Foreclosures fall, but Las Vegas still leads nation

Discussion: 28 comments so far…

1. By HookorCrook

   9/10/09 at 9:01 a.m.

   Comment removed by staff.

2. By neiman1

   9/10/09 at 9:13 a.m.

   Suggest removal

   How many more foreclosures will come when the construction workers all get laid off in a couple of months?

   Where are our leaders? If harry would work on the economy (stupid) instead of trying to help Pelosi spend money to save her salt water marsh rat, we might have some jobs returning to Las Vegas.

   We need a Senator that is worried about Nevada instead of how well he is liked by the extremist in Washington and San Fransisco.

3. By burnemandturnem

   9/10/09 at 9:15 a.m.

   Suggest removal

   Here's an oddity: Anyone shopping in the market today for product at 150K or less is running into multiple offer "bidding wars" just like it was 2005 again. This could be, in part, due to the 8K first time buyer tax credit which is set to expire (you have to close escrow by 11/30/09) but much of it is also driven by investor demand.
   What's worrisome is that many of these "investors" will turn around and attempt to rent them out, driving down rents around the valley, since with 13%+ unemployment the pool of qualified tenants is finite. This, in turn, will put further pressures on values not only for single family units but for all those apartment complexes that, no doubt, have notes on them.
   The future looks mighty ugly.

4. By oldladyplayspiano

   9/10/09 at 11:28 a.m.

   Suggest removal

   Problem is these 'investors' wind up being slumlord; notice these states (total), and think about how many times you've seen this same thing happen - it started in the 1980's - it's like a Pac-Man game.

   The investors/slum-lords own all the foreclosed homes; give them a quick cheap paint-job; cheap carpet, and try to either re-sell them for a huge profit, or palm them off on unsuspecting renters who rarely can find their land-lord except when the rent is due.

   Just so sad.......

5. By KillerB

   9/10/09 at 12:01 p.m.

   Suggest removal

   One estimate is 4 out of 5 foreclosing entities don't even have the legal right to those properties. Yet people are so cowed by institutional presentments they don't bother to question the bad news paper with common self-help remedies.

   The Sun ran a short article on the subject a few months back "Foreclosure help could hinge on who
   holds the note." I've looked into it and there's a lot of validity in the concept, which actually just acknowledges centuries-old law. Too bad more people don't pay attention to it. It would stop many foreclosers in their tracks.

6. By tomfranklin

   9/10/09 at 2:09 p.m.

   Suggest removal

   Why all the bad mouthing of investors/landlords? Without these people willing to invest hard earned dollars in real estate and provide rental housing, who would provide the housing?

   Where would all those people not able to buy real estate live? On the street? In government housing? Tents? Investors are a vital part of our real estate market, they provide more housing for our people than anyone else, 1000's of times more housing than any government ever could.

   It's the flippers, the want to be investors that thought they could buy a property one day, and sell it the next day at a huge profit, these people are not investors, investors buy property for a long term investment and provide much needed housing for the community!

7. By ReasonRules

   9/10/09 at 2:23 p.m.

   Suggest removal

   KillerB could not be more wrong about the facts or the law. DO NOT LISTEN TO HIM/HER! Chances are he works for (or is) another extremely shady attorney who has no problem selling this grabage to the desperate, taking 2 to 3 k from people with no money, and then filing the same complaint in court that has been dismissed every time. Unfortunately for the home owner, the law in this area is pretty straightforward. You breach the contract (by defaulting) and you suffer the agreed-upon consequences (foreclosure). In nearly every instance, the reviewing court agrees.

   If you are still not convinced, just make sure that any fee arrangment you set up with your attorney insures that you pay nothing unless they are successful with this argument. See how fast they take your case then.

8. By Common_Sense

   9/10/09 at 3:50 p.m.

   Suggest removal

   Reason Rules knows of what he/she speaks -- and the "self-help remedies" that Killer B espouses have caused many a homeowner to make a bad situation worse by not seeking appropriate legal advice.

   As for stopping "the foreclosers in their tracks," I would agree that foreclosure rates are high, but for what reason? Perhaps because the borrowers who bit off more than they could chew thought (mistakenly) that the bubble would last forever?? Ooops! I guess they miscalculated on that concept.

   Bottom line?? Do your homework, read before you sign any contract, and then do your best to fulfill your part of the bargain. If you can't follow through with that, take steps to fix the problem before it gets out of hand.

9. By KillerB

   9/10/09 at 8:31 p.m.

   Suggest removal

   ReasonRules -- you base your personal attack on what exactly?

   RR & Common_Sense -- what contracts? There's usually a deed of trust and a note. Check these links then all can see who's credible here and who's not --

   http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/busine...

   http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/15/busine...

   http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?sid=a...

   The Sun's June article I mentioned barely scratched the surface on the threshold issue here, the missing notes. Until you can talk to me as an equal about UCC 3 presentments and the private rights one may invoke, you have nothing more to say worth hearing. Unless it's an apology.

10. By KillerB

    9/10/09 at 8:44 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Add this to the links -- http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/jun...

