Real Estate Foreclosures » Real Estate Foreclosures

Good Job Tim M.

unknown — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 10:09:20 +0000

An exception to the rule that title cannot be tried in an unlawful detainer proceeding [see Evid Code § 624; 5.45[1][c]] is contained in CCP § 1161a. By extending the summary eviction remedy beyond the conventional landlord-tenant relationship to include purchasers of the occupied property, the statute provides for a narrow and sharply focused examination of title.

A purchaser of the property as described in the statute, who starts an unlawful detainer proceeding to evict an occupant in possession,must show that he or she acquired the property at a regularly conducted sale and thereafter “duly perfected” the title [CCP § 1161a; Vella v. Hudgins (1977) 20 C3d 251, 255, 142 CR 414, 572 P2d 28 ]. To this limited extent, as provided by the statute, title
may be litigated in the unlawful detainer proceeding [ Cheney v. Trauzettel (1937) 9 C2d 158, 159, 69 P2d 832 ].

CCP § 1161
1. In General; Words and Phrases
Term “duly” implies that all of those elements necessary to valid sale exist. Kessler v. Bridge (1958, Cal App Dep’t Super Ct) 161 Cal App 2d Supp 837, 327 P2d 241, 1958 Cal App LEXIS 1814.
Title that is “duly perfected” includes good record title, but is not limited to good record title. Kessler v. Bridge (1958, Cal App Dep’t Super Ct) 161 Cal App 2d Supp 837, 327 P2d 241, 1958 Cal App LEXIS 1814.

Title is “duly perfected” when all steps have been taken to make it perfect, that is, to convey to purchaser that which he has purchased, valid and good beyond all reasonable doubt. Kessler v. Bridge (1958, Cal App Dep’t Super Ct) 161 Cal App 2d Supp 837, 327 P2d 241, 1958 Cal App LEXIS 1814.
The purpose of CCP 1161a, providing for the removal of a person holding over after a notice to quit, is to make clear that one acquiring ownership of real property through foreclosure can evict by a summary procedure. The policy behind the statute is to provide a summary method of ouster where an occupant holds over possession after sale of the property. Gross v. Superior Court (1985, Cal App 1st Dist) 171 Cal App 3d265, 217 Cal Rptr 284, 1985 Cal App LEXIS 2408.

Construction, Interpretation, and Application

This section extended the former statute to permit persons not in the relationship of landlord and tenant to maintain an action in unlawful detainer. Hewitt v. Justice’s Court
of Brooklyn Township (1933, Cal App) 131 Cal App 439, 21 P2d 641, 1933 Cal App LEXIS 731.

Under this section, which was added to the code in 1929, an action in unlawful detainer by a purchaser at a trustee’s sale under a deed of trust is a proper proceeding to
remove persons from the demised premises; and, the remedy being purely statutory, if the determination of the question of title to realty becomes necessary, the legislature
had the right to provide for the trial of that issue in such a proceeding. Nineteenth Realty Co. v. Diggs (1933) 134 Cal App 278, 25 P 2d 522, 1933 Cal App LEXIS 54.
In an action to recover possession of premises under this section, the record title owner is sufficiently the owner, notwithstanding that he holds title as trustee for some other
person, to maintain the suit. Kraemer v. Coward (1934, Cal App) 2 Cal App 2d 506, 38 P2d 458, 1934 Cal App LEXIS 1455.
This section does not create a new right and an exclusive remedy to enforce it, but merely creates a new remedy without excluding the old remedy of ejectment where it
may apply. Mutual Bldg. & Loan Asso. v. Corum (1934, Cal App) 3 Cal App 2d 56, 38 P2d 793, 1934 Cal App LEXIS 1138. This section does not apply to a quiet title action. Duckett v. Adolph Wexler Bldg. &Finance Corp. (1935) 2 Cal 2d 263, 40 P2d 506, 1935 Cal LEXIS 321.

This section, which extends the summary remedy of unlawful detainer to certain cases where property has been sold, has no application where the party in possession raisescomplete issues as to title and the right of possession in an action to quiet title in a courtof equity; and under such circumstances the court has power not only to decide the
issues presented but to carry its decrees into effect, and it may grant relief by directingthe issuance of a writ of possession even though another and different remedy mighthave been available had an action to quiet the title not been brought. Furlott v. Security-First Nat’l Bank (1936, Cal App) 14 Cal App 2d 118, 57 P2d 952, 1936 Cal App LEXIS
829.

This section is not unconstitutional. St. George v. Meyer (1937) 9 Cal 2d 161, 69 P2d993, 1937 Cal LEXIS 373.

The unlawful detainer statutes, including CCP 1161 of this section are purely statutory remedies created by the legislature; hence, it is competent for the legislature to determine the scope of the issues that may be tried in such an action. Altman v. McCollum (1951, Cal App Dep’t Super Ct) 107 Cal App 2d Supp 847, 236 P2d 914, 1951 Cal App LEXIS 1990.

CCP 1161a, governing unlawful detainer proceedings, does not require a defendant to litigate, in a summary action within the statutory time constraints, a complex fraud claim involving activities not directly related to the technical regularity of a trustee’s sale. Vella v. Hudgins (1977) 20 Cal 3d 251, 142 Cal Rptr 414, 572 P2d 28, 1977 Cal LEXIS 192.

So long as a person’s possession of real property is achieved through the landlord tenant relationship, unlawful detainer may be properly used to regain possession in the event of the tenant’s default (CCP 1161, 1161a). Neither the relationship nor the remedy is eliminated by the mere fact that, in addition, there is an executory contract of
sale between the parties under which the rent is credited against the purchase price, in whole or in part. Provouskivitz v. Snow (1977, Cal App 2d Dist) 74 Cal App 3d 554, 141
Cal Rptr 531, 1977 Cal App LEXIS 1943.

Service and Effect of Notice

Failure to serve the three-day notice upon the trustor of a trust deed, as well as upon his subtenant, does not vitiate a proceeding under this section, where the subtenant only
and not the trustor contested the plaintiff’s right to possession as a purchaser under thetrust deed, and such failure may be deemed waived by the subtenant. In 2008 in california the tenant that is anybody but the trustor has sixty days and this must be clearly on the notice. Mailhes v. Investors Syndicate (1934) 220 Cal 735, 32 P2d 610, 1934 Cal LEXIS 595.
Service of a notice to quit on subtenants is not jurisdictional. San Jose Pacific Bldg. &Loan Asso. v. Corum (1934, Cal App) 2 Cal App 2d 276, 37 P2d 866, 1934 Cal App
LEXIS 1418.

Persons by and Against Whom Action May Be Brought

A purchaser or trustee at an execution sale or under a deed of trust may maintain an action under this section. Pacific States Sav. & Loan Co. v. Hoffman (1933, Cal App)
134 Cal App 601, 25 P2d 1006, 1933 Cal App LEXIS 180. In an action to recover possession of premises under this section, after sale under a
deed of trust, a foreign corporation, which made the loan to defendants, was not doing business in this state in making said loan, where the notes and deed of trust were
executed by defendants in favor of a party secured by defendants’ agent, and said documents, with draft attached, were forwarded by defendants’ agent to an eastern city
where they were approved and accepted by said foreign corporation, which had theretofore been a stranger to the transaction, and which, upon such acceptance,
honored the draft and sent the money to the state, payable to the order of defendants. Kraemer v. Coward (1934, Cal App) 2 Cal App 2d 506, 38 P2d 458, 1934 Cal App
LEXIS 1455.

An action under this section is not restricted to cases covered by 1161 where a tenant holds possession “in person, or by subtenant,” and may be brought against any person
claiming the right of possession as a successor to or under one whose title is terminated on sale of the property through a deed of trust, pursuant to CC 2924. Stockton Morris
Plan Co. v. Carpenter (1936, Cal App) 18 Cal App 2d 205, 63 P2d 859, 1936 Cal App LEXIS 191.

Where a vendor remaining in possession for a limited period as part of the consideration for the sale of realty failed to surrender possession within two years after completion of
the sale as provided by the contract, unlawful detainer was the proper form of action and the court was authorized to award treble damages. Moss v. Williams (1948, Cal
App) 84 Cal App 2d 830, 191 P2d 804, 1948 Cal App LEXIS 1278.
Mortgagee is not entitled to possession of property, either before or after default, and he has no right of entry except when he is vested with title to property on foreclosure and
sale; hence, applying provisions of CC 2924 that transfer of interest in property made only as security for performance of another act is to be deemed mortgage, plaintiff’s
right to maintain unlawful detainer action was not impaired by existence of deed naming defendant as grantee of property where such deed recited on its face that it was for
security only and said defendant made no attempt to show there had been any foreclosure of any security interest asserted by him which would have entitled him to
possession. Byrne v. Baker (1963, Cal App 2d Dist) 221 Cal App 2d 1, 34 Cal Rptr 178,1963 Cal App LEXIS 2099.

Judgment creditor who purchases at his own execution sale and first records sheriff’s certificate of sale is protected by provisions of CC 1107, 1214, and his rights are
therefore superior to those of holder of unrecorded deed; any interest defendant acquired by deed in property which is subject of action for unlawful detainer would not
operate as bar to plaintiff’s right to maintain action where defendant’s deed was not recorded until after plaintiff’s title under execution sale had been perfected and
marshal’s deed to property recorded. Byrne v. Baker (1963, Cal App 2d Dist) 221 Cal App 2d 1, 34 Cal Rptr 178, 1963 Cal App LEXIS 2099.

A subsequent purchaser from a purchaser at a foreclosure sale was entitled to bring unlawful detainer actions pursuant to former CCP 1161a, subd. (3) (see now CCP
1161a(b)), against occupants of condominium units; the policy of the statute, to provide a summary method of ouster when an occupant holds over possession after sale of the
property, would not be served by restricting availability of the action to the original purchaser at the foreclosure sale. Moreover, the requirements that the subsequent
purchaser prove his acquisition of title from the foreclosure sale purchaser does not destroy the summary nature of the action. Evans v. Superior Court (1977, Cal App 2d
Dist) 67 Cal App 3d 162, 136 Cal Rptr 596, 1977 Cal App LEXIS 1215.

Homeowners cannot be evicted, consistent with due process guarantees, without being permitted to raise affirmative defenses which if proved would maintain their possession
and ownership. Accordingly, in an unlawful detainer action brought in municipal court by a corporation that had acquired title to homeowners’ property through a loan transaction
after the homeowners had defaulted on a prior loan, the homeowners were entitled to defend the eviction action based on their claims of fraud and related causes which they
asserted; therefore the action necessarily exceeded the jurisdiction of the municipal court and could not be tried there. Asuncion v. Superior Court of San Diego County
(1980, Cal App 4th Dist) 108 Cal App 3d 141, 166 Cal Rptr 306, 1980 Cal App LEXIS2038.

The procedure in unlawful detainer is covered in CCP 1161 et seq. The remedy, as broadened by statutory changes, is available in three situations: (1) landlord against
tenant for unlawfully holding over or for breach of the lease (the traditional and most important proceeding), (2) owner against servant, employee, agent, or licensee, whose
relationship has terminated, and (3) purchaser at sale under execution, foreclosure, or power of sale in mortgage or deed of trust, against former owner and possessor. The
statutory situations in which the remedy of unlawful detainer is available are exclusive, and the statutory procedure must be strictly followed. Berry v. Society of Saint Pius X
(1999, Cal App 2d Dist) 69 Cal App 4th 354, 81 Cal Rptr 2d 574, 1999 Cal App LEXIS 42, review or rehearing denied (1999, Cal) 1999 Cal LEXIS 2245.

Action Involving Issue of Title and Right to Possession

On a sale under a deed of trust, the purchaser has an immediate right to possession; and where a party exchanged property for an apartment house encumbered by a deed
of trust, under which notice of default and election to sell was filed before the exchange,but the sale was conducted after the date of exchange, regardless of the right of
possession prior to foreclosure the party who would have received the property under the exchange was not entitled to a judgment for possession of it after the sale. Farris v.
Pacific States Auxiliary Corp. (1935) 4 Cal 2d 103, 48 P2d 11, 1935 Cal LEXIS 506.

Proof that he has duly perfected his title by a sale regularly conducted may be made by the plaintiff in a proceeding under subd 3. Mortgage Guarantee Co. v. Smith (1935, Cal
App) 9 Cal App 2d 618, 50 P2d 835, 1935 Cal App LEXIS 1196.

Matters affecting the validity of a trust deed, primary obligation, or other basic defects in the title of a plaintiff who purchased at a sale under the trust deed may not be raised by
the defendant in an unlawful detainer action. Cheney v. Trauzettel (1937) 9 Cal 2d 158,69 P2d 832, 1937 Cal LEXIS 372.

Right to possession alone is involved in a summary proceeding under this section, and the broad question of title cannot be raised and litigated by a cross-complaint or
affirmative defense. Cheney v. Trauzettel (1937) 9 Cal 2d 158, 69 P2d 832, 1937 Cal LEXIS 372; Delpy v. Ono (1937, Cal App) 22 Cal App 2d 301, 70 P2d 960, 1937 Cal
App LEXIS 116.

The title of a purchaser at a sale under a trust deed is involved in an action in unlawful detainer brought by him to the limited extent that he must prove his acquisition of title by
purchase at the sale, and the defendant may attack the sufficiency of the sale. Cheney v. Trauzettel (1937) 9 Cal 2d 158, 69 P2d 832, 1937 Cal LEXIS 372; Delpy v. Ono
(1937, Cal App) 22 Cal App 2d 301, 70 P2d 960, 1937 Cal App LEXIS 116; Seidell v. Anglo-California Trust Co. (1942, Cal App) 55 Cal App 2d 913, 132 P2d 12, 1942 Cal App LEXIS 146.

The validity of a trust deed attacked as part of a conspiracy to evade the Alien Land Law
was an issue relating to title which could not be raised in an unlawful detainer action by
the purchaser at the trust deed sale. Delpy v. Ono (1937, Cal App) 22 Cal App 2d 301,
70 P2d 960, 1937 Cal App LEXIS 116.

Where after a sale of trust property the purchaser sued the trustor in a justice’s court for unlawful detainer and alleged ownership by virtue of purchase at a trustee’s sale
regularly conducted, denial of such allegations put in issue title to the property and a judgment which restored possession to such purchaser was sufficient adjudication of
title to render applicable the doctrine of res judicata. Bliss v. Security-First Nat’l Bank (1947, Cal App) 81 Cal App 2d 50, 183 P2d 312, 1947 Cal App LEXIS 1021.

While the broad question of title cannot be raised in an unlawful detainer action, where the action is brought under subd 4, the plaintiff must establish the sale of the property
and the title perfected under such sale before recovery can be allowed. Kelliher v. Kelliher (1950, Cal App) 101 Cal App 2d 226, 225 P2d 554, 1950 Cal App LEXIS 1103.

Where purchaser at trustee’s sale proceeds in unlawful detainer under section, he must prove his acquisition of title by purchase at sale but is not required to prove more with
respect to title. Abrahamer v. Parks (1956, Cal App 2d Dist) 141 Cal App 2d 82, 296 P2d 341, 1956 Cal App LEXIS 1814.Under subd 3, title, to the extent required by this section, not only may, but must, betried in actions if provisions of statute extending remedy beyond cases where conventional relation of landlord and tenant exist are to be judicially nullified. Kartheiser
v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1959, Cal App 2d Dist) 174 Cal App 2d 617,345 P2d 135, 1959 Cal App LEXIS 1746.

Question of title is not triable in unlawful detainer action, but only question of right of possession. Patapoff v. Reliable Escrow Service Corp. (1962, Cal App 2d Dist) 201 Cal App 2d 484, 19 Cal Rptr 886, 1962 Cal App LEXIS 2618.

Broad questions of title may not be litigated in unlawful detainer action; though purchaser at execution sale who proceeds in unlawful detainer action under provisions
of this section must prove his acquisition of title by purchase at sale, it is only to this limited extent, as provided by statute, that title may be litigated in such proceeding.
Byrne v. Baker (1963, Cal App 2d Dist) 221 Cal App 2d 1, 34 Cal Rptr 178, 1963 Cal App LEXIS 2099.

A proceeding for unlawful detainer is summary in character, and ordinarily, only claims bearing directly on the right of immediate possession are cognizable. Also, crosscomplaints
and affirmative defenses, legal or equitable, are permissible only insofar as they would, if successful, preclude removal of the tenant from the premises. As a consequence, a judgment in unlawful detainer usually has very limited res judicata effect and will not prevent one who is dispossessed from bringing a subsequent action to resolve questions of title or to adjudicate other legal and equitable claims between the parties. However, to the limited extent provided by CCP 1161a, subd. 3, providing that a person who continues possession of real property may be removed where the
property has been duly sold and the title of the sale has been duly perfected, title may be litigated in such a proceeding. Vella v. Hudgins (1977) 20 Cal 3d 251, 142 Cal Rptr
414, 572 P2d 28, 1977 Cal LEXIS 192.

In an unlawful detainer action against occupants of condominium units by a subsequent purchaser from a purchaser at a foreclosure sale, pursuant to CCP 1161a, subd. (3),
questions of title unrelated to compliance with Civ. Code, 2924, concerning a power of sale contained in a trust deed, and issues which would have been unavailable to the
occupants’ predecessor in interest, the maker of the trust deed, could not be raised asdefenses, but would have to be litigated in a quiet title action. Since such issues were
not cognizable in the unlawful detainer action, the judgment in that action would not be res judicata as to those issues, nor would the pendency of the unlawful detainer action
be a bar to the simultaneous maintenance of a quiet title action. Evans v. Superior Court (1977, Cal App 2d Dist) 67 Cal App 3d 162, 136 Cal Rptr 596, 1977 Cal App LEXIS 1215.

In an action for unlawful detainer, the trial court erred in dismissing the tenants’ affirmative defense that raised the issue of title, where the landlord had previously filed
an action seeking declaratory relief and quiet title thereby putting the title in issue. Greenhut v. Wooden (1982, Cal App 2d Dist) 129 Cal App 3d 64, 180 Cal Rptr 786,1982 Cal App LEXIS 1304.

Procedure

Adoption of specific findings on each detail of the proceeding for the sale of the property under a deed of trust were not necessary, where the court found that the defendant,
who died pending the action, took a deed and possession with full knowledge that his grantors had no title, that he was in unlawful possession, and had no right thereto at any
time. Stockton Morris Plan Co. v. Carpenter (1936, Cal App) 18 Cal App 2d 205, 63 P2d859, 1936 Cal App LEXIS 191.

A judgment in unlawful detainer is res adjudicata in a subsequent suit to set aside a trustee’s deed on the ground of irregularity in the foreclosure proceedings, where the
unlawful detainer action brought by the purchaser at the trust deed sale involved the same issues which were determined in favor of the regularity of the foreclosure
proceedings and the validity of the deed. Seidell v. Anglo-California Trust Co. (1942, Cal App) 55 Cal App 2d 913, 132 P2d 12, 1942 Cal App LEXIS 146.
It was improper to grant summary judgment in an unlawful detainer action institutedunder this section, where a supporting affidavit related facts concerning a transfer of title
not within the personal knowledge of the plaintiff concerning which he was incompetent to testify. Kelliher v. Kelliher (1950, Cal App) 101 Cal App 2d 226, 225 P2d 554, 1950 Cal App LEXIS 1103.

