BOMBSHELL: Mass. Supreme Court Rules That Most Foreclosure Sales From Previous 5 Years Are VOID

reply to post by Aim64C


I see what you're saying. What I am saying, just as many others are saying, it's going to be one big huge mess. And I do believe more of the homes will be taken over by the government (which I don't qualify for any government loan programs not for section 8 and not for vets homeowner mortgages; yet I served) no, some illegal POS is going to end up living in these homes! More hud homes/section 8 homes, more ghetto neighborhoods; that is what I see happening while responsible homeowners are going to be sheet out of luck, and probably they won't be able to purchase anything else as the title to all homes would have to be hunted down first to even put it on the market at all. Like another poster said, sales will come to a grinding halt and many will be left SOL!

reply to post by poet1b

Isn't deregulation fabulous.

The problem wasn't a lack of regulation. The problem was a lack of liability.

Institutions like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have the full backing of the U.S. Federal Reserve and went around buying up Mortgage Backed Securities issued by smaller banks. They were, essentially, able to tap right into the printing press and buy up mortgages.

Meanwhile, banks were given every incentive to issue mortgages to the sub-prime market. Compound all of this on top of the FDIC that (once again) insures the monetary value in everyone's savings' accounts (up to $50,000 or something like that)... banks are little more than middle-men for the Federal Reserve with, almost literally, no liability to their own business practices.

In a truly free market, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would be looking very closely at the practices of banks they purchase MBSs from and the security of those loans. However - Fannie and Freddie don't have any reason to care, because when they repackage those mortgages and sell them, the holders are guaranteed stock value by the U.S. government (they are, in a sense, government issued securities). Share holders have little reason to raise issues with the practices of the business, as they are - in a sense - investing in government securities/bonds and will get paid when they decide to return their stock.

ALL of the problems we've had in the lending industry these past few years have been enabled to expand to the extent they have by Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac and the Federal Reserve coupled with legislation enacted by Congress.

Under a free market - you will still have some of this going on (and you can still call it illegal) - but the difference is that it would never have grown to be this large. A single chain of banks may use similar bad tactics - but then come crashing down much earlier, and without such broad-sweeping effects on other banks, institutions, and people. Bad business will always lead to an eventual failure. When people and companies are not sheltered from loss and liability by the government printing press, they will have a much more keen eye and vested interest in the practices of the businesses they choose to invest in and support.

Then add this bill to the mix:

The bipartisan Senate bill would allow foreigners who spend at least $500,000 on a residential property to obtain visas allowing them to live in the United States.

Source

The legislation would create a new homeowner visa that would be renewable every three years, but the proposal would not put them on a path to citizenship. To be eligible, a person would have to buy a primary residence of at least $250,000 and spend a total of $500,000 on residential real estate. The other properties could be rented

Originally posted by relocator
Then add this bill to the mix:

The bipartisan Senate bill would allow foreigners who spend at least $500,000 on a residential property to obtain visas allowing them to live in the United States.

Source

The legislation would create a new homeowner visa that would be renewable every three years, but the proposal would not put them on a path to citizenship. To be eligible, a person would have to buy a primary residence of at least $250,000 and spend a total of $500,000 on residential real estate. The other properties could be rented

HOLY S*IT!!!
See what did I tell you.
The migrant homeowners wet dream bill!


ETA: nevermind if they are drug lords or pedophiles.
AMAZING!!!!

reply to post by Iamonlyhuman


okay can someone please explain this to me in the most basic of terms. I havent had lunch yet and I cant think straight. I am in the process of buying a short sale (foreclosed home) and I know this means something to me but I can understand what it means. Much appreciated.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by mbkennel

 

The true market solution would be to publicly auction off these homes. People get pre-qualified, proving they have the funds available to back up their bids, and then they bid on properties, and the homes go for what ever is bid.

Of course home prices would plummet, but that is exactly what should happen. That is the law of supply and demand.

All this legal swirl is about banks trying to fix the markets and defy the laws of supply and demand.

edit on 21-10-2011 by poet1b because: add word publicly

They are generally sold at public auction in TX. However, the person foreclosing is allowed to bid and will bid below the amount of the morgage still owed. The bank then has the house and unless someone overbids the lender the owner is stuck with the deficiency judgement. So the bank gets the house, sells it again, and gets a judgement against the homeowner for amount due. And the homeowner gets a tax debt for capital gains against the amount they didn't payoff. Wonderful system isn't it.

They will have to have some kind of exemption for buyers. You can't just go and sue someone who thought they got a good deal on a home for their family.

Now the same idiots who thought they could afford the quarter million dollar home on their beer and blockbuster budget are going to be able to sue banks and buyers. . . .

Yes the banks gave alot of predatory loans BUT there were also hoards of people that saw right through that scam and lived within their means.

While the ruling may be right on principle the can of worms it has opened is pretty hairy.

reply to post by Aim64C


It was small banks and investors selling bad loans as good loans, getting them falsely rated as good loans, which is were the con came in.

