Last Friday, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that two banks did not have the right to seize homes from two parties because they could not prove the banks owned the mortgage at the time of foreclosure. While this will undoubtedly slow down the foreclosure process and reduce the inventory of properties for investors who make money off foreclosed homes (of which I am one), I have to applaud this decision. It seems like a pretty basic idea to me - in order to foreclosure on a home, you must be able to show proof you are the mortgage holder.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Adam - advertising on here can be purchased through Google Ads or textlinkads.com.
This is a lesson for the banks who are not dealing with the proper foreclosure rules. Next time they must obey the rules and regulations.
Interesting ruling. This a direct result of the loans being sold over and over again. If the origanal lender still owned the loan the courts would have ruled differently
Of course, the common sense will prevail. Poor banks, why would they even claim something that they cannot prove?
I had to LOL at this one as well. So let me get this straight, you have no proof that the home is yours but you want me to evict someone? Why? Oh so you can go and purchase the home at auction....Horrible and way to go Supreme Court!
Post a Comment