Municipal court has jurisdiction of an unlawful detainer action by the purchaser at a trustee’s sale against the trustor where the purchaser alleges the reasonable rental
value of the premises to be $100 a month and seeks damages for less than two months. Karrell v. First Thrift of Los Angeles (1951, Cal App) 104 Cal App 2d 536, 232 P2d 1, 1951 Cal App LEXIS 1656.

Facts that owner of realty was not in default under trust deed executed by her, that the note secured by such instrument had been fully paid, and that she had no notice that
property was to be sold were available to her as a defense in a prior unlawful detainer action brought against her by a successor of the purchaser at a trust deed sale, and
having failed to appear in that action she is precluded from asserting such matters in a subsequent suit instituted by her for a decree setting aside the deed from the trustee to
the original purchaser, the sale to such purchaser and his successor, and the judgment in the unlawful detainer action. Freeze v. Salot (1954, Cal App) 122 Cal App 2d 561, 266
P2d 140, 1954 Cal App LEXIS 1085.

In summary proceeding of unlawful detainer, only the right to possession is involved, but when purchaser at trustee sale proceeds under this section, title may be litigated to
limited extent that purchaser must prove his acquisition of title by purchase at sale. Cruce v. Stein (1956, Cal App 2d Dist) 146 Cal App 2d 688, 304 P2d 118, 1956 Cal App LEXIS 1522.

Pleadings

Conclusions of law and not facts are stated by a complaint alleging that the plaintiff became the owner in fee and entitled to the possession of the premises by virtue of a
sale under CC 2924, where nothing more about the deed and sale is alleged. AmericanNat’l Bank v. Johnson (1932, Cal App Dep’t Super Ct) 124 Cal App 783, 124 Cal App 4th
Supp 783, 11 P2d 916, 1932 Cal App LEXIS 6.

Although a complaint is insufficient as a statement of facts to bring the case within CCP 1161 where the answer shows that the fact and validity of the sale under the deed of
trust is made an issue by the defendants, they cannot on appeal question the sufficiency of the complaint. Harris v. Seidell (1934, Cal App) 1 Cal App 2d 410, 36 P2d 1104, 1934 Cal App LEXIS 1289.

Taking of the necessary steps to a valid sale is sufficiently alleged by a complaint under subd 3 alleging that the plaintiff duly performed and caused to be performed all the
conditions on his part required by CC 2924, and by other applicable laws and provisions of the deed of trust. San Jose Pacific Bldg. & Loan Asso. v. Corum (1934, Cal
App) 2 Cal App 2d 276, 37 P2d 866, 1934 Cal App LEXIS 1418.

A complaint based on subd 3, substantially in the language of the statute is sufficient. Quinn v. Mathiassen (1935) 4 Cal 2d 329, 49 P2d 284, 1935 Cal LEXIS 547.
An allegation of due compliance with CC 2924 is sufficient without alleging compliance in haec verba. Quinn v. Mathiassen (1935) 4 Cal 2d 329, 49 P2d 284, 1935 Cal LEXIS 547.

In action by lessee for damages for eviction, where it was obvious from allegations of the complaint that the parties to the lease intended that the lessee should not be
disturbed in its possession and use of the premises by the foreclosure of a trust deed or mortgage securing a bond issue, and the complaint alleged facts sufficient to show the
assertion of a paramount title and right to possession by the purchaser on foreclosure under said deed of trust, the allegations of eviction were sufficient against demurrer.
Stillwell Hotel Co. v. Anderson (1935) 4 Cal 2d 463, 50 P2d 441, 1935 Cal LEXIS 569.

In action in unlawful detainer for rent and possession of property held in part by oral agreement and in part under a written lease, there was no merit in the contention that
the property covered by the written lease was not sufficiently described in the complaint where the description was sufficient to enable the appealing defendant to enter on the
same and make avail thereof, and, at the trial, said defendant testified that at all times he understood what land was referred to both by the lease and the notice to pay or
surrender possession; and, under the circumstances, the addition in the lease of theword “station,” after the name of a town near which the land was located, did not make
the description doubtful or imperfect. Mendoza v. Castiglioni (1936, Cal App) 14 Cal App2d 710, 58 P2d 939, 1936 Cal App LEXIS 951.

A cause of action under subd 3 is stated by a complaint alleging that the property was sold to the original plaintiff in accordance with the terms of a deed of trust executed by
the former owners, and in accordance with CC 2924, where a supplemental complaint details the proceedings required by CC 2924, including notice of default. Stockton
Morris Plan Co. v. Carpenter (1936, Cal App) 18 Cal App 2d 205, 63 P2d 859, 1936 Cal App LEXIS 191.

An allegation of due compliance with CC 2924, as authorized by 459, is not merely a conclusion of law, but an allegation of fact which, if not denied, must be deemed to have
been admitted. Bank of America Nat’l Trust & Sav. Asso. v. McLaughlin Land &Livestock Co. (1940, Cal App) 40 Cal App 2d 620, 105 P2d 607, 1940 Cal App LEXIS
150, cert den (1941) 313 US 571, 61 S Ct 958, 85 L Ed 1529, 1941 US LEXIS 686.

An unlawful detainer proceeding is summary in character, and use of cross-complaint in such case would frustrate remedy and render it inadequate. Tide Water Associated Oil
Co. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1955) 43 Cal 2d 815, 279 P2d 35, 1955 Cal LEXIS 387.

It is proper to sustain, without leave to amend, demurrer to a complaint seeking to set aside a sale under a trust deed, based on alleged failure to comply with the legal
requirements as to notice, where the trust deed, which was made a part of the complaint, discloses a provision making the recital in the trustee’s deed conclusive, and
where such deed, also made part of the complaint, recites that sale and notice complied with the law. Pierson v. Fischer (1955, Cal App 3d Dist) 131 Cal App 2d 208, 280 P2d
491, 1955 Cal App LEXIS 2037.

Complaint in unlawful detainer against defaulting trustors of trust deed states facts sufficient to constitute cause of action where it alleges that plaintiff, to whom property
was sold by trustee, “is owner and entitled to possession of,” property, and where there is attached to complaint as exhibit a copy of trustee’s deed which recites that default
was made in payment due on note and obligation secured by trust deed specified them. Abrahamer v. Parks (1956, Cal App 2d Dist) 141 Cal App 2d 82, 296 P2d 341, 1956 Cal
App LEXIS 1814.

In unlawful detainer action based on sale of property by defendants to plaintiff andagreement to vacate property by specified date “if it is possible,” it is not necessary to
allege facts showing that it was possible for defendants to vacate premises by date set,and complaint alleging that real property involved had been duly sold to plaintiff and title
under sale had been duly perfected, that plaintiff was entitled to possession, that threeday notice to quit premises had been personally served on defendants, and that they
held over and continued in possession after three-day notice had been served, is sufficient. Johnson v. Hapke (1960, Cal App 2d Dist) 183 Cal App 2d 255, 6 Cal Rptr 603, 1960 Cal App LEXIS 1746.

Defenses

Equitable defense of cancellation of escrow and withdrawal of defendant’s consent to transfer before made is properly raised in action by vendee for removal of vendor from
premises and award of damages for withholding possession. Kessler v. Bridge (1958,Cal App Dep’t Super Ct) 161 Cal App 2d Supp 837, 327 P2d 241, 1958 Cal App LEXIS 1814.

Equitable defense of delivery of deed to plaintiff in violation of escrow is properly raised in action by vendee for removal of vendor from premises and award of damages for
withholding possession. Kessler v. Bridge (1958, Cal App Dep’t Super Ct) 161 Cal App2d Supp 837, 327 P2d 241, 1958 Cal App LEXIS 1814.

Equitable defense of failure of consideration is properly raised in action by vendee forremoval of vendor from premises and award of damages for withholding possession.
Kessler v. Bridge (1958, Cal App Dep’t Super Ct) 161 Cal App 2d Supp 837, 327 P2d 241, 1958 Cal App LEXIS 1814.

Equitable defense of fraud in inducement for relinquishment of property is properly raised in action by vendee for removal of vendor from premises and award of damages
for withholding possession. Kessler v. Bridge (1958, Cal App Dep’t Super Ct) 161 CalApp 2d Supp 837, 327 P2d 241, 1958 Cal App LEXIS 1814.

Equitable defense of rescission of transaction prior to suit is properly raised in action by vendee for removal of vendor from premises and award of damages for withholding
possession. Kessler v. Bridge (1958, Cal App Dep’t Super Ct) 161 Cal App 2d Supp 837, 327 P2d 241, 1958 Cal App LEXIS 1814.
Equitable defense of unauthorized unilateral change in escrow instructions by plaintiff to effect delivery of deed is properly raised, in action by vendee for removal of vendor from
premises and award of damages for withholding possession. Kessler v. Bridge (1958,Cal App Dep’t Super Ct) 161 Cal App 2d Supp 837, 327 P2d 241, 1958 Cal App LEXIS 1814.

Summary proceeding in unlawful detainer is subject to control of equity in proper case; hence, if defendant in such action possessed valid equitable rights in property that
would make it inequitable for plaintiff to proceed, defendant could, by seeking injunction in quiet title suit pending between parties, prevent plaintiff from proceeding. Byrne v.
Baker (1963, Cal App 2d Dist) 221 Cal App 2d 1, 34 Cal Rptr 178, 1963 Cal App LEXIS 2099.

