Question about mortgages and their securitization.

[AndyHammond1970]

Is it possible that at some point the securitization of mortgages will be deemed so criminal, mixed up, and beyond disentanglement, that the current owners and or residents of these houses, that these loans represent, could be declared legally the owners of the properties, free and clear of any further debt or lien.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

1. With a good(expensive) lawyer, yes.

For most, no.

[flvegan]

2. You mean across the board...as in everyone with a mortgage like that?

[COLGATE4]

3. Very unlikely.

[dixiegrrrrl]

4. Depends on state law.

Also depends on how the talks between the banks and the SEC are going right now.
You KNOW the likely outcome of that.

From my rather extensive reading, I have learned various ways to look at the issue.

There is a legal argument called unjust enrichment, which could be used in showing that the banks already sold the mortgage
once ( actually, more than once) to the MBS trusts, and so theoretically the trust, not the servicer, has the note,
therefore only the trusts can foreclose,
AND
since the banks have have been paid by the trusts, they therefore should not be collecting from you.

Other people have filed "quiet title" claims upon learning the bank could not produce the note, relying on a Commerce clause about fraud.

Other people have had their mortgage declared void, in bankruptcy court. The reason is that bankruptcy judges are much more meticulous about examining all the paperwork of debts, and apparently the banks, in some cases, could not prove they were owed money.

some states, including Alabama, have very very quietly changed the law to now require that judges HAVE to accept any paperwork from MERS and/or the banks. I suspect this will not go over in a state where foreclosures have to go thru courts, but states like Ala.do not have court directed foreclosures.

for the average homeowner to "win, they would need a good lawyer, an honest judge, and lots of time to play the legal game.

and the banks are busy as can be since this spring trying to change the playing field.

[Statistical]

5. Very very very unlikely. In a limited sense yes (a house here, a house there) but widespread... no.

Remember even if the deed is lost and can never be recovered you have signed a separate mortgage note.

In most states having a $200K house free and clear and a $200K unsecured debt would merely result in the creditor seeking a judgement against you in court and then requesting garnishment of your wages (for an amount similar to the original mortgage). Likely they will be willing to "settle" by having the $200K secured back to the house and signing a new mortgage.

[JVS]

6. No, because such a decision would not be in the best interests of the class who control the state.

[taught_me_patience]

7. No... absolutely not.

It would violate unjust enrichment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unjust_enrichment

[NNN0LHI]

8. No such thing as owning properties, free and clear of any further debt or lien

If someone thinks they can they are only kidding themselves.

Don