    Then, if you have a deed of trust securing a note, read the Note. About a quarter of the page down it's right there in black and white -- the ONLY one you owe is the "Note Holder."

    Carol Moore, one of the people being foreclosed on by Deutsche Bank in the famous Ohio In re Foreclosure cases, took the extra trouble to look at the man behind the curtain and discovered her Note had been sold 660 times.

    School's out, children.

11. By KillerB

    9/10/09 at 9:02 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    The link for Carol Moore
    http://www.creditslips.org/creditslips/2...

    It's in the second comment -- "... Carol Moore, a woman with a $76k mortgage that was sold off 660 times in less than one year." The poster offered to send the pdf to whoever asked for it.

    The entire article lays it out, and it's really that bad. I liked this bit a lot: "Professor Porter also testified before the Congress earlier this year that servicers commonly foreclosure when they do not have the legal right to do so..."

    You'll find Professor Porter's bio in the left column. By the way, she used to teach law at UNLV.

    Your apologies are coming when?

    OK, now school's really out.

12. By Common_Sense

    9/10/09 at 11:52 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    An apology is generally due when one is incorrect.

    All are entitled to their opinion, and KillerB's comments appear to be opinions rather than legal precedent. When KillerB's first name becomes "Federal Judge," perhaps the opinions may carry some weight. Until then, they are just opinions and we'll try to keep them in mind.

13. By KillerB

    9/11/09 at 8:58 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Common_S -- I supported my opinion by showing some credible corroborating sources. You supported AngryReader yet he/she/it attacked with zero backing it up. Your opinion was supported by what besides your ignorance?

    Sadly you and AngryReader have missed the entire point. As Professor Porter testified, most foreclosures are prosecuted by servicers who have no legal interest at all to the property.

    Of course people should get "appropriate legal advice." The sad part is few attorneys will take the direct route I've suggested or even know about it. Hint: NRS 104.3501, especially (2)(a) and (b).

14. By ReasonRules

    9/11/09 at 9:15 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    KillerB. You are wrong on so many levels it is laughable. First, the famous Ohio case that you speak of was for JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE not NON-JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE. Nevada is a non-judicial foreclosure state.

    Also, I do not doubt that other people share your skewed views, and that they have expressed them. My point was that the courts do not share your views. And that people like you have convinced the desperate to pay what little money they do not have to repeatedly lose on these claims. In Nevada, there has been one judge (in a BK court) that responded favorably to this argument. The Nevada federal and state courts have not given your position the time of day. I challenge you to cite for us evidence to the contrary.

    While your views may be based on an intriguing theory, the reality is that you (and those like you) are claiming that millions of home loans in this country (and nearly all Nevada home loans) are simply not enforceable should the borrower default. The courts deal in reality not fantasy. Good luck convincing them that the vast bulk of Nevadans can stop paying their mortgages without suffering any consequences.

    Finally, this is not the only area of the law where people cling to fantasy to their detreiment. There is a small group who claim that the income tax amendment to the U.S. Constitution was not passed properly. Thus, they claim that they do not have to pay income taxes. Most of them are now in jail. But by all means don't pay your taxes, and rely on "theory" to save you. See what happens.

    For those of you that think KillerB is correct, go ahead and stop paying your mortgages. When the foreclosure process is initiated, advance his argument, and see how far it gets you.

    Thank you for your time. KillerB please go back to profiting off of the unfortunate.

15. By KillerB

    9/11/09 at 9:53 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    "...please go back to profiting off of the unfortunate."

    RR -- again you show the only basis for anything is your ignorance. What exactly is the origin of your charge I profit off this??

    Whether a foreclosure is judicial or non is irrelevant. Judge Boyko's ruling and those like it are finding considerable support. The Honorable Sam Bufford's and the former banko judge Ayre's joint presentation to last April's American Bankruptcy Institute conference shoots down you're criticisms and burns it to the ground.

    You've shown here you're just another one of those who makes it up as you go along, and therefore irrelevant to this Discussion.

16. By Common_Sense

    9/11/09 at 11:08 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    KillerB, it appears that a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. And not just for you, but for all of the unfortunate, uneducated and ignorant borrowers who chose to not understand and/or ignore the basics of a mortgage, i.e., shop/qualify for and obtain a mortgage, pay the mortgage, and then own the property OR shop/qualify for and obtain a mortgage, default on the mortgage, suffer foreclosure.

    It really is very simple.

17. By ReasonRules

    9/11/09 at 11:36 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    KillerB. Once again, I ask for examples of people in Nevada who have used your argument and won in court. Once again, instead of doing that you cite to another speech or opinion given outside of court. Your theory keeps you warm at night, but it is worthless if it gets no traction in Nevada courts.

    I claim that you profit from the unfortunate, because I suspect that you are a strip-mall attorney with a shiny new billboard advertising your ability to stop foreclosures. I also suspect that you collect your fee up front, and consistently lose in court. Your campaign to spread misinformation inflates your bank account but does nothing for the people you "represent." I may be wrong about you, but I doubt it.