In an unlawful detainer action under CCP 1161a, subd. (3), by a subsequent purchaser from a purchaser at a foreclosure sale, the subsequent purchaser may not claim the
status of a bona fide purchaser without notice against one in open and notorious possession of the premises, so as to cut off defenses which would have been available
to the occupant against the original purchaser. Evans v. Superior Court (1977, Cal App 2d Dist) 67 Cal App 3d 162, 136 Cal Rptr 596, 1977 Cal App LEXIS 1215.
The statutory remedies for recovery of possession and of unpaid rent (CCP1159-1179a; Civ. Code, 1951 et seq.) do not preclude a defense based on municipal
rent control legislation enacted pursuant to the police power imposing rent ceilings and limiting the grounds for eviction for the purpose of enforcing those rent ceilings. Thus,
CCP 1161 (unlawful detainer), does not preempt a defense based upon local rent control legislation. Also, since 1161 does not preempt such a defense, it follows that
CCP 1161a (removal of person holding over after notice to quit), does not preempt such a defense. Accordingly, 1161a did not preempt that portion of a local rent stabilization
ordinance limiting the grounds for eviction. Passage of such legislation by a local government was an exercise of police power which substantively placed a limitation on
an owner’s property rights. Gross v. Superior Court (1985, Cal App 1st Dist) 171 Cal App 3d 265, 217 Cal Rptr 284, 1985 Cal App LEXIS 2408.
The county’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim of excessive force in evicting her should be granted, absent evidence the county had a policy or custom other
than to lawfully enforce writs of possession. Under CCP 1161a, a writ of possession may be effectuated without a warrant; peace officers may obtain possession through
eviction under a valid writ of possession. Busch v. Torres (1995, CD Cal) 905 F Supp 766, 1995 US Dist LEXIS 19998.

Evidence

To prevail, in action by vendee against vendor for removal of vendor from premises and award of damages for withholding possession, plaintiff must prove affirmatively that
property was “duly sold” and that “the title under the sale has been duly perfected,” and, contrary to rule applying to unlawful detainer where landlord-tenant relationship is
involved, title thus becomes issue. Kessler v. Bridge (1958, Cal App Dep’t Super Ct) 161 Cal App 2d Supp 837, 327 P2d 241, 1958 Cal App LEXIS 1814.

In unlawful detainer action, property involved is shown to have been duly sold by defendants to plaintiff, within meaning of CCP 1161, by evidence that at request of
defendant husband, joined in by defendant wife as evidenced by her activeparticipation, both executed escrow constructions and grant deed conveying title to
plaintiff, and that no material representations were made by plaintiff to defendants concerning escrow instructions, reconveyance of second trust deed, grant deed or
general agreement of parties. Johnson v. Hapke (1960, Cal App 2d Dist) 183 Cal App2d 255, 6 Cal Rptr 603, 1960 Cal App LEXIS 1746.

In unlawful detainer action based on sale of property to plaintiff and agreement by defendants to vacate premises by stated date “if it is possible,” such agreement
conditioned defendants’ performance on event that was within their control, placing collateral duty on them to bring about happening of event of vacating premises within
reasonable time, and placing burden on them to show any reason why it was impossible to vacate on or before agreed date, and where such burden was not fulfilled finding that
it was possible for defendants to vacate on or before agreed date was supported. Johnson v. Hapke (1960, Cal App 2d Dist) 183 Cal App 2d 255, 6 Cal Rptr 603, 1960
Cal App LEXIS 1746.

In fixing plaintiff’s damages for unlawful detention of real property purchased at a nonjudicial sale under a trust deed, the trial court did not err in considering, in part, the rents
received by defendant during the period of unlawful detention. The proper measure of damages in an unlawful detainer action is the detriment to the owner because of the
detention of the property, and the detriment to plaintiff caused by defendant’s unlawful detention was measurable in the amount of a reasonable rental value that plaintiff might
have realized had it not been denied possession. MCA, Inc. v. Universal Diversified Enterprises Corp. (1972, Cal App 2d Dist) 27 Cal App 3d 170, 103 Cal Rptr 522, 1972
Cal App LEXIS 838.

This site is an content aggregator for any articles and information related to foreclosure sale. This original article was posted by mortgagelies from foreclosure webpage. If you liked what you read here, we recommend that you visit their site to read more content like this.

Foreclosures add complexity to title searching.

unknown — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 08:48:04 +0000

With the prevalence of foreclosures in the current marketplace, it is more likely that a property being searched was at

one time a subject of foreclosure. As the frequency these searches increases, abstractors will notice that the circumstances surrounding the records are often different from non-foreclosure properties. Here are three examples from just this week of different types of complications with foreclosures:

1. Conflicts from new foreclosure laws. In response to the volume of foreclosures, legislative bodies are rushing to pass laws which have the intention of protecting homeowners from mistreatment by lenders. Leaving out the opinion of whether government should intervene with private enterprise, these new laws will create new intricacies in title records for abstractors to consider.

In one example, the city of Providence RI is proposing to punish mortgage holders who do not attempt to negotiate with borrowers. In addition to a $2000 fine, the lender is prevented from recording a deed of ownership with the recorder. Obviously, this would create a scenario where the actual ownership of the property cannot be documented in public records. The consequences of this conflict between actual ownership and recorded documents could be serious.

“Should the Recorder refuse to record the foreclosure deed, it would create a gap in the chain of title, which will affect the value of the property and create a problem for the purchaser,” according to a memo from the acting Recorder of Deeds, John A. Murphy.

During this period of ambiguous ownership, claims against title could accrue from any number of parties. An abstractor searching title may not immediately discover these claims in name indexes of the principal parties.

2. Foreclosure process adds opportunities for multiple claims. The foreclosure process itself is a risk to title. By definition, a foreclosure is an adversarial process between two (or more) parties with interest in title. Both parties have opposing interests and claims, which are ultimately decided by a court (in judicial states.) In most cases the ruling is clear. However, the process leaves room for any number of disputable issues. In one case from Colorado, a borrower dies leaving the property to an estate. The property is ultimately foreclosed, and purchased at a public foreclosure sale by a corporation.

After the sale, the estate and its principals claim that they were improperly prevented from redeeming the property. After a complicated series of claims and counterclaims including bid-rigging and backdated documents, a court rules in favor of the new owner, and issues a ruling of quiet title. The estate and its principals appeal, and the appeals court overturns the decree quieting title.

This extreme case of clouded title is atypical, but the point to take away from this is that a foreclosure process introduces many opportunities for an interpretation of title records to be less than obvious. When a prior record of foreclosure is discovered, it means that the title search is not going to be a standard run-of-the-mill process. An expert abstractor should use this as a call for action to more thoroughly scrutinize the documents and the index for additional records which would clarify the nature of events.

While all searches should be this inclusive, a foreclosure should be a reason to keep all eyes open for “interesting” records.

3. More delinquent borrowers mean more creative legal challenges. There are indications this issue can get worse. In California, a Federal court has accepted a case from a borrower who is challenging the idea of non-judicial foreclosures on the grounds it violates constitutional rights granted under the Fifth Amendment. The borrower alleges that the lender violated their due process rights because in some circumstances the Fifth Amendment applies to private entities, so long as there is sufficient nexus between the government and the private entity. The court, in refusing to dismiss the complaint, agreed with this novel argument because the case involves the Home Affordable Modification Program (“HAMP”), which is a federally funded program, there could be a nexus over and above just extensive regulation.

This site is an content aggregator for any articles and information related to foreclosure sale. This original article was posted by Dave from Title Search. If you liked what you read here, we recommend that you visit their site to read more content like this.

How to Qualify a Short Sale Agent

unknown — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 22:04:27 +0000

There are a lot of real estate companies and real estate agents in Colorado claiming to know short sales, but they are really just learning the “how-to’s” of short sales. Now even national short sale companies are claiming to know how to process short sales in all states, but do they? Short sales are certainly a process that needs a lot of experience and finesse. Processing, negotiating, and listing short sales are not for the novice. Key Concepts has been a leader in processing and negotiating short sales in Colorado since 2005. It has come to our attention that many of these so-called “short sale” experts do not know anything about the short sale process or about short sales in general. I have listed a few questions that I feel will qualify a real expert from a novice. I would also advise a homeowner to not use an agent who has not performed more than 10 short sales in the last calendar year or who has less than a 90% success rate. Here are a few questions I would suggest a homeowner ask before selecting a short sale agent.

1. How many short sales have you completed in the last 6 months to 1 year?

2. How long have you been performing short sales? 3. How many short sales have you completed for (your mortgage company here)?

4. What has been your experience with my mortgage company?

5. Do you process your own short sales or do you sub out? If the answer is: no they do not process their own short sales then ask who handles the short sale after it is submitted? Be cautious if the agent uses a national short sale processing center or title company to process the short sale.

6. How long do you think my short sale will take? Be cautious of agents who propose “quick”, less than 60 days, or we get them done the fastest.

7. Make sure to note if your short sale is a conventional loan, FHA pre-foreclosure sale, or VA short sale. Ask the agent if he or she is knowledgeable in the type of loan product that you have. All loans are not treated the same.

For more information on short sales call Key Concepts at 720-276-2553 or visti www.kjhomefinder.com . We understand short sales and we can help.

This site is an content aggregator for any articles and information related to foreclosure sale. This original article was posted by kjhomefinder from Kjhomefinder’s Blog. If you liked what you read here, we recommend that you visit their site to read more content like this.

How Do I avoid Foreclosure – Part 4

unknown — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 20:07:04 +0000

How Do I Avoid Foreclosure:

A step by step process for distressed homeowners.

Part 4

This is the fourth in a series of posts designed to be a step-by-step directory for distressed homeowners to use to try an avoid foreclosure.

We continue the discussion of various options that a distressed homeowner may have. Some of these options only apply to homeowners in very specific situations and will not apply to most; however, if you meet the criteria you should take advantage of any opportunity that presents itself.

