This is just disgusting.

May BOA rot in Hell.

Hasn't this happened before, about a year ago?

Multiple times. Not always BAC. JPMorgan has more of a reputation for literally getting the wrong house. In this case, of course, there's no such mistake with it being the wrong house, it's just.....EVIL.

I suppose the moral of the story is here: Don't ask; don't tell.

Quote:

So unless some kind sole comes up with the 24k we are now behind on our mortgage payments, we will most certainly, within the next few months lose our home to the Banksters of America.

if you mortgage your house, it is not yours until you satisfy the loan.
If you don't pay for it, they have a legal right to foreclose.
Not sure why that is hard to understand.

They may bulldoze it, and they will still be liable for the loan because they destroyed to collateral behind it.

The guy is not an firefighter. It says his business went under and his wife got a job which is the income they live off. If he was a firefighter all he would have done is worked a day of overtime a week and he could have paid for it.

Quote:

In 1990 Robert’s father (Ronald) bought a small 1.3 acre parcel of land, on which he planned to build a small 820 sq foot 1 bedroom 1 bath retirement cabin. Robert was excited for his father, who slowly, was building the home “out of pocket” (no loans) on weekends. Some six years later, and nearing completion of his dream home ..sadly.. Ronald passed away. Robert could not bear to have the home and property…slip away. He was determined to finish the home that his dad had so wanted. But, in order to buy out his sisters half of the estate and finish the home …Robert took out a loan against the value the property.

I am sure his father is very proud.

A woman I work with has gone through a similiar situation with Citibank. She got laid off (was the main breadwinner) from her job in CT, they applied for a modification, and they've gone around in circles with Citi for nearly 18 months. They've refaxed the same paperwork to them 20 times. Every time Citi tells them they didn't recieve it, or there was something wrong with it, etc.

Her husbands father is a lawyer, so with his help her husband finally filed a pro se suit against Citi and took it pretty far with them. Citi routinely didn't show up for hearings, etc.
But due to the risk of her and her husband having to pay Citi's costs (which will be enormous) if they lose at trial they're now caving in, they just don't have deep enough pockets.

The foreclosure is currently suspended but after the case is settled it's likely to go through.

What I'm wondering is if the % equity in the home is what causes these big banks to foreclose more readily. The woman I work with has nearly 50% equity in it (they did a lot of improvements to it themselves). The people in these articles also did a lot themselves.

I wonder if the banks are cherry picking it and foreclosing on the ones where the owners have a high equity percent so that when the bank sells the property they have a good chance of getting their loan amount back (and the homeowner loses all their equity).
If they foreclose and sell a home with little or no equity in it they're probably going to take a loss, as the sales price will likely be far less than the outstanding loan.

LQ

LQ - Yes. If there's equity they're foreclosing immediately - even if you just enquire about a modification, and that is what these people did.

127 wrote..

If you don't pay for it, they have a legal right to foreclose.
Not sure why that is hard to understand.
They may bulldoze it, and they will still be liable for the loan because they destroyed to collateral behind it.

Apparently you don't read here much in Foreclosure. Chances are #1 BAC doesn't have this loan, which means they don't have any such right to foreclose and #2 since when is attempting to see if you qualify for a modification supposed to result in default?

You're advocating for an entity that has no more right to foreclose on anyone than cops have to shoot your dog, or TSA has to grab your nuts.

pika, I understand all about the issues with loan ownership and transfer of deed and such. But these folks are not trying to qualify for a modification, they are 24k late in mortgage fees. This was not because they "inquired about a loan modification" as you implied, it is because they are 24k behind on payments.

On a house that was built 90% with no debt in 1990 by his father, they mortgaged it to the hilt to "add on" in 1996, and 15 years later can not pay for their debt. As a father who is building a cabin with no debt, by the sweat blood and money as it becomes available I would be furious if my children did this after I died.

But for them to decide to bulldoze it instead of letting the bank get the collateral is equally stupid. The house is the collateral on the obligation, bulldizing the house just leaves them 100% personally liable for the debt instead of being able to just walk away.

I feel no sympathy for these leeches.

They upgraded a 900 square foot home to 1200 square foot using a loan in 1996, that should have been what, 30k .. at most? But somehow they cant pay for it 15 years later? I bet they maxxed out the equity (the fathers sweat equity that is) and borrowed heavily from the atm .. now they are*****ing and moaning they have to pay it back?

127001:
The banks will not even "discuss" a mod with you unless you are behind on your payments first. And, they tell you this up front. You want a "mod", then you need to stop paying, period. Doesn't matter that you dropped 20% down. Doesn't matter that you have made every payment on time in the past. Doesn't matter if you're livng on 10% the income you used to make now or not.
The squeaky wheel gets the grease, period, end of story. And then, they will do whatever they can to **** you anyway.
Been there, done that, I speak from experience.

BOA took me out rather quickly, after I stopped paying. They did not have any skin in the game, and so started piling on the fees. Freddy Mac, who had gotten the loan from CFC, moved rather quickly, even though the then-current LTV was 300%. I think they wanted to stop paying BOA.

It was not worth fighting, as I wanted to move anyways.

@127001: If banks don't have to follow the law, why should the homeowner? Are you just another "sucker" for the criminal banksters to fleece? I'm not, and god bless this bad ass, bull dozin mother f*****, who is a patriot, fighting for his country, and risking his property and his liberty!

Give me liberty, or give me death - F*** the bankster criminals!

jesus chist.

ok then, burn it all down. **** it, let's all live in anarchy.
no one twisted their arm to borrow that money.

everyone here wants to bitch about FSA, but when it hits close to home they shut right up. What a bunch of Hippocrates. What part of they owned land and a house free and clear but decided to ATM it to death and borrow to the point they could not repay it and got ****ed because of their OWN bad choices are you guys missing?

127001:
If you had screen caps proving that YOUR loan was sold off to more than one lender, what would you do?
Just curious, mind you...

My loan was transferred from Sun Trust to someone else to someone else to someone else to JPMChase. I have seen my note in MERS.

I still pay the same bill $ amount I agreed to 10 years ago. They don't bother me. I *did* agree to the terms.

Any idea of how much sweet sweet equity they mined from this place?

Sure smells like FSA.

Lake County, CA, won't share the full docs out on the internet, but I smell serial a serial refinance here.

http://www.co.lake.ca.us/Residents/Recor....

Quote:

Grantor	 Grantee	 Recorded Date	 Doc #	 Doc Title
SOMERTON RHONDA	 SOMERTON ROBERT	 6/16/1997	 1997009163	 DEED
SOMERTON ROBERT	 TRI COUNTIES BANK	 6/16/1997	 1997009164	 DEED OF TRUST
SOMERTON ROBERT	 TRI COUNTIES BANK	 8/6/1999	 1999013588	 DEED OF TRUST
SOMERTON ROBERT	 SOMERTON ROBERT	 1/16/2001	 2001000830	 DEED
SOMERTON ROBERT	 UNION BANK	 1/31/2001	 2001001872	 DEED OF TRUST
SOMERTON ROBERT	 INVESTORS TRUST MORT & INVESTMENT	 8/13/2003	 2003023106	 DEED OF TRUST
SOMERTON ROBERT	 TRI COUNTIES BANK	 9/15/2003	 2003027024	 SUB/RECONVEYANCE
SOMERTON ROBERT	 CHASE MANHATTAN BANK	 1/9/2004	 2004000740	 DEED OF TRUST/REQUEST
SOMERTON ROBERT	 NORTHERN PACIFIC MORT	 9/9/2005	 2005026957	 DEED OF TRUST
SOMERTON ROBERT	 SOMERTON ROBERT	 9/9/2005	 2005026956	 DEED
SOMERTON ROBERT	 RECONTRUST	 9/23/2005	 2005028549	 SUB/RECONVEYANCE
SOMERTON ROBERT	 TRI COUNTIES BANK	 11/17/2006	 2006030360	 DEED OF TRUST
SOMERTON ROBERT		 9/17/2007	 2007021837	 NT COMPL
SOMERTON ROBERT	 B A C HOME LOANS SERVICING AKA	 5/17/2011	 2011006925	 ASGMT TR D
SOMERTON ROBERT P	 TRI COUNTIES BANK	 7/1/2002	 2002014221	 DEED OF TRUST
SOMERTON ROBERT P	 TRI COUNTIES BANK	 9/2/2003	 2003025727	 SUB/RECONVEYAN

Need more detail on this one.

I'm no fan of the banks, far from it. But the article makes an attempt to portray these people as victims of the banks even though they may be more victims of their own behavior. The article implies that they did everything 'right'. I don't think we have the whole story here, but it looks like they did like a lot of other people and pulled a bunch of equity out to spend on who knows what.

There is a comic hostility to Somerton's anger against those awful banksters here.

Dollars to donuts, I bet it's redirected shame and guilt for mining all of the sweet equity from his dad's dream pad.

BTW, the house also had leins on it from a lumber company. Looks like dad cut it a little close, too.

FSA! FSA! FSA!

I hate the banksters and the TBTFs, but those who knowingly signed up for loans they couldn't repay or to just use as an ATM are just as guilty in all of this (I think this has been said before earlier in this post). Whatever happened to personal responsibility? We know there was fraud in terms of ownership of mortgages, but noone forced those who took out these loans to do so.

127001: You probably would have been with the 2/3 of americans who were on the side of the English, in 1776. That's OK - not everyone "gets it" - they didn't then, and they don't now. But what's comin is comin, so deal with it.

And for any others siding with the criminal financial services industry that RULES this country: Don't tread on me - you'll lose!

Funny thing...logically as far as responsible borrowing, etc., I have to agree with the one-two-seven...whatever number dude. But considering all the other incriminating evidence against the pinko fed bankster cocksucking ****tards, at the end of the day, I'm inclined to go with the Halfwit approach. I mean, seriously, **** it. At some point you've done enough deliberating and it's time to just open up the peripherals and pull the ****ing trigger, figuratively speaking.

By the way, you can't make initial post with the characters 127XXX in the text...kind of funny never new about that. That's why I wrote "one-two-seven..." instead of "127...whatever" as originally planned.
I guess this is why:
http://www.google.com/search?q=127001....