I just had a mortgage epiphany...

[Bigmack]

I've been following all this mortgage meltdown/fraud stuff, and this morning I had an epiphany....

Why would anybody keep paying on their mortgage?

I don't mean... "Hey... we can stop paying on the mortgage... cool!

I mean "Why should I send money to people who may or may not have the deed to my house?"

Seriously.... if a company cannot prove they have the mortgage document, why send them money? On their word for it?

That's not business. Anybody who runs a business on someone's word for something is an ex-business... quickly.

I don't have a mortgage, but I've been looking all morning, and finally came up with paper that seems to say I'm being given back my deed of trust.

WTFF?

[mzmolly]

1. Why wouldn't you pay on your mortgage

unless you got into a financial bind?

[GiordanoBruno]

17. Why not pay your mortgage?

Because anyone who bought their home in the last 5-6 years is underwater by anywhere from 10-60%. And because this collapse in housing prices is the direct result of these lenders securitizing mortgages - mortgages they knew to be poorly underwritten.

The money we lost in our homes didn't disappear. It went into the pockets of executives. In fact, it is still going into their pockets in the form of massive bonuses. In fact, not only did they steal our equity, they have stolen federal tax proceeds for the next 30 years.

Considering this, our MORAL obligations are to:

1.) Not pay our mortgages
2.) Fight foreclosure like we are fighting for our lives. Make them produce the note.
3.) When the government re-writes 400 years of real estate law to legalize foreclosure fraud, demand the heads of your representatives including the Democrats that collude to ruin the middle class.
4.) Not get fooled again.

[girl gone mad]

31. Welcome to DU.

I hope you stay.

[mzmolly]

55. If you suggest a mass revolt by homeowners, which involves

not paying mortgages, you're helping to destroy the middle class. How much more do you want property values to drop? And, who do you think will swoop in and buy up all the newly inexpensive properties when they do? Talk about a swindle...

I think if someone is in a financial bind, they should fight to keep their home. I also believe that if a person is not in such a bind, they should pay their mortgage.

Welcome. Interesting first post. :hi:

[Cal Carpenter]

65. Why do you so vigorously defend

the interests of the ruling class?

If we put things as simply as possible - there are lots of empty houses. People need a roof over their heads. There are a lot of homeless people. What is logical here? People need homes. Fuck the economy of the top 1%.

The mortgage industry (yes, it is an industry and that in itself is absurd) is manipulative and fraudulent, and this is coming to light. The banks have been manipulative and fraudulent as well. They are halting their own foreclosures now, there is no denying it now.

First, robo-mortgages were signed.

Then, robo-foreclosures were signed.

Lots of rich people make lots of money and gain more property at the expense of the middle and working classes and they will likely continue to do so.

It is criminal, and the victims of these crimes should not be punished and thrown out into the street for being used for a quick buck (and another quick buck and another quick buck - the layers of middlemen are tedious you know).

And as for the rest of us, well, why the fuck should we keep paying these criminals with our interest payments (AND our bank bailout tax dollars btw)? Why should they keep profiting for doing nothing but shuffling paperwork and dodging responsibility?

Fuck that.

[mzmolly]

86. I'm not defending the interest of the "ruling class."

I'm saying that suggesting a mass homeowner revolt is irresponsible and will add to economic disaster. Not to mention people could actually lose their homes. Some people care about things like that.

[Scruffy1]

165. amen brother!

[GiordanoBruno]

80. Property values are still in a bubble

and will drop further, revolt or no. Until the adults in charge of the economy start acting like adults, all bets are off. A mass revolt could pressure the powers that be to reduce mortgage principals to something more in line with the real value of the property instead of foreclosing. There is no reason to kick people out of their homes when the amount of money the lender loses is the same. Neighborhoods don't get decimated, people's lives aren't destroyed, honest people who can pay their mortgage but are underwater by 40% will not have to strategically default.

The only other way for people who bought in the last 5 years to ever dig out of the hole they find themselves in is hyper-inflation. Where the value of the amount owed on the mortgage becomes less. I don't believe the Fed, the masters of the universe or the American population at large is willing to swallow that bitter pill.

[mzmolly]

94. You're dreaming up quite a scenario.

However, I don't see things happening in the neat manner you do.

Also, I'm not sure what Obama can do to be more "adult" like? Republicans are the party behaving like children. Your suggestion, guarantees us more of them will have power in 2010-2012. No thanks.

[GiordanoBruno]

142. The fact remains

The bubble and the subsequent crash was nothing but a classic "pump and dump". Pump up the prices, take the money while the price is high and then watch it crash. Even better if you can seize the ownership of the assets after they've been raided.

The system is broken. There is nothing you or I can do about it. As long as the powers that be adhere to the "govern-by-crisis" model of government, our nation will continue its (not-so-smooth-or-long) decline. Serious people believe we will see the end of the Republic in our lifetimes.

You can focus on the next election, I've got my eye on the 50-year ball. Welcome to the Plutonomy. It's not going to be pretty. Capitalism doesn't require Democracy - it only requires stability. That stability can come with the rule of law and a "Bill of Rights", or at the end of a rifle. Ask China.

[mzmolly]

145. "Even better if you can seize the ownership of the assets after they've been raided."

Which is why I refuse to assist "them" by advising anyone to stop making mortgage payments.

Cheers.

[Generic Other]

148. +1000

welcome to DU. Hope you like it here. I already like you!

[socialist_n_TN]

167. I'm OK with a mass revolt of homeowners................

IF IT BECOMES NECESSARY. And a big first step in that revolt would be a "mortgage strike". I would even go so far as to advocate a "payment strike". Don't pay ANYTHING to the banks, other than what you need to pay to keep going, like a car note. Credit cards, signature loans, anything unsecured would be subject to the payment strike. Of course, people would have to consider the consequences and it MUST BE DONE TO MAKE A POLITICAL STATEMENT, RE: against the big banks fucking us ALL.

I've been in the mortgage business since '02 as a bit player. Just a working stiff, but anybody with a brain could see this coming. When you give a homeloan with NO down payment to somebody who has a 500 credit score, chances are they will eventually default. And NOBODY made these companies make those loans other than the "invisible hand of the market".

You would have to have a plan and, as I said, consider the consequences. It would tank your credit score and put you out of another mortgage loan for a period of years. Right now it's 3 years after a foreclosure shows up on your credit report, but since the banks make the rules, that time frame could change to longer than that.

If you have sizable equity in your home, it would be too attractive for the banks to actually take it and sell it as they could probably recoup the balance (and maybe profit) BY selling it.

It probably wouldn't work for most government backed loans (FHA, VA, RD) as those loans have ALWAYS had tighter standards than conventional loans. IOW, it would be harder to prove mortgage shennanigans on government backed loans.

The plan would be to check with a RE attorney in your individual state to see exactly what the laws are involving foreclosures in your state. The laws do differ from state to state. I would also recommend as soon as you get official foreclosure paperwork, file for bankruptcy. That would let you keep your house for the term of the BK. In addition, if we all swamped the Federal bankruptcy courts with filings then THEY would get behind which would give you even MORE time to make the banks hurt.

The idea would be to hit them where it hurts them most, the profit margin.

[Cal Carpenter]

64. If I may

5)Stop reflexively defending the interests of the ruling class.

If they don't even know which houses they rightly 'own', then fuck em. They've been manipulating and making bank off the rest of us for a long time. It's just getting real obvious and ugly right now.

And welcome to DU.

[laughingliberal]

67. Right on! Welcome to DU! nt

[mzmolly]

88. Woo hoo! Let's tank the Obama economy even more and help the R's in 2012!

Yeah! "Right on!" :party:

:sarcasm:

[laughingliberal]

108. If standing up for ourselves, as the poster suggested, will 'tank the Obama economy,'...

it doesn't say much for the Obama economy. The bailouts for the big boys should have included an obligation to help the 'small people.' If it had, the economy would be in much better shape and no one would have to be worrying about it 'tanking.'

I'm not in favor of saving the banksters at the expense of distressed homeowners and working/middle class Americans again.

[mzmolly]

134. This isn't a matter of standing up for one's self, this is a matter

of taking bad advice and risking your home in the process.

I couldn't care less about corporate banks.

[PufPuf23]

93. Truth. Alas. Welcome to DU.

Clever user name. I enjoyed reading Yates years ago.

[ZombieHorde]

119. Welcome to our house!

[mudplanet]

120. That's a very important point that should be re-emphasized. A lot of the money

that was "lost" in the stock market in 1929 and 2008 wasn't "lost", i.e., it didn't disappear. Somebody has that money. In a bank account (in the Cayman Islands or Switzerland) on in securities. It didn't just "disappear."

The money that was lost in the raygun engineered savings and loan crash in the 1980s - somebody got it (a least a substantial portion of it). Just not the taxpayer who insured the banks.

Capitalism at its purest and finest.

[Gaedel]

131. Just a minute....

1. I owned my house free and clear in 2005.

2. I sold it to you for $300,000 and you paid cash for the house.

3. In 2010, the house is worth $150,000.

Who stole the $150,000 from you?

Who has that $150,000?


1. I own Acme Metal Stamping (100% 0f the stock).

2. I sell you 100% of the shares in Acme Metal Stamping for $10 million.

3. Today you try to sell the company7 and only get offered $5 million.

Who stole your $5 million?

What pocket is that money in?

[Statistical]

132. Don't use logic. You will just end up getting a headache....

:banghead:

Good examples though.

Same thing is true w/ stock market. Someone who bought at the peak is holding a stock that is no worth less than it was sold. When you look at the aggregate value trillions are "missing" but the idea that anytime assets decline the "hidden money" goes into a super ebil bank account is on the level of elementary school thinking.

If X goes up I win because I was smart. If X goes down someone stole from me.