Rent the Property

This is an option that will work if you can rent the property to a tenant who can meet their rental commitment long term. The danger in an economy with over 10% unemployment and 26% underemployment is that the tenant can lose their job or take a pay cut in order to keep their job. If that happens, the rent checks are likely to stop coming in while the mortgage payments are still due each month.

Over 40% of home in foreclosure were not owner occupied, meaning that they were rentals or vacation properties. When the rent checks stopped coming in the owners could not continue to make their payments and lost the property to foreclosure. The F word has a major impact on their ability to buy anything on credit for seven to ten years.

The issue of cash flow is also important. Not all homes will rent for enough to cover the mortgage, taxes, insurance and upkeep. Many landlords try to cover the mortgage payment with rental income and have to cover some or all of the taxes, insurance and upkeep with income from other sources; a difficult thing for most of us to be able to do long term.

Refinance

This option becomes increasingly more difficult as housing values decline. A few years ago, when home prices were increasing in leaps and bounds 100% financing was easy to obtain. Today, lenders want to see some equity in the property before they will even consider a loan. Lenders want to see an 80% loan-to-value ratio; that is to say, that they will loan up to 80% of the current market value on a property if all other factors are acceptable. Some will consider going up to 90% of current market value in rare circumstances, but they will charge higher interest rates. It is the risk/reward issue. The higher the risk, the greater the reward to the investor.

Unless you have an equity position of 20% or more given the present market value of your property, refinancing will be very difficult at best.

If your equity position is less than 10% it is not an option.

Here are links to a few web sites with helpful information for less specific situations:

http://portal.hud.gov/portal/page/portal/hud/topics/avoiding_foreclosure

http://www.ForeclosureStopper.org

http://www.CDPE.com

In future posts we will discuss other options people may use to avoid foreclosure. Those posts will be coming soon.

Feel free to contact Mike West, Realtor, CDPE if you have any questions or need help.

(916) 337-0658 e-mail: Mike@BMikeWest.com

This site is an content aggregator for any articles and information related to property foreclosure. This original article was posted by underexposedineldoradohills from underexposedineldoradohills. If you liked what you read here, we recommend that you visit their site to read more content like this.

Tenants are protected from eviction due to foreclosure

unknown — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:02:55 +0000

California protects tenants in two important ways from summary evictions when their landlord loses title to the property through a foreclosure sale. The first protection requires the new owner to give you 60 days’ notice. You cannot be evicted based on a simple 3-day notice to quit. The requirements of the notice are outlined here. The relevant state statutes are CCP § 1161a, CCP § 1161b, and CCP § 1162.

Effective May 20, 2009, the California law has been superseded by Title VII of President Obama’s Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009, “Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act.” This new law requires a new owner to give bona fide tenants 90 days’ notice to quit the premises prior to suing to evict. The law applies to foreclosure proceedings that began prior to May 20, 2009, but you should consult an attorney if the foreclosure occurred before that date and you are being evicted.

Read my disclaimer here.

This site is an content aggregator for any articles and information related to foreclosure sale. This original article was posted by Seth from Los Angeles (Torrance-South Bay) Lawyer. If you liked what you read here, we recommend that you visit their site to read more content like this.

Inland Empire Company Spearheads Local Real Estate Market Turnaround

unknown — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:08:14 +0000

Rancho Cucamonga, CA – November 18, 2009 – It is widely publicized the turbulent real estate market has hit most communities incredibly hard. Property values have dramatically decreased and in many cases below the mortgage. Matched with record job loss, this has negatively impacted property owners, many of whom have gone into foreclosure.

With the help of Westwind Real Estate Services, Inc., property owners are saving themselves from the foreclosures process and calming the rising storm of would be vacant homes that fall prey to foreclosure.

Westwind Real Estate Services, Inc. specializes in helping property owners find solutions to combat rising mortgage payments and losing their property to foreclosure.

Using strictly private funding, Westwind Real Estate Services, Inc. is making huge strides in to protect property owners who are facing these hardships by making an offer to purchase their property, negotiating directly with their lender, saving the owners credit and the agony of going through the foreclosure process. Westwind Real Estate Services, Inc. does this at NO COST to the property owner.

“The housing crisis has fallen upon our entire country and the families affected are left bewildered on what to do next” says Gregory A Diodati of Westwind Real Estate Services, Inc. “We help people in our community that don’t know where to turn.”

Westwind Real Estate Services, Inc. is offering a free report that reveals “How To Stop Foreclosure In 48 Hours or Less.“

To get your free copy simply visit www.StopOurForeclosure.net to download the report immediately.

This site is an content aggregator for any articles and information related to property foreclosure. This original article was posted by Greg Diodati from Greg Diodati’s Blog. If you liked what you read here, we recommend that you visit their site to read more content like this.

What is Creative Financing?

unknown — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 02:11:13 +0000

I recently attended an investment group meeting which was open to the public. During their Question & Answer period, by far the hottest discussion topic was “What is creative financing and how does it work?” I found the answers both diverse and interesting. It seems each real estate investor conducts business a little differently.

As you know, the foreclosure market is very hot right now because more residential, as well, as commercial properties are hitting the market as lenders free up their short sale portfolios. Since short sales help homeowners avoid a property auction and the destruction of their credit—unintended consequences of a property foreclosure—sellers are motivated to unload their properties.

Many people are very interested in buying foreclosures, short sales and REOs. However, financing the real estate deal creates considerable concern. Some investors only have a small amount of money they can or are willing to use. Others simply lack the funds required for an outright purchase. The thought of investing such a large amount of money can be intimidating. Let me try to calm your fears by demystifying creative financing.

Creative financing is not a new concept in the real estate market. Back in the early 1980’s, when interest rates were 18%, lenders weren’t writing much in the way of mortgages. However, there were always people who wanted to buy or sell. Getting financing was a big issue. In a way, real estate financing has gone retro. Today, we find the term creative financing frequently re-appearing in the news. The reason? Once again, banks aren’t writing many mortgages and the real estate industry has been forced to seek creative ways of doing business.

Let’s look at some financing options.

If you can put 20% down on the purchase price of the property…

(1) No-doc or low-doc loan (scroll down to end of post for good definition). If you have a good relationship with a lender or a bank that you do business with, ask about the requirements and find out what they are willing to do in today’s market.

(2) Look at the equity in your own home or perhaps an investment property you already own. You could borrow against this equity for a family vacation so as not to violate any lender rules established on the first mortgage. Don’t be afraid to ask.

(3) Ask friends and family members who might be looking for an investment but are short on funds. Pooled together, you can proceed with a purchase.

(4) Seller-take-back. Since the sellers wants to sell, why not be creative in involving them? Ask them to hold a note for a portion of the amount, thereby reducing the amount you need for a down payment.

(5) Partnership. This is a widespread practice among business men who use it primarily for the tax benefits. If you don’t belong to one, start one among your colleagues.

(6) Credit Cards. If you stand to make enough money on the deal, paying interest on a credit card will not impact you that much. Always be cautious and sell before the interest starts cutting into your return on investment.

(7) Hard Money Lender. These are lenders who lend money for a short period of time at a high interest rate. Consider using this creative financing option when you already have a buyer lined up to purchase the property. You can locate hard money lenders online. Their requirements can be ascertained with a phone call.

(8) Private Money Lenders. Let’s say for the purpose of an example scenario that the seller needs a given price for a property. You buy higher and the seller holds a mortgage or two. The private lender advances money for the seller at an agreed upon term to you. You pay the seller what s/he needed and then you, the investor, pay the private lender his money. This method is used frequently in the current market to buy a fixer-upper property because it yields a large return to the investor upon resale.

These are just a few examples of creative financing options. There are other creative ways to finance. Once you’ve used a couple of the methods I’ve suggested, you will gain confidence and new options will present themselves to you. Talk to other real estate investors. Attend investment meetings. Call private money lenders and ask about their requirements. Determine what you need from a property to make the deal work. Creative financing is not new to the real estate industry. There is much information available to you from a variety of sources. Learn it and be confident. You can do this.

In my next blog, I want to talk about how to select the right property for real estate investing.

Until then…

Shirl

www.houseforeclosuresource.com

p.s. Here’s some good info on Low Doc No Doc Mortgages

Source: http://www.citytowninfo.com/mortgage-articles/specialty-mortgages/low-doc-no-doc-mortgages

As their name would imply, low doc loans and no doc loans are mortgage loans that require less than full documentation of income, employment, and assets. The name is a bit of a misnomer, because the borrower still has to fill out an application (although they actually have to fill out less of the application), and at least a credit report is pulled on the borrower. The borrower will also have an appraisal done on the property that is being purchased.

Low and no doc loans cover a broad spectrum of required documentation. Following are the more popular low and no doc mortgage programs:

Stated income loans – A stated income loan is one in which the borrower simply has to state their income without providing any documentation of their income. This type of loan can be useful for individuals who are self employed or who have a lot of unreported cash income that cannot be documented. On a stated income loan, the borrower must still list their assets and debts and provide the backing documentation. The lender does verify employment and a credit report is pulled by the lender. A stated income loan may also be referred to as a no income verification (NIV) loan.
Stated asset loans – A stated asset loan is one in which the borrower simply has to state their assets without providing any documentation of their assets, which are not verified. On a stated asset loan, the borrower must still provide income information with backing documentation. The lender will verify employment and pull a credit report on the borrower.
Stated income/stated assets – This is the combination of the two previous loan programs. In this program the borrower simply states their income and assets which are not verified. Debt information is still provided by the borrower, employment is verified by the lender, and a credit report is pulled by the lender.
No ratio loans – A no ratio loan is one in which the borrower does not provide any income information. Because of this, neither the housing ratio or the debt ratio can be calculated for the borrower. Asset information is provided by the borrower with backing documentation. The lender verifies employment and pulls a credit report on the borrower.
No income/no asset loans – No income/no asset loans, also referred to as NINA loans, are loans that require almost no documentation. In this instance, the borrower simply fills out an application with their personal information and information about the house they are purchasing including down payment information. With these loans, the lender pulls a credit report on the borrower, obtains an appraisal on the house being purchased, and verifies the borrower’s employment.
No doc loan – A no doc loan is one where a borrower is applying for a mortgage on the strength of their down payment and their credit. No income, employment, asset, or debt information is provided. The lender simply pulls a credit report and has the house being purchased appraised.

