Daily Caller: One Nation, Under Fraud (Friendly Warning: The Foreclosure Mess is About to Get a Lot Worse, and That Will Affect You) (New Update in Post #508)

[Fergasun]

This is potentially huge, but the biggest risk right now is that no one knows what the damage or impact will be. The talking point being advanced is that these are a bunch of people who took out loans on homes they couldn't afford. However, that glosses over all the legal and contractual requirements that are the bedrock of properties law.

Read this NYT Article:

Her file was pulled, more or less at random, by Thomas A. Cox, a retired lawyer who volunteers at Pine Tree. He happened to know something about foreclosures because when he worked for a bank he did them all the time. Twenty years later, he had switched sides and, he says, was trying to make amends

..

.All of this is largely because Mr. Cox realized almost immediately that Mrs. Bradbury’s foreclosure file did not look right. The documents from the lender, GMAC Mortgage, were approved by an employee whose title was “limited signing officer,” an indication to the lawyer that his knowledge of the case was effectively nonexistent. Mr. Cox eventually won the right to depose the employee, who casually acknowledged that he had prepared 400 foreclosures a day for GMAC and that contrary to his sworn statements, they had not been reviewed by him or anyone else.

...

It has been two years since she last paid the mortgage, which surprises even her lawyers. “Had GMAC followed the legal requirements, she would have lost her home a long time ago,” acknowledged Geoffrey S. Lewis, another lawyer handling her case.

...

Fannie Mae and GMAC, which serviced the loan for Fannie, have now most likely spent more to dislodge Mrs. Bradbury than her house is worth. Yet for all their efforts, they are not only losing this case, but also potentially laying the groundwork for foreclosure challenges nationwide.

I don't know what the solution is here. Do the homes revert back to the person who sold it because no one can prove that there was a mortgage? If the mortgage goes poof, can't the seller claim fraud on the bank? Will the banks have to eat the losses because they committed fraud here?

[twa]

The mortgage only goes poof in Hubbs dreams

The issue is not the mortgages,but rather the legal transfer of them.

The courts can certainly throw things into a tailspin,but it will only add costs and delays,not change the debt/lien.

It will of course open up legal action by the purchasers and keep the lawyers and courts busy.

Not that those facing foreclosure will mind

[Hubbs]

Really, an Op-Ed piece is now posted as a 'real, truth containing article'?

This supposition is just as bad as someone quoting Glenn Beck or Keith Olbermann in a story and presenting it as fact.

*sigh*

Have you actually read the damn article? The op-ed part isn't where the claims are made. I've been following this story for a long time. The article just sums everything up rather nicely.

We are going to the 5 dollar menu either way. That should have been obvious from day 1.

Erm... no, Bernanke is going to be fighting deflation. The fact that he wants to turn it into inflation is his choice and his choice alone.

As I said in my thread, it was the solution to get this economy booming immediately. Don't believe for a second that Bernanke is some financial genius because of his title. Nor because of his education. There are others out there with nearly, if not an even better educational background, that can make much better decisions. They just don't seek office. Was Zorn a great football coach? Cerrato a good GM? But Ben is great, right?

At least I agree with you there.

Faulty reasoning there,while there are legal problems with many foreclosures there remains a mortgage.....delay does not change reality nor ownership.....a last resort would be fed buyout of the mortgages(which we already see)and they are perfectly capable of asserting property liens.

You will find a resolution come thru govt intervention and of course record fines.

(as we continue to monetize the debt and flirt with inflation)

Jesus ****ing Christ, does anyone want to comment on the issue after reading the damn article?

The papers were destroyed. The papers were destroyed. The papers were destroyed.

The papers were ****ing destroyed. There is no more mortgage for people to pay.

[Peter's post

You keep saying "the last person with proof."

Nobody has proof. Nobody.

You're right that the courts will decide that the last entity with proof of being owed money will get the payments.

You keep assuming that someone has that proof.

Nobody has that proof.

So proving ownership comes down to the same way you prove that you own a hammer, or a fan, or a bottle of beer.

Do you have a piece of paper saying you own those things? Or do you just own them?

[Ferg's post]

Thank you. That's all I'm trying to say. The bedrock of property law is being violated. That's not going to keep happening much longer. And when it stops, the banks will be destroyed.

[twa]

Thank you. That's all I'm trying to say. The bedrock of property law is being violated. That's not going to keep happening much longer. And when it stops, the banks will be destroyed.

