RE: Squatter and the unclear house title
January 26, 2013 at 9:34 pm
(This post was last modified: January 26, 2013 at 9:35 pm by Autumnlicious.)
I hope not.
Banks have been losing paperwork and attempting to seize homes, often in bad faith. There was one well documented case of a bank (BofA I think) that foreclosed on a house the owners had bought with cash up front. They (the home owners who won after expensive litigation) even got the go ahead from the courts to seize assets of the local bank branch as compensation (before the bank very quickly paid up after stonewalling them for months).
I know people who are dealing with the issue of the bank attempting to foreclose on their home at the moment. Despite losing a fair majority of the paperwork, having questionable standing, not having their refinanced loan entered into the financial system (lien search providers), losing the deed of trust (which is a standard for which loans of this nature are secured), and filing in the wrong jurisdiction, the legal case has managed to cost the home owners well over 15,000$. They're living in a massively reduced quality of life, all because the current note holder has enough cash reserves to draw this out longer and longer.
And last I heard, their loan provider kept on refusing to place their loan under HAMP, which is all they wanted from the first place. I've forwarded them advice from my business contacts who know good legal representation, but it is costing them arms and legs.
Frankly, with respect to banks on cases like this, fuck them.
A bank should be held to a much higher standard, not a lower standard.
They clearly have the resources to create a well documented case if they did their due diligence and upkeep on records.
If they did not, they should suffer the consequences of bad business decisions and poor record keeping, not the occupant or unfortunate home owner.
Banks have been losing paperwork and attempting to seize homes, often in bad faith. There was one well documented case of a bank (BofA I think) that foreclosed on a house the owners had bought with cash up front. They (the home owners who won after expensive litigation) even got the go ahead from the courts to seize assets of the local bank branch as compensation (before the bank very quickly paid up after stonewalling them for months).
I know people who are dealing with the issue of the bank attempting to foreclose on their home at the moment. Despite losing a fair majority of the paperwork, having questionable standing, not having their refinanced loan entered into the financial system (lien search providers), losing the deed of trust (which is a standard for which loans of this nature are secured), and filing in the wrong jurisdiction, the legal case has managed to cost the home owners well over 15,000$. They're living in a massively reduced quality of life, all because the current note holder has enough cash reserves to draw this out longer and longer.
And last I heard, their loan provider kept on refusing to place their loan under HAMP, which is all they wanted from the first place. I've forwarded them advice from my business contacts who know good legal representation, but it is costing them arms and legs.
Frankly, with respect to banks on cases like this, fuck them.
A bank should be held to a much higher standard, not a lower standard.
They clearly have the resources to create a well documented case if they did their due diligence and upkeep on records.
If they did not, they should suffer the consequences of bad business decisions and poor record keeping, not the occupant or unfortunate home owner.
Slave to the Patriarchy no more
