
investor thinking about buying a foreclosure at auction, I’d wait to see how
things work out. While it’s highly unlikely that you’d lose a home purchased at
a legitimate auction, there’s no rush. Let the smoke clear. And don’t even
think of buying any foreclosure, whether at auction or through a real estate
agent, that doesn’t have title insurance.

 

I’ll keep following this story – you do the same by checking
back!

Subscribe by email

 

Like this article? Sign up for our email updates and we’ll
send you a regular digest of our newest stories, full of money saving tips and
advice, free! We’ll also email you a PDF of Stacy Johnson’s ’205 Ways to Save
Money’ as soon as you’ve subscribed. It’s full of great tips that’ll help you
save a ton of extra cash. It doesn’t cost a dime, so why wait? Click here to
sign up now.

Ads by Google

Foreclosure Law Center

Florida Foreclosure Attorneys. Find Help When You Need It
Most.

www.TheForeclosureLawCenter.com