5 ms·

Did you read the article? The premise wasn't, these banks aren't fair or that there's anything necessarily wrong with banks selling mortgages. The premise is th

Did you read the article? The premise wasn't, these banks aren't fair or that there's anything necessarily wrong with banks selling mortgages. The premise is that banks have created a system that erodes one of the foundations of our system, the proof of ownership. If you're fine with someone using the technicalities of the contract to strategically default then you should equally be fine with someone using the weird system of title transfers that the banks use to their benefit in one's own favor.

scarface74 8y ago
How does selling the title, without changing the terms, hurt the individual? The law states that you have 60 (90?) days before the recipient bank can penalize you for making payments to the wrong bank. One of the pieces of paper I signed with a very clear explanation that the mortgage company I was using sells “100%” of mortgages within 90 days to other banks. You don’t just sign mortgage papers blindly. The closing attorney describes every piece of paper you sign.
- DubiousPusher 8y ago
  This is explained in the article. They are bipassing the recording process and this is the basis multiple state supreme courts have used for considering such transfers and the MERS system in total invalid.
- hermitdev 8y ago
  The selling of the loan is an often time consuming and disconcerting process. How many people would even open a letter from a bank they've never done business with? How many have automatic payments setup that would just stop when the loan is sold? How many blindly write a check to the same bank every month as their mortgage book tells them to? Answer: almost everyone that's ever taken out a mortgage or any other loan for that matter. I think, from a consumer perspective, the answer here is the originating bank of the loan should be responsible for the lifetime of the loan for servicing it, even if they sell the debt itself to another party. This simple act would simplify immensely the process for the consumer and probably put a bit more pressure on the banks to get the paperwork right.
  - scarface74 8y ago
    The selling of the loan is an often time consuming and disconcerting process. How many people would even open a letter from a bank they've never done business with? The first letter you get is from your current bank. How many have automatic payments setup that would just stop when the loan is sold? I think I would notice if my largest bill wasn’t deducted from my bank account. But at the end of the day, the bank doesn’t want your house. They don’t want to go through the trouble of foreclosure, for being responsible for maintenance while it’s being sold. They don’t want to go through the hassle of selling your house. You will get letters, phone calls, notices, court dates, etc before your house goes into foreclosure. I doubt that people are sending thier payments to the wrong place long enough to go into foreclose.
    - inetknght 8y ago
      > The first letter you get is from your current bank. Where in that letter can I say "I object to this transaction"? Where in that letter can I say "I will be emotionally and/or financially damaged by this transaction"? Where in that letter can I tell the bank that the new bank does not personally know me and I do not believe it can fulfill the obligations to Know Your Customer?
      - scarface74 8y ago
        You had a chance to “object” before you signed the loan. You are more than welcome to not buy a house until you save enough to pay cash.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
- zaphar 8y ago
  It doesn't. But when you must the chain of trust you can end up in situations where two different entities claim you open them money. Or you could pay off your loan and discover you still don't have a clear title. If the chain of trust is violated then all breasts are off. There is no harm in ensuring that you are the one who benefits as opposed to being hosed if that happens. What do you do when it's literally not possible to determine who owns your debt. That can be an enormous risk for you to take on though no fault of your own. A perfectly valid legal remedy for a court is to force the entities who messed up their record keeping to open the mistake interest of you.

scarface74 8y ago

How does selling the title, without changing the terms, hurt the individual? The law states that you have 60 (90?) days before the recipient bank can penalize you for making payments to the wrong bank. One of the pieces of paper I signed with a very clear explanation that the mortgage company I was using sells “100%” of mortgages within 90 days to other banks. You don’t just sign mortgage papers blindly. The closing attorney describes every piece of paper you sign.

DubiousPusher 8y ago
This is explained in the article. They are bipassing the recording process and this is the basis multiple state supreme courts have used for considering such transfers and the MERS system in total invalid.
hermitdev 8y ago
The selling of the loan is an often time consuming and disconcerting process. How many people would even open a letter from a bank they've never done business with? How many have automatic payments setup that would just stop when the loan is sold? How many blindly write a check to the same bank every month as their mortgage book tells them to? Answer: almost everyone that's ever taken out a mortgage or any other loan for that matter. I think, from a consumer perspective, the answer here is the originating bank of the loan should be responsible for the lifetime of the loan for servicing it, even if they sell the debt itself to another party. This simple act would simplify immensely the process for the consumer and probably put a bit more pressure on the banks to get the paperwork right.
- scarface74 8y ago
  The selling of the loan is an often time consuming and disconcerting process. How many people would even open a letter from a bank they've never done business with? The first letter you get is from your current bank. How many have automatic payments setup that would just stop when the loan is sold? I think I would notice if my largest bill wasn’t deducted from my bank account. But at the end of the day, the bank doesn’t want your house. They don’t want to go through the trouble of foreclosure, for being responsible for maintenance while it’s being sold. They don’t want to go through the hassle of selling your house. You will get letters, phone calls, notices, court dates, etc before your house goes into foreclosure. I doubt that people are sending thier payments to the wrong place long enough to go into foreclose.
  - inetknght 8y ago
    > The first letter you get is from your current bank. Where in that letter can I say "I object to this transaction"? Where in that letter can I say "I will be emotionally and/or financially damaged by this transaction"? Where in that letter can I tell the bank that the new bank does not personally know me and I do not believe it can fulfill the obligations to Know Your Customer?
    - scarface74 8y ago
      You had a chance to “object” before you signed the loan. You are more than welcome to not buy a house until you save enough to pay cash.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
zaphar 8y ago
It doesn't. But when you must the chain of trust you can end up in situations where two different entities claim you open them money. Or you could pay off your loan and discover you still don't have a clear title. If the chain of trust is violated then all breasts are off. There is no harm in ensuring that you are the one who benefits as opposed to being hosed if that happens. What do you do when it's literally not possible to determine who owns your debt. That can be an enormous risk for you to take on though no fault of your own. A perfectly valid legal remedy for a court is to force the entities who messed up their record keeping to open the mistake interest of you.