X can be any asset (stock, bond, house, business, gold coins, etc)

[mudplanet]

139. I feel like making an ad homnin attack to these posts, but first I'll try "logic"

If I buy a house for $100 thousand in 2000 and today it's only worth $50 thousand, and my goal was to make money on the deal, well, I lost my bet. That's speculation. The bank speculated, too, because if they didn't think the house was worth it they wouldn't have loaned me the money. They tried to limit their risk in the deal by using a legal document that held me responsible for the total value of the loan plus interest no matter what ensued. Depending on what state I in which I made the loan, they may or may not be able to enforce this deal (e.g., bankruptcy may release me from this obligation). If I default on the loan, no matter the reason, the bank gets to own the house. That was the deal (otherwise, why do they hold the mortgage). If I bought a house for $100 thousand in 2000 and the payments were within the scope of my ability to pay them, and today the house is only worth $50 thousand, well, I'm disappointed but I've got a place to live which is within my budget. Why the fuck would I stop paying my mortgage? Because, to my mind, a house is my home first, not a fucking investment strategy.

To suggest that individuals who got caught up in fever of speculating in real estate in the last ten years are somehow dishonest, immoral or unethical if they decide to walk away from business deals that are losing propositions is to hold individuals to a completely different and more stringent set of standards than corporations. Hell, the corporation that the banks created to lobby Congress to create laws (forgot the name, something like Mortgage Bankers Association) in their interest bought a giant building in Washington DC and then defaulted on the loan when real estate values collapsed. They could have continued to pay on the note but it just was no longer a good investment. At the same time that the motherfuckers were going on television talk shows and piously saying that individuals had "a moral obligation" to pay their mortgages. Jesus fuckin' wept. Corporations default on loans all the time if they think it's "in the interest of their stockholders." Why shouldn't individuals? Oh, yea, I forgot. The whole point of incorporation was to limit liability (i.e., allow the owners of the corporations to escape the consequences of their actions).

And a lot of outright theft has happened as well.

I buy up a bunch of mortgages for $100 million. I sell them to Goldstein Sacks (a large investment company headquartered on Wall Street) for $150 million who goes on the divvy up these mortgages into "tranches" that are rated from "gold" to "not so gold-like" (shit-on-a-stick) in a manner that has virtually no relationship to the likelihood of said mortgages actually being worth what is being paid for them (because, as a very large corporation Goldstein Sacks can afford to have thousands of lobbyists on the payroll whose only function is to get Congress to rubber stamp certain, shall-we-say less-than-honest regulatory procedures), and sells them to other Wall Street firms. The news comes down the pike that it is extremely likely that these bundled mortgages ain't worth spit and consequently the stock price of the Wall Street firms that have purchased these mortgages plummets. These firms use their (literally) thousands of very highly paid lobbyists to get Congress to a) give them hundreds of billions of taxpayer $ (some loaned at little or no interest, some simply given) and to get the Fed Reserve to begin giving them money at 0% interest in order to prop up the price of their stock value. True fucking story. Now, where did that 50% profit I made selling those mortgages to Goldstein Sacks go? It didn't disappear. I got it invested in an amusement park in Switzerland. And the profit that Goldstein Sacks made divvying up those mortgages and reselling them? It didn't disappear (well, some of it did when the stock price dropped). A significant proportion of it was paid out that year to individuals at the firm who engineered the scam - I mean deal. And even more of it went into the pockets of other well-place individuals who knew when to dump the stock of Goldstein Sacks before the scam - I mean deal - became an obvious trap.

A lot of money was taken from someone (individuals and taxpayers) in a less-than-honest manner. I don't know. In my book that's theft.

In the Savings and Loan debacle - Like a lot of small investment corporations, Savings and Loan corps tend to have a small set of major stockholders who actually control the actions of the company even though the amount of money they have invested in the company only represents a minuscule proportion of the company's assets. They heavily supported "the raygun revolution" with the understanding that regulations on how they could use the company's money (read - other people's money insured by the US taxpayer) would be dropped. When raygun was elected he made good on the deal and the leaders of the Savings and Loan industry went on a spree - they used that money like it was a personal piggy bank that their rich daddy had given them and told them to lose (which, in a sense, it was). They bought worthless property and they resold it to their friends who also ran Savings and Loans at fantastic profits, who then sold it to their friends who cut them into the deal. There was no deal too bad to merit large investment, because, you see, as in the case of the Wall Street mortgage debacle, it was a risk-free proposition. The money wasn't theirs - if it was lost - no big deal. But if the deal made money, they always cut themselves a very large slice of the pie. Win, lose, or draw, they got theirs. Capitalism at its best - free of risk for the capitalist. And when the entire scheme imploded, raygun got the Congress to pick up the tab. And a whole lot of Savings and Loan executives, even the ones whose banks had gone bust, walked away with millions and millions of dollars. I actually know a couple of them. They'll never have to work again.

This dynamic is very similar to the way that Wall Street works today.

A lot of money was taken from someone (individuals and taxpayers) in a less-than-honest manner. I don't know. In my book that's theft. You can call it what you like.

So, your moralistic bullshit doesn't carry any weight. I know we'd like to believe that capitalism has "rules" (laws) under which it works, but the fact is that for the truly wealthy and corporations, the only rule is "can we get away with it."

[Gaedel]

140. "Logic"

You are all over the map.

Logic begins with something provable and expands on it.

1. You didn't have enough money to buy the house for cash.

2. You asked somebody to loan you the money.

3. They did and ask that you pledge the house for security.

4. You are not making payments on the note.

5. They ask that the house be forfeit.

6. Your equity in the house is now nil.

7. They lose by getting less for the house than the amount of the note.

Where in that chain were you robbed (regardless of any federal bailouts the bank might have gotten)?

[mudplanet]

141. I didn't say anyone was robbed. The original poster or some other

replier may have.
Robbery implies deceit or coercion. In the scenario you lay out neither come into play. The same is stated explicitly in my post: you make a loan to buy a home. If the house subsequently loses market value, you lose on your speculation at least in the sense that you made your purchase with the primary goal of making a profit on the purchase. So everyone except the original seller loses (at least the lender gets the security). There isn't any robbery involved in that.
However,
the undertone of the argument in this thread and in a lot of media stories about the issue seems to be that the borrowers have some 'obligation' (moral or otherwise) to pay off a mortgage, and my assertion is that, in fact, there is no obligation outside of their legal liability. If the penalties for defaulting on the loan (whatever they may be - harm to credit, court-imposed fines, etc) are less than the perceived personal financial harm from paying off the loan, they are justified in defaulting. That is SOP for corporations. Why should it be different for individuals?

"Where in that chain were you robbed (regardless of any federal bailouts the bank might have gotten)?" Well, hell. Federal bailouts for banks = giving my tax dollars to banks because their speculation didn't pay off. Where's my bailout? The fucking bank got the security (the house) AND the loan payment. All I got is bad credit and homelessness. If lenders want this type of insurance from the government they should pay for it like depositors do with the FDIC. Robbed would be a good word to use in this case. So would the expression "a royal fucking."

The Wall Street and Savings and Loan examples are simply to support my assertion that, other than legal contractual obligations, any perceived "obligation" (moral, honesty, keeping your word, doing what you said you would do) for individuals to pay loans is complete baloney. Individual borrowers should do exactly what is in their own best interest just as do corporations.

[GiordanoBruno]

143. Robbery

is only defined by the society it occurs in. Please note that, as a society we've agreed that there ARE illegal ways one can manipulate markets whether or not the investors are coerced, greedy or other.

I am arguing that the actions of the lenders/banks were deceitful in the most disgusting of ways. They played the government in order to underwrite the risks and they played the American people by cynically evoking their hopes, dream (and yes, maybe their greed.) The fact that this kind of behavior is legal and sanctioned by the powers that be is not the sign of a healthy society. It is the sign of a civilization in decline and rotting from the inside.

For the record - I'm not talking about moral obligations. I think we all agree that that argument is prima facie ridiculous.

[Generic Other]

158. Are banks run by Mr. Potter or George Bailey?

I recall Bailey made good on the bank's notes even when if bankrupted him. Potter simply ripped off the depositors to enrich himself.

[Generic Other]

157. Don't forget I bailed your company out interest free against my will

because you bribed people to get that deal. Then your execs spent my money on high risk ventures, paid themselves exorbitant salaries on my money, created a financial bubble to make more profits and lost the gamble. They gambled with my money and then they lost the promissary note I signed promising to repay money they mismanaged. Rhetorical question: Why am I obligated to be responsible when no one else was all the way down the food chain?

[Xenotime]

162. Agreed 100%

[tavalon]

71. I think the point the op was making is how do you know these people

you are sending your mortgage money to actually hold the deed to your house?

[mzmolly]

87. And my point is would you like to find out the hard way?

The OP suggested not paying your mortgage. Others have had more rational suggestions.

[GiordanoBruno]

144. Suggestions

Please note these are my opinions and you should do your own research, consult your own advisers.

1.) If you are in Florida, California, Nevada or other area that saw a big bubble and you bought between 2005-2009 and you put down 30% or less, your house will ruin you financially. You need to take action. A mortgage modification will not save you. Only a reduction in the principal amount of the mortgage makes financial sense in the long term. A house that your bought for $600k that is now worth $350k does not make sense. Think retirement, college fund, passive income. Let your credit go, save $250k...If you're in a state with recourse for the lenders, consider bankruptcy.

2.) Stopping payment on your mortgage is only one tactic to bring pressure to bear on your lender. The more people that do stop paying the more pressure the lender feels. If they foreclose on everyone underwater, the Pimco's, State's Attorney Generals and the pension funds of the world will have them for lunch. For you condo owners - lenders definitely do not want to be paying HOA fees every month - more leverage for you. Hiring a lawyer can bring more pressure to bear. Requesting they produce the note can bring more pressure and can make sure your title is clear if you do continue to pay and plan on paying your mortgage off.

