Comments for Washington Community Action Network

Comment on Know Your Rights Training by seo

seo — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:43:56 +0000

The crux of your writing while sounding agreeable originally, did not really work perfectly with me after some time. Somewhere throughout the sentences you actually were able to make me a believer unfortunately just for a while. I however have got a problem with your leaps in assumptions and you might do well to fill in all those gaps. If you actually can accomplish that, I would undoubtedly end up being impressed.

Comment on New report details big bank bonuses by Harriette

Harriette — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 22:47:08 +0000

It is inconceivable to me that banks and investment companies have so little regard for their reputations and their customers that they can continue to pay out such huge bonuses when their customers are struggling to survive.

Comment on Support Dental Access in Washington! by nina kindem

nina kindem — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 17:16:09 +0000

try doing any daily routine with dental pain and you will kbnow what the right thing to do is.

Comment on The Human Cost of the Budget Cuts by Whitney

Whitney — Sat, 31 Dec 2011 00:39:45 +0000

Fine article, I will be checking back again usually to look around for improvements.

Comment on Know Your Rights Training by Vernon Callen

Vernon Callen — Tue, 20 Dec 2011 13:49:08 +0000

obviously like your web-site however you have to test the spelling on several of your posts. Several of them are rife with spelling problems and I find it very bothersome to inform the truth nevertheless I will certainly come again again.

Comment on Know Your Rights Training by Mary Avanzato

Mary Avanzato — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 15:45:53 +0000

Great work! This is the type of info that should be shared across the web. Disgrace on the search engines for not positioning this publish upper! Come on over and visit my web site . Thanks =)

Comment on The Face of the 99% by mark

mark — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 19:34:11 +0000

Worked the same job for 37 years, been responsible in many ways. Those of us who work hard and play by the rules are part of the 53%. There is NO 99%, if there is it is just a bunch of bitter, greedy, lazy, people that want things given to them.

Comment on Rally for Jobs Not Cuts at the Montlake Bridge by Rev Aaron E Colyer

Rev Aaron E Colyer — Sat, 12 Nov 2011 05:59:05 +0000

I am with Occupy Seattle and have found a slight schedualing conflict with the Nov 17th Montlalke march/rally and am trying to figure out if there is a way we can work it out to make it most effective. We are also having a city wide student march that same day going from SCCC to the U District which could take us over Montlake perhaps if we can work it out that way. Email me or call me at 702-449-5893

Comment on Dixie Mitchell Appears on MSNBC by Chris Stegman

Chris Stegman — Sun, 06 Nov 2011 17:43:12 +0000

Right on Shawn!
I’m a homeowner and didn’t understand much of what you were saying because I haven’t been in foreclosure before but hopefully Dixie’s lawyer gets it and heeds your advice!

Comment on Dixie Mitchell Appears on MSNBC by Shawn Newman

Shawn Newman — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 13:49:00 +0000

Remember: The loan (aka note) and the security on that loan (aka mortgage/Deed of Trust) are two different contractual documents! If you don’t pay the loan the bank (as mortgagee) will foreclose you (as mortgagor) “on the mortgage” (the security interest). This assumes whoever is attempting to foreclose (the bank/servicer) “owns” both the loan and mortgage. Generally, the mortgage follows the note so whoever “owns” the note is presumed to own the security that goes along with it. However, what if the bank/servicer sold off your mortgage without the accompanying note? According to Powell on Real Property, sec. 37.27 [2] (Michael Allan Wolf ed., LexisNexis Matthew Bender 2010), you end up with an unsecured loan and a mortgage which is “a worthless piece of paper.”

It must be remembered that the mortgagee has two interests: (1) the debt or obligation which is owned to him, and (2) the security interest in land represented by the mortgage.. In fact, the primary interest is the personalty debt obligation. The interest in land which is available in case security is necessary because of the debtor’s default is considered as collateral interest. Much trouble has been caused by mortgagees attempting to transfer only one of these two interests. Where the mortgagee has “transferred” only the mortgage, the transaction is a nullity and his “assignee,” having received no interest in the underlying debt or obligation, has a worthless piece of paper.

What can you do to determine if that is the case? Here are some general suggestions:

First: Determine who “owns” your “mortgage.” Since most mortgages have been sold by your original lender to Freddie or Fannie, check with them to determine if they “own” your “mortgage”. This can be done on line at either:

https://ww3.freddiemac.com/corporate/
http://www.fanniemae.com/loanlookup/

Date and print a copy of the result for your records and future use.

Second: Determine who owns the note. This is more difficult to do but there is an excellent free (no obligation) user friendly form letter anyone can use that was created by SEIU listing virtually all mortgage lenders. http://action.seiu.org/page/speakout/wheresthenote?js=false You fill out the letter on line and can email it directly to your lender. This form letter cites the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act [RESPA] section 6 which mandates lenders acknowledge receipt of the request within 20 days and try to resolve the issue within 60 days. You can add to the letter the fact that Freddie Mac’s or Fannie Mae’s website indicate the “own” your mortgage. Despite RESPA, lenders may not directly respond to the inquiry. If the note was sold, it would typically need to be endorsed by the original lender and delivered to the buyer. This is the uniform state law governing assignments of negotiable instruments (e.g. notes, checks) [Art. 3 Uniform Commercial Code]. Several problems have been identified: no assignments, lost/destroyed originals, questionable assignments, etc. The problem with mortgages owned by Freddie and Fannie is they have “guidelines” that tell lenders/servicers to keep the original notes (not to assign, transfer or negotiate the original paper to Freddie/Fannie). However, those private “guidelines” are not the law and do not trump state law governing negotiable instruments.

Third: Consider filing bankruptcy to wipe out the lender as an unsecured creditor. Assuming Freddie or Fannie “owns” your mortgage, then the servicer/lender/bank should be designated as a nonsecured creditor in a Ch. 7 (straight) bankruptcy and wiped out. If a Ch. 13 (wage earner/reorganization) the debt could be crammed down based on what the debtor can pay. By analogy, “mortgages” sold off by Countrywide to BOA were sold at a discount.

Fourth: Consider filing a quiet title action IF you intend to sell the property – name Freddie/Fannie and wipe out that cloud on the title. Otherwise sit tight and pay your taxes. If the bank/servicer throws in the towel you would have to report the gain to the IRS. So you’re better off a housing zombie.