Wanna bet the govt provides a escape clause?...at a cost of course.

The banks will not be allowed to go down as long as the govt exists.....laws are for the little people.

[Hubbs]

Wanna bet the govt provides a escape clause?...at a cost of course.

The banks will not be allowed to go down as long as the govt exists.....laws are for the little people.

Tell me the escape clause. Tell me what it is.

"Borrowers owe banks the amount they borrowed"? Okay, which banks? Who do they owe? Can you tell me? Can anyone tell me?

When you can successfully answer that question - and nobody, not you, not the best lawyers in the world, not bank executives - can do that, then you'll have yourself a law.

Until then, the only recourse is printing money to bail out banks. Which is what will happen.

[Goaldeje]

I keep trying to wrap my pea brain around the implications of all this. Of course, I immediately jumped to how it impacts me and my mortgage. But if what you are saying COULD happen, happens, the banks involved in all this are going down. Not slightly affected, but they are completely screwed, right? And if that happens, I assume that IRAs and 401ks and all that will be wiped out as well? And since they are FDIC insured, the govt prints money to guarantee everything. But if that happens, massive inflation.

So really, a massive financial meltdown could hinge on how well congress and the govt handles things? And given that Congress already tried to sneak one bill by that Obama vetoed...

Great.

I understand McD's point, which in retrospect, IF all this happens, may have actually made some sense? Weird.

So what's the likelihood of all this happening? Scale of 1-10?

[Hubbs]

I keep trying to wrap my pea brain around the implications of all this. Of course, I immediately jumped to how it impacts me and my mortgage. But if what you are saying COULD happen, happens, the banks involved in all this are going down. Not slightly affected, but they are completely screwed, right? And if that happens, I assume that IRAs and 401ks and all that will be wiped out as well? And since they are FDIC insured, the govt prints money to guarantee everything. But if that happens, massive inflation.

So really, a massive financial meltdown could hinge on how well congress and the govt handles things? And given that Congress already tried to sneak one bill by that Obama vetoed...

Great.

I understand McD's point, which in retrospect, IF all this happens, may have actually made some sense? Weird.

So what's the likelihood of all this happening? Scale of 1-10?

McD's point is if this all happens, the government will print money to cover it. Which is correct. Ben Bernanke has told you what he will do. Repeatedly. What he will do is print money.

Do you want to hold that money, instead of holding the foodstuffs that jump up in value? Is that the best investment decision for you? Is that the best investment decision for Americans in general? What do you suggest if Bernanke turns into MdD5?

[Goaldeje]

Well, it's too late to implement McD's plan anyway, isn't it? I mean, Betts is on the Saints no... oh, wrong plan.

We already had the bank bailout, which in light of this information if accurate, looks like an even bigger failure than we all thought originally.

Seems to me that if the article is true, we're GONNA have inflation. So at that point, I would rather own my house free and clear I suppose.

Was that what you were asking?

How else can the government **** this up?

[Hubbs]

Well, it's too late to implement McD's plan anyway, isn't it? I mean, Betts is on the Saints no... oh, wrong plan.

We already had the bank bailout, which in light of this information if accurate, looks like an even bigger failure than we all thought originally.

Seems to me that if the article is true, we're GONNA have inflation. So at that point, I would rather own my house free and clear I suppose.

Was that what you were asking?

How else can the government **** this up?

It's never too late to implement McD's plan.

The government will print money when all else fails. All else is failing. So the government will print money, Get ready for TARP 2.0, disguised as something else. Yes, we're GONNA have inflation. Even if we have deflation first, which the government will deem as okay. That's what happens when you solve a financial crisis with printed money.

[Goaldeje]

What are the other options?

[PeterMP]

*You keep saying "the last person with proof."

Nobody has proof. Nobody.

You're right that the courts will decide that the last entity with proof of being owed money will get the payments.

You keep assuming that someone has that proof.

Nobody has that proof.

So proving ownership comes down to the same way you prove that you own a hammer, or a fan, or a bottle of beer.

Do you have a piece of paper saying you own those things? Or do you just own them?

If somebody challenges my ownership of them, the courts are going to look at the preponderance of evidence to make decisions on ownership.

After your original thread on this topic, I actually talked to my lawyer about this (if I can get out of paying a huge chunk of money it was at least worth looking at), and his point was really simple. If you force this to court, you can't prove that you own the house, and it is really easy to prove that you don't.

