Welcome to the Machine, Video Introduction
By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.
Economics 101 and Elizabeth Warren
Continue reading “Welcome to the Machine, Video Introduction”
Tag: Massachusetts
Court Rules Federal “Protecting Tenants in Foreclosure Act” Requires 90 Days before Commencing UD in California
Court Rules Federal “Protecting Tenants in Foreclosure Act” Requires 90 Days before Commencing UD in California
By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.
Thank you to Charles Cox for this one, who sent out this information posted by April Charney:
The Court found that the bank must serve bona fide tenants a 90-day notice under the PTFA, even if the eviction is based on non-payment of rent (which required only a 3-day notice under state law). The ruling follows on the heels of a Massachusetts decision with similar reasoning, FNMA v. Vidal.
compliments of :
National Housing Law Project
703 Market Street Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94103
415-546-7000 x. 3112
415-546-7007 (fax)
Download ruling here: http://dtc-systems.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/stanko.order_.030711.pdf
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Deciding Hundreds of Years of Real Property Law Regarding MERS
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Deciding Hundreds of Years of Real Property Law Regarding MERS
By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.
In Eaton vs. FNMA, the Supreme Judicial Court is asking for additional briefings to help with the following “issue”:
1/16/2012 #17
ORDER :Having heard oral argument and considered the written submissions of the parties and the various amici curiae, the court hereby invites supplemental briefing on the points described below. Supplemental briefs shall not exceed fifteen pages and shall be filed on or before January 23, 2012. 1. It has been claimed that requiring a unity of the mortgage and the underlying promissory note, in order for there to be a valid foreclosure, would cloud any title that has a foreclosure in the chain of title, regardless of how long ago the foreclosure occurred. The parties are invited to address whether they believe that such a requirement would have such an effect, and if so, what legal or practical measures exist that might limit the consequences of such a requirement. 2. It also has been suggested that, if the court were to hold that unity of the mortgage and note is required under existing law, the court’s holding should be applied prospectively only. The parties are invited to indicate on what authority they believe (or do not believe) the court could make such a holding prospective only.
Culhane vs Aurora Loan Services
Culhane vs Aurora Loan Services
By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.
Note the following from this United States District Court case from the District of Massachusetts:
It is clear beyond peradventure that Culhane is substantially behind in paying her mortgage and appears unable to remediate her default. This, however, does not render her an outlaw, subject to having her home seized by whatever bank or loan servicer may first lay claim to it.
Notice this from the case also:
Nationwide, courts are grappling with challenges to MERS’s power to assign mortgages as well as its practice of deputizing employees of other companies to make assignments on its behalf. The present case is distinct only in that it is this Court’s first encounter with MERS and with the question whether its involvement in the origination and assignment of a mortgage loan clouds record title to the mortgaged property. The public has an interest in ensuring the liquidity of the mortgage market. Thus, even if Culhane is unable to exercise her equitable right of redemption and foreclosure of her mortgage loan is inevitable, title must pass free of cloud and not subject to challenge in any future action for summary process or to try title on the ground that the foreclosure process was conducted unlawfully. See Bevilacqua v. Rodriguez, 460 Mass. 762, 772 (2011); Bank of N.Y. v. Bailey, 460 Mass. 327, 333-34 (2011).
Order: http://dtc-systems.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Culhane-vs-Aurora-Loan-Services.pdf
County Recorder First in Nation to Step Forward and Reject Robo-Signed Documents
County Recorder First in Nation to Step Forward and Reject Robo-Signed Documents
By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.
The news release from Massachusetts speaks for itself: County Recorders Surprised to Find Acknowledgements Cannot be Relied Upon.
New release:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Salem, MA
June 7th, 2011
Contact:
Kevin Harvey, 1st Assistant Register
978-542-1724
Jeff Thigpen, Register of Deeds
336-451-5300
Massachusetts Register of Deeds John O’Brien is first in the nation to say no to recording robo-signed documents; North Carolina Register of Deeds, Jeff Thigpen agrees. Continue reading “County Recorder First in Nation to Step Forward and Reject Robo-Signed Documents”