MOST POPULAR ARTICLES
CLICK HERE TO GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION REPORT
TARGET AUCTIONS, ACHILLES HEAL OF THE SECURITIZATION SCAM
EDITOR’S ANALYSIS: The occupiers have the right target. Shining a light on the auctions will not only reveal deficiencies and illegalities — it will reveal the essential vulnerability of the entire securitization scam.It is at the auction when they can no longer play shell games and where they have committed themselves as to the identity of the creditor, the amount due and their own status in the transaction. The deed issued from a foreclosure sale names a specific party and that cannot be redone — but it can be overturned.
Each “bid” must either be in cash or it can be a ” credit bid.” The credit bid can’t be by just anyone claiming to be a creditor. The credit bid must come from THE secured creditor on the loan for the house and cannot exceed the amount due from the borrower. AND it must be the same “creditor” that foreclosed. If they don’t fulfill the criteria, then the sale is a sham and MUST be overturned by the Court. In all cases reviewed by our team the bid was submitted as a credit bid and in nearly all cases the bid was submitted by a party who (a) wasn’t a creditor or (b) wasn’t the same party who foreclosed or both.
The bid process is pretty clear-cut. If you bid, and you win the auction you are required to pay in cash unless it is a bona fide credit bid. If they want to bid more than the debt they alleged is owed they must do it in cash. If they bid less than the amount they claim as due, then they have admitted that the property is worth less than the loan and they are asserting a value based upon current data. Thus once the credit bid is made, you may have very clear cut grounds for stating that the foreclosure was wrongful.If the homeowner submitted a modification offer that was turned down, then you can use that against the bidder if certain conditions are met. If the modification offer was worth substantially more than the bid, which is unusually the case, then you can attack the so-called creditor for failing to consider the modification offer. This argument is getting increasing traction around the country. As far as I can tell these lawsuits are settled promptly and confidentially, thus far. We will see what happens as the numbers increase. But Judges like settlements and modifications. The HAMP requires “consideration” but does not require acceptance. By presenting a prima facie case from their own actions, you force them to come up with a reasonable business purpose for taking less money at the auction than they could have received from the homeowner.Once you are in court, you should start discovery early as to their status as a creditor and as to the loan status. If behind the scenes payments reduced the balance due to the creditors (investors) you catch them flat-footed — but I have never seen a case that didn’t settle on highly favorable terms to the borrower where the borrower prevailed in getting an order requiring the so-called creditor to respond to discovery that even got close to these points.
Occupy LA protesters now battling foreclosure auctions – Los Angeles Times
http://www.justiceunited.net/2011/12/occupy-la-protesters-now-battling.html
Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud Tagged: Auction, bankruptcy, borrower, countrywide, creditor, disclosure, foreclosure, foreclosure defense, foreclosure offense, foreclosures, fraud, LOAN MODIFICATION, modification, quiet title, rescission, RESPA, securitization, TILA audit, trustee, WEISBAND
