Bagels at a Bar mitzvah Part II

C

cookiemom

LoanSafe Member
I have not found any attorney that practices BK that agrees with my reopening. I have more to respond and update ypu both on. I just took a personal day today away from all this. Christmas crafts and santa visit
 
C

cookiemom

LoanSafe Member
moretrouble said:
Helpful videos from a consumer atty firm in Florida. These vids deal with credit card debt collections but subprime mortgages are the equivalence of charged-off credit catd debts. Mortgage servicing rights owners like NewRez are the equiv. to junk debt buyers, and the original credit card companies (Chase, Capital One, etc...) are the equiv. to subprime trusts or the mortgage originators. Same strategies could be applied.

Click to expand...
I second what kraftk says...heloc even if viewed as credit in some aspects (I had a physical card), I've repeatedly read that it's a secured "debt". What you argue, is it's a nonnegotiable note if it's been scrutinized or through assignment.

A new legal theory is trending contending
lenders do not have standing as a holder for
HELOCs and reverse mortgage loans, since
the notes are not for a fixed sum of money
rendering them non-negotiable instruments.
Typically, with a HELOC loan, there is
a line of credit and the borrower can withdraw funds up to the maximum amount, as
needed. Most HELOCs contain the following
or similar language, “borrower promises to pay
to the order of the lender the principal sum of
(maximum credit limit), or so much thereof as
may be disbursed to, or for the benefit of, the
borrower.” In Third Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn of
Cleveland v. Koulouvaris, 247 So. 3d 652, (Fla.
2d DCA 2018); the Court of Appeals found,
“The HELOC note failed to require the payment of a fixed amount of money, making it a
nonnegotiable instrument.” Another Florida
case found the same, saying, “the original
credit agreement executed by borrowers was
a nonnegotiable instrument because it was
not for a fixed sum of money …” Chuchian
v. Situs Invs., LLC, 219 So. 3d 992, (Fla. 5th
DCA 2017). The same reasoning was used in
Nebraska and Indiana finding HELOCs are
non-negotiable instruments.
As with the HELOCs, a New York appellate
court similarly found reverse mortgages are a
loan securing the repayment of a home equity
line of credit and held “several provisions of the
Cash Account Agreement (reverse mortgage
document), read in context of the agreement as
a whole, provides compelling evidence that, it is
not, and was never intended to be, a negotiable
instrument. The Cash Account Agreement does
not constitute a negotiable instrument within
the meaning of UCC 3-104. Therefore, the
plaintiff cannot establish its standing merely by
demonstrating that it was in possession of the
original Cash Account Agreement, endorsed in
blank, at the time the instant action was commenced.” One West Bank v. FMCDH Realty,
Inc., 165 A.D. 3d 128, (NY. 2d Dep’t 2018).
When a court finds the note to be non-negotiable and holder status was plead, the case
may be dismissed,
 
C

cookiemom

LoanSafe Member
Survivor_IN said:
actually its called "original jurisdiction"
and the bk is the "original complaint"
Click to expand...
I'll have to dig into this more. Bk codes are tricky. They are defined one way but it's another if a judge goes that way. I mean section 350(b) makes perfect sense...I even have an appraisal from then. If allowed though. It may open pandora's box for the bk courts. Cases like mine are popping up all over since these heloc' are reaching that 15/20 yr old mark
 
S

Survivor_IN

LoanSafe Member
cookiemom said:
I'll have to dig into this more. Bk codes are tricky. They are defined one way but it's another if a judge goes that way. I mean section 350(b) makes perfect sense...I even have an appraisal from then. If allowed though. It may open pandora's box for the bk courts. Cases like mine are popping up all over since these heloc' are reaching that 15/20 yr old mark
Click to expand...
I got caught on the meaning of original jurisdiction in appeal court. Yes, BK may reference differently.
 
C

cookiemom

LoanSafe Member
Thoughts? Below are not my words.

Working Theory —Breakthrough
If the FDIC Safe Harbor Act, Legal Isolation states, loans sold and securitized before a Receivership, Conservatorship or Bankruptcy are legally isolated and out of reach from the receivership, conservatorship or bankruptcy.

With Fannie Mae under Conservatorship since September 7, 2008, this would mean all loans sold and securitized before any receivership, conservatorship or bankruptcy are legally isolated and out of reach of the Conservatorship/Receivership and are all unsecured debts.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/housing-clash-coming-involving-two-154516884.html
 
S

Survivor_IN

LoanSafe Member
cookiemom said:
Thoughts? Below are not my words.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/housing-clash-coming-involving-two-154516884.html
Click to expand...
" The larger housing market makes things even more complicated. In December 2020, the National Association of Realtors (NAR) reported a record-low housing supply of 1.9 months. "

THIS IS WHY FORECLOSURE MILL ATTORNEYS ARE GETTING AGGRESSIVE!
They have waited for the recovery and pricing to increase, now with a shortage in inventory, they are motivated to flip or obtain housing for rental markets. Never mind that certain legal causes or opportunities have expired due to statute of limitations. It's all in the plans, no matter how its explained to investors.
 
C

cookiemom

LoanSafe Member
Survivor_IN said:
" The larger housing market makes things even more complicated. In December 2020, the National Association of Realtors (NAR) reported a record-low housing supply of 1.9 months. "

THIS IS WHY FORECLOSURE MILL ATTORNEYS ARE GETTING AGGRESSIVE!
They have waited for the recovery and pricing to increase, now with a shortage in inventory, they are motivated to flip or obtain housing for rental markets. Never mind that certain legal causes or opportunities have expired due to statute of limitations. It's all in the plans, no matter how its explained to investors.
Click to expand...
So really nothing would void the foreclosure based on that article...?
 
S

Survivor_IN

LoanSafe Member
cookiemom said:
Working Theory —Breakthrough
If the FDIC Safe Harbor Act, Legal Isolation states, loans sold and securitized before a Receivership, Conservatorship or Bankruptcy are legally isolated and out of reach from the receivership, conservatorship or bankruptcy.

With Fannie Mae under Conservatorship since September 7, 2008, this would mean all loans sold and securitized before any receivership, conservatorship or bankruptcy are legally isolated and out of reach of the Conservatorship/Receivership and are all unsecured debts.
Click to expand...
I'll try this one again. Yes, technically yes.
In practice? Ummmmm.

The whole point of securities were to be bankruptcy remote and tax free. Did they succeed at this? That would be a resounding NO. Do they have valid securities? NO. Can they prove ownership? Unlikely. Your mileage may vary taking it to court. I believe these loan funded? "trusts" have no legitimate claims by transferring (pre-BK) loans after the lender's bankruptcy (the originator) because it is no longer bankruptcy remote and free from seizure against the originator (a condition to make them retirement quality?). Even weirder, to make the game play out longer, big originators staved off bankruptcies by MONTHS to get those last deals inked out of the pipeline and into production and sale.

But who's secured debt are you talking about? This might make a difference in the answer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top