.....................Total Pageviews

THANKS for HELPING to GROW SWARM The BANKS

THANKS for HELPING to GROW SWARM The BANKS

SUPPORT INSIDE JOB!

My photo
If you have a question about this blog or the 12 other anti financial terrorism blogs I have created, please email me at info at alexlogic.com. If you are having trouble leaving a comment, please let me know at the email address listed above.

Followers

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
CLICK ON IMAGE

CLICK IMAGE

CLICK IMAGE

Thursday, December 9, 2010

US Bank vs Mathon, it appears that Parallel Foreclosure is frowned upon by the courts, even if the courts don't call it Parallel Foreclosure.

"Here, the Court has serious and grave concerns regarding Plaintiff’s conduct in this matter, which appears to be rife with bad faith. This can be amply seen by the acceptance of multiple payments following the three trial payments, the promise albeit unfulfilled of the permanent modification and the verbal assurances that the modification had been approved juxtaposed with the vague denial issued one year after the trial agreement, the spurious claims of non-cooperation by Defendants, the seeming offer of a “new” modification and the withdrawal of the motion for judgment in an apparent attempt to divest this Court of jurisdiction to deal with this Order To Show Cause."
Is it correct to state that Parallel Foreclosure actions by banks are "rife with bad faith"?


In US Bank vs Mathon, it seems to me that if the mortgage servicing company had accepted the loan modification payments for three months, but then refused to do the home loan mod and also refused to accept any more payments, that it would have been up to the homeowner to set up a bank account and make a monthly mortgage payment deposit to demonstrate to the court that they were still making their payments. The mortgage servicing company instead continually accepted the mortgage payments up until foreclosure, which appears to have not have set well with the judge.

This may explain why mortgage servicers will stop accepting payments when they have resolved they want to foreclose. It looks better in court if the mortgage servicer can say the homeowner has lived for "free" in the home for the past number of months or longer.

if the homeowner did not make a monthly mortgage deposit for every month their payments were being refused by the mortgage servicer, the judge might be more favorable to the mortgage servicer side and less so to the homeowner, (that is just my opinion).

Of course where this last point can get sticky is if the monthly mortgage amount is in dispute.

No comments:

Share Gadget


FOR INFORMATION ONLY, NOT AN OFFICIAL ENDORSEMENT.