BTW, whether you take property subject to in a trust or not DOES matter. In Ron’s case there was NO doubt to the lender he took title since HIS name was on the deed.
If you took title in a trust through assignment of the beneficial interest that would help to delay things even someone tells the lender about it!
Lets say a borrower tells the lender. The lender sends a letter stating they are calling the loan over the DOSC. What DOSC??? What are you talking about??? There was no DOSC violation! Look here…here is the trust agreement. It clearly shows the borrower as the beneficiary!!! So what are you talking about lender??? So now the lender may ask if the beneficial interest was transferred? None of your business! Take that to court and get a court order to find out if you are that worried about it! Then if you find out something then call your loan. But as it stands right now…no DOSC violation! The borrower IS the beneficiary! And why couldn’t I assign the beneficial interest back over to the borrower? The ONLY thing that proves anything is the assignment form which is not recorded. So what if you assigned that back? What if you ripped up the assignment forms? Then the only thing left is the trust showing the borrower as the beneficiary and appears as if they have always been the beneficiary. Without any proof of any assignment form there is nothing to show the beneficial interest had been transferred. Unless you give the borrower a copy of that form and they actually showed that to the lender. Otherwise the lender has nothing to prove any transfer took place other than the transfer to a trust which is protected by federal law! Of course you would not want to ever go into court testifying to something like this and lying to the court. But you could argue this with the lender prior to ever getting into court!
The borrower is just confused! LOL They ARE the beneficiary! See, here is the trust! They must be confused over all this because of the trustee having title through the trust! They never had a trust before and just didn’t understand everything! So go home Lender…everything is fine! LOL
I don’t know what the law is in CA on foreclosures. But in my state, just because you bring the loan current does not give the borrower the right to reinstate the loan. In my state, you either have 7 months from the date of filing the foreclosure to reinstate the loan, OR, 3 months from the date the court enters a judgement of foreclosure to reinstate, whichever is longer.
So in my state, lets say a lender files for foreclosure, then the borrower drags out the court process for say, 6 months before the court enters a judgement of foreclosure. 6 months after filing the case the court enters a judgement of foreclosure. From that date the borrower has 3 months to reinstate. The auction date is set at the time of judgement being entered. Once that 3 month reinstatement period passes, if the borrower pays all the arrears, the lender does NOT have to reinstate the loan. Once that 3 months passes the ONLY way the borrower can keep the property by LAW, is if the borrower pays off the entire loan prior to the sale date. So the borrower can send in the reinstatement amount after the 3 month reinstatement period, the lender “could” accept the money and still continue with the foreclosure. The lender “could” allow the borrower to reinstate after that if they WANTED to, but they do NOT have to once the reinstatement period has expired!
So if this was the same case in Gatten’s deal then the lender was in the right to continue as scheduled even though the arrears were paid up since the reinstatement period had expired. Now whether this was the case or not I don’t know since I don’t know what state that was (but I assume CA) and I don’t know what the foreclosure law in that state is.
But in my state, if the lender files foreclosure on Jan 2nd, then you have until July 2nd to reinstate by bringing the loan current, OR, 3 months after the date of enter of judgement for foreclosure…whichever is longer. Once that reinstatement period expires, the lender can proceed as scheduled going to sale regardless of whether or not the borrower pays all the arrears. The only way the borrower can save the property after the reinstatement period expires is by paying off the entire loan prior to the sale date!
Gatten’s case sounded like he reinstated close to the sale date. So the question is, what was the reinstatement period allowed in that state? Did it expire as to why the lender continued as scheduled?
Posted by Stacy (AZ) on July 16, 2002 at 13:37:24:
Hey, Bud, I was wondering where you’ve been when I noticed a new post of yours today. Vacation?! I’m looking forward to a lot of those sometime. It’s not too likely anytime soon now that I’ve just quit my job to do this silly REI thing full time. Does this REI stuff really work? Which Guru should I follow? Is Sheets any good? (LOL!)
Yes, as I responded to Johnboy, the laws must have been different in the state where this occured. Although, for the life of me, I can’t imagine why he would send a giant check to CW without assurances the FC sale would be stopped. What’s that all about?
I don’t know where the new $Cash$ guy comes from. Seems like he knows a few things, though. I’m wondering if he’s Alan B Cash…you know, the guy who’s website I posted about a year or so: