Skip to main content

View Diary: Can a Small California City Take on Wall Street - And Survive? (298 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  To perfect a contract right in court (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jpmassar, Odysseus

    one first must establish good title.  I'm afraid MERS is not compliant with the laws of all the states and the banks may have difficulty with that.  another problem is that the banks voluntarily destroyed original promissory notes which can be interpreted as a destruction of the obligation.  Homeowners can also challenge the validity of the obligation by showing the bank failed to provide consideration (part with something of value) -- sorry an EFT isn't anything real at all and comes from nowhere.  

    You can throw up a lot of legal bricks to stand in the way of these criminal banksters.  Some will be hoist by their own petards because state law and NOT federal law governs real property title/ownership/transfers.  to establish the validity of the obligation, the transaction underlying also must be valid.

    Roadblocks ahead... it could be interesting.

    •  Marblex - in the Hayward plan it would be the City (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      johnny wurster, Sparhawk, jpmassar

      who had the burden to establish good title, it's a fundamental element of any ED procedure.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 01:42:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No :D The "taker" (the government) doesn't have (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jpmassar

        to establish anything other than that the property in question is being seized for reasons acceptable to the use of Eminent Domain (usually some public purpose) and that the owner (who will be defending against ED) is being justly compensated.

        The bank will be defending against the ED and will be unable in many cases to establish good title.  Regardless of which party puts forth evidence of NO good title, this will be a key.

        Now... if the bank cannot establish legal title (and thus a right to collect the obligation) then the state will not have to resort to ED to negotiate the loan with the equitable title holders aka the homeowners.

        •  The city needs to find the correct owner in order (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jpmassar, coffeetalk

          to provide notice to them of the eminent domain proceeding.  If the city notifies the wrong person, the true owner may have rights against the city and the eminent domain proceeding will likely be ineffective.

          •  Again, in the case of a home (0+ / 0-)

            the title is split between the homeowner and the bank.  It's not a case of the city notifying the wrong person, it's a case where the bank will not be able to perfect its title because it avoided compliance with state law. :D

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site