You have heard about subprime foreclosures and the pain and suffering these are

  1. wingedcentaur profile image84
    wingedcentaurposted 7 years ago

    You have heard about subprime foreclosures and the pain and suffering these are causing working...

    families, and so forth. You have heard that one legal tactic that had been suggested to such endangered homeowners is to challenge the bank to prove they actually own the mortgage - which they sometimes have trouble doing. What I want to know is this: Does anybody know of a case in which two or more banks - each claiming to be the owner of x mortgage - tried to sue a single homeowner? If so, could you please explain in detail and offer links where I can read more? Thanks

  2. homesalvationgal profile image51
    homesalvationgalposted 7 years ago

    Could a bank sue you?  Yeah, they already are by bringing an action of foreclosure against you!

    Now I have not heard of two or more banks suing, but what I have heard of is a homeowner who was foreclosed on in October of 2009, and she moved into a small apartment, living a quiet life, until 6 months later she gets a foreclosure notice from a company she has never heard of who is suing her for foreclosure on the house she already lost.
    Turns out that since these mortgages were sold various times to various lenders, one of the lender in the supposed chain sees what they THINK is an asset that they can scoop up, and they go after it.
    This ladies credit will forever be ruined, and who knows how this will turn out...
    Just one of a long list of maladies that we will see in the future with this mortgage "feeding frenzy" mess.

  3. wingedcentaur profile image84
    wingedcentaurposted 7 years ago

    Thank you homesalvationgal

    Your answer is sort of what I was looking for. Maybe two banks didn't try to sue this lady at the same time, but they did so a very short space apart. I was thinking of the story of Solomon when I composed that question.

    I was thinking of the case of Solomon and the case of the two women who claimed to be the mother of the same baby. Solomon said that he would cut the baby in two and that way both women could have a piece of the child. One woman said no, don't do that, and that Solomon should give the child to the other woman, rather than kill him. Solomon gave the child to this woman (the woman who offered to give the child to the other woman) recognizing that she must be the true mother.

    You have something like this, more sinister of course, with the post-sub prime crash land grab on the part of the banks (as a matter of fact I would recommend you read a hub by a hubber called TheMoneyGuy "The Ownership Fallacy") I think a lot of these banks were institutional investors in these assets; they were having a good time, making profits hand over fist, as they say, as the bubble was rising.

    But now that the bubble has burst (as bubbles must do), the board of directors of some of those financial institutions -- in a fit of what I call Neo-Feudalist rage, are flailing about blindly in an attempt to recoup their losses -- by sending out foreclosure notices, at random to huge swaths of working class families (knowing that they do not know if they own those mortgages).

    This really says something about the ruling class and the proprietary feeling they have to the rest of the population. Thanks again for your thoughtful answer.