Friday, January 2nd, 2009 at 8:27 AM
Evicting Former Owners
Part of the duties of the listing agent of REO properties is going to court as the bank’s representative in the eviction cases. The first one was a couple of months ago regarding the mortgage-fraud case, and we worked out an amicable agreement with the tenant-witness in the court’s hallway.
My second REO unlawful-detainer case was Wednesday morning.
A disheveled old guy whose hair hadn’t seen a comb in weeks identifies himself as the defendant’s attorney. The commissioner asks us to go out to the hallway to discuss the case, where Frumpy confirms that they are claiming that the bank committed fraud on his clients.
Countrywide’s eviction attorney is located in Costa Mesa, and they contract-hire local independent attorneys to handle the courtroom work. Our guy tells the defendant’s attorney that Countrywide has already agreed to give his clients an additional 30 days to vacate the property.
He shows him the agreement in writing, which is on the letterhead of the Costa Mesa attorney. Frumpy challenges the local attorney’s authority, and they agree to call the Costa Mesa firm. But neither one of them has a phone, so the old guy takes my phone and starts walking to get better reception.
About ten minutes goes by, and I start heading for the parking lot, wondering if this guy could walk off with my phone!
We find him stumbling back in, and they agree to conduct the trial.
The proceeding begins with the commissioner saying that the purpose of the UD court is to determine possession of the property. If there are any other issues, they need to be handled in Superior Court.
The plaintiffs go first, so our attorney submits copies of trustee’s deed and eviction notice, plus asked me a few questions.
Frumpy then waxes on about how the bank perpetrated a fraud upon the defendants by giving them a mortgage that requires 80% of their monthly income. Then he question’s my authority to speak on behalf of Countrywide, asking if I brought my written agreement.
The commissioner then asked him if the defendants are present, and he says no.
She asks if they’ve filed a fraud case against Countrywide, and he says no.
The commissioner finds in favor of the plaintiffs, suggesting to Frumpy that if his clients have a fraud case, they ought to file it.
Nobody brought up the 30-day extension that we discussed in the hallway, so in 7-10 days the sheriff will be physically removing the former owners from the house.
Of the 25 REO properties since April, this is the first one where the former owners were belligerent towards us about the cash-for-keys offer, and then tried to contest the case in unlawful-detainer court. In 2009 I think we’ll see even fewer people contest the foreclosures, or try to save themselves with a loan modification. A company that specializes in midnight moves could make a killing though!
Posted on Friday, January 2nd, 2009 at 8:27 AM in Foreclosures/REOs, Fraud, REOs | 11 Comments » | 
Email
| 
Print
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Can you say losers!!!!!!!!!!
arizonadude | January 2nd, 2009 at 8:49 amJust goes to show that a good attorney is really worth the money. I was on a jury last year and the skill differential between the two attorneys was huge. Obviously, the better one was victorious in the end. It’s sad because, in my case, the plaintiffs might have won if their attorney was better.
Kwaping | January 2nd, 2009 at 9:09 amWill lawyer for food.
BDiego | January 2nd, 2009 at 10:20 amThe latest summary on loan modification programs, from WSJ:
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/st_MortgageModificationPrograms_20081231.html
It mentions the government buying delinquent mortgages in bulk and refinances them into FHA mortgages, a Bernanke proposal.
It would be the last hope for loan mods, and by the time they figure out how to implement, it could be too late to help.
Loan modifications should be on their way out of the rescue conversation by March or April.
Jim the Realtor | January 2nd, 2009 at 11:22 amJim,
It it a pain in the ass to get squatters out of houses?Do you have to get a sheriff to get them out yourself.
Some of these people getting forclosed on all of a sudden think they have a bunch of rights even though they don’t pay their bills.Since when is there a free ride?some of these lawyers are a joke too.Like the losers you see on billboards with greasy hair.
I had to evict a loser from a rental I had.What a POS.I used a property manager and they found me the biggest loser in az.I wanted to beat the shit out of him bad.The loser finally left after I confronted him in the front yard.
arizonadude | January 2nd, 2009 at 11:56 amYou have to let the attorneys handle the evictions around here – I’d have the same reaction as you if I got too close to them.
The banks can give them a three-day notice, yet I haven’t seen one yet – the REO occupants have all gotten a minimum 30-60 days and/or some cash to vacate.
Jim the Realtor | January 2nd, 2009 at 12:08 pmHave you ever had a short sale delayed because the occupants didn’t leave in a timely fashion? Or are those all cooperating in the hope of saving some of their FICO score?
Simone | January 2nd, 2009 at 1:07 pmI’m sorry to opine thus but IMO belligerent is the new black for 2009.
Rob Dawg | January 2nd, 2009 at 2:37 pmI don’t think it’s possible to delay short sales any more than the banks. :/
Kwaping | January 2nd, 2009 at 2:58 pmWhat a gigantic waste of time and money. It took how many man hours to agree that someone who doesn’t pay their mortgage needs to forfeit the property??? Truly annoying to me.
BAM | January 3rd, 2009 at 8:48 amThis all leads us back to toxic loans. The only way to avoid this mess is not to make the loan in the first place.
When you have 0% equity, the bank really has the other 100%. They bought the house, you didn’t, and all you have is a contract to buy it back from the bank over 30 years one payment at a time. If you don’t pay and have negative equity, where’s the big confusion here?
BDiego | January 3rd, 2009 at 9:28 am