Posted by David Krulac on January 23, 2007 at 15:30:26:
here there are only judicial foreclosures, the court felt, rigthly or wrongly that all the notified lien holders and the former owner were all notified and given their oppoortunity to cure the default or bid at the first sheriff sale. And the general public was given their rights to bid at the first sheriff sale, nobody did.
As a result of the first sheriff sale the bank became the deeded owner of the property but had that un-notified second lien holder hanging out there. The judge ruled that the should be a second sheriff sale EXCLUSIVELY for that second lien holder. And that’s what happened. In my 4 decades in real estate, I never saw anything like this either before or after. I am 100% positive of that. And even if it sounds bizarre, that’s the way it was.
My House Was Sold Twice!? - Posted by Jimmy Lawrance
Posted by Jimmy Lawrance on January 17, 2007 at 16:49:20:
I’ve recently purchased a home at foreclosure that was supposed to have a
clear title. When I made my first offer the bank said there was a second Lien
on the property and that they had to get that cleared first. After a month they
told me they had everything ready. I closed with a title company with title
insurance. A month later after doing some repairs to the house, a locksmith
tries to break into my property to change all the locks. I called the police and
he called his boss. His boss was a rehabber, who said he had bought the
property a week ago at the courthouse steps. He insists that the house
belonged to him and that the people who sold me the house did not have the
right to do so. It appears that there was a second lien on the house, and it
was sold to the developer. Now the lawyers are talking to get this sorted out.
I don’t know what to do? I bought the house fair and square. Who is at fault
here? If anyone has been in the same situation, please tell me some actions
you took (if any) to resolve this. Is it the title company’s fault? They were
supposed to check and make sure there were no other Lien’s in the house.
Re: My House Was Sold Twice!? - Posted by David Krulac
Posted by David Krulac on January 17, 2007 at 17:46:28:
Please tell me you have title insurance. If you do then you can rely on the title insurance atorney to work this for free.
I had somewhat similar situation where the junior lien holder was not notified. The court ordered that there be a second sheriff sale to sell the property, but that judge limited the bidders to ONLY the second lien holder.
In any event it was a mess. The other buyer and you are apparently innocents in this whole thing, i would be looking to the seller to you and the title insurer. I would also seek my own attorney.
The remedy for failing to notify the junior lienholder was to set-aside the sale and order a new sale and allow only the junior lien-holder to bid? Where was this? OZ?
Yes I have title insurance, Did you have title insurance as well? and
what was the outcome of your situation? Is it up to the title company to
cut other guy a check so this can be over with?.
I am still a newb at this, I’ve did my research on real estate investing
and this is my first deal. So far its been a big headache. My concern is
that I will lose this deal and be left with a mortgage on a property I
don’t own. Is there a possibility this might happen even if I got title
insurance?
Thanks very much for your reply and easing my pain.
?Jimmy
Posted by David Krulac on January 18, 2007 at 15:57:59:
Pa. per Judge’s order. The 1st lender’s logic was that the property was already through the sheriff sale process, therefore it didn’t need to be through the sheriff sale again, but that the junior lien holder needed to be notified and given the opportunity to bid at a restrictive limited sheriff sale.
Re: My House Was Sold Twice!? - Posted by David Krulac
Posted by David Krulac on January 18, 2007 at 16:02:27:
the title company is on the hook, as I see it, but of course I’m not an attorney. I would contact the title insurance company asap, and I’d talk to my attorney.
“…restrictive limited sheriff’s sale”? Did you make that up? Who cares about the first lender’s logic? The first lender (lender’s attorney) created the problem by failing to provide the junior lien-holder with proper notice. Why would the judge allow only the junior to bid? Less competition hurts the homeowner and the junior lien holder–it makes no sense. This was a judicial foreclosure? This rings false. There’re remedies for this situation–remedies available to the injured lienholder and remedies available to the auction-buyer. I’ve never heard of this type of remedy and it makes no sense.