Rep Kaptur: Foreclosed owners should squat in their own homes

[flintlock]

Re: Rep Kaptur: Foreclosed owners should squat in their own homes

Karma, give me a break. Maybe Santa Clause won't bring me presents this year as well

Per the contract that both parties (Wells Fargo and myself) agreed upon the bank has the legal right to foreclose on property in the event of default. I defaulted, they foreclosed, contract fulfilled.

I think what Kingcropper was trying to say was that basically you can look yourself in the mirror now instead of becoming no better than the scumbags who pulled off all this scandal. Now you are free to criticize these pukes and not be a hypocrite.

[ricket]

Re: Rep Kaptur: Foreclosed owners should squat in their own homes

Karma, give me a break. Maybe Santa Clause won't bring me presents this year as well

Per the contract that both parties (Wells Fargo and myself) agreed upon the bank has the legal right to foreclose on property in the event of default. I defaulted, they foreclosed, contract fulfilled.

I say the contract is actually null.

Enforcing an impossible contract has never been the mainstay of contract law.

By the very nature of a debt based monetary system where all money is issued with interest-bearing loans of which the principal is created and not the interest, the contract does not contain all of the necessary provisions that allow the contract to be faithfully executed by both parties, therefore it is null and void.

Basically, it is mathematically impossible to pay back the loan since the interest is never created during the signing of the contract (only the principal). By not stating that in the contract, it makes the contract impossible to fulfill.

[flintlock]

Re: Rep Kaptur: Foreclosed owners should squat in their own homes

So are you saying because he paid too much for a house the contract is void? Boy, would that open up a whole can of worms. " I paid too much for a thighmaster, so I'm not paying my credit card bill."

[ricket]

Re: Rep Kaptur: Foreclosed owners should squat in their own homes

So are you saying because he paid too much for a house the contract is void? Boy, would that open up a whole can of worms. " I paid too much for a thighmaster, so I'm not paying my credit card bill."

No that's not accurate at all.

The basis for my argument is that there were *major* deficiencies in the contract and had that language been originally included, then it would make the contract very different.

Imagine you go and buy a car. 3 days later your car disappears from your driveway. You happen to call the bank and the bank says "We took your car because we saw your car being driven by someone else, and since you were the one who bought the car, we took it". The very first thing that would enter your mind would be "Where in my contract did it state that you were given the right to come and take my vehicle from me if I let another person drive it?". Had this information been in the original contract, you probably wouldnt have signed it.

It's the same thing with legal contracts and debt repayments, defaults, and repossessions. Since the outstanding balance of principal + interest is greater than the money supply, this makes it mathematically impossible to pay back and fulfill *some* of those outstanding loans and debts. A logical conclusion would be that the contract that you signed could be forced into default simply because there isnt enough money to pay back EVERY loan, so YOUR OWN CONTRACT may default regardless of the intentions of the actions that you take. Because this is a major, and very critical, portion of the contract (since it invokes the realm of the area of 'impossibility' as it relates to contract law) then this is grounds for the complete nullification of the signed agreement to repay.

An example of the situation of defaulting through no fault of your own is very prevalent today: layoffs. The reason you got laid off, was because your business you work for (of which you are not responsible for their financial standings) had to pay back some of the loans themselves and had to stop paying you so they could pay the loans. All of a sudden, you are now held responsible for the supposedly bad financial decisions that your employer has made.

These thoughts are only rather new for me, and I am exploring a more in depth, legal framework for the preceding paragraph about contract nullification.

[due_indigence]

Re: Rep Kaptur: Foreclosed owners should squat in their own homes

I will add this for US homeowners who have originated a purchase-money mortgage within the last three years. If you can document TILA/RESPA irregularities on your HUD-1 documents, the 72-hour right of recission can be applicable to your mortgage, in effect extendable up to three years as I understand it. This is a very powerful right. You can be owed back all interest payments, closing costs etc. for the life of your loan.

Another tributary alluded to in this video is lending documents gone MIA.

In an Ohio Federal District court case, Deutschebank was recently unable to prove it was the lender-of-record for a series of foreclosed-upon homes. The judge in effect said that just because the industry had been behaving as though it had the weight of law behind it these last few years, it didn't. Securitization, compounded with many small mortgage shops going defunct, has created a huge missing paper problem.

Disclaimer: I am NOT an attorney. Alas most attoneys, even b'ruptcy ones, are not up to speed on this burgeoning area of the law. My guess is this will become increasingly explosive as things move along. A site that I found in my searches a few months back offers some fascinating insights vis a vis this approach. http://livinglies.wordpress.com/
I have no affiliation and can't vouch for its veracity however. Caveat emptor. But yay for Rep. Kaptur. As always it takes a woman.