Author Topic: The Foreclosure Scam (Read 25081 times)

wraith808 · « **Reply #25 on:** August 16, 2011, 09:31 AM »

Indeed, a very passive response for a country where everybody and their grandmother appear to have guns...
-Shades (August 15, 2011, 10:17 PM)
That's what you're led to believe from TV and news. Most Americans can't afford guns! And unless you have a use for one (hunting, target shooting, killing someone/yourself), they're not much use. They usually lead to far more (legal) trouble than people bargained for when they are used (kids finding them, shooting themselves or a friend).
-zridling (August 16, 2011, 08:33 AM)

Yes. Knives are better.

superboyac · « **Reply #26 on:** August 16, 2011, 09:55 AM »

I know somebody currently wallowing in the foreclosure quagmire.

Problem they're running into is they can't get their current mortgage holder to negotiate revised terms. That's because the note is held by (one of an growing number of) foreclosure consortiums who have no intention or interest in negotiating. In my friend's case, it's a group of private individuals (about 20) who have gotten together to "get in on the golden opportunities in real-estate foreclosures."

One of their members is an attorney who has demonstrated a talent for twisting existing laws around to force a default so they can foreclose.

These investors are not interested in getting a mortgage paid back. They want to make quick cash on a turnaround. So all they want is the property itself.

In the case of my friends, they're probably gonna lose their house.

But not because they can't pay the original mortgage. They can. The temporary cash flow problem which got them into this mess has since been fixed.

It's because the note holder has taken them to court and is now refusing to accept any payments pending the court's ruling on their request for immediate foreclosure, because...wait for it..my friends haven't been paying anything on their mortgage!

I'm not sure how or why such a logical absurdity is tolerated by law. But somehow, they can actually make this BS argument stick under certain circumstances. In this case it has something to do with the structure of the group holding the note. All group members have to agree to any renegotiated terms. They get around being accused of refusing to negotiate "in good faith" by sitting down to go through the motions of 'negotiating' a provisional agreement. But once the borrower signs this agreement for their part, one member of the investment group refuses to accept the new terms. At which point the investment group claims "negotiations have irreparably broken down" and move for foreclosure.

According to my friend's attorney, she's seen this same 'play' run on several other mortgage holders. And each time, one or two (and never the same) members of the investment group refuses to accept the renegotiated terms. Next they refuse to accept any payments until they have a signed agreement in place. (They also give the borrower 'off the record' assurances not to worry since they're sure they can work something out with the holdout member.) Then they wait a few months for the note to reach default. After which they move to foreclose for non-payment of the original mortgage - which is still in effect because a new agreement was never reached. Cute!

It makes for a lovely choreographed performance. And supposedly, it's all perfectly legal.

My friend's attorney told them this particular 'investment' group has this legal gambit down to a science. Unless they get a sympathetic judge when it comes final decree time, my friends are screwed royally. (And this investment group has been fairly adept at getting their filings heard before judges who tend to be unsympathetic towards borrowers.)

This is American Justice at work folks! Lovely, huh?
-40hz (April 23, 2011, 03:54 PM)

This is not uncommon in any financial transactions going on now. A couple of things are happening:
1) The reason why these policies and procedures don't make any sense is because the people don't want it to make sense. Think of it this way: they have the needle and they know they have the needle, so what they do is throw a bunch of hay around the needle. So the rest of the people have to find the needle in the haystack. But the financial experts already know where the needle is, and they use this advantage to make the others run around in circles while they use the needle to make endless amounts of money.

We're all just running around the haystack. And I'm starting to feel like, "let them have it". I don't want to be involved.

Stoic Joker · « **Reply #27 on:** August 16, 2011, 11:33 AM »

Indeed, a very passive response for a country where everybody and their grandmother appear to have guns...
-Shades (August 15, 2011, 10:17 PM)
That's what you're led to believe from TV and news. Most Americans can't afford guns! And unless you have a use for one (hunting, target shooting, killing someone/yourself), they're not much use. They usually lead to far more (legal) trouble than people bargained for when they are used (kids finding them, shooting themselves or a friend).
-zridling (August 16, 2011, 08:33 AM)

You obviously don't live in the south.

Down here you either have a gun in your truck...or people look at you funny. They're also a fairly solid investment if treated (stored/maintained) properly.