There are public records on the cost of the house. Your bank records will show that you don't and never had that much money. You have to have borrowed money to buy the house.

No matter what evidence anybody else shows up with, it is going to be more evidence then you can show up, and the person with the most evidence supporting their claim is going to win.

That person may or may not be the actual holder of the mortgage, but it isn't going to be the person living in the house either.

You can cause the banks a lot of headaches and maybe the threat of forcing legal action will cause them to give you a break on the mortgage, but you can't prove the house is yours.

From your piece:

"Does that mean that Jeffs is finally in the clear? Not exactly. “Quite often, what happens in these cases is the bank creates new documents to fix the old documents,” said Goldman. “One of the most common things we see is a paper with a notary stamp that gives the bank the legal authority to foreclose. Well, anyone can buy those stamps. I can buy those stamps. A lot of what’s going on is law firms desperate to win a case are hired by banks who don’t know what those law firms are up to. Then the bank thinks it can foreclose, even though other banks also think they have that right, and those banks might not figure out what happened for a long time because the system is absolutely overloaded with foreclosures. And even if they do figure it out, suing to repossess a property that another bank already sold is a long and arduous process. So you wind up with a scenario in which the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing.”"

You are NOT in the free and clear as the home owner. The banks have a mess on their hand, and the system ends up going through a long and slow process to determine what bank actually has control of the property based on the evidence.

But as a homeowner, you are still out.

If you own a home, and the mortgage has been sold, you should worry about if your payments are going to the proper place. You should make sure that the company that you think holds your mortgage (or is managing it) has the proper paper work. My lawyer is actually working on it now for me. Because if not, some bank you are unaware of might decide to try and foreclose (and like I said before, if they do and they have the right paper work, you can try and go after the bank you have been making payments to for fraud, but good look with that.).

But telling people that if there is confusion over which bank owns their mortgage that they are going to end up with the house in the free and clear is just wrong and to suggest that it is a good idea for people to stop making payments to try and force the issue is a HUGE mistake because based on the perponderance of evidence a court is rarely going to find that you own a house that you haven't paid for (you should keep track of your payments so that IF/WHEN you have paid off the mortgage that you can prove it in case there is an issue going forward) when there is evidence that you didn't have the money to buy it at the time, and you can't provide any evidence of having paid for it.

Telling people that don't own a house and have no way of proving that they own a house that they should stop making payments because the bank might not be able to prove that they own it and they are in the free and clear is as bad as telling people to stop paying their income taxes because the income tax is illegal.

In most cases, you, as the home owner, is going to lose. You might cause a mess for the banks and the bank that actually owns the mortgage might end up screwed, but SOME bank is going to end up owning the house based on the preponderance of the evidence, and if that isn't the bank you have been making payments to, then you, as the home owner are going to be in even more trouble.

You'll never own the house. You'll never be in the free and clear. You'll never be able to sell it or leave it as part of an estate. At best, you'll live there paying legal fees to fight the banks instead of your mortgage until a process is put in place that allows somebody based on the existing evidence to foreclose on you.

[Forehead]

Read the article, definitely scary. My mortgage payments go to U.S. Bank Home Mortgage, though I believe Freddie Mac actually owns it. Could be wrong about that, but when I was looking into refinancing, I thought I found out that Freddie Mac actually held it.

It's sad...I keep the last three years of paperwork (until I recently went paperless) showing that I make mortgage payments on time, and have the withdrawals from the bank to prove it. You would think that would be enough, but I guess not.

I suppose if worse comes to worse and I get screwed, we can always move in with my father, he owns his place free and clear and has the title.

*Edit* Is Virginia a court-required state or not?

[gbear]

Ironically, I see this thread and immediately think investing in stocks may be prudent, especially stocks of large companies with balance sheets likely to be able to ride out a storm where credit is tight to nonexistant. I agree w Peter MP that stopping payment would be foolish (wonder about squatters rights for those who have been there for years)...but I'm also not sure we won't end up with the Fed ultimately having to take a saving roll again in getting this paper to match the electronic, and I could certainly see such an endeavor taking a lot of recently printed or clicked into existance cash. That would still cause inflation, but I think we are in for some regardless with the debt we will have to run anyway due to promises our government has already made.

