"... The 16-page decision in the case of US Bank vs Ibanez does not make for easy reading. But it’s a very important case: it’s a solid precedent saying that if a bank doesn’t own a mortgage, then it can’t foreclose on a home. That was the decision of the lower court in Massachusetts, back in March 2009, and it has now been unanimously upheld on appeal to the Massachusetts supreme court. ...
The immediate effect of the ruling, which covers two separate cases, is that Mark and Tammy LaRace get to stay in their home, despite being foreclosed on in 2007. And Antonio Ibanez gets title to his home back, which means that the bank will either have to let him retake possession or else pay him for his deed.
Essentially, these homeowners bought their homes, defaulted on their mortgages, and then — after a long legal struggle — get to stay in their homes. {without paying the mortgage}..."
From: http://seekingalpha.com/article/245...market-catastrophe-risk?source=hp_wc&wc_num=3
BT comment: Looks like many more mortgages will not be paid even by those who can. So many smaller banks will fail but good for retail stores as they buy things with the mortgage money.
Wow the little guy actually wins one,what a rarity huh.I'm going to ask something that I hope can be understood.I'm curious given enough of these homes in foreclosure but not being foreclosed on,wouldn't the result of that end up causing misleading foreclosure reporting? In other words when foreclosures are reported by the Government wouldn't that report show misleading results of the housing industry being in better shape than it actually is? It seems the report would show less homes being foreclosed on resulting in people thinking the housing and job scene is improving,even though homeowners are not paying their Mortgages.Am I crazy?
Thanks.
Last edited: