My bank sent me a certified letter stating I had to bring the mortgage up to date or risk foreclosure. I never got the certified mail slip. I did get 1 a month later saying the bank had started the foreclosure by placing the ads, etc. Since I never got the first letter is that legal?
Resident
- Thread Starter resident
- Start date
- Status
army judge
Super Moderator
It's not the bank's fault you failed to pick up the certified mailing.
But, the legality will be determined by the court.
I suggest you try to negotiate a way to pay, or prepare to be legally foreclosed upon.
Very few foreclosures end well for the debtor.
army judge
Super Moderator
Proof isn't just claiming something happened, but proving it. Perhaps your renters PRETENDED to be the OWNERS?
Either way, foreclosure is ultimately about contract law and debt.
Confusedannie
New Member
Changing locks on foreclosure
My house hasbeen foreclosed on. I honestly don't know who has title to the property. I vacated but the tenant still lives there. Can anyone come to change the locks without a court order?
My house hasbeen foreclosed on. I honestly don't know who has title to the property. I vacated but the tenant still lives there. Can anyone come to change the locks without a court order?
disagreeable
Well-Known Member
That depends on specifics of the situation. I suggest your friend be prepared to pay them rent or leave.
army judge
Super Moderator
The tenant on lease living in a foreclosed property has certain rights not to be evicted.
Tell your tenant to contact the entity that held your mortgage and negotiate his or her continued stay (assuming they wish to stay longer).
The bank or lender now is your former tenant's landlord.
Not your worry, they'll be in touch if he or she waits.
misrepentation
my attorney informed me of some wrong info concerning my case and I need some advice on what to do. I was leasing a refrigerator and she told me to put all my bills on the form, well come to find out I could not file for the frig after a year and she saying that I have to give it back or pay them $450.00. then I was told that they were trying to have my case dismiss. I need to know what to do, I have not missed a payment since I have been in bankruptcy.
my attorney informed me of some wrong info concerning my case and I need some advice on what to do. I was leasing a refrigerator and she told me to put all my bills on the form, well come to find out I could not file for the frig after a year and she saying that I have to give it back or pay them $450.00. then I was told that they were trying to have my case dismiss. I need to know what to do, I have not missed a payment since I have been in bankruptcy.
army judge
Super Moderator
If you're smart, you'll follow the advice dispensed to you by your attorney.
Your attorney is familiar with every aspect and nuance of your bankruptcy.
No one here is, or could become acquainted with your case sufficiently to risk getting your case dismissed.
Your attorney is familiar with every aspect and nuance of your bankruptcy.
No one here is, or could become acquainted with your case sufficiently to risk getting your case dismissed.
Not notified of second foreclosure referral
We filed for bankruptcy in October of 2013 and were in foreclosure at the time. We had been properly notified/served every step of the way in that foreclosure proceeding. The bk was dismissed. We were not able to get caught up on our mortgage, and in July of this year we had a trial modification offered by Wells Fargo. We missed one of the payments and therefore were not approved for the modification. We apparently were then referred back to the foreclosure attorney on October 15 of this year. Our dispute regarding the process is simply that we were not notified by the lenders attorney/trustee that we were referred to foreclosure again. Our only notice came today, over a year since we heard the word foreclosure in reference to our loan, stating that our home will be sold in two weeks. We had been back in foreclosure for well over a month without knowing it. The last correspondence we received regarding our mortgage came from Wells Fargo in October stating that we had NOT yet been referred to foreclosure-and the next thing we received stated that our home will be sold in two weeks (mailed by the trustee). Wells Fargo told us that the attorney should have notified us and didn't know why they had not. We could have used the month that we didn't know we were in foreclosure to withdraw the reinstatement money from a 401k as a last resort, but the two weeks notice we were given that our home is not only in foreclosure again but is being sold is not nearly enough time for us to exercise that option to save our home. We feel that even if a mortgage is referred to foreclosure a second time, we have a right to know in a reasonable time frame to give us a fair chance to prepare. The way it stands now, my family will be on the streets in just two weeks, and I didn't even know I was referred back to foreclosure.I feel as if the trustee has withheld this information as long as possible in order to get commission on the sale of my home, knowing that most people in this situation don't stand a chance of saving their homes on two weeks notice. Is this legal?