3.) If you do decide to strategically default, hold on to your property as long as possible by any means necessary and rent it. Make some money and save it for your retirement.

[mzmolly]

146. I think there are times when it makes

good sense to walk away. But I don't think it's wise to suggest a mass revolt.

[Generic Other]

150. why not?

when is it ever going to be time? Seems like we are being offered some sound advice here. If crooks stole half the value of your home, you shouldn't even consider giving them half again more!

[mzmolly]

159. Seems like we're being offered a recipe for increased

foreclosures. No thanks.

[Generic Other]

160. Well I think asking for the note can't hurt

Paying the mortgage is certainly the best option if you can afford to keep doing so, and if the value of the home has not declined to a point where it isn't smarter to default.

[rucky]

2. Because you will lose your home.

and any standing you'd have against their attorneys and our courts that you've been keeping your end of the deal in good faith.

Maybe you could get away with it for awhile, but the court would never award you a free home out of it.

[RaleighNCDUer]

7. OTOH, if they can't prove they have a claim to the money, why pay it? nt

[Freddie Stubbs]

9. Are you willing to let is get tp the point that they have to prove it?

Because if it does get to that point, and they can prove it, you are probably going to lose your house.

[EFerrari]

10. People are losing their homes any way.

The banks have been using the president's HAMP program to lure people into foreclosure on the promise of a modification. Then, they string it out until the clock runs out. Piece of cake.

[Statistical]

13. However that wsn't the question/idea in the OP. Why would ANYONE pay their mortgage?

Well anyone especially someone who can and is paying will keep paying because it is a huge gamble to risk everything on the hope that the bank can't foreclose. If they can then you lose tens of thousands of dollars, and destroy your credit for next decade.

Not worth it for most people who can make their payments.

[EFerrari]

16. Right. I was responding to Freddie in that post. n/t

[sabrina 1]

23. Wrong, not if s/he puts the money in an escrow account

and then demands to see the note from the lender. So long as people document their efforts to establish whether or not they are actually paying the proper entity who can produce proper documentation, they will not lose their homes.

And if anyone bought a foreclosed on home, they better be worried about it. Many of the foreclosures are now being challenged as illegal and the original owners, most of whom were subjected to corrupt illegal practices, can now reclaim their homes. But even they may not be able to prove ownership, it may go way, way back.

This is truly a mess. But personally I would not want to hand over any more money to someone without seeing actual proof they have proper documentation.

[Bigmack]

41. Took the words out of my keyboard...

put it in escrow. Hell, some renters do that to show good faith when the landlord is totally unreasonable.

[DirkGently]

50. That is NOT the same thing. There are specific laws allowing things like that for renters.

In some states, in some circumstances, upon making a legally-defined communication, a renter can withhold rent when necessary services like heat and water are not provided by the landlord. I've never heard of anything similar regarding a mortgage.

Unless you're aware of some special law in your state that permits withholding payment on a mortgage note, you do not have a right to stop payment based on your suspicion that something is "wrong" with the paperwork. You're defaulting on the mortgage, which puts the lender firmly in the driver's seat, and they can have you out on the street before you can say "MERS."

Do NOT do this. If you think your mortgage is unenforceable, talk to a lawyer. Demand to see the note and proof the entity billing you has the right to do so. If all that convinces you your mortgage is bad, sue the lender or servicer. Stopping payment and letting yourself get sued on the theory that the "robo-signing" scandal puts the lender at a disadvantage is like picking a street fight with Brock Lesnar because you heard he's a sucker for a left hook.

[Statistical]

110. There is no legal option to escrow mortgage.

The only reason that renters can put money into escrow is because laws were written to allow that (and then only under certain conditions).

There isn't currently any equivelent in mortgages. If you stop paying your mortgage for any reason then you are in default. Period.

[DirkGently]

48. I'm sorry, I'm with the sentiment here, but that is VERY bad advice.

If you think your mortgage is unenforceable, hire a lawyer and sue the BANK, after you've determined there's something to sue about.

Stopping payment puts you in the worst possible position legally. Once you default, the lender can accelerate the note, claiming the entire amount due. There's no resuming payments once they satisfy your concerns. A sky-high default rate of interest kicks in, and you get sued. At that point, you're betting your house, your credit rating, a possible money judgment against you personally, and thousands in legal fees that you can beat the bank, and if you're wrong, the lender is under no obligation whatsoever to let you resume payments. You can pay the whole loan off, or lose the house.

If you borrowed the money and signed the note and mortgage, why would you assume the bank is going to lose? All this garbage the banks did does NOT translate into any kind of easy formula for wiping out a purchase-money mortgage. People are extrapolating wildly as to the issues being raised, and anyone relying on Internet Wisdom to do something like defaulting on a mortgage is taking an an insane gamble.

Again, people are NOT wiping out mortgages in droves. People are SPECULATING that they could. The two are not the same.

If you want to demand the note, demand the note. If you think the mortgage is no good, get a lawyer and prove it. Do NOT quit paying a mortgage on your house and assume you are going to easily beat up on a lender.

[mzmolly]

57. Agreed.

:hi:

[sabrina 1]

72. Yes, the LENDER can foreclose.

The problem is that if you are paying someone who is NOT the lender, that is an entirely different story. And the only way to find that out is to ask for the documentation and make sure the chain was not broken. If it was, then something needs to be done to fix it.

With the information now available to homeowners, they have an absolute right to make certain that the entity taking their money actually is the legitimate lender.

People will do what they feel is best as they should. But the only mortgages not in question at this point are probably over 20 years old, and/or issued by small Community Banks who never tranferred them, or Credit Unions.

MILLIONS of mortgages were processed by MERS. Are you aware of what they were doing? If they were in any way involved in a transfer of your mortgage, you definitely have something to worry about.

[DirkGently]

82. Making the inquiry is wise. Defaulting is not. All I'm saying. And again, no one has

demonstrated that there's any possibility you're not paying "the right" entity. No one is hearing from a second or third party after paying off a mortgage. It's one thing to question whether a lender or servicer can document a chain of title to foreclose. But there's no case I've heard of where someone has found their payments were "going down a hole" because some other party claims to own the debt.

[mzmolly]

90. Exactly.

I doubt most people who own a home want to take a chance on losing it by playing chicken with the bank. I found the OP's suggestion that we revolt and hold "democrats" "responsible" interesting as well. ;)

[mzmolly]

89. Do keep in mind that your advice in this post, differs from that in the OP

Sabrina. :hi: I don't disagree with your suggestion to investigate individual mortgages, but I would not default on my mortgage unless I didn't care about possibly losing my home, and then some.

[sabrina 1]

100. Hi mz molly

I think what I am saying is that because of how far back this goes, many people who bought homes in good faith, now that the corruption is being revealed, are beginning to worry. And nothing may happen until they decide to sell their homes. So, finding out now is better than finding out later when they are in the middle of trying to sell their home.

If it turns out that there is no proper documentation as has happened to so many people, should they keep paying a mortgage to someone who is not the legal holder of the note? I think the best thing to do is to speak to an attorney at that point.

What makes me sad about all of this, aside from people who already lost their homes, is that ACORN was one of the few organizations working to help being who were being foreclosed on when there was no one else to go to.

We called them to help a friend and I have to say they were very professional. The problems they had with the O'Keefe/Giles/Breitbart videos eventually made it impossible for them to continue the wonderful work they were doing. My friend contacted them last December and they were in the process of reviewing her situation when she finally had to leave her home. So, it was too late for her, but for others they were able to save their homes.

I wonder if this was not part of the reason they were under such attack. I know they started out helping minorities to buy homes under the Community Rehabilitation Act which was passed to prevent discrimination against minorities. The Right never forgave them for fighting that discrimination.

[mzmolly]

135. I think you're right about why ACORN

was attacked. They supported those who wouldn't have had power, alone. And, I fully agree with the notion that those already at risk of losing their homes, should stand up to the banks in any way possible. Also, I FULLY agree with you, that anyone who has a mortgage would want to be certain they have their legal ducks in a row.

You and I mostly agree. :pals:

[sabrina 1]

137. Yes, I think we do.

Hopefully, there some good will come from all this. :-)

[mzmolly]

138. I hope so as well Sabrina.

I feel horribly for those who have been swindled by lenders in this fiasco.

Keep fighting the good fight, my friend. :hi:

[Statistical]

106. The request the note (or hire a lawyer and demand the note)

you are advocating (based on legal standing) to simply not pay the note.

Read your mortgage contract. Not paying your mortgage is a default. Default will lead to foreclosure. There is nothing in there that allows you to withold payment until they provide a copy of the note. The contract defines the terms of the relationship between you (the owner) and creditor (who has a security interest in the property).

Failure to live up to those terms can result in loss of your home.

Not one person has said homeowners shouldn't request the note. I requested a copy of the note from my lender. If I get concerned enough I may get lawyer and sue to compel them to provide a copy of the note.

However what you are advocating is going BEYOND requesting a note. You are advocating people breach their mortgage contract intentionally (even when they are current and have ability to pay). That is stupid, reckless, and pointless. It is literally gambling with one's home.

[Statistical]

59. Proof of the magic all protecting escrow account?

You are giving some very bad advice. Thankfully most people on DU are smart enough not to take it.

[ProfessorGAC]

66. I'm With Stats

This is horrible advice. It's felonious to make a deal in good faith and then willfully renege. It's called fraud and for values this high, it's a felony.

