Calling State Legislators in Non-Judicial Foreclosure States: The Time to Act is Now

In an upcoming note in the Iowa Law Review, Timothy Froehle proposes legislative solutions to the foreclosure crisis. 

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1695070 Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abs

Excerpt:

When a homeowner is subject to a non-judicial foreclosure, he must file a lawsuit to

enjoin the foreclosure and raise any applicable defenses, including those based upon standing or

real party in interest. At best, a homeowner will seek to stop the foreclosure by filing a lawsuit of

his own in a court of general jurisdiction; if there is an issue as to whether the creditor is the true

owner of the mortgage, he will also raise it in the complaint. At worst, the homeowner does not

contest the foreclosure, and in a matter of a few months, can lose the property without a court

ever becoming involved and without judicial oversight as to whether the foreclosing party had

the right to foreclose. Alternatively in this context, a homeowner may bring suit and contest

other issues relating to the foreclosure, such as improper notice, and not raise the issue of

whether the creditor is the true owner of the note or has the capacity to initiate foreclosure. In

this situation, the homeowner may waive these defenses and be barred from raising them later in

the proceedings—even if he becomes aware of the likelihood that the creditor‘s standing was not

valid. Further, a court overseeing these cases will not have the ability to raise these issues on its

own motion because the standing of the plaintiff in these lawsuits is not in question.

  The problems in these situations when foreclosure is not overseen by a court are quite

substantial. If the many judicial foreclosure cases in which courts have dismissed actions, or

otherwise denied or conditioned a granting of foreclosure to creditors, are a reflection of the state

of affairs among lenders, servicers, and mortgage trusts, the amount of potential violations of

common procedural requirements that are occurring outside of judicial oversight may be

staggering. When a creditor is able to foreclose on a property without having ownership of the

mortgage, or the transfers between assignees contain improprieties, it amounts to an improper

foreclosure of a homeowner‘s property interest. Besides the effect on the individual

homeowners‘ interests, there are the lingering issues of title that will come back to haunt future

buyers long after the creditors have conveyed the property and moved on.

  The need to resolve these issues of proper ownership of the mortgages will undoubtedly

arise at some point.

The longer lenders can remain wholly outside of the judicial spotlight, the longer these complex

issues of standing will continue to persist and continue to create havoc in

real property titles. Legislatures can take affirmative action to bring more of these foreclosures

under judicial oversight or the regulation of state and local governments, and they should. The

consequences of waiting until more homes are taken and more defective titles are conveyed will

only prolong the fallout from the housing bubble. 

Additionally, this Note argues that non-judicial foreclosure states should add statutory

fee-shifting provisions to their foreclosure laws to allow homeowners to recoup legal fees for

lenders‘ violations of standing requirements. In non-judicial states, this would provide an

incentive for more homeowners to seek legal assistance and for attorneys to review the propriety

of a lender‘s claim to standing and result in more meritorious cases brought within the judicial

system. 

  In Part II, this Note outlines the securitization process and the problems it has caused in

foreclosure proceedings. Part III analyzes the judicial procedural requirements of standing,

including real party in interest. Part IV analyzes how judges may raise issues of standing and

ownership of the loan on their own motion, and the effect of this lack of judicial oversight in

states with non-judicial foreclosure. Part V argues for legislative solutions that would mitigate

the harmful effects of lenders foreclosing without proper standing and ownership of the

mortgage loan in states with non-judicial foreclosure.

Timothy Froehle, Note, Standing in the Wake of the Foreclosure Crisis:  Why Procedural Requirements Are Necessary to Prevent Further Loss to Homeowners, ___Iowa L. Rev.___ (2011)(emphasis supplied).

Advertisements

One thought on “Calling State Legislators in Non-Judicial Foreclosure States: The Time to Act is Now

  1. Google now using business reviews to determinate business ranking!

    How does posting positive reviews help in your businesses Google ranking?

    1. Positive reviews increase your business rank by linking important and relevant websites to your website.
    2. A constant stream of positive reviews imprives your online reputation.
    3. Positive reviews drive traffic to your business.
    4. Positive reviews restore a tarnished reputation by pushing down negative reviews and links.
    5. Helps protect against competitors or anyone else from attempting to run your ranking.

    Call 888-540-3390 for more information. http://www.postpositivereviews.com

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s