We filed for bankruptcy in October of 2013 and were in foreclosure at the time. We had been properly notified/served every step of the way in that foreclosure proceeding. The bk was dismissed. We were not able to get caught up on our mortgage, and in July of this year we had a trial modification offered by Wells Fargo. We missed one of the payments and therefore were not approved for the modification. We apparently were then referred back to the foreclosure attorney on October 15 of this year. Our dispute regarding the process is simply that we were not notified by the lenders attorney/trustee that we were referred to foreclosure again. Our only notice came today, over a year since we heard the word foreclosure in reference to our loan, stating that our home will be sold in two weeks. We had been back in foreclosure for well over a month without knowing it. The last correspondence we received regarding our mortgage came from Wells Fargo in October stating that we had NOT yet been referred to foreclosure-and the next thing we received stated that our home will be sold in two weeks (mailed by the trustee). Wells Fargo told us that the attorney should have notified us and didn't know why they had not. We could have used the month that we didn't know we were in foreclosure to withdraw the reinstatement money from a 401k as a last resort, but the two weeks notice we were given that our home is not only in foreclosure again but is being sold is not nearly enough time for us to exercise that option to save our home. We feel that even if a mortgage is referred to foreclosure a second time, we have a right to know in a reasonable time frame to give us a fair chance to prepare. The way it stands now, my family will be on the streets in just two weeks, and I didn't even know I was referred back to foreclosure.I feel as if the trustee has withheld this information as long as possible in order to get commission on the sale of my home, knowing that most people in this situation don't stand a chance of saving their homes on two weeks notice. Is this legal?
Illinois traffic law - causing another vehicle to brake.
Anyway, the gist of the video is this - Someone has a dash cam, driving somewhere in Illinois (one of the businesses at about 21 seconds in has a 708 area code phone number.) In front of him is an SUV and as they are going along there is an intersection about 300 fee ahead of them, give or take. At that intersection a Buick pulls out of a gas station and into the middle lane, but as he pulls out, he stops. Not sure why. But from my count the SUV had a full 5 seconds to stop, and given the posted 35 MPH speed limit (20 seconds in) I figure it was about 300 feet or just a bit less from the time the Buick pulls out unit the SUV hits him.
Here's the question. There is a bit of debate in the Youtube comments about who is at fault. I say the SUV is at fault because he had penny of time to react and either stop or try to get over to avoid the Buick. Others are saying that the Buick would be because it is against the law to pull out in front of someone to the point they have to put on their brakes. That's a new one on me, but I'm not from Illinois so who knows.
Anyway, the gist of the video is this - Someone has a dash cam, driving somewhere in Illinois (one of the businesses at about 21 seconds in has a 708 area code phone number.) In front of him is an SUV and as they are going along there is an intersection about 300 fee ahead of them, give or take. At that intersection a Buick pulls out of a gas station and into the middle lane, but as he pulls out, he stops. Not sure why. But from my count the SUV had a full 5 seconds to stop, and given the posted 35 MPH speed limit (20 seconds in) I figure it was about 300 feet or just a bit less from the time the Buick pulls out unit the SUV hits him.
Here's the question. There is a bit of debate in the Youtube comments about who is at fault. I say the SUV is at fault because he had penny of time to react and either stop or try to get over to avoid the Buick. Others are saying that the Buick would be because it is against the law to pull out in front of someone to the point they have to put on their brakes. That's a new one on me, but I'm not from Illinois so who knows.
Last edited by a moderator:
You need to talk to an attorney NOW. Some states have judicial foreclosure which means that they have to sue you and win the case, then they sell the house. Other states it's non-judicial which means they basically tell you to get out, they are taking the house. MD has both, but it sounds like you are dealing with non-judicial. But it might still be possible for an attorney to file an injunction to hold the sale pending you having time to get them the money.
The short answer is that until the house is sold by the bank, you still hold the deed. NJ is a judicial foreclosure state, meaning they have to sue you for foreclosure. Once they win the case, they simply have a judgment against you. Since the house was the collateral for the mortgage, they have the right to sell the house and apply the proceeds from the sale toward that judgment. You will owe them the rest. But until the date of that sale, the house is still in your name.
Once they have the judgment, the bank can send someone to check on the property to see if it's vacant or not. They will send you notice that they intend to do so. They are not supposed to change the locks until they sell the house, but if for any reason they did before hand, you can bust their locks and put your own back on.
The key is that until the sale is done, you are still the owner of the house.
Once they have the judgment, the bank can send someone to check on the property to see if it's vacant or not. They will send you notice that they intend to do so. They are not supposed to change the locks until they sell the house, but if for any reason they did before hand, you can bust their locks and put your own back on.
The key is that until the sale is done, you are still the owner of the house.
The bank can proceed. Think of it this way, if I constantly avoid the guy coming to serve me with the court papers, does that mean that I can keep the case on hold forever? The answer is no. The ads are kind of a stupid thing because after all, what are the chances that you are looking at those ads in some paper somewhere in your state. But it's a formality and once it's done, they can proceed.
I would contact the bank's attorney and see if they are willing to work something out, but they don't have to.
I would contact the bank's attorney and see if they are willing to work something out, but they don't have to.
army judge
Super Moderator
Please don't necropost in older threads.
army judge
Super Moderator
Please stop necroposting. Last warning. Strike two...
army judge
Super Moderator
Strike three. You were warned.
- Status
