Mortgage Servicing Fraud
occurs post loan origination when mortgage servicers use false statements and book-keeping entries, fabricated assignments, forged signatures and utter counterfeit intangible Notes to take a homeowner's property and equity.
Articles |The FORUM |Law Library |Videos | Fraudsters & Co. |File Complaints |How they STEAL |Search MSFraud |Contact Us
Stephen
Keep hearing this term from lawyers.  Apparently, it's a catch-all clause lender's attorneys use to justify a false foreclosure.

Does anyone else have any insight into such a clause?
Quote 0 0
h gosh
The "insecurity clause" is not "standard" in all mortgages.  However, if there is such a clause contained in the mortgage, it allows foreclosure because the Note holder "believes" the homeowner "may not" be able to "continue" to pay his P&I.  Please note, you don't actually have to be in default, just that the belief is there that in the future the possibility exists. 
Quote 0 0
The Equitable One
This is the first I'm hearing of this. It seems ridiculous to me.

Standing to invoke the jurisdiction of the courts requires that the party doing such has suffered an injury. Invoking such jurisdiction out of fear an injury may be sustained at some future date seems a complete perversion.

How are courts dealing with this?

Quote 0 0
Knows About DeedsOfTrust
Quote:
Standing to invoke the jurisdiction of the courts requires that the party doing such has suffered an injury.  Invoking such jurisdiction out of fear an injury may be sustained at some future date seems a complete perversion.


Stephen is in California, which is a deed of trust state.  Lenders CAN and DO put some very oppressive terms in deeds of trust.  In many states, contracts enjoy support in the State Constitution.  States are barred from passing laws that impair contracts.  The courts are bound to uphold contracts, UNLESS it can be shown that the contracts are contrary to public policy.

Stephen still had NOT caught on that he should be picketing in Sacramento, NOT in San Diego.  In a deed of trust state, the mortgage investor has a private power of sale.

Stephen ought to be lobbying the legslature to OUTLAW deeds of trust.  Better yet, he should be circulating petitions to get an initiative on the ballot in California, where laws can be enacted by citizen initiative.  Unfortunately, this would have to be done prospectively, rather than retrospectively.

The PROBLEM in California is with the LAW, not with the JUDGES.
Quote 0 0
Stephen
Stephen is picketing the Judge, because there was NO cause for insecurity.  High income, excellent credit, all payments made, plenty of equity and refis approved for an 'A' loan through 3 other lending institutions.

If the judge had taken the time to look at the evidence, there couldn't have possible been a cause for insecurity.  The bank was after the equity, payments were current and there was NO foreclosure, nor was there a basis for foreclosure.

Bank reported "5 payments missed" because of dupicate billing, and even reported a foreclosure to the CRAs AFTER Stephen sold the house himself.

Stephen is picketing the JUDGE for denial of due process and Fraud Upon The Court.
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...