Posted on 31 August 2010. Tags: creditor, dealer, default, foreclosure, mobile home, notice of default, personal property, repossession, savings, social security
A mobile home is foreclosed if a mortgage is taken against it and the owner/borrower isn’t able to repay the mobile home loan. But if the home is treated as a personal property, then it is repossessed if not paid for.
My mother has taken a mobile home loan for a property in Florida. She has another home in South Carolina. Her husband has passed away last summer and for the past 3 months she hasn’t been able to afford the payments. What will happen if she’s unable to pay off the mobile home loan and allows the home to be repossessed? What’s the difference between a repossession and foreclosure? Can the mortgage company put a lien on the other house? What if she sells the other house first? Can they go after the proceeds? Can the company go after her social security money and retirement savings?
Solution:
If the mobile home is a personal property bought from a dealer, and the owner is unable to pay off the mobile home loan (personal property loan), then the dealer (or creditor) will simply repossess property. Repossession means that the creditor will take over the ownership and sell off the home at a public auction.
If the sale price isn’t enough to cover the unpaid debt, then the mobile home owner has to pay it off as he owes the debt. Now, in the situation stated above, your mother has taken out a mobile home mortgage loan and not a personal property loan. So, the home will not be repossessed, rather it will be foreclosed if she is unable to pay off the mobile home loan and doesn’t qualify for a workout plan.
Since your mother couldn’t pay for the past 3 months, therefore she should have a straight talk with the mortgage company. I suppose the company hasn’t contacted her yet with a Notice of Default, so there’s still some time left for her to send a hardship letter and request for an alternative payment plan.
However, if your mother gets a Notice of Default and fails to repay the dues within the specified time period, then company may declare a foreclosure. If your mother fails to negotiate with the company for a workout plan, then the latter will sell off the mobile home through foreclosure sale. And, if the company is not able to recover enough proceeds from the sale, then it may ask for payment of the deficiency amount.
If your mother fails to pay the deficiency amount, the company may file a deficiency judgment and get an order issued by the court. If she still doesn’t pay it or is unable to pay it, then a lien may be placed on the property in South Carolina (SC). But in order to place this lien, the mortgage company will have to seek a sister-judgment. This means that the company will try to get a judgment in SC based on the Florida judgment even though it may not have a license in SC.
If your mother sells the SC property first, there’s a chance that the mortgage company may come after the proceeds provided the latter receives the sister-judgment from that state. The mortgage company cannot place a lien on your mother’s Social Security (SS) check as SS is protected from such liens. As for the retirement savings, the mortgage company may ask your mother to liquidate the entire savings in order to repay the loan but this depends upon the laws in the state of Florida.
Samantha Taylor is a contributing Financial Writer, Moderator and Community Mentor of Mortgagefit. She specializes in mobile home loan and real estate related field. You can ask any mortgage/real estate related problems to her in Mortgage Forum.
Read more here…Mortgagefit
© 2010-12 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.
www.StopForeclosureFraud.com
Posted in auction, foreclosure, investigation, mobile home, mortgage, Real Estate, repossession
Posted on 31 August 2010. Tags: 'Inter Alia', 09-01, 09-578, 2a, 5g, canons 1, Case No. 2009-74992-CA- 01, ch. 106, Charges, citimortgage, commission, dade county, david J. stern, djsp enterprises, esq., florida, florida statutes, foreclosure, illegal practice, Inc. v. Gordon, inquiry, interrogatories, interrogatory, Judge N. James Turner, judicial conduct, law offices of david J. stern plantation florida 33324, mignon gordon, mothers, qualifications, sc 09-1182
INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE NO. 09-01 and 09-578
RE: JUDGE N. JAMES TURNER SC09-1182
Illegal Practice of Law
As a sitting judge, Turner was prohibited from engaging in the practice of law. However, he knowingly acted as his mother’s lawyer in a foreclosure proceeding in Dade County.
THE FLORIDA JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION’S SECOND
INTERROGATORIES TO JUDGE N. JAMES TURNER states:
JUDGE MOTHER STERNFiled_05-05-2010_JQC_Second_Interrogatories
INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Please specifically itemize and describe the source of funds (in excess of $42,000) that you reported as loans from you to your campaign.
