Couple claims Bank of America seized the wrong house

[Newsjock]

Source: South Coast Today

Lawyers for a New Bedford couple filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday claiming Bank of America/Countrywide foreclosed on the wrong house — the couple's second home and their future retirement home in Spring Hill, Fla.

Charlie P. and Maria C. Cardoso said in the lawsuit they own the property in Florida free and clear of any mortgage and have never had a mortgage with Bank of America/Countrywide on the home.

... In July, the complaint says, Cardoso received a call from the tenant, who said in a panic there were three people at the house from the bank and they were there to foreclose, clean out the house and place padlocks on the doors.

... A friend of the Cardosos, attempting to assist the former tenant obtain her property on Jan. 5, saw locks being placed on the house and was told the house had been seized.


Read more: http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100121/NEWS/1210334

[Roland99]

1. Oh, what a nice judgment they should get against BofA(ssholes)

[WriteDown]

2. Its not the bank or servicer that carries out the actual foreclosure....

that would be the courts and the sheriff(usually) in the county.

[LiberalFighter]

5. But if the Bank provides the wrong address?

[WriteDown]

12. It would still go through the courts and the sheriff..

Someone should have caught it. Usually the foreclosure attorney which is separate.

[liberalhistorian]

39. And the courts and the sheriff would have no way of knowing

what was the correct address. They rely on the complaint filed by the bank; it is the BANK'S responsibility to get the right address. And, having previously worked as a real estate paralegal, I know how often banks make really stupid mistakes like that and then refuse to acknowledge them.

In this case, it looks like the bank had things wrong, period, this couple apparently had no mortgages with them at all. I hope the bank is held accountable big-time.

[WriteDown]

41. Actually, that is not how it works...

The servicer refers it to a foreclosure attorney who is a separate entity from the servicer. The attorney usually runs title, checks legal requirements, etc. The attorney then instructs the county what action to take. I kind of think this was a bit of karma in action though. These people were living for free while they had a ton of money stored up in other assets. No better than if they owned a yacht clear and free and were not paying for their debts.

[liberalhistorian]

68. Actually, you're wrong in this case. I know you just

love to carry water for the never-wrong banks and always put the screws to individuals no matter what. But in this case, this couple apparently never had any mortgages on any houses with BOA and owned their homes free and clear. And BOA was told back in July by the very realtor they hired to list the house for foreclosure that they had the wrong house. But, like you, BOA doesn't and didn't give a shit. This is not the first time they've pulled something like this, getting an address wrong and then not correcting it. And now hopefully they will be made to pay dearly for that lack of accountability.

[WriteDown]

71. Right about the process. See post 64. nt

[sybylla]

7. In this case it was the bank.

They foreclosed on a home in another state owned by the same debtors that BOA never had a mortgage on. Now, in theory, they could have seized any assets of the debtors after a court proceeding with court order to do so firmly in hand, but, from what the article says, that had not yet taken place.

Looks like BOA was clearly in the wrong here.

[zogofzorkon]

3. Hey its understandable

there are so many houses to seize, so many people to throw out on to the street. Who has the time to make sure its the right house.

[SammyWinstonJack]

6. +1

:evilgrin:

[Art_from_Ark]

30. Damn, that was funny

Sad, but funny. You nailed it completely in just those few sentences.

[slackmaster]

4. I hate those guys - I have a "Produce the Note" demand outstanding with them

I think they put me as a co-borrower on my ex-wife's Visa card without my authorization. The card has been open for about 15 years. I just found out about it in August when I signed up for B of A's online banking. I can see all of my ex's credit card activity.

B of A signed for my certified letter on December 28. By my reckoning they have until January 27 to respond. If they don't, I'll go to the credit bureaus and request that they stop reporting the debt as mine.

B of A can suck a root.

K&R

:kick:

[liberalhistorian]

16. Your ex-wife may have been the one who put

you on the card. That happens a lot, especially in divorces. Banks don't do much in the way of verification in such cases and spouses do tend to know the needed personal information necessary to add the person to their card. Sometimes divorcing spouses will do that to "get back" at the spouse or to relieve themselves of responsibility if they don't feel like paying for the card. It's still the bank's final responsibility, though to make sure that the person added to the card has authorized such an action.

[slackmaster]

24. I trust my ex not to mess with me in that manner

Our split was amicable. She is honest and responsible.

[WriteDown]

20. You should also sue your ex-wife...

if you find out she committed fraud. :)

[slackmaster]

25. In the unlikely event it turns out to be something like her forging my signature,

which I doubt very much, I wouldn't press criminal charges unless she refused to cooperate with whatever twisted demands I come up with.

;-)

[alcibiades_mystery]

46. BofA will give you a choice

Pay the debt, or they will press federal fraud charges against your ex.

Seen it a million times. Then it's on you to decide whether you want to pay your ex's way out of federal prison.

[slackmaster]

48. We'll see about that - They still haven't responded to my demand

If they can't produce a contract with my signature on it, I don't believe they can do anything to me or to my ex.

[alcibiades_mystery]

50. Yes, my comment was premised on the second scenario

whereby your ex forged your signature, if that happened.

[Scruffy1]

8. Had one locked out illegally in a blizzard In Minnesota

After fighting for her home against a fraudulent mortgage and actually getting the sheriffs sale
canceled Leslie Parks still fighting back against mortgage company.Story at www.fightbacknews.org.
Also more at www.mn-peoples-bailout.org.

[DebbieCDC]

9. Oh please let them sue the shit out of BoA

I hate those bastards

[salib]

10. Everyone talks about suing here. Not possible with "Tort Reform"

This sort of thing could easily be required to go to "Binding Arbitration" or simply a cap set at actual damage (permanent to property) for any lawsuit.

This is what corporations want when they talk about "tort reform".

[marshall]

15. I don't see a problem with setting a cap on the damages to these people

They should definitely be compensated, but I don't see why they have to have a lottery style payoff.

[salib]

23. Wow, right out of the Reich-Wing play book

"lottery style payoff" - Reich-Wing reasoning for so-called "tort reform".

Try Googling that phrase and "tort reform". Very illuminating

Anyway, as I have posted many times, I have had it with the "they do not deserve" blaming the victim type logic. I am sure it really bothers you that someone "gets something", especially a "lottery style payoff".

Remember though, what it takes to bring up a case, win it and then try to make it so expensive for the perpetrator that they will likely not do it again.

"Tort Reform" really means: No one will ever call our bluff cause the return is "capped". So, we can just do what ever we please, and it won't cost us that much.

[marshall]

26. Tort reform doesn't necessarily come in only a right-wing flavor

It's not either dead stop or a hundred miles an hour. It can be dealt with appropriately from the side of those who are seeking damages and those who are responsible.

[Occulus]

33. No, if a corporation invades your home, changes the locks,

and wants to empty the property, they should have to prove they have the right to do so or they should have to take a fucking BATH.

These people deserve the house free and clear AT A MINIMUM by way of compensation, and my thought is that they should ALSO be given- yes, givebn, as in awarded by the court- DOUBLE the value of the property- home and land- for the so-called "mistake".

The ONLY thing- THE ONLY THING- that keeps this sort of corporate "mistake" in check is massive, debilitating fines and jury awards. The branch in question should be questioning its future because of this. Nobody should be passing this off as a simple "oops".

You couldn't possibly get away with this if you did it to me. I'd legally clean your clock and quite probably beat you into a hospital bed afterward on top of it. Why the hell are you so willing to give a soulless, bodiless corporation such a major fucking pass on this? You should be more than willing to nail them to the fucking wall!!!

[marshall]

35. I agree they should get some compensation

Similar case in Nevada--the couple got a substantial amount from the jury but the state supreme court more than cut it in half. Still it was a substantial amount even after that.

[salib]

37. The phrase "Tort Reform" and "lottery style payoff"

ARE REICH-WING PHRASES.

If you are using them immediately, I am in good position to assume a Reich-Wing point.

We DO NOT NEED Tort Reform. Giving a person their day in court, especially when they are up against the rich and powerful (one in the same now for sure), is fundamental to this Democracy. Making it more than worth their while and TOTALLY too expensive for the rich and powerful or those who would abuse their position is the only way to level the field.

This is a WASTE of time for a Progressive or Liberal to be arguing about. It could only help the other side.

[mbperrin]

11. I don't normally advocate personal violence, but I would be okay with

it in a case like this.

[24601]

32. Shooting the sheriff is NOT recommended. In fact, shooting

anyone is a bad idea. Stick to the legal process and you stand hit the tort lottery. But resort to violence and you go to jail - probably losing the civil case in the process.

[mbperrin]

34. Civil and criminal cases would not be related. Shooting? No thanks.

A good beating would suffice.

I grew up in this part of the state where problems are solved many times with the knowledge of law enforcement, but they are considered personal matters.

[WriteDown]

13. Why are they being foreclosed on if they own a home free and clear?

So they get a year or two of not paying a mortgage and then get to retire?

[jmowreader]

14. It's a "Christian" mortgage

According to our leading "Christians" like Jack Chick and Fred Phelps, the Christian God throws devout Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists in the Christians' Hell because they didn't believe on the Christians' God.

In the same way, BofA's "Christian" mortgage requires you to make principal and interest payments to BofA, and to be subject to foreclosure if you default on the "Christian" mortgage's obligations, whether they loaned you money to buy the place or not.

[WriteDown]

18. I don't think you get my drift...

They have an asset that is worth quite a bit of money, but rather than sell it and pay their debts, they choose to walk away. Even better, considering the foreclosure timeline is long in MA, they got to save quite a bit of money by staying in a home they were not paying on.

[liberalhistorian]

17. It appears as if they were behind on their primary house but

but not the house that was actually foreclosed on, THAT was the one owned free and clear. At least, that's the way it reads to me.

[WriteDown]

19. See post 18. nt

[liberalhistorian]

21. I see your point, but the fact remains

that LEGALLY the bank did not have any right to that house at this time. They only had the legal right to foreclose on the house the couple was behind on. They had no legal rights to the other house. Whether or not the couple should have sold the house owned free and clear to pay the debts on the one with the defaulted mortgage had no bearing on the legality of the bank's taking of the wrong home.

[WriteDown]

22. Totally agree....

I was just pointing out that oddity.

[WriteDown]

66. I was wrong....

See post 64. nt

[Gormy Cuss]

28. Interesting take.

The Standard-Times story does leave room for that scenario.

The link below is from a different New Bedford area news source, WPRI. Reading between the lines in this version, it implies that both houses are owned free and clear and that the couple has identified the house that BofA has the lien on in FL, and it's down the street from their house.

http://www.wpri.com/dpp/news/local_news/couple-says-their-second-home-was-mistakenly-foreclosed-on-even-though-they-paid-their-mortgage

Hard work and patience had paid off, they had managed to buy not only a home in New Bedford, but also a second home in Spring Hill, Florida, near Tampa.

They even were able to pay off the mortgage.

(snip)

They say the bank wrote down the wrong address on foreclosure paperwork, and then wouldn't listen when the couple tried to get the mistake corrected.

The couple's lawyers say the house the bank meant to foreclose on is down the street a bit.

[tammywammy]

31. Thanks for the link

I thought maybe they were behind on the house they currently live in and maybe BofA took their other house, but they aren't behind at all.

Seems like this couple did everything they could have to try and correct it before it was seized. AND they had their tools and such stolen from them. BofA will pay big bucks for this.

edited to add: Even worse, their big homecoming for their son coming home from Iraq was ruined. Bastards.

[tammywammy]

27. Yeah, I have to say that's kinda strange

They have two homes, one with no mortgage. Not saying that BofA was correct in seizing the other home, unless they had a judgement to seize assets (and a paid off home is a pretty big asset), I just find it strange.