Last I heard on the news 1 in 9 people here have a license to carry. And if you spent the $300 to get licensed, you're not going to be planning to whip out a sharp stick.

Kids mishandling firearms (does happen here every few years) is an issue of education & access, not ownership.

CWuestefeld · « **Reply #28 on:** August 16, 2011, 12:02 PM »

Let me throw in a balanced view [1]:

Don't go for the "keeping up with the Joneses" crap, periodically upsizing your home to a new one with granite countertops etc. Consider what you need, and how much you *know* you can afford without risk. Don't think that you "need" a bigger, fancier house just because the people you know are buying them. If you buy into a price range that has a risk that you'll run into payment problems, then these things can happen.

My wife and I bought a house 16 years ago, and have lived there ever since. We've watched friends and coworkers "upgrade", and we've seen them struggle to make payments even as the market price of the houses tumbled. Meanwhile, by being more practical and staying with what we had, my wife and I have no worries about this at all.

[1] Yes, the actions described above are deplorable. I won't defend their morality, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try to keep out of trouble. Just like you wouldn't leave your wallet sitting out on the front seat of your car, don't court trouble here.

wraith808 · « **Reply #29 on:** August 16, 2011, 12:24 PM »

Indeed, a very passive response for a country where everybody and their grandmother appear to have guns...
-Shades (August 15, 2011, 10:17 PM)
That's what you're led to believe from TV and news. Most Americans can't afford guns! And unless you have a use for one (hunting, target shooting, killing someone/yourself), they're not much use. They usually lead to far more (legal) trouble than people bargained for when they are used (kids finding them, shooting themselves or a friend).
-zridling (August 16, 2011, 08:33 AM)

You obviously don't live in the south.
-Stoic Joker (August 16, 2011, 11:33 AM)

But that's not a majority of the country, and neither is it universal. I lived in the South for all of my life prior to moving away, and I have never owned a gun. Blades, explosives, and pyro, yes. But guns, no...

... what? Why are you looking at me funny?

40hz · « **Reply #30 on:** August 16, 2011, 12:30 PM »

Indeed, a very passive response for a country where everybody and their grandmother appear to have guns...
-Shades (August 15, 2011, 10:17 PM)

Not all of us. My preferred weapons are: verifiable facts; a sense of humor; an occasionally sharp tongue; and a pen...or, more recently, a laptop.

Experience has also made me a firm believer in the efficacy of amateur psywar programs.

wraith808 · « **Reply #31 on:** August 16, 2011, 01:12 PM »

You didn't know?

Renegade · « **Reply #32 on:** August 16, 2011, 01:59 PM »

I'm curious...

What levels of FORCE can one use to stop theft? if someone breaks into your home, and tries to steal from you, what level of VIOLENCE can you use? Can you shoot someone if you warn them and they persist? Can you use a baseball bat? A knife?

There has to be some level of justified force to protect one's property.
-Renegade (August 15, 2011, 11:09 PM)

While the Castle Doctrine allows for the use of Deadly Force to protect ones property. The paperwork they show up with states that it is not your property - You're a squatter in your own home - hence it would actually serve to justify their 'legally" shooting you (gotta love that one).

This is why the pencil necked paper monkey shows up with the fuzz in toe to make sure everyone behaves properly and bends over on cue.
-Stoic Joker (August 16, 2011, 06:58 AM)

But isn't there a Mens Rea component there? If you really believe that your property is being stolen, then they can't argue any Mens Rea against you. i.e. It's a shoot out~!

Yay~! Whoever is left alive wins~!

Ok, I'm screwing around there, but literally -- Mens Rea. If you genuinely believe that your property is being stolen, then paperwork doesn't really mean much. It's just what some asshole puked on a page. Like f**k him! Why should you believe that when you own your house, or when your payments are up to date? -- In that case, there's obviously NO Mens Rea towards a real crime. You are only defending yourself & property...

CWuestefeld · « **Reply #33 on:** August 16, 2011, 02:26 PM »

The right to defend your property only works in Texas and maybe one or two other places. Here in NJ, a person is legally required to take all possible steps to avoid use of lethal force. You're only allowed to use lethal force when you reasonably believe that your own, or another's, life is in danger.