If inflation hits in a big way, the money sitting in a bank will become worth less than it was yesterday. Money in bonds will probably not make a huge amount compared to inflation. It will be based on the inflation risk of yesterday or last month or... Commodities will shoot up. Because the value of a meal is what people can afford and the value of gold is kind of the inverse of the value of all countries currency. So it may seem like commodities are the smart pick...except everyone has been buying these for more than a year now. Many have been saying these are overvalued now by the people who have been predicting disaster since the first crash.

Companies actually making the stuff people want should find the value of what sell go up with inflation. The price to earnings ratio should still hold as an accurate gauge of the value of a company, and I would think this would hold true. So with the deflation, there may me a temp "drop" in the price of a stock as their sales drop, but on the flip side when the inflation starts in a big way, the stock prices should jump. Am I wrong in thinking this through on a 5 to 10 year plan for where to put savings to maintain at least relative buying power of what I put aside? The irony is stocks are usually considered the risky approach to saving.

[Hubbs]

What are the other options?

The other option is to let the deflation happen.

Bernanke won't do that. He's told you that he won't do that. Emphatically. If you won't want to listen, you're going to lose when he does what he will do.

[Peter's post

Again, your lawyer is operating with assumptions that are wrong, and I can prove it.

You own your house. Just like you own the aforementioned hammer, or bottle of beer. Your bank will be able to prove that it loaned you the money to pay for the house. But your bank will also say, unless it wants to commit obvious perjury which everyone will see through, that it sold off your mortgage in virtually every case, and was therefore paid. You don't owe your bank. You owe a different bank. And that different bank can't prove it. You're not committing perjury when you say you don't know if that bank is the one you owe, because that's the truth. No one does. Not even that bank. That bank is committing perjury by saying that it knows, and very soon everyone will know that it's doing so.

gbear's post

You're starting to get it. But you're not getting it fully. Commodities are the big winner. Stocks won't advance as much. It's the same point that Peter wants to make with me in the wealth thread, that investing in cash during deflation isn't as good as investing in a claim on cash plus interest in a bank. Well, sure. I never said otherwise. But you'd better be damn sure the bank will be able to pay you the cash plus interest in order for it to be a better investment.

Stocks will rise. Just not as much as commodities, due to the chaos that will exist within the economy.

[AsburySkinsFan]

This seems like the classic loose thread on a sweater scenario, the more you pull the more it all unravels. Does anyone else get the feeling that this will be larger and have a much greater impact than the intitial collapse?

And is the government just going to tell the banks that since they can't prove they are owed the money then they have no right to compensation? Or is this why the gov't is going to buy up more of the toxic mortage bundles?

I know this is big, but I simply can't get my head around how big, or how this is gonna actually conclude, and I guess that's what worries me.

[PeterMP]

Again, your lawyer is operating with assumptions that are wrong, and I can prove it.

You own your house. Just like you own the aforementioned hammer, or bottle of beer. Your bank will be able to prove that it loaned you the money to pay for the house. But your bank will also say, unless it wants to commit obvious perjury which everyone will see through, that it sold off your mortgage in virtually every case, and was therefore paid. You don't owe your bank. You owe a different bank. And that different bank can't prove it. You're not committing perjury when you say you don't know if that bank is the one you owe, because that's the truth. No one does. Not even that bank. That bank is committing perjury by saying that it knows, and very soon everyone will know that it's doing so.

Your are wrong right off the bat.

I own the hammer partly because nobody else can prove that they had anything to do with buying it.

As soon they prove that they loaned me the money, and I can't prove that I didn't pay them for it, then I don't own the hammer or the house.

The bank that loaned me the money might not own the house, and nobody else might not be able to prove that they own the house right away, but that doesn't mean that ownership defaults to me.

The people that are living in these houses that are in foreclosure limbo can't sell these houses. You'll read about people that will claim they are great in shape and haven't paid a mortgage payment for X years.

If they own them, why don't the sell the homes? Why do they keep having to go to court with the banks and paying legal fees?

Most of these cases are being dismissed by the courts without giving the person living there ownership of the property (e.g. most of the cases are dismissed without prejudice (and you can bet the few that have been dismissed with prejudice will be appealed and the banks will quickly stop doing the things that were getting them dismissed with prejudice)), and I don't think even having the case dismissed with prejudice puts you in ownership of the house.

It just means that particular bank can't sue you for foreclosure any more (though I'd like to see a lawyer here comment on that).

I'll bet you still couldn't sell that house.

It's the same point that Peter wants to make with me in the wealth thread, that investing in cash during deflation isn't as good as investing in a claim on cash plus interest in a bank. Well, sure. I never said otherwise. But you'd better be damn sure the bank will be able to pay you the cash plus interest in order for it to be a better investment.

And if the bank can't pay me the money and the government won't through FDIC, then the cash you have is as worthless as the money the bank can't give me. You are no better off than me.

And you are going to have the same problems with commodities in terms of "ownership" of homes because of the "electronic" ownership, and commodity prices aren't going up because people are holding more of them, but because of the "electronic" holdings.

[TMK9973]

You own your house. Just like you own the aforementioned hammer, or bottle of beer. Your bank will be able to prove that it loaned you the money to pay for the house. But your bank will also say, unless it wants to commit obvious perjury which everyone will see through, that it sold off your mortgage in virtually every case, and was therefore paid. You don't owe your bank. You owe a different bank. And that different bank can't prove it. You're not committing perjury when you say you don't know if that bank is the one you owe, because that's the truth. No one does. Not even that bank. That bank is committing perjury by saying that it knows, and very soon everyone will know that it's doing so.

.

I'm REALLY sturgling with this part. So your saying the bank would say "We sold it and don't own it" so the courts will have to conclude that they bank doesn't own it and doesn't know who does.

but if it just takes the banks word (or doc) that says we sold it and was paid then they can say who they sold it to. In addition - I would assume there was another bank that says "We bought it". Sure -The papers were not signed correctly, or were lost...but the bank says they sold it to us, and we say we bought it. Do I have the papers to prove it? Nope. So If I can't prove it then the bank still owns it....

According to you the bank can prove they sold it but can't prove to who? that makes no sense. Eaither their proof is good enough or it's not. If its not good enough, the courts rule that the bank still owns it. if it is good enough, then its done.

I'm with Peter here -I don't see how any of this ends with me having a house free and clear.

[twa]

I'm REALLY sturgling with this part. So your saying the bank would say "We sold it and don't own it" so the courts will have to conclude that they bank doesn't own it and doesn't know who does.

but if it just takes the banks word (or doc) that says we sold it and was paid then they can say who they sold it to. In addition - I would assume there was another bank that says "We bought it". Sure -The papers were not signed correctly, or were lost...but the bank says they sold it to us, and we say we bought it. Do I have the papers to prove it? Nope. So If I can't prove it then the bank still owns it....

According to you the bank can prove they sold it but can't prove to who? that makes no sense. Eaither their proof is good enough or it's not. If its not good enough, the courts rule that the bank still owns it. if it is good enough, then its done.

I'm with Peter here -I don't see how any of this ends with me having a house free and clear.

Me either, when a mortgage is taken out a lien is filed...till that is released you do not own the property(no matter how many times or to who the lien is sold.)

Far as I see this is nothing but problems with filing foreclosure

[Predicto]

So what's the likelihood of all this happening? Scale of 1-10?

On a scale of 1 to 10, ten being most likely?

I'm guessing about .001 But that's just me. Peter MP is right. The mortgages are not just going to vanish.

[Predicto]

Telling people that don't own a house and have no way of proving that they own a house that they should stop making payments because the bank might not be able to prove that they own it and they are in the free and clear is as bad as telling people to stop paying their income taxes because the income tax is illegal.

In most cases, you, as the home owner, is going to lose. You might cause a mess for the banks and the bank that actually owns the mortgage might end up screwed, but SOME bank is going to end up owning the house based on the preponderance of the evidence, and if that isn't the bank you have been making payments to, then you, as the home owner are going to be in even more trouble.

Yep. In many ways, this discussion reminds me of the one we had a few years ago, where many posters were convinced that they could buy and circulate their own "Liberty Dollars" as currency. It relies on a series of very unrealistic assumptions at the very beginning.

[techboy]

On a scale of 1 to 10, ten being most likely?

I'm guessing about .001 But that's just me. Peter MP is right. The mortgages are not just going to vanish.

Predicto's number sounds about right to me.

A factor that seems to be ignored in all this is that the U.S. courts have a long and storied tradition of pragmatic decisions that might or might not be 100% accurate by the strict letter of the law or Constitution.

[DjTj]

Your are wrong right off the bat.

I own the hammer partly because nobody else can prove that they had anything to do with buying it.

As soon they prove that they loaned me the money, and I can't prove that I didn't pay them for it, then I don't own the hammer or the house.