[WriteDown]

36. Well you could really use that to you advantage....

You could have one home paid off down in FL and buy another one up North to spend time with the kids for a year or so, but with no intention of paying. As long as you didn't care about your credit or it was in one spouses name and not the other, you could basically live for free for quite a while.

[struggle4progress]

29. A similar story from Galveston in October:

Bank Of America Seizes Wrong House, Causes Big Stink. No, Really.
By Chris Walters on January 12, 2010 12:29 PM

Last October, Bank of America screwed up and seized a vacation home that didn't belong to them. They also changed the locks and shut off the power, leaving 75 pounds of salmon and halibut rotting for a week before it was discovered, writes Laura Elder of the Galveston Daily News.

The owner, Dr. Alan Schroit, and his wife discovered what had happened when they showed up on Halloween to prepare for a party they were going to host the next day ...

Dr. Schroit has filed suit against BoA, saying that "he has neither a relationship nor a mortgage" with them. A Bank of America spokesman told the paper that the bank feels the lawsuit "has no merit" ...

http://consumerist.com/2010/01/bank-of-america-seizes-wrong-house-causes-big-stink-no-really.html

[LanternWaste]

38. I wondered if I would see the Usual Suspects

I wondered if I would see the Usual Suspects on a bank thread, if not defending the bank's actions, then at least casting suspicions on the couple themselves.

And there they were...

[liberalhistorian]

40. No kidding. And there's one particular "suspect"

whom I'm amazed still bothers to come here.

[WriteDown]

42. Free houses for everyone!

In fact free living in one house with another house on the side for everyone! When does that bill go before Congress?

[tammywammy]

43. None of the news stories on this say they are behind on their primary residence

I think maybe you're getting sidetracked. They aren't behind on their primary residence. This is just a couple that had their primary home, bought a second home with savings with no mortgage and BofA tried to foreclose on their paid for second house.

The couple TOLD the bank they had the wrong house. BofA had notice they were going after the wrong people and still proceeded to do it. BofA is in the wrong and will pay big time.

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/mostpopular/22311428/detail.html

Not only did BofA screw the homeowners, but they were renting the home to a single mother with two children!

[WriteDown]

44. Exactly....

They were living for free when they had assets they could have used to pay. MA foreclosure timeline is pretty long so they could have been in the house anywhere from 6 months to a year without paying a dime. You can save a lot of dough doing that. And then you just move to your paid off house. Its a nice little scam.

[Gormy Cuss]

47. Show any statement in any news link that supports your scam theory. n/t

[WriteDown]

49. Its in the article....

Had 2 houses. One paid off. One with mortgage. Rather than sell paid off house and pay debt owed, they let the home go to foreclosure. The only reason we know about the paid off house is due to the strange error which is kind of funny. I wonder if they refied their primary residence and cashed out and then bought the house in FL and then they just lived in MA for free while saving money. Just a theory, but a viable one.

[JonLP24]

51. Wait a minute

They foreclosed the paid off house which is their second home in Florida. The article doesn't say AT ALL that they are behind in payments of their primary home(1st home) or whether or not it even has a mortgage.

[WriteDown]

52. They had assets they were sitting on....

Not hard to understand. Let's say you have Rolls Royce you've paid off. Your girlfriend wants a car so you go to the Bentley dealership and pick her out a nice model with all the bells and whistles. You sign all the papers, but there's a catch, you have no intention of ever making a payment. She drives the Bentley for a year and saves quite a bit of money by not having a car payment. Then they finally find the car and repo it, but by this point you've saved quite a bit of money because she's been driving for free. You buy her a Ford F-150 outright with your savings and the only loser is the bentley dealership.

[JonLP24]

54. In that scenario

That applies to this scenario in any way the bank repossesses the Rolls Royce that's paid off and the couple still owns the girlfriend's Bentley.

However in the article there is no mention of saving money or not making any payments on the first house or the Bentley in your scenario.

[WriteDown]

55. Oh, I know....

You would have to make no payments on the 1st house to go to foreclosure. MA foreclosure timeline is about 6 months at maximum speed, but its more likely a year. During that time no payments can be made or the foreclosure timeline has to reset.

[Gormy Cuss]

53. Nope. The article says nothing about liens on their MA house.

It does say this:

Their attorneys, Joseph deMello of Taunton and Carlin J. Phillips of Dartmouth, allege the Cardosos and the real estate agent the bank hired to list the foreclosed house for sale told Bank of America it had the wrong house back in July but it foreclosed anyway.

The real estate agent hired by BofA backs them up.

Upthread, I linked to a different news source, a local TV station WPRI. In their transcript it states that the Cardosos attorneys even told BofA the house number of the place that should have had the foreclosure action.

[WriteDown]

56. See post 52....

Kind of like if they were sitting on a million dollars worth of stock.

[Gormy Cuss]

57. Again, where is that stated in any news link?

Is it so hard to admit that you're just theorizing?

[WriteDown]

58. NO!

I admitted that I WAS theorizing. We do know that they had one property with debt and paid off assets though. That is not theory.

[Gormy Cuss]

59. "We" do not know that. There is no mention of debt on either property.

There is a statement that the FL house is owned free and clear.

There is no statement on the debt status of the New Bedford house in either the New Bedford Standard-Times article (which is the basis for the AP feed used by theBostonChannel.com ) nor in the transcript of the WPRI report.

You are theorizing based on presumption of a debt on the New Bedford house.

[WriteDown]

60. The New Bedford house was the one supposed to be foreclosed on...

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that there was some debt on it :).

"There is a statement that the FL house is owned free and clear." Yep, by the owners. If we can't believe them, then we can throw away the whole article. :)

[Gormy Cuss]

61. Finally! You are presuming that the MA house has debt and that's the basis of your scam theory.

Thank you for making that clear. :-)

[WriteDown]

62. Uh...

"Lawyers for a New Bedford couple filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday claiming Bank of America/Countrywide foreclosed on the wrong house — the couple's second home and their future retirement home in Spring Hill, Fla."

If there is a wrong house, I'm going to say there was a right house? :shrug:

[zogofzorkon]

63. I have never seen a greater lack of reading comprehension.

There are more than two houses involved here. There is the house wrongfully foreclosed upon and there are all the other houses in the USA. Where does anyone get the idea that the other house owned by the couple in New Bedford is in arrears. They say they got the wrong house meaning there was possibly a house somewhere in the area that BOA might have an interest in but not theirs. This in no way states or implies that the New Bedford house was the right one, or even that there actually is a right one.

To so misrepresent what is written can be charitably attributed to lack of basic reading skills, lack of understanding the basic meaning of words, or less flatteringly as a willful attempt to manipulate, manufacture and mislead with the goal of shifting blame from the bank to the victims.

[WriteDown]

64. You are right...

Not so much reading comprehension as much as lack of reading all the way through. Is there an embarrassment smilie?

[Gormy Cuss]

67. Yes there is

and we all get to use it at least once.
:blush:

[WriteDown]

65. See post 64 for my mea culpa. nt

[axollot]

70. Actually, theorizing that they were behind on any OTHER debt because they owned one free and clear?!

[liberalhistorian]

69. No, I certainly do not advocate free houses for everyone.

I do expect, however, that banks should at least follow the correct legal procedures in foreclosures, which many of them are not currently doing, and that they at least get the goddamned address right and not foreclose on the wrong houses, which, again, they are currently doing in some cases. Borrowers certainly have responsibilities, of course, but then so do banks and other lenders as well.

[struggle4progress]

45. Another Countrywide story from Nevada a few years back:

justice done: Countrywide home loans, inc. v. thitchener
By Terry A. Moore, Esq. and Micah S. Echols, Esq.
http://www.marquisaurbach.com/articles/NJA-112008.html