przycinek.usa
22.09.09, 08:33
Czyli historia jak nie robic interesow w USA a szczegolnie niczego nie kupowac
za wlasne pieniadze zwlaszcza MBSow.
Dotyczy to istniejacej dyskusji na temat kolapsu systemu bankowego i procesow
sadowych dotyczacych foreclosures. Mnie interesuje to o tyle o ile dotyczy
bankow, ale jest to ogolnie interesujace, poniewaz porusza rozwojowa sprawe
odmow splacania kredytow i problemy zwazane z egzekwowaniem dlugow powstale w
wyniku sekurytyzacji. Jezeli czytelnik ma jakiekolwiek obligacje typu MBS, to
lepiej niech nie czyta, bo dostanie zawalu serca. Jak ktos ma akcje nawet
lekko skorelowane z systemem bankowym w USA - to niech sie zaopatrzy w
odpowiednik waleriany. He he he he.
W dwoch zdaniach chodzi o to, ze banki generalnie nie maja prawa wywalac ludzi
z niesplacanych domow. A teraz pojawia sie opcja LEGALNEGO odebrania bankowi
lien na dom, na ktorym jest kredyt mortgage i przejecia title do domu pomimo
tego, ze dom NIE JEST SPLACONY.
Proces zajmowania domow nazywa sie foreclosure i jest po procesem zajmowania
domu przez bank za niesplacanie kredytu hipotecznego. Ale teraz problem polega
na tym, ze prawo do postawienia domu w foreclosure ma tylko ta osoba, ktora ma
do tego prawo. To nie jest pomylka stylistyczna, prosze panstwa. Prawo do
foreclosure moze miec tylko ktos kto ma prawo do foreclosure. He he he he.
A kto ma prawo do foreclosure?
Wyglada na to, ze jedynie taki bank, ktory ma loan w ksiegach i dowod
wlasnosci do zabezpieczenia, o ile dobrze to tlumacze na polski.
I teraz gwozdz programu:
Banki w wiekszosci przypadkow nie maja prawa do foreclosure, poniewaz w
wiekszosci przypadkow nie zajmuja sie inwestowaniem w kredyty, tylko
oryginacja bo te kredyty zostaja sprzedane. Wtedy znowu powtorze - w
wiekszosci przypadkow - oryginator NIE MA PRAWA DO FORECLOSURE. He he he he.
WNIOSKI:
System bankowy w USA jest w posiadaniu wielkiej ilosci inwestycji w kredyty
hipoteczne ale nie bezposrednio. To oznacza, ze system bankowy nie ma zadnej
kontroli nad tymi kredytami, poniewaz ich sciagalnosc wynika jedynie z dobrej
woli placacych. Placacy powoli edukuja sie i liczba osob przestajacych splacac
kredyty wzrasta w olbrzymim tempie. Rownoczesnie dochodzi do procesow sadowych
i sady przyznaja racje "wlascicielom" domow i banki zostaja zwykle z figa z
makiem.
Banki powoli orientuja sie, ze w grze o odzyskanie domu liczy sie czas. Czas
gra na korzysc wlascicieli, bo ilosc procesow jest juz bardzo powazna i mozna
powiedziec, ze wlasciciele maja znaczna przewage procesowa nad bankami.
Najlepsze jednak jest to, co przeczytalem pod tym - bardzo waznym artykulem:
loanworkout.org/2008/06/the-mers-fifty-million-mortgage-meltdown/
To jest komentarz prawnika. Nie dlatego, ze sie podpisal prawnik - tylko, ze
jest jasne jak slonce, ze napisal to prawnik. On tutaj w jasny sposob i
wyraznie pisze co zrobic, aby zabrac bankowi dom.
Cala sprawa jest niezwykle interesujaca i rozwojowa, a ja jedynie dodam, ze
jest ogromna ilosc watkow w tym zagadnieniu.
Jedna z tych spraw jest tzw konsumencki rating kredytowy.
Czy jesli skorzystamy z rady tego prawnika, to nie musimy oglaszac bankructwa
a bank NIE MA PRAWA OBNIZYC NAM RATINGU KREDYTOWEGO!!!!!
Komentarz na dole, a ja polecam rowniez te wiadomosc:
foreclosurebuzz.org/2009/09/15/kansas-supreme-court-mers-is-a-straw-man-with-no-enforceable-rights/
davidgmills August 23, 2009 at 3:04 pm
I am an attorney who has taken “produce the note” one step further.
I am current on my mortgage, and actually what prompted me to take the
action I am taking is that I had paid off my second mortgage but my lender
refused to surrender my paid off second mortgage note. My lender also refused
to prove to me that it had my first mortgage note or that it had the authority
to make payment demands.
So I decided to sue my lender.
I decided that if the “produce the note” strategy was working for people
who were in default, it would work for those who are not in default. If the
bank doesn’t have the right to foreclose, it doesn’t have the right to demand
payment either.
The Uniform Commercial Code is the homeowner’s best friend.
UCC 3-501 requires a lender to “exhibit the note” when the lender makes
demand for payment, and the borrower demands to see the note. Technically a
demand for payment occurs every month, and it also occurs when a bank begins
foreclosure proceedings.
UCC 3-501 also requires a servicer to show authority to make a demand for
payment, if it does not own the note, but is merely servicing it. In the event
a noteholder or servicer or will not exhibit the note or perform other legal
requirements when requested to do so by the borrower, this UCC section allows
the borrower to discontinue payments WITHOUT DISHONOR until such time as the
noteholder or servicer complies with all laws or contract provisions.
Also helpful is UCC 3-309. UCC 3-309 requires the lender go through
certain steps to prove up a note (make it enforceable) that is lost or
destroyed. This is not easy for the lender to do, if one is willing to contest
everything the lender does to try to prove up the note. This proof takes
witnesses, who may not be able to say what the law requires, if the witnesses
are thoroughly cross-examined. (Tip: Don’t let the lender get by with
self-serving affidavits; take their witnesses’ depositions). Moreover, this
section requires the lender to give adequate protection in the event the
lender can make the lost note enforceable. That may be difficult for a lender
that is under FDIC scrutiny and whose stock is in the tank.
I filed suit in March and so far my lender has vigorously put off
answering my suit with what I believe was a meritless motion to dismiss, but
has not yet produced either note, and has confirmed my unpaid note was sold to
Fannie Mae. This is clearly a justiciable controversy as will be clear when I
ask the court to allow me to put my future payments into the registry of the
court until the note is proven up and authority to make demand is proven.
If the bank really believed it had the evidence to compel me to pay, it
would have gladly produced the note by now with proof of authority to demand
payment. They have steadfastly avoided having to do this. Chances are the note
is lost or destroyed.
It gets even better. MERS is the sole beneficiary of my Deed of Trust
(quite often the case for homeowners on Deeds of Trust since 2000). The
Arkansas Supreme Court has just ruled in March of this year that MERS was not
the beneficiary of a Deed of Trust (with language verbatim to mine) despite
what the Deed of Trust said, because MERS has no interest in the note payments
or in the corpus of the trust (homeowner’s obligation to pay). No beneficiary
means the Deed of Trust is fatally flawed.
More and more it is looking like I will have the lien on my home removed
and I may well never have a noteholder to pay. I could even get some of my
money back.
I have a hearing before the court (I’m in Memphis, TN) on August 28. We
shall see what the court does in this first hearing.
If anyone would like a copy of my complaint, email me at
davidgmillsatty@hotmail.com and I will send a pdf copy.
I would welcome anyone wishing to post a pdf of my complaint on a
prominent website for review as I don’t have a website of my own.