Tuesday, Nov 13, 2007
Asset value - ZERO
I am facing foreclosure: Deutsche Bank Foreclosures Tossed Out of Ohio Federal Court - "They Own Nothing!"
It appears that the holders of CDO's do not have legal title to the properties that have been defaulted on, so they cannot foreclose, so they get a big fat NOTHING
Posted by bleakhouse @ 10:14 AM (1561 views) Add Comment
21 Comments
- If you do not have an admin password leave the password field blank.
- If you would like to request a password allowing you to add comments and blog news articles without needing each one approved manually, send an e-mail to the webmaster.
- Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
- Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user's views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
- Please adhere to the Guidelines
1. dohousescrashinthewoods said...
Take that in the eye to the fat cats.
Multi-billion writedowns on assets that were not only mark-to-myth, but that they didn't even legally own!
Nice to see the little guy win a small victory.
2. cyril said...
I don't really understand this article. Who does own these houses then?
3. seanb303 said...
this is great
screw the gready hedgefunds
4. planning4acrash said...
If those who own the mortgage cannot foreclose, then why pay your mortgage at all?!
5. Jonb said...
It probably isn't as big a deal as they are making out there. If Deutsche Bank can't forclose, someone else can, and pay the money over to them.
The real problem of course is all the $500,000 loans secured on glorified portakabins occupied by people on benefits.
6. uncle tom said...
It's looking as though having chopped and diced these loans, selling bits of them far and wide in the process, all the pieces may have to be re-assembled and owned by a single entity to make a case for foreclosure.
If this decision withstands the US appeal process, it could be disastrous for those who have bought into these bits of paper, and as p4c notes, if people think they can default with impunity, and their equity is going negative - why pay at all..
Kicking people out of their homes is very a sensitive topic in the US - I doubt the government there will rush to change the law in the banks favour
7. uncle chris said...
My goodness - this is HUGE - and this mess is going to take decades to clear up. As mentioned above, so who does own these properties now, and will they be forced to buy them back? I did wonder about the legalities of packaging up and reselling mortgage debt without any consultation with the mortgage holders.
8. C Fletcher said...
I feel just as strongly about "fat cats" et al as everyone else, but pension companies are among the stupid idiots that bought into this fraudulent mess. So even though I sold my house, I still have a pension fund that will probably end up being worthless. I wanted a housing crash - I didn't want economic disaster. Be careful of what you wish for, it has a habit of coming true.
9. japanese uncle said...
As I mentioned time and again, Anglo-American financial regulation model was and is a hotbed for fraud. CDO geared to the housing mortgage should not first of all have been allowed to launch. From now any new financial products must be thoroughly screened first for license. I bet those financial genii who gave birth to this monster vehicle were better aware of such danger than Dr. Frankenstein was aware of the danger of his own creation. This is a straightforward fraud, and every villain concerned in the marketing of it should be locked up with keys thorwn down into Lake Baikal.
10. fahrenheit451 said...
This relates to a situation in Eastern Ohio, USA. OK the money markets span various continents so the loan can be "owned" in part in different countries !!!
1) Does it also affect all other USA States ?
2) How does this relate to the UK (and then the other countires) ?
11. little professor said...
12. stillthinking said...
They didn't keep/look at/check enough paperwork. I wonder if they can manage to recreate the original path of sales from what they have. Given the quantity of work, and the number of staff (laid off now) who worked full time on the much easier task of bundling things together, they are lost in a paper maze. Do they realise major projects like this to put a new system in place can take years... Even recreating the information for a single house sounds a herculean task given that between you and the house owner is a closed down business which doesn't answer the phone anymore and then a completely uncooperative home owner.
The original reason I visited this site was because I went for an initial meeting at a UK bank branch who had been ordered to increase the amount of information they had about their business dealings -or- keep larger reserves. I wondered about that at the time. They just got slack because everything was going well.
If the houses keep going down time is against the likes of Deutsche Bank.
Probably they need to try and extract the funds from the mortgage companies themselves first, or stand in line as creditors.
Anybody who speculated with borrowed funds on a bad bet on housing needs to pay up though. Simple as that.
13. stillthinking said...
Charlie, who stole the fizzy lifting drink, won the whole Chocolate factory.
14. justwatching said...
Yes, but Charlie was honest enough to give back the eternal gobstopper, he came good in the end
15. Orwell said...
Looks as if they did not have locus standi to sue at the time they intitiated the proceedings. This is effectively an interest in the subject matter of the suit. But I don't know why the right can't be assigned.... Any real estate lawyers from the US like to comment?
16. down wave said...
I ask and proposed this on Oct 25, Now am I psychic or am I not?
10. down wave said...
7. Scumbag said... Presumably your ffriend from Ringwood lost his deposit?
If things where to goes as bad as they did post 1929, then the courts would not be able to cope with all of the applications for repossession. Many people would lose their deposit as the landlord had blown it??
Now in this case, who will issue the eviction order, how long will it take, and will the courts evict thousands of tenants? How will the DSS pay the rent and to whom?
In the USA subprime, the morgage was sold on in packages of bonds owned possible by foreign speculators,, what has happened those people that can and those that can't pay their mortgage - to whom do they pay mortgage - their lender has gone bust?
I asked a set of serious questions above, but I see only answers for situation in the case of bank mortages and solvent banks. If Northern Rock had gone the same way as the US subrime banks, then how would and to whom would the tenants or the DSS pay their rent?
Do any of you know the answer?
Thursday, October 25, 2007 03:16PM
17. Cartimandua51 said...
My dim recollections of insolvency law say that wherever there is an insolvency, the courts (or the creditors, but more likely the court) appoint a receiver, whose job it is to collect the debts on behalf of the creditors. The original owners get completely cut out of the process, so in a sense it doesn't matter who they are. The debts - ie mortgages are payable to the official receiver ( who has sweeping powers).
18. the northerner living in oz said...
In responce to down wave
If Northern Rock had gone the same way as the US subrime banks, then how would and to whom would the tenants or the DSS pay their rent?
This is not my area of expertise but i guess
If northern bank had gone under
It would automatically gone into administration until
An another bank purchased it.
Unfortunately the U.K government (U.K Taxpayer) would probably have to
Bribe the purchaser with say about 23 billion pounds.
So the answer is yes you would have to continue paying your mortgage or rent
19. This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.
20. Wealthyvagrant said...
Down wave - I don't think there is a single answer, there are thousands of different situations depending on the slightly different types of debt and different parties involved. Individual court rulings only tell us about that specific situation. This is an gigantic international ball of string spanning many countries with many different parties any of whom may no longer exist in their previous form by the time an attempt is made at resolving it.
If the paper trail for these things is so complicated nobody could accurately assess the risk, how will anyone be able to untangle this mess to decide who gets what?
21. planning4acrash said...
Renters will not loose their deposit because deposits must be held by third parties from earlier this year. Presumably the govt saw this coming!