ANSWER:
INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Please specifically itemize and describe all funds, however characterized, you received from your mother (Mignon Gordon) which were used for the campaign for the office you now hold, including, the date(s) any such funds were received, the specific amounts of such funds, and the total of such funds.
ANSWER:
INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Please specifically describe the agreement, arrangement or understanding you had with your mother regarding the funds you received from her which were used in the campaign for the office you now hold.
ANSWER:
INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Please describe all communications (written or parole) you had with David J. Stern, Esquire regarding your mother or the foreclosure litigation brought against her by Citimortgage, Inc. in Dade County, Florida, including the nature, substance and approximate dates of all such communications.
ANSWER:
INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Please describe all communications (written or parole) you had with any person other than David J. Stern, Esquire regarding your mother or the foreclosure litigation brought against her by Citimortgage, Inc. in Dade County, Florida, including the nature, substance and approximate dates of all such communications.
ANSWER:
NOTICE OF THIRD AMENDED CONSOLIDATED
FORMAL CHARGES states:
JUDGE STERN2Filed_06-18-2010_Amended_Formal_Charges
7. During the campaign for the office you now hold, you knowingly accepted and received a very substantial campaign contribution made for the purpose of influencing the results of the election, whether characterized as a gift or loan, far in excess of the $500 limit established by Ch. 106, Florida Statutes, from your mother (Mignon Gordon) which you used to pay for your campaign, in violation of Chapter 106, Florida Statutes, and Canons 1, 2A and 7C(1) of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
8. As a sitting circuit court judge, on or about November 20, 2009, you knowingly filed a notice of appearance in pending litigation in Dade County, Florida (CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Gordon, Case No. 2009-74992-CA- 01) where you purported to appear to represent your mother in foreclosure proceedings brought against her therein, in violation of Canons 1, 2A and 5G of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
9. As a sitting circuit court judge, you knowingly represented and acted as litigation counsel for your mother in the foreclosure proceeding in Dade County, Florida described above by, inter alia, communicating with counsel for the mortgagee on her behalf, in Osceola County, Florida, in violation of Canons 1, 2A and 5G of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
© 2010-12 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.
www.StopForeclosureFraud.com
Posted in citimortgage, concealment, conflict of interest, conspiracy, CONTROL FRAUD, corruption, discovery, djsp enterprises, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, foreclosures, investigation, Law Offices Of David J. Stern P.A., mortgage, Real Estate, settlement, Violations
Posted on 31 August 2010. Tags: 49000, contempt, fined, florida, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mill, judge janette dunnigan, manatee county, matt weidner, MERS, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., sanctioned, Sanctions, smith hiatt & diaz pa
“What you’re telling me is you pay lip service to me but yet I have not seen one single actual corrected policy procedure, you’re telling me your volume practice is going to remain because you can’t afford it,” Dunnigan said.
Judge fines major legal firm for foreclosure conduct
Lawyers to pay $49,000 for not showing up at scheduled hearings
Published: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 at 1:00 a.m.
Last Modified: Monday, August 30, 2010 at 10:46 p.m.
MANATEE COUNTY – A circuit judge singled out a Fort Lauderdale foreclosure firm on Monday, finding its business model violates legal ethics and leveling a $49,000 fine for scheduling hearings and then not showing up in court.
Circuit Judge Janette Dunnigan scolded five lawyers from the Smith, Hiatt and Diaz firm in connection with a Manatee County foreclosure case filed in 2007. The firm is one of several “foreclosure mills” filing thousands of foreclosure cases monthly.
The firm’s attorneys filed what amounted to “sham” paperwork setting seven hearings over two years, and then failed to appear in court or tell the judge or other parties when they were canceled. The case is still unresolved.
The behavior is willful, deliberate and flagrant and violates oaths of professional practice for lawyers, Dunnigan said. The firm also routinely does not comply with local court rules about how foreclosure cases should be handled, Dunnigan ruled.