I know some people got reamed in the housing bubble. But, at this point, there are actually people holding paper that actually did nothing wrong. I know that's not a popular sentiment, but there actually are people who bought into mortagage bundle investments that weren't doing anything nefarious. They were merely investing in what is typically a sure return. Maybe only 5 percent, but almost bullet proof.

Now, some folks here want others to shaft the "lenders" when a many of the current lenders may, in fact, have clean hands. The dirty hands folks already made their money. It's a little late to take it out of other people.

And, like i said, it can be consider a fraud. Going into default because you actually can't pay anymore, is not fraudulent. Refusing to meet a monetary obligation to make a point seems to meet the definitions laid out in the statute of frauds.
GAC

[Statistical]

105. Wrong. You have no legal right to put money into an escrow.

Failure to pay your mortgage on time is a default. Period.

Nobody informed is advocating people stop paying their mortgage WHEN THEY ARE CURRENT.

This is a fantasy created from your lack of knowledge.

If people do what you are telling them it is safe to do they could lose their homes. Do you understand that? Do you want that on your sholders? That someone listened to your fault claims and lost their home.

You can request the note. You can even hire a lawyer and compel them to produce the note.
Your have absolutely no right to stop paying your mortgage just because they haven't yet produced the note.

[Generic Other]

152. And they will take the home if you produce the money?

I thought banks were desperate at this point to keep homeowners out of default. There may have been a day when they jumped to foreclose. That day seems to have passed , don't you think? Why should we passively accept what they have done to home values? They are the ones who created the bubble and mess with their practices. Why are we the ones who have to bail them out and eat the losses? Why shouldn't there be talk of consumer revolt? If the tea party can start a voter revolt over nothing, consumers can do the same over this mess. The Soviets once thought they had nothing to worry about too. Their system collapsed pretty darn fast when their citizens called them on their crap!

Are you saying it can't happen here? or that you hope it won't? I have nothing to lose. My house is worth half what I still owe on it.

[Generic Other]

151. escrow account is a consumer revolt and legal

they demand payment, and then produce a note, you can pay. Otherwise you have a handy little nestegg plus no payments. Sounds like hardball to me. Time we started playing it.

[Xenotime]

163. I disagree.

[EFerrari]

3. That's the question that lenders who securitized our notes hope you don't ask

until they illegally foreclose on all the homes they can grab.

[DirkGently]

52. No. They are not worried at all. No one has beaten a mortgage on these theories yet.

One court held that MERS can't be the plaintiff in a non-judicial state. Another court dismissed a foreclosure with prejudice because of misconduct (like falsified documents) by the lender's counsel.

No one is just figuring out that mortgages are securitized. These things have been litigated. The "news" is the robo-signing stuff. Misconduct. Forgery. Fraud. There is no indication the mortgages themselves are no good. The larger theories MAY hold some water, but that has not been proven, and no lender out there is quivering in its boots that you're going to ask them to prove the right to foreclose.

Wait and observe this situation. MAYBE something big will come of it. But remember at the end of the day that if you borrowed money to buy a house, signed a note, and signed a mortgage, a court's not going to be terribly sympathetic to the idea that there is no lien on the property.

Don't get cocky. ;)

[EFerrari]

70. The only "big" thing that will come of this is Congress will legitimize

the theft. That's all.

[DirkGently]

79. Most likely. They may have buy back their own junk, though.

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20101018-713630.html

[sabrina 1]

84. You are wrong, There have been several court rulings against the

banks when they could not produce the documentation. And in some cases home owners were given their homes free.

You have not been following this disaster apparently.

Judge awards couple their home

A couple's home was foreclosed on but a judge awarded them their home after the bank's actions and attitude towards them.

Judge awards home to woman after mortgage records lost

AS for the robo signers, that is only a small part of this disaster.

Mortgage crisis much deeper than robo signers

With the mortgagee unable to show ownership, the homeowner might even be able to stay in his home mortgage-free

......

The crisis in foreclosure documentation is much deeper than the specific issue of robo-signers which has precipitated the halt in foreclosures by major banks. The fact is the mortgage process in the US is broken because securitization has created a byzantine mess that is wholly unsuited for the large number of foreclosures now on-going.

........


But some judges are starting to scrutinize the rules-don’t-matter methods used by lenders and their lawyers in the recent foreclosure wave. On occasion, lenders are even getting slapped around a bit.
One surprising smackdown occurred on Oct. 9 in federal bankruptcy court in the Southern District of New York. Ruling that a lender, PHH Mortgage, hadn’t proved its claim to a delinquent borrower’s home in White Plains, Judge Robert D. Drain wiped out a $461,263 mortgage debt on the property. That’s right: the mortgage debt disappeared, via a court order.

I could post many cases where mortgages were handed over to borrowers by judges because the lenders failed to produce documentation.

I've been following these cases for quite a while and have seen many instances in the past year where judges demanded documentation and became angry when lenders were unable to produce it.

There is so much fraud, not just the robo signers which is only a small part of this mess, that no one knows yet where to begin. But all 50 States Attorneys are planning investigations, there are now multiple huge class action suits representing home owners filed recently with the one in Florida already taking depositions.

Sorry, but the robo signing is just one more piece of the puzzle explaining how they perpetrated this fraud. It is only a tiny part of the whole problem and people should be going to jail, a lot of people and Congress needs to stay out of it and justice prevail. We know we will get no justice from Congress. They knew about much of this. It was not until homeowners started fighting back that we got any kind of justice at all. And it is only beginning.

[DirkGently]

113. "Several?" And ...? I said, dismissals for misconduct are the most solid grounds, but there IS NO

en masse chucking of mortgages over any of this. Not as of yet, anyway. Why would you bet your house, your credit, and your financial future in general on a guess that something like that MAY come to pass?

One court found MERS can't be a plaintiff and potentially overturned non-judical foreclosures WITHOUT prejudice. The lenders will return and foreclose. Others have, as we both noted, dismissed foreclosures with prejudice on the basis of fraudulently prepared Affidavits or Assignments.

Yes, rarely it can be shown that documentation is so screwed up that it cannot be used. These are anecdotes, and while they do point to the overall chaos among some lenders, it is a far cry from this idea that most, or even many mortgages are somehow unenforceable.

NO ONE is winning on the "you can't enforce a securitized mortgage" theory as of yet.

And there is a dishonest element to the argument being made here. I can see being angry about buying property at inflated prices due to all the subprime / securitization nonsense. But suggesting that a mortgage you signed to secure a note you signed for a house you actually bought and live in is somehow a nullity does not compute.

The "fraud" we should all be angry about is that unregulated lenders and investors created the myth of the neverending real estate bubble. The notes and mortgages are real. People received money and bought houses and signed notes and mortgages.

Sabrina, I'm with you in spirit here. I always enjoy your posts here, and I am as angry at the subprime mess as anyone, but this leap to the idea that no one's mortgage is enforceable is, so far, wild speculation.

And I'm sorry, but your advice to people to escrow payments rather than make them, while well-intentioned, and beautiful in its righteous fury, is an incredibly bad idea akin to suggesting someone step into traffic based on the possibility that the bus that hits you might be made of foam rubber. Most of them AREN'T.

Again, if you have these concerns, *do the research*. And by research, I don't mean taking the most colorful blog posts on Market Watch to heart. They won't be there in court with you. Make your request for the loan documents. Talk to a lawyer. If you think you've got an unenforceable mortgage, put your case together FIRST. Defaulting on the basis of unproven Internet theories is a recipe for a legal beat-down.

Please. Keep asking questions. Keep calling for the heads of the people who created this crisis. But be smart about it. Handing a lender your head on a platter on theory it can be re-attached later is not the way to go about it.

[sabrina 1]

136. Well, first I want to make it clear. I was stating an opinion, not

advising anyone what to do. I am surprised people took my comment as advise. I never advise other people what to do as everyone's situation is different. Just wanted to clarify that.

And I agree that the first thing people should do is to request the documentation to make sure they are paying the right entity who holds their note. Eg, a perfect example of why people need to do this. In her OP today which is now on the Rec. list, one DUer just found out that the original holder of her note, WAMU, no longer exists and she has been paying Chase. Read her OP to see what she is doing about it.

It is when people go to sell their homes that they will now be faced with the prospect of finding out the paperwork is not in order.

You said: Yes, rarely it can be shown that documentation is so screwed up that it cannot be used.

Well, that's what was originally thought. But with the testimony from the Florida case we now learn that this may not be so. Witnesses who worked for David Stern's Law Mill, and he is just one of many, are reporting that original notes and deeds were destroyed and that there is no way to trace the original paperwork at all.

Iow, no one even knows how widespread the problems are. They have been doing this for years, going back maybe as far as just after the Glass Steagal Act was repealed.

But one thing that is different here in this country and elsewhere. You said there is an element of dishonesty in people trying to use this to get their homes free.

I don't think that is the case at all. People begged to have their payments reduced as the President asked for also. A fund was set up to help people stay in their homes. $50 billion dollars, but as Elizabeth Warren pointed out to Timothy Geithner, after 15 months only $200,000,000 of that fund has been used. Iow, they are making NO effort to keep people in their homes. The question is why?

I find it very sad that here in the U.S. there is a tendency to blame people for falling on hard times, most of THAT problem also created by the same 'bad actors' who outsourced American jobs and destroyed the economy.

All people wanted was access to the judicial system to help them get the help that Congress provided for. But they were denied that access.

Why have there been so many foreclosures? These are not for the most part, people who were irresponsible. Many of the did lose their jobs and are heart-broken to find themselves in a position they never thought would happen to them. So the very reason for the millions of foreclosures is also because of the criminal activity perpetrated by Wall St. and their enablers.

By contrast, in Iceland eg, the blame for mortgage defaults is being placed exactly where it belongs, on the Government and the Banks who facilitated the meltdown of their economy. They are now demanding that those in foreclosure be forgiven their debt and that the Banks who profited from the scheme that caused the collapse, absorb that cost.

