Found this article in my local newspaper.
A new California Appellate case just published August 8, 2013, "Glaski vs Bank of America", holds that a homeowner can challenge his lender's right to foreclose by showing that the Deed of Trust never made it into the securitized trust until after the trust's closing date.
This is the case in most loans made in the last 12 years. If the bank foreclosed we should be able to get the homeowner money damages and/or the house back. Or a lawsuit could be filed and a court ruling obtained preventing the court from foreclosing. Recently acted Sections 2924(a)(6) and 2924.19 of California Civil Code provide the same relief to homeowners.
It is highly suggested that homeowners take this window of opportunity to get relief before the banks get Congress to close this door with national legislation.
A quick google search shows this case from February, is not being followed by the other CA courts. Of course, it's fuel for defense attorneys to rake in a ton of money claiming they can win your case, chasing a delusion.
They did SO many things that weren't legal (and just plain dumb) its not even funny. BofA was the worst, too.
There were some people pitching quiet title actions to challenge the banks title issues a while back. People claimed to know people that had success- the pitch I heard was to challenge title, then they'd negotiate to buy the note at a discount from the bank for 20ish cents on the dollar, then renegotiate the loan terms with the original borrower at 80% and favorable interest or something. They'd pay you $5k for bringing them the deal. I never saw it first hand, and knew two people that were respected in my REIA buying into that stuff that had some in the works, I assume they fizzled out because I never heard the outcome. The timeline is probably about in line with this case, if the August 2013 publish date was a few months after the trial.
If it worked at all, the banks stopped it with that last big settlement I think. A lawyer was in town teaching the strategy to other lawyers at one point, so I'd guess there was probably something there, but I think that ship has sailed. If there exposure was great, they'd go bribe congress into shielding them, which I assume is more or less what happened.
You must be a BiggerPockets member to post on the forums
Join the world's largest, most open Real Estate Investing Community online, 100% free forever!