The bank that loaned me the money might not own the house, and nobody else might not be able to prove that they own the house right away, but that doesn't mean that ownership defaults to me.

The people that are living in these houses that are in foreclosure limbo can't sell these houses. You'll read about people that will claim they are great in shape and haven't paid a mortgage payment for X years.

If they own them, why don't the sell the homes? Why do they keep having to go to court with the banks and paying legal fees?

Most of these cases are being dismissed by the courts without giving the person living there ownership of the property (e.g. most of the cases are dismissed without prejudice (and you can bet the few that have been dismissed with prejudice will be appealed and the banks will quickly stop doing the things that were getting them dismissed with prejudice)), and I don't think even having the case dismissed with prejudice puts you in ownership of the house.

It just means that particular bank can't sue you for foreclosure any more (though I'd like to see a lawyer here comment on that).

I'll bet you still couldn't sell that house.

If it's dismissed without prejudice, the same bank can still initiate proceedings against you if they find some new evidence.

If it's dismissed with prejudice, that means the same bank can't come after you again. But another bank could.

A dismissal does not give you clear title to the house, and it's not likely to stop future lawsuits. You can keep living in your house, but it will be very difficult to sell your house without clear title, and the banks will keep trying to harass you with legal action. Maybe if you're lucky, you can settle the case in a way that gets you a lower mortgage payment - or maybe you can agree to a short sale of some kind.

All of those options are probably better than trying to litigate. Your legal fees are going to start looking a lot like your mortgage payments, and if you can afford that, you're probably better off paying your mortgage.

[Chachie]

That means that homeowners are going to be looking at a greatly decreased value of the dollars that they'll be demanding Congress ensure they can still withdraw. Actions have consequences. Sometimes the consequences aren't immediate, but that doesn't mean that the consequences won't happen. In this case, homeowners are going to want to own their homes free and clear while simultaneously wanting their deposits to be backed up. Who wouldn't want a free house? But that means the dollars in those deposits will have to be devalued. No such thing as a free lunch (or a free house).

So stop paying the mortgage and empty the bank account?

[Hubbs]

This seems like the classic loose thread on a sweater scenario, the more you pull the more it all unravels. Does anyone else get the feeling that this will be larger and have a much greater impact than the intitial collapse?

And is the government just going to tell the banks that since they can't prove they are owed the money then they have no right to compensation? Or is this why the gov't is going to buy up more of the toxic mortage bundles?

I know this is big, but I simply can't get my head around how big, or how this is gonna actually conclude, and I guess that's what worries me.

You're right about the "loose thread" part. You're not right about what the government is going to say. The government is going to say what it's always said - that borrowers owe money to who they borrowed from, and who they borrowed from owes money to who the loan was sold to. Well, the bank money was borrowed from is no longer owed money. And nobody can prove that the bank that's no longer owed money owes money to Bank X. So the lending bank won't be forced to pay, unless you think judges are going to pass a law saying that lending banks owe money to a different bank picked completely at random.

Your are wrong right off the bat.

I own the hammer partly because nobody else can prove that they had anything to do with buying it.

As soon they prove that they loaned me the money, and I can't prove that I didn't pay them for it, then I don't own the hammer or the house.

The bank that loaned me the money might not own the house, and nobody else might not be able to prove that they own the house right away, but that doesn't mean that ownership defaults to me.

The people that are living in these houses that are in foreclosure limbo can't sell these houses. You'll read about people that will claim they are great in shape and haven't paid a mortgage payment for X years.

If they own them, why don't the sell the homes? Why do they keep having to go to court with the banks and paying legal fees?

Most of these cases are being dismissed by the courts without giving the person living there ownership of the property (e.g. most of the cases are dismissed without prejudice (and you can bet the few that have been dismissed with prejudice will be appealed and the banks will quickly stop doing the things that were getting them dismissed with prejudice)), and I don't think even having the case dismissed with prejudice puts you in ownership of the house.

It just means that particular bank can't sue you for foreclosure any more (though I'd like to see a lawyer here comment on that).

I'll bet you still couldn't sell that house.

And if the bank can't pay me the money and the government won't through FDIC, then the cash you have is as worthless as the money the bank can't give me. You are no better off than me.

And you are going to have the same problems with commodities in terms of "ownership" of homes because of the "electronic" ownership, and commodity prices aren't going up because people are holding more of them, but because of the "electronic" holdings.