Apparently in Europe the real culprits are the ones who inspire anger, not the victims of their corruption and there is no sympathy for them there. Here, it is a shame to see the blame being placed on ordinary Americans who DID NOT run up the debt that collapsed this economy. And it was a crime that was pre-meditated. Someone, many people, should be going to jail and debt SHOULD be forgiven in some cases. If for no other reason than to teach a lesson to anyone who ever again contemplates destroying this country's economy for the purpose of pure greed.

Yes, I am angry and more willing to see a few ordinary Americans benefit in some way for what has happened, than to allow these fraudulent crooks off the hook. Because they will get off the hook, and get to keep their ill-gotten gains and the people will go on suffering the consequences for years to come.

I am sure there will be a few people who will try to take advantage of this. But even that is the fault of the real criminals. We tend to lose sight of the BIG crimes in this country and focus on the little people's crimes as if someone stealing on a grand scale is forgiveable.

No one I know, or have read about over the past several years wanted anything for nothing. They simply needed a hand up and got slapped in the face by their Banks, backed by their Government.

Thank you for your kind remarks, I admit to being incredibly angry over what is going on, mainly because I know there will be no justice and that will ensure it will happen again.

Btw, I do not have a mortgage, and would not even consider buying a home right now anyhow. But I feel for people who have bought homes.

Anyhow, for the most part I agree with you. But since in this country we do not fight very hard, compared to other countries, like France eg. one way to react to this now is to demand proper documentation of every home sold for at least the past ten years. Let them start earning the trillions they have made off with, because I am certain they will suffer no consequences from Congress. THEY will be forgiven their debt and we will be told to 'move on'.

[Generic Other]

154. Word!!!

"...in Europe the real culprits are the ones who inspire anger, not the victims of their corruption and there is no sympathy for them there. Here, it is a shame to see the blame being placed on ordinary Americans who DID NOT run up the debt that collapsed this economy. And it was a crime that was pre-meditated. Someone, many people, should be going to jail and debt SHOULD be forgiven in some cases. If for no other reason than to teach a lesson to anyone who ever again contemplates destroying this country's economy for the purpose of pure greed."

+1,000,000. You go girl!!!

[slackmaster]

4. Because you might want to keep your home

Just in case someone actually does have the original note, mortgage, or similar security instrument.

BTW, a recorded copy of a deed is admissible in court. Notes and other loan documents aren't generally recorded.

[trumad]

5. What you'll get with this post

is a whole bunch of comments from posters who miss your point.

They need to prove they own your account before you pay them. If they prove it---you pay. If they can't---then they don't own the note. Plain and simple.

[Statistical]

18. Except that their is nothing in most mortgage contracts that require that proof.

So that how time you are refusing to pay you are gambling they won't be able to come up with the note.

What if they do after say 12 months of non-payment? What then when you are $15K behind on your mortgage. What then when they applied thousands more in legal late fees and compounded interest charges? What when they behind foreclosre procedures and throw in full legal cost into your balance?

So what happens after the stunt when you need say $40K to avoid foreclosure and don't have it.

Essentially to stop paying and say "show me the note" is literrally gambling your home that they don't have it.

So what happens when they do? There is no "do over" it may take a year or more to find the note and by then your credit is ruined and you have racked up thousands in fees and are in danger of losing your home.

[trumad]

62. Oh I'm not disagreeing with you on that...

you're right--- it's a gamble not worth taking.... but--- if you are upside down on your house and you'll never get right side up---I think the gamble becomes a better one.

[Statistical]

109. Agreed or if you are already delinquent, or facing foreclosure, etc.

However some in this thread seem to indicate that someone current on their mortgage can simply stop paying and demand a note w/ no consequences. The reality is you have no method to stop paying mortgage without going into default on the contract.

[trumad]

116. I've seen some stay in their home for the last 3-4 years

without paying their mortgage. This is a sign that the lender has no idea where their note is.

I've seen some go delinquent and 6 months later the bank is auctioning their house.

If you want to roll the dice you better know that forecloser can come very quick.

[sabrina 1]

85. There is no need to gamble. You write and ask them to produce it.

and explain you will by holding up your payment until you see it. If they refuse to provide it and threaten you with foreclosure, you take them to court first.

All over the country judges have been ruling in favor of homeowners, even some who actually were behind on their mortgage payments, because lenders though as you do, that they did not have to prove anything. Only if no one asks for proof as some lenders have found out the hard way.

Marcy Kaptur has advised people not to pay their mortgages until they see the note. And if they are being foreclosed on not to leave their homes until the Lenders prove they actually have the standing to foreclose. I would think she knows what she is talking about and she has been proven to be right, over and over again when people stop acting like sheep and take a stand.

[mzmolly]

91. To be clear, Marcy Kaptur advised people who were already in foreclosure,

to demand a bank note vs. risk families being put out on the street. She's not advising every homeowner to do so, as the OP is.

[sabrina 1]

99. That was two years ago before the full scope of this scandal

was revealed. The recent court cases have revealed that not only those in foreclosure are in jeopardy of having their ownership challenged, but possibly millions of Americans, especially those who bought foreclosed-on properties, may not actually be the legal owners of their homes.

Almost everyone I know is asking for confirmation that the documentation on their homes can be produced. We'll see if they get it.

But one thing is certain, Congress is going to fix this for the Banks. We saw their first effort last week when they attempted to legitimize the crime of forging notarizations and nearly got away with it.

There is tipping point where the people will not remain complacent about having their rights violated or being lied to by their government.

The depth of this problem is only beginning to be revealed. I have no doubt that someone like Marcy Kaptur or any other responsible person would advise homeowners to make sure they have proper documentation.

I know at least one person who was illegally foreclosed on. She fully intends to demand that her home be returned to her. Whoever buys that house, if they do not check the documentation will find that they are not the legal owners of the property. And this will be repeated possibly hundreds of thousands of times across the country. Going back to at least 2005 and even before that.

[Statistical]

104. Asking for the note is different that NOT PAYING YOUR MORTGAGE.

Not paying your mortgage = default. Period.

You are gambling that the lender doesn't have the note. If they do there is no "do over" there is no "undo". You are now behind on your mortgage by tens of thousands of dollars and facing a full demand. Read your mortgage contract 90 days deliquent and the bank has the right to demand full payment. The entire balance in one lump sum. Failure to pay will put your home into foreclosure.

You are utterly uninformed and are giving horribly dangerous advise.

Provide a link to anyone credible ANYONE that backs up your claim people should stop paying a mortgage they are current on until they get a note.

I will wait. You won't find it. That is a falsehood created by your ignorance. Ignorance that will endanger the homes of anyone foolish enough to listen to you.

[mzmolly]

133. Yes, but we can't use her comments from two years ago

to bolster the suggestion of the OP. That's my only point.

"Almost everyone I know is asking for confirmation that the documentation on their homes can be produced. We'll see if they get it."

I think this is good, I just wouldn't advise anyone not to pay their mortgage unless they're willing to risk losing their home. I would advise a person already at risk to fight like hell, though. ;)

Peace :hi:

[Statistical]

102. You do understand if they DO have the note you end losing tens of thousands of dollars right.

The second you fail to pay a mortgage payment your account is late so late fees begin to accrue. Worse you aren't paying down your mortgage so the balance is growing by the interest rate.

After 90 days your account is in default at which point penalty interest, and fees start ramping up.

Sure you can take them to court and in 6 to 12 months after you are now tens of thousands of dollars behind on your mortgage they show the note.

You are in default and they can demand 100% of balance due immediately. Can't pay well foreclosure begins.

Worst case scenario you lose your home.
Best case scenario you "only" lose the tens of thousands in legal fees, capitalized interest, and late fees.

"Marcy Kaptur has advised people not to pay their mortgages until they see the note."
A falsehood. She has advised people in default to no longer make payments until they see the note. There is no longer any risk to do that. They likely are losing their homes ANYWAYS. She has never been so foolish as to advise people current on their mortgage to withhold payments.

What you are advocating (due to an incomplete understanding) is utterly reckless and if people are foolish enough to listen to you will either costs them tens of thousands of dollars or their homes.

You have no legal right to stop payment of a mortgage. Period. If you do so you are in default and risk a full demand (immediate payment of mortgage balance). If you can't satisfy that demand you risk foreclosure. What makes sense for someone ALREADY IN DEFAULT doesn't always make sense for someone who is current on their mortgage.

You should stop and educate yourself before you cause someone to lose their home.

[pokercat999]

111. I just read

at the website for demanding the bank produce the note (www.producethenote.com ?) that the bank has 60 days after the demand to respond.

I signed up and sent a demand to my mortgage company GMAC we'll see what response comes back. What will I do with the info? Don't know at this time but I'm apparently about $70K upside down on a house now worth $260K.

Just 4 years ago I had a contract to sell for $477K that fell through due to a contingency that the buyer would be able to sell a property he owned....didn't happen and I moved back into the house. But in 4 years the "value" of the property fell by 44%! My estimate is that it will fall by at least another 5-10% per year for the next few years, unless there is a total price collapse and the value falls below $150K.

On edit: I can't find the website for a direct email to your mortgage company. Here is an interesting article and a "how to" on forcing your mortgage company to produce the note, also stated a judge in Ohio threw out foreclosure proceedings on 14 properties where the mortgage company could not produce the notes. http://www.consumerwarningnetwork.com/2008/06/19/produce-the-note-how-to/

[Generic Other]

155. I think I would keep paying my mortgage

BUT, why shouldn't I ask to see the note? Is it really a bad idea to force them to prove they have the right to make me pay?

And if they can't produce a note, shouldn't I have recourse to refuse to pay then?

[Bigmack]

42. Yup... that happened....

"You'll lose your house."

What about paying and losing your money?

An earlier poster had the right of it. Put payments in an escrow account in case the bastards actually have some paper. Gonna cost for a lawyer to look at the paper, of course, but better than just pissing your money away on some company that claims to own your paper.

[Statistical]

107. Putting money into escrow doesn't satisfy the condition of the note.

You are essentially gambling that they don't have the note.

If they do and they produce it in say 90 days or 180 days you will owe all the backpayments (fine you got that in escrow) plus all the capitalized interest, plus all the late fees, plus all the penalty interest once note is in default, plus any legal fees, plus any collection fees.

The difference between what you owe and what you have in escrow can be in the tens of thousands. Failure to pay = foreclosure.
You have no legal right to say "here is the 6 missing payments" we are "Cool".

Even worse once you default the bank has no requirement to let you get current. They can demand payment in full (entire balance plus fees) and failure to pay is what they take to the court to begin foreclosure proceedings.

Requesting the note - good idea and pretty easy to do (who knows if they will respond though).
Getting a lawyer to demand the note - even better but is rather expensive
Witholding payment on a mortgage you are current on - utter STUPID. litterally gambling with your home.

[zipplewrath]

6. Ask a lawyer

The mess this is going to create for a long time is that you need "clear title" to land in much of the western world. Most of the time this is no big deal, it is handled at the closing. But you'll notice most of us STILL by "title insurance" and in fact the mortgage holder usually requires it. If this mess isn't cleared up, we could have a real problem establishing "clear title" to land if mortgage holders stop paying, but never receive a clear title to their own property.

[EFerrari]

11. Good advice. I was only speaking to the general question

and no one should take legal advice from a message board.

[TexasObserver]

8. Because your default will be reported to credit agencies.

And that will start a collapse of your other credit lines, particularly credit cards which look for signs a customer is going down.

Your ploy may work for a while, but eventually, someone will foreclose on your property, and your credit will be wrecked.

[BlackHoleSon]

14. Credit score?

Not arguing for what the OP is proposing but - Credit Score?
The last 10 years have revealed that credit and credit worthiness long ago became disconnected. Capital has its own rules, which are whatever They decide they are to benefit them at that moment in time. The rules you describe may have been valid 15 years ago but I wouldn't EXPECT to have access to credit anymore based on following the "rules."
Sorry this is not better written - just woke up.

[Bigmack]

44. My ex and her husband walked away from ...

a $456K house... that now is listed at $240K, with no lookers, even.

Their credit score is 716 two years later.... she noted the report said "includes a major default".

Credit scores might be being adjusted for the economy. Maybe they're more "relative" now.

[Statistical]

12. Huge gamble. Essentially a person would be gambling the mortgage company doesn't have the note.

What if they do?

By the time you miss 2 dozen payments, the company will apply tens of thousands in fees, legal costs, and compounded interest.

So you go into foreclosure court and shit on you it turns out the mortgage company does have the note. Everyting is legit, every t crossed and i dotted.

You just lost your house net loss will run into the tens of thousands of dollars (if not more), and your credit is ruined.

Not a very good risk to take IMHO.

[EFerrari]

15. Why take a risk? Why not simply ask the company to produce the note

while you make your payments?

I don't know about other lenders, but there's a very good chance Chase doesn't have them. They took over WaMu when the manure hit the rotating member. I see BofA is going to restart foreclosure proceedings but that just may mean, they've gotten the signal that the Feds will not do a thing about their illegal foreclosures.

No one need stop paying their mortgage. But demanding to verify the note may be the only way homeowners can be assured they are paying the right party and that there is no cloud on their title. :shrug:

[Statistical]

20. You can ask and they will simply ignore the request.

Then what? Are you going to to keep paying? ok well we are back at square one.

The OP seems to suggest not paying until they produce the note. If you do that then everything I described apply.

If you continue to pay in full and on time while requesting the note well unless you want to spend thousands on a lawyer (and even then it is chancy) you have no way to compel a response.

So what happens if they simply don't respond?

[EFerrari]

21. That's a good question. You're right, you can't compel a response. n/t

[Greyhound]

35. But the courts can. n/t

[EFerrari]

36. For a price and most people don't have tens of thousands of dollars

to take these vampires to court.

[Waiting For Everyman]

30. They have to respond, if you state that it's a "qualified written request" under RESPA.

They have to respond in writing, within 60 days.

www.wheresthenote.com Generates an emailed QWR for you.


Just Google "QWR" and "RESPA", a lot of info about that is on the net.

[EFerrari]

37. Ha! Thanks. I'm trying to put resources together in the CA forum.

:hi:

[Waiting For Everyman]

43. A few more that I've found useful...

http://livinglies.wordpress.com

www.4closurefraud.org

www.mattweidnerlaw.com/blog

www.mandelman.ml-implode.com

Each of those has a links list too. Good luck! It's very cool of you to do that for the forum.


Btw, there's a new CA class action suit recently started. Look around on the blogs above, I didn't save the link I saw, but there IS a pdf of the case filings on that suit. Also there's the Marques v. Wells Fargo case (homeowners are intended 3rd party beneficiaries of the banks' HAMP contracts with the gov't), which is CA. That one is on Mandelman's site somewhere.

[EFerrari]

46. Thanks so much. n/t

[EFerrari]

81. Look at this QWR I found. This woman's story is the same as ours

and I have to wonder how many people are being jerked around in exactly this way:

My RESPA QWR to Litton

This is a "Qualified Written Request" under Section 6 of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA).

I am writing to request:

(1) Copies of all documents pertaining to the origination of my mortgage including my loan application, Right to Cancel, Deed of Trust, note, adjustable rate note, addendum to the note for the interest only payment period, Truth in Lending statements, Good Faith Estimate (GFE), HUD 1, appraisal, and all required disclosures and rate sheets associated with this transaction for the above referenced loan. The copies should be legible and all documents shall be copied in their entirety.
(2) A copy of the loan history including all payments made, all fees incurred, what has been paid out of the escrow account, and how all payments were applied. This information should cover the entire life of the loan.


I started the process of trying to modify this loan back in November 2006 when I was going through some financial difficulties and was told that nothing could be done because I was not late at the time.

I have been in contact with the following people since early 2007; Steve Jeter, Tawana Houston, Keisha Thomas, Carol Stevens and Diane Garcia, I have faxed over my financials and other documentation dozens of times and have the confirmations.

I have been given the runaround by the voice recognition call routing system on numerous occasions. I have talked to various agents with different versions of what the loan modification process really entails. I have been re-routed to the wrong department or individual many times and only get voicemail. During this process I have received MAYBE 3 calls back.

In December I received information about a modification form Titanium, requesting my financial information again. The documents were dated after the fact and I called several times, both Titanium and Litton to get updated documents. I was also questioning the INITIAL CONTRIBUTION charge. As of today, I still do not know what that is for.

On January 11, 2008, I finally spoke to Carlos who transferred me to Litton. I spoke with Diane Garcia, who belittled me on the phone and told me she didn’t know why she bothered because I obviously do not have the money. I decided to keep calling back. So on that day, I spoke to Dimas Gomez who informed me to send $2,960.84 and they will accept the modification that was sent from Titanium.

I sent the money over night with the modification signed and notarized. I didn’t hear anything for a few days and received a letter in the mail requesting certified funds. I then sent certified funds for the same amount January 22, 2008.

On February 2, 2008 I received two letters from Litton. The first letter states the amount I sent is not enough to pay the full amount due at this time and home is still in the process of foreclosure. The second letter states I now need to pay an initial contribution of the amount equal to one mortgage payment and two months of mortgage payments.

I have left several messages again, with no call back. All of these calls are documented in your records, as they are in mine. The customer service provided to me has been less than adequate. Let this letter serve to document my request to have my communications responded to in a timely manner.

As well as keeping extensive personal records, I am documenting this process on a watchdog website called loansafe.org.

I can be reached at XXX-XXX-XXXX whenever a customer service representative wishes to contact me. My email address is [e-mail] and is the best way to contact me.

I understand that under Section 6 of RESPA you are required to acknowledge my request within 20 business days and must try to resolve the issue within 60 business days.

Sincerely,

[Generic Other]

156. Thanks! Rule of law and due process works both ways

Banks don't make ALL the rules. They aren't always the boss of me!

I recall reading that some DUer (sorry I forget who it was who posted this) whose house was in foreclosure demanded to see the note and the bank suspended the foreclosure process, so it apparently does work sometime.

[FirstLight]

19. what about those who paid and got screwn anyway?

My sister is one of those...I am suggesting she pull out her paperwork again and cancelled checks and get a lawyer...she may have had her house taken illegally...

In fact, everyone who lost their house should do the same! ....lock up the banks in litigation and TAKE IT ALL BACK!!!!!

[EFerrari]

22. There have been cases of foreclosures where there wasn't even a mortgage.

The industry is completely out of control.

[FirstLight]

24. my sis and her hubby had that house for 12 years

they even tried to go through the Obama Admin mortgage program and were derailed there too...

i'm thinking that this was yet another way the game was rigged so they could say, "see, obama didnt HELP those people, that policy FAILED"

I sent her an email and told her to go for it and see if she can get something going...Retribution, man.

[EFerrari]

26. I don't think the banks care who is president. This is a hold up.

I hope she does explore every avenue at her disposal.

Chase stole one of my family's properties and they're fixing to steal another one. They sign you up for a modification and then just string you along until time runs out. The bit of research I did turned up the same story all over the country.

