Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: paul61 who wrote (81860)	10/21/2011 11:02:02 AM
From: TobagoJack	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217620

Something quite funny, but too true, so tragic, just in in-tray Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling - The Lawyers Are Ecstatic Ramsey Su Oct 2011 Here are a couple of articles on the Mass SJC ruling, rendered this week. boston.com bloomberg.com This is my summary of the sequence of events: Borrower borrowed mortgage from lender. Lender sold or securitized loan, transferring title to electronic system. Borrower defaulted, property foreclosed by someone who thought they owned the loan. Property then sold to builder. Builder torn down house and built condos. Builder sold condos to new owners. Now, due to robo sign, Mass SJC decided lender never owned property, foreclosure invalid, sale to builder invalid, builder never owned property and has no recourse against the original borrower ....... If your head is not spinning by now, let me help you. In reverse chronological order: The buyers of the condos have no title, since the seller never had title. Sue? There are probably loans on these condos, they have no collateral. Sue? The builder has no title, so he illegally torn down someone else's house. Sue? The builder has no title, he sold something he did not own. Sue? The lender who sold property to builder has no title, they sold something they did not own. Sue? The borrower was kicked out of the house, then saw the house torn down. Sue? Multiply above fiasco by unknown number of properties in similar situation in Mass. Multiply above fiasco by unknown number of States that may follow the Mass SJC ruling. Through the years, I have advocated some type of national standard for mortgages. Many had questioned why a free market believer like myself would promote more regulations. This type of ruling is exactly the reason why we need a standard for all States. Of all the evil deeds the banks did, foreclosure is not one. Think about how insanely chaotic the situation is. One side of the government via TARP, QEs are throwing money at the banks to bail them out. The State governments, courts, attorney generals and local municipalities, on the other side, is doing their utmost to punish the banks. Aside from the lawyers, the big winners are those who had and will continue to have free housing. In fact, they may even be paid. Take this case as an example. If the original borrower is willing sign a quit claim, then the chain of title would be cleared. How much is that signature worth? Who are the losers? Look in the mirror.