These types of loans represent increasing levels of risk to lenders. Because of this, there are several things that lenders do to help mitigate their risk, including:

More stringent down payment requirements – lenders may require higher down payments of 20, 25%, or more.
Higher credit requirements – lenders may require substantially higher credit scores than they would for full doc loans.

Higher interest rates – lenders will charge higher interest rates than they would for a comparable full doc loan. Lenders take two things into account when determining their interest rate adjustments for low doc/no doc loans. They consider the size of the down payment, and they consider how little documentation they are receiving. As a general rule of thumb, the lower the down payment, the higher the interest rate adjustment. Also, the less documentation provided the higher the interest rate adjustment. Thus, a no doc loan with a small down payment would receive the highest interest rate adjustment. Interest rate adjustments on low doc/no doc loans can range from as little as .15 to 3.

Low doc/No doc loans are not for everyone. They serve a specific purpose. They make it easier for people whose income is difficult to verify to obtain a loan. They are also helpful to the very wealthy for whom providing the documentation would be viewed as either burdensome or intrusive.

www.houseforeclosuresource.com

This site is an content aggregator for any articles and information related to property foreclosure. This original article was posted by houseforeclosuresource from House Foreclosure Source. If you liked what you read here, we recommend that you visit their site to read more content like this.

Foreclosure market is looking up, prices increasing

unknown — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 13:27:45 +0000

Times are still tough in the Prescott area residential real estate sector, but the foreclosure market is looking up. While real estate prices, as a whole, have plummeted, prices of foreclosuresin most states are going up, according to the foreclosure listing site Foreclosuredataonline.com.

The company reported that foreclosure sale prices in Arizona saw the biggest increase, where averages went up 15.51 percent to $285,257 during the first three days of November, compared to a listing average of $246,944 during the entire month of October.

Other states saw a smaller increase, but an increase nonetheless. Foreclosure prices in California rose 1.83 percent, Nevada saw a 1.45 percent increase, and Texas foreclosure prices jumped 1.27 percent, according to Foreclosuredataonline.com.

Statistics from Foreclosuredataonline.com also showed that foreclosure prices were down in only three states when comparing the current November average with October’s average.

While Maine saw a 1.88 percent decrease in foreclosure sale prices, West Virginia’s foreclosure price fell 0.72 percent, and Washington State a slight slump of 0.6 percent.

Supply and demand might have something to do with the overall increase in foreclosure prices nationwide. As the rate of foreclosure slows, a smaller number of foreclosed houses are available in the market. With prices still below fair market value, but climbing every month, foreclosures are also being looked at as investments.

According to Foreclosuredataonline.com, keeping up with current numbers in order to track trends is important because the real estate markets are still volatile.

If you are looking to buy property in Prescott, Prescott Valley, Chino Valley or Dewey-Humbolt, now may be the time to buy. With prices bottoming out in the Phoenix market, according to the AZ Republic, the Prescott market is on the same path.

This site is an content aggregator for any articles and information related to foreclosure sale. This original article was posted by Patrick Schutte, Certified Foreclosure Specialist from

(1) What is the foreclosure process / timeline in California?

ANSWER: Many people hear the word foreclosure and think of it as an isolated event. It is actually a process that spans 4 or 5 months or so, sometimes longer. We have had Clients who have not made payments for as long as 20+ months or so.

The process is defined by California Civil Code Section 2924 and generally requires the following to be strictly adhered to:

(A) Breach of loan contract (default). Typically we have seen a lender will wait three or four months or more before formally declaring a default.

(B) Notice of Default (lender is formally claiming a default of the loan contract has occurred). Lender files a “NOD” with the County Recorder’s Office and serves the homeowner with the notice and posts a notice on the property. Filing this notice normally “starts” the foreclosure process in California. Per 2924, the lender may not give notice of sale for at least 90 days once the NOD is filed.

Loan Mod Tip: The NOD is required to state certain things (such as a declaration that the lender has tried to contact the borrower, assess their financial situation and discuss loan modification options ) if they fail to make these attempts to modify your loan, and/or to make this declaration in the NOD, this can provide potential grounds to enjoin the foreclosure proceeding (SB 1137 Requirement). Only a law firm can insist your legal rights be honored in this regard.

(C) Notice of Trustee Sale (aka “Notice of Sale”). Following the 90 day period after the NOD is filed, the Lender may file and record a NOS with the County Recorder. This notice must specify the time and date of the sale which must be at least 20 days after the notice of sale is filed (typically the lender will schedule the sale date on the 21st day following filing of the NOD).

(D) Reinstatement Rights: Normally, the Borrower may reinstate the loan up to 5 days before the foreclosure sale date

So, as you can see, the process can take 110 days or more. You can seek to negotiate a loan modification during this process.

Loan Mod Tip: When Clients hire our law firm, we can typically get the lender to stop or postpone the sale date by us submitting financial documents and a letter of representation on your behalf. While this does not happen all the time, normally the lender is willing to work with the homeowner, especially where the property is really upside-down and the lender faces a huge loss by foreclosing.

LOAN MOD DEFINITIONS: THE LANGUAGE OF LOAN MODS: We should also get the terms on the table for those who have not taken real property law and are wondering what all the words are that they are seeing on the Notice of Default.

- Deed of Trust is a Three Part System: (Definitions)

- Trustor: This is the borrower

- Beneficiary: One to whom the obligation is owed (ex. the bank or investor)

- Trustee: Holds the Deed and is the one who is instructed to foreclose by the Beneficiary if you do not pay off the loan as agreed. If you pay off the loan, it is the trustee that re-conveys the deed to you.

Loan Mod Tip: When you get that foreclosure notice it is time to take action (it’s never to late to start talking with the lenders about a loan modification)!! Calendar the dates and times of the scheduled notice of sale and notice of default. You can also contact the lender and see if they have any modification offers for you. Note: Don’t take anything as true unless the lender puts it in writing. The major lenders have so many departments and so many employees, it is not uncommon to hear different things depending upon who you talk to. We have had loan modification companies tell us they haven’t received the loan modification package, only to find that we have obtained a loan modification the very same week.

(2) Are California homeowners guaranteed a loan modification?

(a) No. It would be nice to think Congress would have provisioned a loan modification for every California homeowner, unfortunately they did not. The Banks obviously have no interest in helping all homeowners either. While the government is busy bailing out AIG, the Banks, and Big Auto companies, the homeowner on Main Street gets only a little bit of consideration.

We are dealing with tough economic times right now. Everyone is suffering and our financial institutions are getting the financial care they need, while the homeowner has to fight for everything they get.

(b) The other problem is that we need to keep in mind that the loan you took out was a legal contract between yourself and your lender where in you pledged your house as collateral (in the deed of trust) in the even at some point you were unable to pay back your loan (as referenced in the promissory note). So at the end of the day, we are fighting for a loan modification with tough-nosed bankers who put their financial interests in front of yours. As we tell our Clients, there is no constitutional right to a loan modification.

In fact, if anyone promises you or guarantees you a loan modification you should run for the hills. What we are finding with these loan modification scam companies is that they promise you the world and deliver very little. Don’t be the next victim of false promises.

(3) What should a California Homeowner do when they get a foreclosure notice?

(1) Keep in mind you are not alone. Receiving a NOD can be an embarrassing and frustrating event. Thoughts of loading the moving truck and moving out of your house in the middle of the night with your family and kids, and saying good-bye to the American Dream and moving into uncertainty can be a daunting task for anyone. That being what it is, DO NOT IGNORE YOUR NOD.

No matter how dire the situation appears, you have to face it straight on. Ads my mother used to say, “tough times never last….but tough people do. You may be able to obtain a loan modification, or short sale of the property or seek Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection.

(2) Contact your lender see if they are willing to work with you. Ask them if they are implementing loan modifications. Most lenders have a loan modification (or “loss mitigation”) department set up to handle defaulting borrowers. If you have the time to devote to the process of obtaining a loan modification, you may want to handle the case yourself.

Find a reputable company to represent you: If you want to be represented by a loan modification company such as a law firm like ours, give them a call and ask them about their services and fees, etc.

Loan Mod Tip: Be careful with choosing a loan modification company. There are many loan modification and foreclosure rescue scam companies out there.

Brokers without advance fee agreements / trust accounts
“Attorney backed” or “Attorney Based” loan modification companies (false advertising)
Law Firms that used to practice personal injury, family law, divorce law, etc. and moved into loan modifications purely for a profit motive, and who may or may not have solid real estate experience.
As we discussed, I am an Attorney Licensed in Arizona and California and have a Broker’s license in both states. I have sold mortgage products and understand the loan origination process.
OTHER TIPS: Beware of offers of principal reduction. This is what everyone wants right now and the scammers will tell you what you want to hear. They will also tell you about having lender connections, and 2% interest rates, and having years of experience. BEWARE!!! Also beware of the 100% Money back Guarantee. While attractive, we find once a scammer has the money in the bank, good luck getting it back. Do your homework. Contact the state bar, goolge the company using the word “scam” at the end, check with the State Bar (is the attorney licensed?), check with the DRE advance fee agreement list.

FREE OFFER: Call our office at (877) 276-5084 and we will help you research the company you are considering using. We will not disparage other companies but we will point out some obvious things that you may not be aware of.

