Welcome to The Home Equity Theft Reporter, a blog dedicated to informing the consumer public and the legal profession about Home Equity Theft issues. This blog will consist of information describing the various forms of Home Equity Theft and links to news reports & other informational sources from throughout the country about the victims of Home Equity Theft and what government authorities and others are doing about it.
Monday, July 09, 2012
Maryland High Court: Gap In Mortgage Note's Chain Of Title Does Not Necessarily Constitute Fraud That Infects Deed Of Trust
From a news alert from law firm Saul Ewing LLP:
An appellate court in Maryland(1) recently handed down a decision that makes it easier for a creditor holding a promissory note, secured by a deed of trust and with gaps in its chain of title, to foreclose.
Last week, the Court of Appeals of Marylandrejected a borrower in foreclosure's argument that gaps in a promissory note's chain of title amounts to fraud that infects a deed of trust. The Court's holding makes it easier for creditors who hold notes that are not completely traceable to the original lender, to foreclose.
In Thomas v. Nadel, No. 106, 2012 WL 2368881 (Md. June 25, 2012), the Thomases, a couple in foreclosure, challenged the sale of their home, in part, because there was a gap in the chain of title of the promissory note, which was secured by a deed of trust against their home. Biltmore Specialty Investments II, LLC ("Biltmore") held the promissory note and was also the winning bidder of the Thomases' home at a public foreclosure auction. Just how Biltmore came to hold the note is unclear.
The borrowers' original lender indorsed the note to a mortgage corporation that subsequently went out of business. Before going out of business in 2008, the mortgage company made blank indorsements of all its notes, so they could be transferred. At some point, the mortgage company transferred the note to another company, but Biltmore did not exist until 2009, leaving a one-year period where ownership of the note was anyone's best guess.
Maryland borrowers in foreclosure have two opportunities to challenge a foreclosure sale – before the sale is conducted or within 30 days following the sale. The general rule in Maryland is that a borrower challenging a foreclosure action must assert known defenses prior to the sale. After a foreclosure sale, a borrower is limited to raising only procedural irregularities.
The Court of Appeals in Bates v. Cohen, 417 Md. 309, 9 A.3d 846 (2010), left open the possibility that following a sale, a borrower could assert a mortgage or deed of trust was itself a product of fraud. Seizing on this open question, the borrowers in Thomas argued the gap in the note's chain of title amounted to fraud that tainted the deed of trust and the sale should have been set aside.
The Court was not convinced that a mere gap of ownership in a note's chain of title amounted to fraud. The Court noted that in the context of fraud relating to the execution of a document, Maryland courts recognize charges of forgery, alteration and misrepresentation.
The borrowers in Thomas conceded that no forgery took place at any point during the note's assignment; they were not the victims of misrepresentation and all documents including the note and the deed of trust were genuine.
The Court concluded that the couple's "general allegation" of fraud did not suffice and the question left in Bates is still an open one – whether fraud infecting the underlying mortgage or deed may be raised by a borrower following a foreclosure sale.
In rejecting the borrowers' fraud argument in Thomas, the Court has made it easier for creditors holding a promissory note, secured by a deed of trust, with gaps in its chain of title to foreclose. A note that is not completely traceable to the original lender does not, by itself, rise to the level of fraud in the underlying mortgage or deed of trust.
CBC News: Betrayal of Trust (A CBC investigation reveals how lawyers across Canada have misappropriated and mishandled clients money, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars, or sometimes even charging vulnerable people top dollar for shoddy services)
Land Contract/Contract For Deed/Rent-To-Own Rackets
The New York Times: The Housing Trap (In the wake of the housing crisis, low-income families have turned to seller financing to buy homes but these deals can be a money trap)
Beware The Fine Print: Consumers Forced To Sign Away Their Rights To Use Court System
The NY Times: Arbitration Everywhere, Stacking the Deck of Justice(Part 1 in series examining how clauses buried in tens of millions of contracts have deprived Americans of one of their most fundamental constitutional rights: their day in court)
Foreclosure Mills' Abysmal Record In Complying With New NYS Foreclosure Requirements
Justice Deceived: How Large Foreclosure Firms Subvert State Regulations Protecting Homeowners
MFY Legal Services Report On Questionable Practices By Process Servers In Debt Collection Cases
Justice Disserved: A Preliminary Analysis of the Exceptionally
Low Appearance Rate by Defendants in Lawsuits Filed in the Civil Court of the City of New York
Mortgage Mess Redux: Robo-Signers Return (A Reuters investigation finds that many banks are still employing the controversial foreclosure practices that sparked a major outcry last year)
CNN Video: As Foreclosures Mount, Florida Court Turns To 'Rocket Docket'
The Wall Street Journal: A Florida Court's 'Rocket Docket' Blasts Through Foreclosure Cases (2 Questions, 15 Seconds, 45 Days to Get Out; 'What's to Talk About?' Says a Judge)
"Produce The Note" Strategy When Dealing With Missing Promissory Notes In Foreclosure Actions
ABC Video: Fighting Against Foreclosure (Some homeowners have found a new tactic to keep the banks at bay)
<< Home