Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  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