Renegade · « **Reply #34 on:** August 16, 2011, 02:41 PM »

The right to defend your property only works in Texas and maybe one or two other places. Here in NJ, a person is legally required to take all possible steps to avoid use of lethal force. You're only allowed to use lethal force when you reasonably believe that your own, or another's, life is in danger.
-CWuestefeld (August 16, 2011, 02:26 PM)

So, as I strut out of your home with all your valuables, having kicked you half-unconscious, swearing that I won't kill you, then I'm perfectly fine in leaving you with:

And there's nothing you can do about it?

That's just nutty.

wraith808 · « **Reply #35 on:** August 16, 2011, 03:46 PM »

The right to defend your property only works in Texas and maybe one or two other places. Here in NJ, a person is legally required to take all possible steps to avoid use of lethal force. You're only allowed to use lethal force when you reasonably believe that your own, or another's, life is in danger.
-CWuestefeld (August 16, 2011, 02:26 PM)

I think more than one or two other places.

kyrathaba · « **Reply #36 on:** August 16, 2011, 07:26 PM »

I have a shotgun -- which I keep unloaded, and in a zipped cloth case, stored in our basement. There is no ammunition in the house. We have five children. I keep a nightstick by my bed. I'd rather take my chances defending us with that, than have one of my children killed in a firearms mishap.

kyrathaba · « **Reply #37 on:** August 16, 2011, 07:31 PM »

I do keep a .357 Magnum revolver loaded with hollow-points in my car glovebox. The car stays locked, even when I'm at home.

Stoic Joker · « **Reply #38 on:** August 16, 2011, 07:53 PM »

The right to defend your property only works in Texas and maybe one or two other places. Here in NJ, a person is legally required to take all possible steps to avoid use of lethal force. You're only allowed to use lethal force when you reasonably believe that your own, or another's, life is in danger.
-CWuestefeld (August 16, 2011, 02:26 PM)

Which is precisely why the last thing you want in a shooting is a second version of what happened...

Renegade · « **Reply #39 on:** August 17, 2011, 05:22 AM »

I do keep a .357 Magnum revolver loaded with hollow-points in my car glovebox. The car stays locked, even when I'm at home.
-kyrathaba (August 16, 2011, 07:31 PM)

Nothing like a little overkill~!

The right to defend your property only works in Texas and maybe one or two other places. Here in NJ, a person is legally required to take all possible steps to avoid use of lethal force. You're only allowed to use lethal force when you reasonably believe that your own, or another's, life is in danger.
-CWuestefeld (August 16, 2011, 02:26 PM)

Which is precisely why the last thing you want in a shooting is a second version of what happened...
-Stoic Joker (August 16, 2011, 07:53 PM)

Bwahahahaha~!

You 2 guys crack me up~!

Stoic Joker · « **Reply #40 on:** August 17, 2011, 06:44 AM »

I do keep a .357 Magnum revolver loaded with hollow-points in my car glovebox. The car stays locked, even when I'm at home.
-kyrathaba (August 16, 2011, 07:31 PM)

Nothing like a little overkill~!
-Renegade (August 17, 2011, 05:22 AM)

Actually no; it's really a much safer round to use for personal defence. Because outside of their obvious effectively benefits ... Hollow points tend to stop after they hit something, open, and break apart. So there is less chance of them going cleanly through the first target and penetrating a second unintended target.

The thing that should be under stood, is that a weapon of any kind is and should be an absolute last resort. Much like 40hz my preferred weapons are tact & humor, as defusing a situation is really the safest option for all parties. I simply like to keep available a trump-card for those odd times when negitiations completely break down.

kyrathaba · « **Reply #41 on:** August 17, 2011, 06:49 AM »

a weapon of any kind is and should be an absolute last resort. Much like 40hz my preferred weapons are tact & humor, as defusing a situation is really the safest option for all parties.

+1.

As a licensed counselor who often is called upon to help people with anger management and conflict resolution, I complete agree with this. I would also add that often people's judgement of the need for deadly force is in error. Anger compromises good judgment. Hindsight usually reveals an emotionally heightened form of decision-making was involved in the decision to use deadly force. This is why it's so critical to keep your cool and try to think ahead and in terms of weighing consequences versus safety, when contemplating violence.

wraith808 · « **Reply #42 on:** August 17, 2011, 06:51 AM »

I simply like to keep available a trump-card for those odd times when negitiations completely break down.
-Stoic Joker (August 17, 2011, 06:44 AM)

If someone breaks into my house, negotiations have already broken down...