I really don't understand why we're arguing, because you're saying the same thing that I'm saying, yet somehow reaching the opposite conclusion.

Yes, it can absolutely be proven that homeowners owe somebody. But it can't be proven which somebody they owe. Which means that courts will be forced to rule that they don't have to pay.

I'm not the one saying this. The Supreme Court has said this. Repeatedly. It has ruled that a note can't be separated from a mortgage. It has ruled that other rulings which say that homeowners have to pay Bank X because it's been proven that they merely owe somebody aren't rulings at all. It has ruled that real estate debt has to list a specific owner of that debt.

I don't know what else I'm supposed to tell you. Of course banks can prove that money was lent out. They can't prove who ultimately has to be paid back, and that's the crux of the issue.

I'm REALLY sturgling with this part. So your saying the bank would say "We sold it and don't own it" so the courts will have to conclude that they bank doesn't own it and doesn't know who does.

but if it just takes the banks word (or doc) that says we sold it and was paid then they can say who they sold it to. In addition - I would assume there was another bank that says "We bought it". Sure -The papers were not signed correctly, or were lost...but the bank says they sold it to us, and we say we bought it. Do I have the papers to prove it? Nope. So If I can't prove it then the bank still owns it....

According to you the bank can prove they sold it but can't prove to who? that makes no sense. Eaither their proof is good enough or it's not. If its not good enough, the courts rule that the bank still owns it. if it is good enough, then its done.

I'm with Peter here -I don't see how any of this ends with me having a house free and clear.

Right. Either their proof is good enough or it's not. I'm telling you that their proof isn't good enough. The banks have no ability - none whatsoever - to prove than a mortgage was sold from Bank X to Bank Y. But Bank X does have the ability to prove that it was paid what it was owed. It just doesn't have the ability to prove who paid it - or, in most cases, who paid the bank that paid the bank that paid the bank that paid Bank X. Nobody knows who owns these mortgages. Nobody. Banks are arguing that they do, and I'm telling you that there arguments are invalid, and more and more judges are waking up to this fact. The banks have no legal standing whatsoever. They don't own mortgages. They own nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Me either, when a mortgage is taken out a lien is filed...till that is released you do not own the property(no matter how many times or to who the lien is sold.)

Far as I see this is nothing but problems with filing foreclosure

Yeah, that's what banks are saying too. Only problem is that they're wrong.

A lein is filed, yes. The lein says the owner of the mortgage has the right to foreclose. So tell me who owns the mortgage. Can you? Can anyone? (Hint: The answer is no.)

On a scale of 1 to 10, ten being most likely?

I'm guessing about .001 But that's just me. Peter MP is right. The mortgages are not just going to vanish.

Yes. They are.

Yep. In many ways, this discussion reminds me of the one we had a few years ago, where many posters were convinced that they could buy and circulate their own "Liberty Dollars" as currency. It relies on a series of very unrealistic assumptions at the very beginning.

Tell me the unrealistic assumptions, and I'll tell you why they're not unrealistic at all.

As far as I can tell, the only assumption being made is that banks can't prove who owns the mortgage. I'm telling you that that assumption is correct. You keep saying everything that flows from that assumption is incorrect. And I keep saying that everything that flows from that assumption is correct if the assumption is correct.

Proving that homeowners owe somebody isn't enough. You have to prove who they owe. Banks can't do that. Period.

Predicto's number sounds about right to me.

A factor that seems to be ignored in all this is that the U.S. courts have a long and storied tradition of pragmatic decisions that might or might not be 100% accurate by the strict letter of the law or Constitution.

Courts have relied on another long and storied tradition even more. That tradition is property rights.

[Hubbs]

If it's dismissed without prejudice, the same bank can still initiate proceedings against you if they find some new evidence.

If it's dismissed with prejudice, that means the same bank can't come after you again. But another bank could.

A dismissal does not give you clear title to the house, and it's not likely to stop future lawsuits. You can keep living in your house, but it will be very difficult to sell your house without clear title, and the banks will keep trying to harass you with legal action. Maybe if you're lucky, you can settle the case in a way that gets you a lower mortgage payment - or maybe you can agree to a short sale of some kind.

All of those options are probably better than trying to litigate. Your legal fees are going to start looking a lot like your mortgage payments, and if you can afford that, you're probably better off paying your mortgage.

Right. So tell me who "another bank" is. And tell me how that bank can prove it has the right to foreclose.