“It is disrespectful and inconsiderate of the court’s time and impedes judicial administration,” Dunnigan said.
Sarasota attorney Michael Belle, who is trying to clean up the foreclosure process, said it was the first major penalty from a state judge about how the so-called “foreclosure mills” do business.
The firms handle the majority of foreclosure cases for lenders, bidding against each other to handle large numbers of cases.
In a judicial district that has taken a hard line on fraudulent or messy foreclosure filings, the judge’s ruling is the first time a court officer has openly attacked the methods of one of the firms responsible for thousands of foreclosures statewide.
Circuit Judge Janette Dunnigan scolded five lawyers from the Smith, Hiatt and Diaz firm in connection with a Manatee County foreclosure case filed in 2007. The firm is one of several “foreclosure mills” filing thousands of foreclosure cases monthly.
The firm’s attorneys filed what amounted to “sham” paperwork setting seven hearings over two years, and then failed to appear in court or tell the judge or other parties when they were canceled. The case is still unresolved.
The behavior is willful, deliberate and flagrant and violates oaths of professional practice for lawyers, Dunnigan said. The firm also routinely does not comply with local court rules about how foreclosure cases should be handled, Dunnigan ruled.
“It is disrespectful and inconsiderate of the court’s time and impedes judicial administration,” Dunnigan said.
© 2010-12 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.
www.StopForeclosureFraud.com
Posted in bogus, concealment, conflict of interest, conspiracy, contempt, CONTROL FRAUD, corruption, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, foreclosures, hiatt & diaz PA, MERS, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., smith hiatt & diaz pa, stopforeclosurefraud.com
Posted on 31 August 2010. Tags: appeal, Attorney John Christian Barlow, bank of america, conflict of interest, DENIED, dinsfla, djsp enterprises, ESQ. in Utah, foreclosure fraud, injunction, Judge Clark, Judge Meenu Sasser, law offices of david J. stern plantation florida 33324, MERS, mortgage electronic registration system, Recontrust, stay order, utah, vacate, Waddoups
If youl recall my post Notice of Appeal Filed – Stay of Court Order to Vacate Injunction Stopping Bank of America Foreclosures in Utah Requested
I stated There is something not right here and I think the outcome might surprise us!
WELL HERE IT IS.
Reported by: Kelli O’Hara
Last Update: 1:29 am
SALT LAKE CITY, Utah (ABC 4 News) – “They’re foreclosing illegally here in Utah,” those were the words of St. George Attorney John Christian Barlow spoken in early June. Barlow at the time had appeared before a Federal Judge arguing that the Banking Giant, Bank of America, was foreclosing illegally in the State of Utah. The Southern Utah Attorney believed that because B.O.A was not a registered business or corporation in the state, they lacked authority to do business here.
Barlow had succeeded in getting a 5th Circuit Court Judge to agree with him; as a result the judge imposed an injunction on all Bank of America foreclosures. Weeks later, the case went before a Federal Judge where B.O.A. argued that they were regulated by Federal Laws not State. Federal Judge Clark Waddoups heard case, and threw out the injunction therefore Bank of America’s foreclosure company: ReConTrust was allowed to foreclose once again.
After the decision, ABC4 got a tip about the case and started digging. Our tipster said that the Judge may have a conflict of interest in hearing the B.O.A. cases. Why? Because the Judge Waddoups old law firm represents Bank of America.
We checked into Waddoups background and the Federal Judge did work for Parr,Brown, Gee & Loveless for nearly 30 years. And Waddoups, as of 2008, drew a pension from the law firm. We placed a call to the firm, but they wouldn’t comment if the former firm Partner had ever handled B.O.A cases.
Continue reading …ABC4
RELATED ARTICLE BELOW:
_____________________________________
© 2010-12 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.
www.StopForeclosureFraud.com
Posted in bac home loans, bank of america, concealment, conflict of interest, conspiracy, CONTROL FRAUD, corruption, djsp enterprises, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, foreclosures, investigation, Law Offices Of David J. Stern P.A., MERS, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., Recontrust, stopforeclosurefraud.com
Continue reading…
