Property Title Trouble in Non-Judicial Foreclosure States: The Ibanez Time Bomb? - Elizabeth Renuart

Categorized | STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD

Property Title Trouble in Non-Judicial Foreclosure States: The Ibanez Time Bomb? – Elizabeth Renuart

Property Title Trouble in Non-Judicial Foreclosure States: The Ibanez Time Bomb? – Elizabeth Renuart

Elizabeth Renuart

Albany Law School
December 5, 2011

Abstract:     
The economic crisis gripping the United States began when large numbers of homeowners defaulted on poorly underwritten subprime mortgage loans. Demand from Wall Street seduced mortgage lenders, brokers, and other players to churn out mortgage loans in extraordinary numbers. Securitization, the process of utilizing mortgage loans to back investment instruments, not only fanned the fire; the parties to these deals often handled and transferred the legally important documents that secure the resulting investments — the loan notes and mortgages — in a careless manner.

The consequences of this behavior are now becoming evident. All over the country, courts are scrutinizing whether the parties initiating foreclosures against homeowners legally possess the authority to repossess those homes. When the authority is absent, foreclosure sales may be reversed. The concern about authority to foreclose is most acute in the majority of states where foreclosures occur with little or no judicial oversight before the sale, such as Massachusetts. Due to the decision in U.S. Bank N.A. v. Ibanez, in which the Supreme Judicial Court voided two foreclosure sales where the foreclosing parties did not hold the mortgage, Massachusetts is the focal jurisdiction where an important conflict is unfolding.

This article explores the extent to which the Ibanez ruling may have traction in other nonjudicial foreclosure states and the likelihood that clear title to foreclosed properties is jeopardized by shoddy handling of notes and mortgages. I focused on Arizona, California, Georgia, and Nevada because they permit nonjudicial foreclosures and they are experiencing high seriously delinquent foreclosure rates. After comparing the law in these states to that of Massachusetts, I conclude that Ibanez should be persuasive authority in the four nonjudicial foreclosure states highlighted herein. However, property title trouble resulting from defective foreclosures may be more limited in Arizona and Nevada. The article also provides a roadmap for others to assess the extent to which title to properties purchased at foreclosure sales or from lenders’ REO inventories might be defective in other states. Finally, the article addresses the potential consequences of reversing foreclosure sales and responds to the securitization industry’s worry about homeowners getting free houses.

CLICK IMAGE BELOW

© 2010-17 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Comments

comments

This post was written by:

- who has written 8683 posts on FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA.

CONTROL FRAUD | ‘If you don’t look; you don’t find, Wherever you look; you will find’ -William Black

Contact the author

3 Responses to “Property Title Trouble in Non-Judicial Foreclosure States: The Ibanez Time Bomb? – Elizabeth Renuart”

  1. Tim says:

    The Link, and or document appears to be broken. Please correct. Thanks

  2. dinsfla says:

    Tim,
    Thank you very much. I fixed it. Things are known to happen to the links on this site.

    Cheers
    D-

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. […] or not to invalidate the titles of most properties foreclosed in Massachusetts. At least four other states may face the same choice pretty […]


Leave a Reply

GARY DUBIN LAW OFFICES FORECLOSURE DEFENSE HAWAII and CALIFORNIA
Advertise your business on StopForeclosureFraud.com

Archives