Baseball: Ted Williams was one of the greatest hitters of all time. In his instructional book “The Science of Hitting” Ted (Mr. Baseball) said that the most important thing in hitting is to get a good pitch to hit. Without getting a good pitch, even the best swing is of little help. The same is true in seeking a loan modification company – FIND A GOOD COMPANY THAT WILL WORK HARD FOR YOU!

(4) Discuss your options: (bankruptcy / short-sale / deed-in-lieu of foreclosure / loan modifications etc.). Knowledge is power – and by hiring a law firm that is prepared to discuss the full realm of options available to you.

Submit Honest and Accurate Information on a Timely Basis and work with your Representative.

(6) Save as much money as you can: No matter what eventually happens you will want to save up as much money as possible. If you make the voluntary decision not to make your mortgage payments (we do not advise homeowners not to make their mortgage payments), do not go on a spending spree. Save your money. MONEY MATTERS: (a) If you decide to sell or walk away from your home, you will have to pay moving expenses, security deposits, etc. (b) If the lender is willing to modify, they may request the borrower bring money to the table to workout a deal. If you ultimately decide a chapter 13 bankruptcy is the best bet, you will need advance fees to pay a bankruptcy attorney as well.

Rather than taking the governments approach to problems (spend money) your best bet will be to preserve your capital to the extent possible.(4) Should a California Homeowner Stop Making Mortgage Payments when they are seeking a loan modification?

This is a question we cannot answer for you, and will not advise you on. While the conventional wisdom on the street is that you have to be late in order to obtain a loan modification, this is not always true. Under President Obama’s Making Home Affordable Program (HAMP), a lender may still provide a loan modification and seek financial incentives where a borrower can demonstrate that they are in “imminent threat” of being late on the mortgage. This language suggests that a homeowner does not actually have be late on the loan to obtain a modification.

Loan Mod Tip: In fact, our office has obtained loan modifications where borrowers had not yet missed a mortgage payment. Keep this in mind as you seek to preserve your credit. While it will not hurt our case if you are late on your mortgage, whether or not to make your scheduled mortgage payment is a personal decision and should be based upon your overall financial situation and ability to pay.

(5) What are some of the options to a homeowner facing foreclosure?

1. Seek a loan modification

Pursue a short sale (list house for sale with short-sales realtor). Submit purchase contract, estimated HUD-1 to both first and second mortgage. Second must also agree to the sale. The first may give some of the sales proceeds to the second to compensate the second. However, the second mortgage retains the right to charge-off their debt / seek a deficiency judgment.

Bank of America has a new program (in short sale agreement) asking sellers in a short sale to agree to repay the difference that the bank is compromising. I have seen Aurora try this also. The lenders claim this is simply to protect their investors and insurers.

Short Sale or BK? In chapter 7 bankruptcy, maybe the debtor will lose the house, but liability to both the first and the second mortgage lenders will be wiped out. Even in chapter 13, the debtor can often get rid of second mortgage by “lien stripping” and keep the house by making payments over a period of 3 to 5 years. Contact a Bankruptcy specialist for more information.

Walk away and allow foreclosure to run its course

Have to consider deficiency judgments: First may not come after you following a trustees sale, but a junior lien-holder (2nd mortgage) may charge off your debt and seek to collect. Deficiency judgments and other debts may be able to be written off in BK if the lender persists in pursuing a judgment following a sale.

File for bankruptcy
Hand over the deed in lieu of foreclosure

(6) What is a deed in lieu of foreclosure?

This is where a homeowner basically wants to walk from the property and seeks to quitclaim the deed back to the lender. The lender must be willing to accept the deed and if they do this wipes out the loan via merger.

The lender may not want to accept the deed because basically it will still have to deal with any second mortgage, tax liens, judgment liens, etc. on the property that remain after the DIL. A foreclosure wipes out these other liens. Many lenders would therefore prefer to foreclose and get clean and marketable title.

Note: The DIL only transfers the property to the lender. It does not wipe out the debt unless the lender agrees to do so. The lender may retain the ability to come after you for a deficiency judgment if the ultimate sale of the property does not net the amount owed (which normally it doesn’t these days).

Loan Mod Tip: I have been told that Deed in lieu can hurt your credit just as much as a foreclosure or bankruptcy. Apparently this can cost you about 200 points on your credit if your lender accepts. Also, many lenders will issue a 1099-C for any debt forgiven resulting from a DIL. Pursuing a short-sale may be provide a better solution and should be looked at.

(7) Should consumers be paying advance fees when they are seeking a loan modification? (Who ya gonna call?)

There are many organizations and regulators who take the position that homeowners do not need to pay an advance fee in order to obtain a loan modification. If you are talking about just submitting your financials (tax returns, pay stubs, bank statement etc.) and see what, if anything, the lenders are willing to provide you as far as a loan modification is concerned, I would say yes, you can do that yourself and no need to pay anyone an advance fee, UNLESS OF COURSE YOU JUST DON’T HAVE THE TIME TO CONTACT THE LENDERS AND YOU WANT TO HIRE SOMEONE TO DO THIS WHILE YOU AVOID THE HASSLES AND POTENTIAL EMBARASSMENT AND/OR ASSUMING YOU WANT TO SPEND TIME WITH YOUR KIDS AND FAMILY AND FIRNDS RATHER THAN DEALING WITH YOUR FINANCIAL CRISES.

Now, a fair number of our Clients tried to get their own loan modification and either were denied, or ultimately gave up for the inability to contact their lenders. This is what they tell us, this is not fabricated by us.

Still others see some of the benefits to hiring a lawyer of which I will lay out THE TOP REASONS TO HIRE A LAWYER, ATTORNEY OR LAW-FIRM TO ASSIST YOU IN SEEKING A LOAN MODIFICATION.

Some people really truly do not want to deal with their financial crises and would rather hire someone to do this for them. Some people figure hiring a lawyer (since the lenders have lawyers on their side) is the best option for them. They voluntary enter into agreements with attorneys who agree to assist them in this endeavor. If the attorney does not lie, mislead, deceive the consumer, then there is no harm.
Some people don’t know anything about dealing with their mortgages, discussing interest rates, discussing workout programs, etc. Just as some people could do their own taxes, or write their own holographic wills, or file their own lawsuits people should be free to hire someone they trust, and someone who is licensed to do this for them.
Some loan modification agreements (ex. Wachovia) specifically state “borrower acknowledges they have had the opportunity to have a lawyer review this agreement….” This suggests that a borrower should consult with an attorney before signing the loan modification agreements provided by a lender or servicer. I don’t know how many attorneys would get involved in the limited task of reviewing loan modification agreements, especially where there is a larger role to play.
Only an Attorney can assert and protect your legal rights and ensure the lenders and loan servicers follow the very limited rules of their business. For example, only an attorney can assure that the servicer complies with:

(a) Foreclosure rules that require beneficiaries and/or their agents to contact you to review your financial condition and discuss loan workout solutions before filing a NOD. Is a broker or non-profit agency able to protect your rights in this regard? An attorney can file for an injunction against foreclosure where the lender fails to honor this new legal requirement and insist that this right be honored. What good is this law if no one can enforce it? See California Civil Code Section 2923.5

(b) Submitting a qualified written request (QWR) under RESPA that seeks to ensure the lender is properly servicing your loan and applying payments. Only an attorney can seek to force the lenders to comply with these requests and to potentially file a lawsuit for a RESPA violation and/or seek an injunction against foreclosure (on grounds of wrongful foreclosure) where the servicer is found to be cheating or otherwise improperly servicing the loan. Only an attorney can fight to demand a full and fair accounting in this regard. Brokers and non-profits are not able to assert these demands and insist these rights be honored.

(c) Demanding the loan servicer identify the holder of the loan obligation (a right set forth under Federal Truth in Lending law – USC ). What good is this right if there is no one there to enforce it, or use the law? Is this just a law that is supposed to sit on the books and collect dust? Only a lawyer can make this legal demand and seek to hold the loan servicer accountable where it fails to comply. By identifying the holder of the loan obligation, two or three things become possible: (1) if the loan servicer refuses to modify the loan, a final demand can be sent to the holder of the loan, and (2) if there are proper grounds to file a lawsuit to rescind a loan (which is applicable to loan assignees) then the holder of the loan should be forced to show up in Court and explain why the right of rescission was not honored (assuming a client sends in a rescission notice). If there is no way to identify the holder of the loan, then there is no way to ensure TILA rights (you know, that pesky consumer law) will be protected. Finally, (3) if there are grounds to bring the holder of the loan into court, shouldn’t it be proper to ask the judge to have the holder of the loan show that it is entitled to foreclose on you? To show that it holds the promissory note, proper assignments, and that they are entitled to enforce the loan? Brokers and non-profit organizations which do not practice law, and which are not permitted to do so, simply cannot protect these important rights, that may even play a role in seeking a loan modification

(8) What is this whole “produce the note” strategy we are hearing about?

This is a foreclosure defense strategy that basically says if a foreclosing beneficiary, or its agent, who is attempting to foreclose on your property, cannot produce the promissory note and any assignment of the note, then it has no legal right to foreclose on your property.

The strategy has mostly been successful in states that require judicial foreclosure (as opposed to states like California and Arizona which permit private trustee sales outside of court).

In those states where judicial foreclosure is mandated, the lender is already in Court, and it makes sense for a defendant (the homeowner who answers the complaint) to ask the the judge make the Plaintiff (lender) actually prove they have the legal right to foreclose on the loan as owner.

Now, the California foreclosure statute (California Civil Code Section 2924 et seq.) do not require that the note be produced as part of a private judicial foreclosure sale. However, that is not to say that there may not be a way to work this strategy into a foreclosure defense, or that there might not be a judge willing to require that the foreclosing entity prove it has the legal right to do so. The key however is probably having a legal right to go to Court on other grounds, and then raising the produce the note issue as a strategy.