I do keep a .357 Magnum revolver loaded with hollow-points in my car glovebox. The car stays locked, even when I'm at home.
-kyrathaba (August 16, 2011, 07:31 PM)

Be careful of that and check the rules of your local municipality. That can be considered carrying concealed, and if you get stopped, no matter if it is or not, it does tend to make the constabulary a bit twitchy.

Stoic Joker · « **Reply #43 on:** August 17, 2011, 07:18 AM »

I simply like to keep available a trump-card for those odd times when negitiations completely break down.
-Stoic Joker (August 17, 2011, 06:44 AM)

If someone breaks into my house, negotiations have already broken down...
-wraith808 (August 17, 2011, 06:51 AM)

That doesn't mean you can't lead with a joke:

Wraith: Knock Knock
Burglar: Who's There
Wraith: Jesus
Burglar: Jesus Who??
Wraith: Bang!

tomos · « **Reply #44 on:** August 17, 2011, 07:26 AM »

^

But seriously - where are you people living

I lived 10 years in an inner city, junkies around the corner, etc etc; house did get robbed a couple of times. Got my pockets picked. My partner did get robbed but a gun would have been of zero help in the situation.
I lived in a couple of cities where there were regular murders (in fairness mostly gang/drugs/family-fued related).

I've never been in a situation where I thought a gun would help me. And I cant imagine having one being of any help in the future. YMMV, and maybe the violence where you live is more arbitrary....

I can see shooting guns is a fun pastime, and that they are nice "things" to mess around with, but this is something different - or is it? You people are nuts I think, but then so am I in my own ways

kyrathaba · « **Reply #45 on:** August 17, 2011, 07:30 AM »

I do keep a .357 Magnum revolver loaded with hollow-points in my car glovebox. The car stays locked, even when I'm at home.

Be careful of that and check the rules of your local municipality. That can be considered carrying concealed, and if you get stopped, no matter if it is or not, it does tend to make the constabulary a bit twitchy.

In my locale, you have to make two distinct movements to obtain the weapon in the vehicle, in order for it to not be considered concealed. (1) Open glovebox (2) reach into glovebox and get gun... as opposed to concealed being one movement: reach under seat and grab gun.

wraith808 · « **Reply #46 on:** August 17, 2011, 09:24 AM »

I simply like to keep available a trump-card for those odd times when negitiations completely break down.
-Stoic Joker (August 17, 2011, 06:44 AM)

If someone breaks into my house, negotiations have already broken down...
-wraith808 (August 17, 2011, 06:51 AM)

That doesn't mean you can't lead with a joke:

Wraith: Knock Knock
Burglar: Who's There
Wraith: Jesus
Burglar: Jesus Who??
Wraith: Bang!

-Stoic Joker (August 17, 2011, 07:18 AM)

Nah, you have it wrong.

Stoic Joker · « **Reply #47 on:** August 17, 2011, 11:27 AM »

Nah, you have it wrong.
-wraith808 (August 17, 2011, 09:24 AM)

O_o Holy Shit! ...Guess the kids pretty handy with a sword.

wraith808 · « **Reply #48 on:** August 17, 2011, 12:31 PM »

I've never been in a situation where I thought a gun would help me.
-tomos (August 17, 2011, 07:26 AM)

And may you never be in such a situation. I personally have no guns, and have defied a county ordinance to have a gun in the house once upon a time. They're too easy to use, too indiscriminate, and take away lot of the personal investment in the violence that you're intending to inflict.

But that said, I've been in a couple of situations where having a gun would have been of use, even though I still refuse to go that route. One being pinned down behind a brick wall as someone fired at me after having jumped back over the wall and feeling the sting of cratering rock impacting my cheek as someone on the embankment below the bridge was breaking into my car that had stalled in the wrong place at the wrong time. At times like that, a thought does go through your head about how having a gun of your own would have proven useful...

Stoic Joker · « **Reply #49 on:** August 17, 2011, 01:07 PM »

They're too easy to use, too indiscriminate, and take away lot of the personal investment in the violence that you're intending to inflict.
-wraith808 (August 17, 2011, 12:31 PM)

$:-\$ I did not know you were supposed to savor these moments...