I am an author, actor, and attorney living and loving in the DFW (metroplex) area. I love books, theatre, movies, and legalese. I've been in plays, short-films, feature films and when I am not working on my debut novel "Black Scorpion Trilogy Book 1: The Veil", I enjoy reviewing plays for The Column Online and representing the down-trodden in legal matters. Thanks for stopping by. If I can help you in anyway, just let me know. I'm your paraclete. -E-

Thursday, December 15, 2011

The Pot calling the Kettle Black...

It's been a while since I've posted anything...mostly theater reviews.  However, I feel led to give my opinion on a certain matter.  I've been doing a lot of research lately on mortgage backed securities and the current real estate/foreclosure problems America has been dealing with.  If you are unaware of the problem you should probably get educated pretty quick.  Anyway, thanks to people like Neil Garfield, Matthew Weidner and Dave Krieger just to mention a few, I have been sufficiently disturbed on the subject of MBS's....disturbed in a good way.  It's been an eye opening adventure.  Anyway, just today I was reading Dave Krieger's book "Clouded Titles" and it mentioned how bank attorneys and bank executives view quiet title actions against them.  Basically the argument goes that the homeowner is just looking for a house "free and clear".  This is the part that disturbed me.  Isn't this exactly what the pretender lender is looking for?  Essentially if the lender does not have the note or the mortgage or have the right to foreclose the property then are THEY not merely looking to get the house "free and clear"?  So the bank, who does not own the property, attempts to foreclose the property in a bid to return the real property back to the bank...that doesn't own the note?  It seems to me that in this instance the homeowner has a greater interest in the property than a bank with a forged assignment or fraudulent conveyance.  Additionally, the banks were upset that a homeowner would get their house "free and clear" on a technicality.  Didn't the bank create the "technicality" that led to the house being "free and clear" to the homeowner?  And if an error did occur shouldn't the loss be bore by the party capable of bearing that burden?  Wouldn't a bank that has billions of assets AND accepted trillions in bailouts be a better candidate than John Q. Public, owner of one $150,000 house?  I think the fact that the banks consider not having a proper note or proper mortgage as a "technicality" goes a long way to revealing their mindset.  The single most important asset in the life of an american citizen...and a missing note or fraudulent mortgage....is.....a.....TECHNICALITY?