In at least one California case a Bankruptcy judge required that the lender produce the note. So there is legal precedent in California for this proposition. In addition, more cases may be coming up on appeal.

So where I see this is playing a role in foreclosure defense is where you have a truth in lending three year right to rescind (for TILA violations) which is applicable against the loan assignee. If you send in a rescission letter and the lender refuses to honor the request, the borrower has a right to file a lawsuit seeking an injunction and TILA damages from the lender. If that is the case, why not also seek an injunction against foreclosure and demand that the foreclosing lender prove its right to foreclose at the same time.

Again, loan brokers and non-profit entities are not able to detect, assert or enforce your rights in this area.

When it comes to saving your home from foreclosure, you pull out all of the stops. You never know who is going to be waring the robe, or what the current state of the law will be once you get before that person. You have to literally turn over every rock.

(9) What is the Bankruptcy “cramdown” bill?

This is a bill that many homeowners were hoping would pass. While BK judges are already permitted to “lien strip” second mortgages that are not secured by any equity in a homeowners property (i.e. they get rid of your second mortgage), the cramdown law would have given the Bankruptcy judges the power to strip principal off the first mortgage as well with very little the lenders could have done about it. This would have been great because it probably would have compelled more lenders to seek meaningful loan modifications, rather than just modifications on their terms. The law failed to pass, but there is talk about a revised bill resurfacing.

(10) What is “cash for keys”?

After a lender forecloses on a property, and the homeowner stays in possession of the property, the homeowner essentially becomes a tenant. The new owner of the property who purchased the property at a foreclosure sale (usually the bank if they were the highest bidder) will want the owner out of the property, but also wants the property not to be ripped apart as often happens in foreclosed properties. To remedy the situation, the lender or owner may offer to give the tenant “cash for keys.” In other words, if the tenant leaves the property within 2-4 weeks, the tenant will receive a cash incentive to hand over the keys and a well maintained property. Often the cash can amount to one or two months worth of rent.

(11) What are the effects on California homeowners when foreclosures proceed at such a high clip?

Communities all over the country continue to be devastated by foreclosure. Housing prices are decreasing (bad for owners locked into their properties, but good for first time homebuyers).

The Obama home affordability program was designed to help make communities stable, but plenty of lenders are not giving homeowners mortgage modifications. Instead, they are giving homeowners the finger – the middle one to be exact. Can we expect better solutions on the horizon other than just the banks and financial institutions getting bailed out? As Senator Durbin stated: “The Banks own the Senate.” Don’t expect much change here.

(12) What about stated income loans?

Also called liars loans. Allowed anyone that could fog a miror to get a loan. The brokers and lenders packed the loan applications, and did whatever they had to do to get the loan to pass though the underwriting department. 4506-T IRS tax return forms were not completed and borrower returns were not checked for accuracy. Even lenders did not verify salary.com figures to make sure stated incomes were at least in the realm of reasonableness.

Now, lying borrowers cannot expect a lot of sympathy. But if the Broker unilaterally placed income figures on the 1003 loan applications, this could raise a case of fraud against the original broker and lender. If the loan is held in a portfolio loan, this could provide some legal leverage against a lender especially where the borrower has credibility that they would not have trumped up the income level, and where the tax returns will verify a different picture than the 1003 reflects.

(13) What is this SB 94 Bill?

This is the California proposed bill that seeks to limit attorneys, brokers, and loan modification companies from accepting advance fees for performing loan modifications. The goal is to protect homeowners from scams. Our office is against this law for the following reasons:

Borrowers and homeowners should be free to hire any properly licensed professional they want to perform services they themselves do not want to perform.
The Lenders have paid lawyers on staff working these modifications. Homeowners should be able to be on a level playing field in seeking a loan modification.
Out of state brokers and lawyers will undoubtedly continue to seek to assist California homeowners, which harms the local California economy which is badly in need of local revenues.
The goal should be to outlaw “attorney backed” or “attorney based companies” that do little more than falsely advertise legal services that normally aren’t involved.
Lawyers will not likely work if advance fees cannot be collected (would BK attorneys work if they could not collect an advance fee)? This prevents California homeowners from being able to hire lawyers to adequately represent them.
Lawyers are the only ones who can protect and assert consumer rights and file lawsuits if necessary to preserve these rights. Attorneys should not be forced out of this process.

(14) How Can you Leverage a Loan Modification where the Investor Claims they are a “Holder in Due Course?

Trying to Leverage Loan Modifications against the Assignee Holder in Due Course.

One of the Key things we try to figure out as loan modification attorneys is who holds your loan? Who is entitled to enforce the Note?

Who will be initiating foreclosure proceedings? Do they have all of the proper assignments and promissory note?

Who can we try to leverage (ex. Sue if we have to) to obtain a loan modification?

One way we try to find answers to these questions is by making a demand on the current loan servicer (the company collecting your mortgage payment each month) to tell us who the holder of the loan obligation is, their name, address and phone number. We make this request under Truth In lending law ( U.S.C. ).

One of the major problems with this law is that it does not state exactly when the loan servicer is required to supply this information. Now, some servicers are good about providing this information in a timely manner. Some comply but only identify the holder of the loan (ex. Wells Fargo as Investor on the loan). Other lenders just ignore their legal compliance obligations altogether in defiance of a homeowner’s rights. Aurora Loan Servicing is one of the more pathetic companies that come to mind in this regard.

The key thing to think about is that if your originating lender is servicing the loan, a loan audit may reveal some potent violations against them and you may be able to threaten a lawsuit that seeks legal damages.

In many cases, the loan was sold off in the secondary market, securitized, and purchased by investors who claim there is no liability against them as they are “holders in due course” of the loan, and are free from legal claims and defenses. While this holds some degree of truth, we would still want to audit your loan file to find potential truth in lending violations that may provide an extended three year right to rescind. Rescission rights are applicable against any and all loan assignees, including these holders in due course.

One way to find out whether or not your loan was sold off and securitized on the secondary market is to use some free online search toools. Many fannie mae and freddie mac loans were securitized and sold off. Use the two tools below (check your address in both databases) and you will probably get a good idea whether or not you will be dealing with the “innocent investor” defense raised by “holders in due course.”

Does Freddie Mac own your loan?

https://ww3.freddiemac.com/corporate/

Does Fannie Mae own your loan?

http://loanlookup.fanniemae.com/loanlookup/

Now, even where the loan is owned by investors and the holder in due course problem arises, there are still some claims that can be asserted against these loan assignees. Here are a few arguments that can be looked at when trying to threaten a lawsuit against the innocent investor.

Why take foreclosure lying down? If you are denied a loan modification, Sue these investors FOR MONEY DAMAGES AND/OR RESCISSION and make them answer for their participation in this mortgage meltdown scheme. The investors are sophisticated people and should not be permitted to claim ignorance when they buy a pool of predatory option arm or sub-prime loans, for example. While you have these guys in Court, why not raise your issue of PROVE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO FORECLOSE ON ME BY SHOWING ME THE ORIGINAL PROMISSORY NOTE AND ALL THE PROPER ASSIGNMENTS as required by the Commercial Code.

Here are some potential legal theories to take a look at against the HDC:

(1) Conspiracy

(2) Joint venture

(3) Creating the Marketplace for Predatory Option Arm loans

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Thinking of a Move? – Check the Foreclosures and Sheriff Sales

unknown — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 22:03:55 +0000

You may want to take a glance at the local Sheriff Sales and bank activity before you begin your move.

In this market, every buyer and seller is being impacted by foreclosures in the area. Although Pennsylvania and Delaware in general and the Philadelphia area in particular have not seen the overwhelming volume of foreclosures seen in states like California or Florida, we continue to see a steady stream of foreclosure properties on the market.

As a potential seller this has various impacts. If you are facing foreclosure, the sooner you speak to your bank, the more options you may have. You may be able to work out alternative loan possibilities or you may be able to sell your property as a short sale to avoid the financial hit and repercussions of a foreclosure. If you are a traditional seller, you must be aware of the foreclosure and bank-owned property pricing and activity in your area so that you do not inadvertently price yourself out of the market before you even get started – potentially costing you additional time and money in the long run.

As a potential buyer, there are multiple ways to approach this market. Some people are focusing on pre-foreclosure properties as they feel they can obtain the best value through a short sale. Others do not want the uncertainty and time commitment of a short sale and prefer to wait until the property goes to foreclosure to either purchase at a Sheriff Sale auction or when it is listed for sale after foreclosure. We are also seeing some of the best values outside the foreclosure arena as sellers may have the resources and/or need to sell at an equal or lower price through a traditional sale.

Regardless of the option you chose, it can be beneficial to understand the local foreclosure activity by researching the sales through the local Sheriff’s Office. The sale specifics vary by county but can give you a general feel for the market and volume of future bank owned properties. Please find below the direct links to the local Sheriff Sales listed by State and County:

Pennsylvania:

Berks County
Bucks County
Chester County
Delaware County
Lancaster County
Montgomery County
Lehigh County
City of Philadelphia

New Jersey:

Burlington County
Camden County
Gloucester County
Mercer County

Delaware:

New Castle County

All the options for both the buyers and sellers have their benefits, but it is important that no matter which path you chose that you do your research to understand the market and the advantages/disadvantages of buying through each different channel.

As always, if you are thinking of a move or need any addtiional information, please do not hesitate to contact me anytime.

This site is an content aggregator for any articles and information related to http://www.exclusiveforeclosures.net. This original article was posted by jwophl from Just West of Philadelphia. If you liked what you read here, we recommend that you visit their site to read more content like this.