Homes − Who Actually Owns Them? − In Fact − In Law

by Ken Kappel on November 7, 2011

This foreclosure case is a legal mess. You need to read this. As a result of robo-signing, illegal foreclosures, Foreclosure Gate, we have another ruling from the top State Supreme Court in the land. This goes strongly against the Banksters, yet, leaves a dilemma for foreclosed, previous homeowner, that will be fought out later in the courts.

If you were foreclosed on − or are about to be foreclosed through bank action, even resulting from Strategic Default (walking away, a huge no-no-no) − it turns out you may have never actually owned the home you thought you bought, and were subsequently evicted from — or walked away from — which ultimately led to foreclosure — even if you were long gone.

Sounds like a law suit in the making for people who were dispossessed through illegal and fraudulent foreclosure. We stress that we are not lawyers and do not give legal advice. However, we can and do offer legal information.

Please read this short article to the end where we have posted some, we think, significant comments for your consideration. If not for you, comments and opinion you might share with family, friends, associates who have already lost their home. They may have a chance to redress fraud, and possibly recover significant monetary damages, even if after the fact of losing their home.

In order to inform underwater homeowners and folks with foreclosure issues of breaking news related to foreclosure, which also give information to assist underwater homeowners, we often carry short data driven articles from DSNews. Carrie Bay tells the story. Read her entire article below, or at her web: “State Court Voids Home Sale Due to Improper Foreclosure.” The link is live. To the article.

“A Massachusetts man lost something he never had – his home. The Masachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled this week that when Francis Bevilacqua purchased the home from U.S. Bank in 2006, the bank did not actually hold the home’s title.”

Ken here. And, they knew it. Yet Bevilacqua bought the home from them in good faith, assuming they had the right to sell to him. They did not, and they knew it. Fraud.

“The court ruled that because U.S. bank did not hold the mortgage note when it foreclosed on the property, it did not obtain the title in the foreclosure. Therefore, Bevilacqua did not purchase a legal title when he made the purchase.”

“In its ruling in Bevilacqua v. Rodriguez, the court referenced a case tried in the same court last January, U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Ibanez, in which the court ruled that if a bank cannot provide proof it owns the mortgage note, any foreclosure filings it initiates are void.”

“The Ibanez case, however, simply involved a foreclosure action. Bevilacqua extends that ruling to instances when a new homeowner has already purchased the property.”

“As we recently held in the Ibanez case, Massachusetts ‘adhere[s] to the familiar rule that ‘one who sells under a power [of sale] must follow strictly its terms’‘ so, where a foreclosure sale occurs in the absence of authority, ‘there is no valid execution of the power, and the sale is wholly void,’” the court wrote.”

“This case is just one example of a much larger problem,” stated Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley in response to the ruling.”In the rush to foreclose, the banks’ reckless origination and foreclosure practices have created a domino effect that has harmed Massachusetts homeowners as well as third-party purchasers who purchased properties after foreclosure.”

“This is yet another clear demonstration that the only way we are going to restore a healthy economy is to address the foreclosure crisis and hold the banks accountable for their actions,” she continue”

Ken here. Fact is that Bevilacqua was already out and a new owner in — when he brought the legal action. Sometimes persistence pays off − often. We hope to see future cases similar to this and will bring them to your attention. Based on this matter, it seems this matter will ultimately be settled in a Quiet Title action, brought either by Bevilacqua, or the new new residents of the home in question. This must be sorted out in court as to who, actually has the right to exclusive Title. If the new owners prevail, Bevilacqua may have an excellent monetary damage case against the malefactor bank.

It is likely, that because of Title Insurance, they bank may have been paid in full for the loan that Bevilacqua defaulted on. OK. But, guess what, even though paid off in full for Bevilacqua’s the loan, they went and sold it again. Actually, before that, they had already been paid off, a couple of times. Unreal?  Unbelievable? Not so. In order to Confront Fraudulent Mortgage Debt, read: this Article First, click here

Print This Post Print This Post

Previous post:

Next post: