Banks lose important ruling on foreclosures Top Massachusetts court voids foreclosures on two homes
NEW YORK — In a decision that may affect foreclosures nationwide, Massachusetts' highest court voided the seizure of two homes by Wells Fargo & Co and US Bancorp after the banks failed to show they held the mortgages at the time they foreclosed. Bank shares fell, dragging down the broader U.S. stock market, after the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts on Friday issued its decision, which upheld a lower court ruling.
The unanimous decision is among the earliest to address the validity of foreclosures done without proper documentation. That issue last year prompted an uproar that led lenders such as Bank of America Corp, JPMorgan Chase & Co and Ally Financial Inc to temporarily stop seizing homes.
"A ruling like this will slow down the foreclosure process" for banks, said Marty Mosby, an analyst at Guggenheim Securities. "They're going to have to be really precise and get everything in order. It doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room."
Wells Fargo and U.S. Bancorp lacked authority to foreclose after having "failed to make the required showing that they were the holders of the mortgages at the time of foreclosure," Justice Ralph Gants wrote for the Massachusetts court.
HOT DANG!!!! Homeowners: 1 ; Banks: 0 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's about time the homeowners caught a break and the sleaze-merchants took one in the shorts while trying to robo-screw them. "A ruling like this will slow down the foreclosure process" for banks." I bloody-well hope so! It looks like they're going to have to back up and actually DO the due-diligence that's required instead of just rubber-stamping them!
Analysts said the decision may also threaten banks' ability to package mortgages into securities, and may raise the specter that loans transferred improperly will need to be bought back.
"What they were doing was peddling these mortgages and leaving the paperwork behind," said Michael Pill, a partner at Green, Miles, Lipton & Fitz-Gibbon LLP in Northampton, Massachusetts, who represents homeowners and is not involved in the case.
The banks bought the Springfield, Massachusetts, homes in foreclosure, and sought court orders confirming they had title. A lower court judge ruled against them in March 2009, and Friday's decision upheld this ruling.
"It is the first time the supreme court of a state has looked straight at securitization practices and told the industry, you are not immune from state statutes and homeowner protections," Paul Collier, a lawyer for Ibanez, said in an interview.
"I'm ecstatic," Glenn Russell, a lawyer for the LaRaces, said in an interview. "The fact the decision applies retroactively could mean thousands of homeowners can seek recovery for homes wrongfully foreclosed upon."
Analysts said the decision will make it harder and more costly for banks to foreclose, and weigh on their share prices and perhaps even the nation's economic recovery.
[Oh, BOO-friggin'-HOO.....][/quote
Ooopsie....
"Make it harder and more costly for banks to foreclose"?!?!?!? Perhaps the ones like BofA, and some of the others that were SUPPOSED to work out mortage-modifications, (while lying to the homeowners and telling them that it was "being processed" while they were selling it out from under them), might have to actually DO mortgage modifications. And in the long-run, it may prove less costly to keep the homeowners IN their homes instead of just flipping them.
My new mortgage I got in July was already sold to someone else by the end of the month. Having Fannie and Freddie available to pick up any bad loans you want to clear out of your portfolio just means the taxpayers will wind up paying for the deadbeat homeowners.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
Nice generalization... But if the loan belongs to a bank, and was packaged, and now the bank has to buy it back, or convert it to a mortgage-modification, it has nothing to do with the taxpayers... But hey, you got to use the word "deadbeat" in a sentence! (Almost as good as "Pelosi"!... Now, if you can work "socialist" in there somewhere, you might get a double-word score!)
LadyJazzer wrote: Nice generalization... But if the loan belongs to a bank, and was packaged, and now the bank has to buy it back, or convert it to a mortgage-modification, it has nothing to do with the taxpayers... But hey, you got to use the word "deadbeat" in a sentence! (Almost as good as "Pelosi"!... Now, if you can work "socialist" in there somewhere, you might get a double-word score!)
Since these bad banks were bailed out by Bush & Obama and the American taxpayers paid for it, it does have something to do with the taxpayers.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
That's IF that particular loan was packaged into a package owned by one of the investment groups. Not every loan was owned by a bank in default; not every loan was due to a "deadbeat"; and not every loan was somehow a burden on taxpayers.
Like I said, nice generalization... But if the loan belongs to a bank, and was packaged, and now the bank has to buy it back, or convert it to a mortgage-modification, it has nothing to do with the taxpayers... But hey, you got to use the word "deadbeat" in a sentence! (Almost as good as "Pelosi"!... Now, if you can work "socialist" in there somewhere, you might get a double-word score!)
I love how you clowns can use your sweeping generalizations to lump all situations into your stock drivel.
Here is a real good one for you to check out. I've been quite involved helping people understand the foreclosure laws. There are Federal Laws that must be followed and the banks have pretty much gotten away with too much in Non-Judicial states. Colorado is a Judicial - Non-Judicial state so both laws apply. Just to let you know state judges are elected and can receive contributions for their elections. Where Federal Judges are appointed and have no contributors to answer to, such as banks, wall street, and large corporations that have contributed money to get him elected. They go by the law and uphold the law. So just for thought it's from what I see better to take your foreclosure out of county court and put in Federal court where they have to answer your questions.
Questions such as: Where's my note? Isn't it stated by Federal law that the Note holder must be the one to foreclose on the property? What about the Fraud that was preformed when you didn't tell me who owns my note? Violations from MERS? Violations from securities exchange? TILA violations? Robo signing? Violation of procedures?
I could go on and on with all the violations and Fraud and Down right Thievery!
SS109 wrote: The banks mentioned in the article were bailed out.
"In a decision that may affect foreclosures nationwide"... Funny, I didn't see anything in the article that said that the ONLY banks and/or loans affected were the ones specifically mentioned in the article.... Did you? If that's what you're implying, do you have a source for that?
Also, the banks mentioned have already BEEN bailed-out. If they have to buy back some of these loans, they'd better do it out of the money they've already been given. I don't think Congress is going to approve more bailout money because the bank didn't properly do due diligence on its investments.