The reason bad loans got sold as good loans is because of free market deregulation nonsense that weakens the laws and the enforcement of rules that prevent this type of con from being pulled.

Market systems are not self policing and this free market nonsense that they are is just another form of communism.

In a truly free market, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would be looking very closely at the practices of banks they purchase MBSs from and the security of those loans.

No they wouldn't, because without laws against corrupt business practices, corporate executives know they can steal the money through deceit, take the money and walk away from the corporation, and stick the low level investors with the losses.

How many times do you have to see this con pulled before you recognize what is going on? You are barking up the wrong tree.

One of the things that I think will come of this ruling other than the obvious that other states might follow suit is how this will add to the already growing movement #ShowMeTheTitle

Perhaps even leading to a new meme like #OccupyYourForclosedHome

reply to post by poet1b

No they wouldn't, because without laws against corrupt business practices, corporate executives know they can steal the money through deceit, take the money and walk away from the corporation, and stick the low level investors with the losses. How many times do you have to see this con pulled before you recognize what is going on? You are barking up the wrong tree.

Absolutely! If you are a corrupt corporate executive, these times have been a festival.
They are stealing from us (the small investor, day traders,etc..) millions of dollars a day, and 99% of them get away with it. Further, our government makes it so easy for them, it is turning what would be scrupulous people into crooks because they realize how easy it is, and have the business knowledge that directs them exactly in how to pull it off.

reply to post by Iamonlyhuman


Kinda looks like all those kids who graduated from Law School and can't find jobs are now going to work...lol

On another note, I see no coverage of this Massachusetts ruling in any of the top media sites.

CNN
MSNBC
FOX

Is this really official?

reply to post by charlyv


Here is the Mass. Supreme Court Ruling

It is real it is just not been picked up by the MSM as yet. It is pretty new if you look at the decision date 10/18/2011

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Aim64C

 

It was small banks and investors selling bad loans as good loans, getting them falsely rated as good loans, which is were the con came in.

The reason bad loans got sold as good loans is because of free market deregulation nonsense that weakens the laws and the enforcement of rules that prevent this type of con from being pulled.

Market systems are not self policing and this free market nonsense that they are is just another form of communism.

In a truly free market, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would be looking very closely at the practices of banks they purchase MBSs from and the security of those loans.

No they wouldn't, because without laws against corrupt business practices, corporate executives know they can steal the money through deceit, take the money and walk away from the corporation, and stick the low level investors with the losses.

How many times do you have to see this con pulled before you recognize what is going on? You are barking up the wrong tree.

The problem is the people that make the laws are vested financially with the institutions that break the laws.
There are only ethics violations for lawmakers who commit insider trades based on their own legislative decisions..
It's wrong... but there are no laws that apply to them.
they can be chastised for unethical action... but no charges can be filed.

we need laws to hold the lawmakers accountable for unethical practices and conflict of intrest or none of this is ever going to go away.

If there's a silver lining in this dark mess, it is that fewer people buying homes will risk buying a foreclosed-on home from a bank. That will drive up demand for new and existing homes with clear titles, which will help raise the prices of those homes. Not to the level of 5 years ago, but some improvement will be very welcome by most homeowners and certainly by the construction industry.

Originally posted by mbkennel
Trying to turn back the clock: The first owner still has title. However, the first owner is thus still liable for all mortgage payments which would have been made during the interim, a few years' worth. How many can afford that?
It will create yet another center of pain, and work for lawyers.

edit on 21-10-2011 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

But who does the first owner pay? Would you really pay someone that "claims" to hold the mortgage to your house even though they can't reproduce the documents needed? After all if they have the title and their name is on it, then they should be able to evict you for failure to pay.

In the end, i think some of these houses will be titled through squatter's rights.

Don't worry guys, this will wind up in the Supreme Court before anything big happens. The Supreme Court will be forced to follow the instructions of the banking and wall street overlords and all will be peaceful again.

reply to post by Vikus

Dunno. I'd say yes if there was a matter of Federal law or US Constitution involved. But I don't see any. Looks like a matter of Mass. law which is a matter for the Mass courts.

reply to post by wayouttheredude


Thanks for the come back on that. I really find in interesting that something as important on this winds up on ATS, before the mainstream picks it up. Another reason why this site is just fantastic for having a pulse on everything. Sometimes, yes, they are red herrings, but when they are real, ATS scoops em all.

reply to post by BadNinja68

The problem is the people that make the laws are vested financially with the institutions that break the laws.

Yeah, those would be the politicians preaching about the glories of the free market, and tax cuts for the super rich.

At what time do people wake up and realized they have been conned by the whole free market scam.

Markets don't self regulate, which is why we need government to do what it is supposed to do, protect individuals from corporate, and other institutional abuses.

Vote out the free market preaching politicians, and vote in politicians who support cracking down on white collar crime, and the politicians who help the corporations rob our country blind.