[DirkGently]

122. That's because the program(s) aren't mandatory. Asking them nicely will never work.

[spin]

28. Examples can be found at ...

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/09/man-without-mortgage-loses-home-in-foreclosure/

[DirkGently]

130. A short-sale error. Still a lender's goof, but not a foreclosure "without" a mortgage.

"Short sales" are where a lender agrees to take essentially a crammed-down amount to satisfy a mortgage, based on market value.

These deals are typically closed within weeks or days of a scheduled foreclosure sale by the distressed borrower / seller.

Because the lenders, courts and foreclosure firms are in such chaos, the lenders and their counsel fail to stop the foreclosue sale (based on the *seller's* mortgage). Dept. A. of the lender makes a deal to satisfy the mortgage through the short-sale, but Dept. B, which is running the foreclosure doesn't get the message. Or, Dept. B gets the message, but fails to tell foreclosure counsel. Or, foreclosure counsel actually gets the message, but can't stop the sale because Clerks of Court are so overwhelmed that you can no longer just call and postpone a sale.

Typically the lender will be required to fix the situation, which isn't too complicated as long as the lender was the buyer at foreclosure.

It's another case of lazy / sloppy / irresponsible lender conduct, but it is not a case of lenders or lawyers committing a deliberate fraud. The lender typically gets much more out of the short sale it would by foreclosing, and has no motive to deliberately foreclose on the new owner.

[Old and In the Way]

25. A slightly different question.

I have a mortgage dating back 10 years. It was sold to HSBC a few years later. While I have a reasonable mortgage payment and not close to 'going under', is there somekind a 'Proof of Title Lien' doc that I can ask for? The ultimate horror story would be to pay one bank for 30 years, only to find out that they didn't have clear title to your property.

[DirkGently]

115. They don't have title. You have title, subject to the mortgage lien. All you need the lender to do

is record a Satisfaction of Mortgage once they're paid off.

Lost in the heated talk about this stuff is that there is no evidence, whatsoever, of new / different entities coming after people after they have paid off their loan.

Whether or not ownership of the debt can be properly proven in court when they go to foreclose is a different question, and it's possible something intersting may come out of that. But the lenders themselves are not at all confused about who owns what.

If you are worried your lender doesn't hold your debt, contact whoever you're paying and ask to see the note.

[Old and In the Way]

127. Thanks for the response!

I suppose that would be the easiest solution...asking for a copy of note....there must also be some kind of transfer document that shows HKSBC purchasing said mortgage lien from the originating bank.

[DirkGently]

128. Ask for that too. Should be an "Assignment of Mortgage," and likely an endorsement of the Note.

Have you checked the property records to see if there's something of record? They do sometimes still do that. Often the Clerk of Court's website will let you search recorded documents. Assignments of Mortgage are typically abbreviated as "AM."

Good luck.

[Statistical]

129. That is the big question.

What makes it more confusing is that there are two entities.

1) mortgage servicer - company you send the check too who mails statements, processing escrow, collects payments, send out taxes, etc.
2) mortgage owner/lender - company who owns the note.

Sometimes 1 & 2 are the same company. Sometimes 1 changes but two doesn't. Sometimes 2 changes but 1 doesnt.

Some companies are both. For example Bank Of America uses other servicers for some of its loans, it also is a servicer to other lenders loans, and for some loans is both the owner & servicer.

To my knowledge without a lawyer there is no way to request a "chain of custody" to show the change in ownership of your loan.

The system is woefully inadequate. Hopefully the crisis will result in legsilation giving home owners more rights not to illegal get rid of a debt but to protect their interest.

[Klukie]

27. I had one the other day....

It didn't spark much interest http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9331578

[EFerrari]

39. I see a number of people came down on the side of faith based

mortgage payments. Wall Street thanks them. :)

[ThomWV]

29. Because you agreed to pay someone, and it don't make a hoot in hell if its the wrong person

if you contract (mortgage) required you to flush the money down the toilet once a month you'd still have to do it no matter where the sewer line ran.

[Greyhound]

33. Oh no, it makes all the difference in the world.

If after all this settles out, you find you've been paying the wrong person you could well end up still owing all you paid to the wrong person.

If I loaned you $1,000 and you pay back it to your neighbor, you still owe me (at least) a grand.

[EFerrari]

34. Except, contracts don't say that.

They specify who you have to pay and why and name the debtor and the terms. Contracts have all kinds of restricting descriptions on them to avoid going to court with a cloudy claim.

The thing is, when these @ssholes decided to bundle risky mortgages, their greed blinded them and they forgot to secure their assets with clear transfers of title. They did it to themselves.

Congress will likely pass a bill to make their thievery retro but for now, their behinds are hanging out there in the wind -- as far as I can tell, anyway, and I'm an English teacher, not a lawyer.

[Bigmack]

45. English teacher?.... that outranks lawyer! nt

[uncommon]

125. Ding ding ding - you win!

[Greyhound]

32. Interesting. How about if people, instead of paying the mortgage servicers,

started paying into an escrow to be released only upon settlement of clear title?

[EFerrari]

38. If a goodly number of people just asked to verify the note holder

that might do it, right there.

The administration is not going to help us on this. We have to do this on our own.

[Greyhound]

40. Yes we do.

Lawyers suck, but they're far better than the alternative.

[Statistical]

61. Paying into an escrow doesn't satisfy the terms of your mortgage.

Very horribly dangerous advise. Once a loan defaults the credit can demand full balance and usually does so via foreclosure.

There is no "do over" if it turns out you are wrong. You can't just make the missing payments up and pretend nothing happened.

[Greyhound]

147. No it doesn't, but that is completely beside the point of the OP.

And it wasn't advice.

[flvegan]

47. Sure, if you've done your full title search and notice issues

why not take your chances, right?

Oh yeah, cuz it's dumb.

[yurbud]

49. your credit rating

[customerserviceguy]

51. While foreclosure moratoriums may indeed provide free housing

for a few more months for some people, have no illusions that the mortgage involved was recorded in the office where deeds are also recorded. A certified copy of such an instrument is just as valid in court as the original.

Two and a half decades of title insurance experience taught me that.

[ljm2002]

53. I've been toying with the idea...

...of opening an escrow account and paying into that, while demanding that my current mortgage holder produce the note.

[DirkGently]

54. At the risk of becoming the Official Buzzkill of this thread, DO NOT TRY THIS.

Who is telling people this will work? It won't. Even IF any of this "all these mortgages are unenforceable" stuff pans out, that would be the worst possible way to pursue it.

If you really think your mortgage is unenforceable, look into it, make inquiries with the lender, get counsel, and then, IF you're convinced you're right, sue the lender. If you default on the mortgage, you are instantly betting your house, your credit, and your money that you can beat the bank. If the bank is right, there's no going back and resuming payments. The lender will demand the entire amount of the debt, plus ridiculous "default rate" interest, plus legal fees, to reinstate the mortgage.

Ask yourself: Are you ready to be sued right now? Are you prepared to either litigate your own case, or pay legal fees -- and we are talking about thousand of dollars, just to start -- try 20 or 30 grand to litigate something fully? If asked under oath, did you receive the money? Did you buy your house with it? Did you sign a mortgage?

This is NOT something you want to try just to see what will happen.

[EFerrari]

68. No one is telling anyone this will work or to do this.

But in #30, there's a link to asking your lender to verify your debt.

[DirkGently]

77. A much better place to start.

[ljm2002]

73. I wouldn't do it lightly...

...on the other hand, considering my mortgage keeps getting sold out from under me, I do want to know that I am paying an entity who really does own it. Otherwise, conceivably, I am throwing my money down a rat hole and won't own the title when all is said and done. Why should I continue to blindly do that?

Once enough of us lose faith in the system, it's busted. It cannot work without the good faith of society as a whole. The banksters and the fraudsters on Wall Street have stretched that faith to the breaking point. And Congress already tried to sneak a bill through that makes it harder for us to fight foreclosures -- trying to get rid of those pesky requirements by the states that the owner of the loan be able to produce the signed paperwork.

Oh well, rules and regulations are only used to keep the little guys in line. They certainly aren't meant to rein in the practices of the big guys.

[DirkGently]

78. All true. Just bear in mind a default puts you in the heart of their sandbox.

[Statistical]

58. Your lender can still come after your for:

a) late fees
b) any collection fees
c) capitalized interest (your escrow account will be earning <1% and you loan will be racking up 6% in interest)
d) legal fees and if go long enough court fees

not to mention once you hit 30 days later they will destroy your credit.

Now if it turns out your mortgage holder doesn't have a note then maybe you win but what happens if they do but it takes them 18 months to produce it.

By now if your mortgage is $1000 you have $18K in an account but you are $35K behind on your mortgage and looking at foreclosure.

Best case scenario you only lose $17K to get current plus damage your credit will do to your wallet over next decade.
Worst case scenario you lose your house.

[guardian]

56. Please listen

to the responses. This OP is completely wrong. Get legal advice first. Do NOT listen to the OP.

[Bigmack]

60. I wasn't giving advice...

I said... "Why should I send money to people who may or may not have the deed to my house?"

That's not advice... it's a question.

The question stands...

Incidentally... when are you going to pay me that $100 you owe me? I lost the IOU... it must be here somewhere. Send me a C-note and I'll forget the 10% interest I was charging.

[muriel_volestrangler]

74. Just because they don't have a lien on your house, that doesn't mean you don't owe them money

The various companies may have screwed up transferring the lien between them, but that doesn't alter the fact you owed one company money, and they then legally transferred that debt to another company. What it may mean is that your debt is not longer secured on your home. So, if you default on the debt, they may not be able to seize the house to get their money back. But they can still have a judgement that makes you bankrupt, and takes any other money you have; they just won't get the home. It's not worth being made bankrupt just to screw the companies a bit. If you have already fallen behind in payments, because you can't pay, and someone is sending ominous letters about foreclosure, then it's worth asking them to produce the mortgage note.

[Bigmack]

75. An answer! Thank you.... nt

[EFerrari]

76. Asking to verify the note may be done independent of any other

consideration. While you make payments, after being behind a bit, in foreclosure. I don't believe asking to verify the note is a hostile action in of itself, especially if you're in the hands of a lender who took over your note in the last two or three years. It is a strategy that some are using to slow down a foreclosure but that's only one use of the information.

[ms.smiler]

63. I think every homeowner owes it to themselves to check on their mortgages

Don’t rely on a single thing your mortgage servicer tells you, and yes, all they have is the right to service your mortgage. Our government holds nearly all mortgages.

Dig out all your mortgage papers and take them to a professional. Well, surprise, surprise, there is likely fraud in your mortgage subject to Treble damages. It only takes $35.00 to violate Federal law. It's possible that someone owes you more money than you owe to them.

You won’t know this though unless someone checks.

Next step is a QWR. The step after that is likely a Quiet Title action and there are attorneys who will accept 30% of the value of your property if they are successful and that is likely less than the amount of your mortgage.

Two years ago I started researching these issues. I talked to my son about mortgages and foreclosures over those two years. The more I understood, the more I had to share.

I shared with him the problems that arise in foreclosure actions. I shared with him the many court rulings against MERS. I shared with him the activities of document and foreclosure mills, including those under investigation. I shared with him what I understood of the securities fraud on Wall Street and how that directly related to our mortgages on Main Street.

I also shared with him the many techniques that servicing companies use to manufacture and trigger supposed mortgage defaults with the homeowners that were making their payments.

The most recent thing I shared with my son is my attorney contact information. His servicing company finally got around to his mortgage which he faithfully pays every month. They doubled his payment in an effort to manufacture or trigger a default.

Don’t make your payment and someone will file a foreclosure action against you.

Make your payment and someone will eventually manufacture a supposed default so they can foreclose.

Ask yourself, do you have a mortgage or a scam?

[DirkGently]

83. The government owns most mortgages? Payments are randomly doubled? Lots of bad info here.

[ms.smiler]

97. Mortgage servicers will misallocate payments in escrow accounts

Mortgage servicers will “lose” mortgage payments and declare a default.

Mortgage servicers will drop PMI insurance in favor of much more expensive insurance which the homeowner is expected to pay.

Mortgage servicers will tell homeowners they must not make mortgage payments for 3 to 4 months in order to be considered for HAMP.

Mortgage servicers have little regulation or oversight and consumers are at a great disadvantage.

http://moneywatch.bnet.com/investing/blog/make-money/foreclosure-fraud-how-you-can-be-driven-to-default-even-if-you-pay-on-time/544/

The GSE’s hold about 99% of all mortgages and the Federal Reserve has over 1 trillion in mortgage backed assets.

http://www.oftwominds.com/blogoct10/foreclosure-collapse10-10.html?source=patrick.net

My son’s payment which doubled, included additional monies supposedly needed for taxes and either $600 or $800 for something that none of us could identify. I don’t think my son even inquired about it. He promptly phoned my attorney, made an appointment and met with her.

Given what he had learned from me, I suspect he knew better than even try to deal with his mortgage servicer.

DirkGently - I read that you have experience in the Title insurance industry but do you have any current experience or knowledge of the modern day mortgage industry? Your view of securitized mortgages and present day mortgage management strikes me as rather quaint.

Fannie Mae's look up tool for both my address and my sons show it owns loans at our addresses while both our mortgage servicing companies have proclaimed that they own our mortgages.

The MERS database shows our servicing companies as the Servicer and Fannie Mae as the Investor.

Our local county records show only the original mortgage with the loan originators.

So, who owns our mortgages?

No wonder Title companies are examining their possible liabilities.

[Soral]

69. and us renters can just suck sh*t?

I mean really... what about us?

I was GONNA buy a house, but thought better, hey, a 0% ARM doesn't sound like a great idea... let me READ FIRST.

[mzmolly]

92. You'll be in a great position to buy when property values

continue to tank. You'll get in at bottom dollar prices. ;)

[Skittles]

101. same here

I was in a position to buy a house in the past few years but didn't because I refused to buy an OVERPRICED HOUSE

[PufPuf23]

95. Bad for you unless most mortagees follow same plan.

In mass, a national mortgage strike could reset the system and force a redistribution of wealth acquired by evil actions of an aristocracy of money, family, and crony.

A mass mortgage strike would could be a quiet and non-violent revolution if the government and business was forced to get real for the People.

This needs more thought.

[shimmergal]

98. Yes--interesting to

speculate about in the abstract.

And what if sheriffs' departments started refusing to enforce mortgage evictions? I doubt the banksters would take "2nd Amendment methods" into their own hands to do so. Paper shufflers donn't fancy having to fight for "their" money...

Actually I don't think enough people are enraged enough about the concentration of wealth for this to work, yet. Oh, the rage is there, but it's been deflected via Tea Party rallies and other stuff. Hmmm.

[socialist_n_TN]

168. See my post #167...........

I posted it in this thread before I read your response. There are some thoughts about a national mortgage strike there.

[Hamlette]

96. In case you are wondering, the banking/mortgage industry is yawning over this

and he's why: there is a legal principle known as "unjust enrichment". When you signed you loan you agreed they could take your house if you didn't pay them back. Mortgage backed securities were sold hither and yon but you are not going to get your house for free because some paper work was not done correctly.

I know this is not a popular opinion here but lets say you had some right at stake. Say your spouse dies and you find out your marriage license was not filed correctly. Do you lose all rights to inheritance? To retirement benefits? To the life insurance? No. AND if someone told you you did because some functionary screwed up the filing you'd be outraged.

This is not even a blip in the banking world. (I know, I live with someone in that world and when I asked him what about this, after he said "what foreclosure problem" he said, oh, yeah, some titles got screwed up, no biggie."

No free lunch, no free house.

[DirkGently]

114. Equitable lien / vendor's lien works pretty well, too.

[Hamlette]

123. indeed

actually, I should say "I'm sure you're right" as my knowledge of property law goes back 36 (ack) years to my first year of law school.

[uncommon]

126. +1000000000000000000

[taught_me_patience]

164. Man this post is so true

Many DUers seem to be hoping that a "technicality" is going to allow them to have a free house. They are almost as delusional as the tax evaders.

[AngryAmish]

103. A mortgage is a lending contract secured by physical real estate.

If they don't have the mortgage note they still have contract that says you borrowed x dollars at such a rate.

So they sue you on the lending contract and get a judgment for breach of contract. Then they go to court to enforce the contract, one of the remedies includes...selling your house.

[lunatica]

112. Therein lie the horns of the dilemma

If you pay your mortgage is it going to the legitimate holder of the mortgage note or just to line the pockets of crooks? If you want to sell you're screwed and if you want to buy you're screwed.

I wonder if my payments are just going down a toilet. It feels like suddenly stepping into quicksand. There's no win in this situation.

[lumberjack_jeff]

117. You're demonstrating the main problem with the systemic failure.

The connection between trust and obligation is broken.

You signed an agreement with someone promising that you'd repay the money they loaned you to purchase your house. You don't trust that the person to whom you made your promise is still in the loop, or in fact still exists, so your perceived obligation to honor that promise is diminished.

That's not really an epiphany, it's an angle.

It is possible to hold two simultaneous views; a) the mortgage system is fundamentally messed up, and b) I promised the bank I'd repay the loan. I'll keep sending checks to whomever that bank requests until my personal obligation is satisfied.

[hugo_from_TN]

118. These suggestions remind me of the "Income Tax Illegal" folks

They convince people that the income tax is unconstitutional and that nothing can happen to them if they don't file with the IRS. Of course, they are nowhere to be found when the person who took their advice is sent to prison.

[hugo_from_TN]

121. My reasons for paying my mortgage.

I understood the condition of the home and the market. I negotiated a price I was happy with. I negotiated the conditions of the loan and signed my name promising to satisfy the terms of the contract or forfeit my home. I consider keeping promises one of my core values that makes me happy with myself.

[uncommon]

124. How about because you have a moral and contractual obligation to pay back monies lended?

I work in bk law and deal with foreclosures all the time so I understand the issues, but what it comes down to for me is that people who borrow money understand that they are required to pay back that money, regardless of whether they borrowed in a favorable climate or not.

[Generic Other]

149. I had the same epiphany and got trashed by fellow DUers

I think all of us should ask for a copy of the note with the next mortgage payment. If they can't produce it, we have some leverage. If they do produce it, they better have dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's, because if they don't have the paperwork done exactly right, the ball is in my court.

I learned this at the hands of corporate America. They always say show me the receipt when I try and get refunds. Guess they need to do it too. No paper trail, no money trail.

And yes, the amount of money my house has decreased in value is about the same as the amount I still owe on it. Even steven.

[Scruffy1]

166. It seems like the ultimate hypocrisy to me

That we on the "liberal" side have to be oh so scrupleous when dealing with a bunch of murdering stealing thugs. This is all the ruling class is in America. I think the only people that make money on houses are banksters and wall street scam artist who are allowed to lie, cheat and steal with impunity. Any of these bastards in jail? But I know of dozens who were victims of this systemic fraud, and many are now on the street, while the uberwealthy are getting ready to get together at Rancho Mirage to see if they can find another dime to fuck us out of.
As you found out DU'ers can have knee jerk reactions too. I remeber the first day the Breitbart shit on Acorn hit. DUers wer ready to hang them before they got the facts.

[geek tragedy]

153. Because no court is going to allow you to have a free house

because of paperwork issues.

When in doubt, use common sense.

[Generic Other]

161. see post 84...a number of courts have sided with homeowners

have you missed the news stories on these rulings? This is the reason we are all having this discussion.