    The fact of the matter is your theory is a loser in a Nevada state or federal court, and you know it. If I was not afraid of outing myself, I would cite to multitudes of recent Nevada cases in which the reviewing court has disagreed with you.
    
    NRS 107.080 governs non-judicial foreclosures and it says nothing about the need to present the original note. The UCC that you cling to like a pacifier DOES NOT APPLY TO INTERESTS IN REAL PROPERTY. NRS 104.9109(4)(k). Finally, the home owners themselves likely contractually agreed that the foreclsoing entity would have authority to foreclose. Mortgages are contracts. See the Nevada case Chartz vrs. Cardelli. Of course you could always argue that the home owner did not read the contract that he or she signed, but that argument has had about as much success as the one we are debating now.

    As I said, your theory may make for interesting coffee-talk, but it will not win in court. To say otherwise, when you probably know the truth, is deplorable.

    I admire your passion, but doubt that it is altruistic. When the next (the number is staggering) person comes into my office to ask for help after he or she lost everything betting on your craziness, I would love to refer them back to you.

    Good day.

18. By KillerB

    9/11/09 at 12:18 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Common_S -- it's all about the man behind the curtain, so to speak. Too bad you choose to remain ignorant.

    ReasonR -- local and other Nevada courts and cases were never part of the offering or opinion. Presenting "the original note" is inherent in the threshold issues of standing, burden of proof and the rules of evidence.

    I am not a "strip-mall" or any other kind of an attorney. There are no billboards nor "campaign," just the opinions offered here and there in these Discussions -- two more factors you fabricated.

    That you have an office shows you have your own agenda and are the one seeking profit here, not me. So "casting pearls to swine" comes to mind dealing with you.

19. By Common_Sense

    9/11/09 at 1:11 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    KillerB, I am confused as to whom you mean by "the man behind the curtain." Would that be the borrower who misrepresented their ability to pay the mortgage they chose? Or would that be the borrower who expected the market to continue rising so that they could make a killing off of some other unsuspecting, uneducated and uninformed buyer when they were ready to flip? Or would you mean the homeowner who chose to refinance a nearly paid-off mortgage based on an inflated appraisal/market value, and then either re-invest in another inflated property (which they could not afford to pay for) or fritter away the excess cash from the re-fi?

    And if KillerB claims to not be an attorney, it would appear that there is some unauthorized practice of law going on and not just "opinions."

20. By ReasonRules

    9/11/09 at 1:44 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    KillerB, perhaps I have been a bit tempermental in my responses. And you are right I do have an agenda: the truth. I have seen many many people hurt very badly by buying into some of the theories floating around like the one you advanced. I never ever comment online, but I felt an obligation to do so.

    The fact of the matter (rightly or wrongly) is that your argument loses in court nearly every time.

    You advance a whole bunch of speculation and theory, which might be fun to discuss, but has little practical value. For example, people are still debating today whether Thomas Jefferson had the constitutional authority to carry out the Lousiana Purchase. There is a good argument that he did not, but it would be silly to think that a court of law would ever buy the argument and unwind the transaction. The same is true with your argument. It may be true enough to start a dialogue, but it loses in court. Those losses have real-world consequences. And people are often worse off for having made them.

    In any event, if you are so sure about your position, I challenge you to stop paying your mortgage (if you have one), and then try to stop the foreclosure with your argument. Put your money where your mouth is. Please come back here and tell us what happened. If you win, I will be the first person to eat crow. If you lose, we can put the matter to rest. If you have enough faith to sell your views to the general public, you should have enough faith to rely on them yourself.

    I would, however, advise you against this course of action. Please note that while I disagree with your opinion, I really do not want to see you foreclosed on. And that is exactly what would happen.

    That is really all I have to say on the matter.

21. By KillerB

    9/11/09 at 3:37 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Common_Sense -- the curtain reference is from the classic Wizard of Oz.

    You can stuff your UPL reference. Last time I checked free speech is still alive and well.

    ReasonR -- oh, I quite understand. I've seen some real junk from the copy-and-paste fools who don't even bother to look up the "law" they spew. And I do understand your concern about the scammers.

    Although I don't have a mortgage I've been around long enough to know the corporate bullies will always push for what they want, regardless of legality. It's all about getting the money.

22. By artswanson

    9/12/09 at 8:13 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    The two schmucks above arguing over whether you need a note or not in a foreclosure are totally out in space. Dont matter folks, these foreclosures are happening, big, real time, throw people into the streets time! Meanwhile these two goofballs argue! In the "real world" of the great state of Nevada, foreclosures going up, property values, going down, unemployment going up,tax revenues going down... meanwhile back in Washington, Barry Obama and his happy crew are spending tax money like no tomorrow, and promising to add 40 million folks to the health care system "at no cost", ya right, how's that "change" working out for ya?

23. By saltydawg

    9/12/09 at 10:05 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Obama did not say that 40 million uninsured would gain coverage without any cost. What he said was that the plan would pay for itself.

24. By saltydawg

    9/12/09 at 10:21 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    "One estimate is 4 out of 5 foreclosing entities don't even have the legal right to those properties. Yet people are so cowed by institutional presentments they don't bother to question the bad news paper with common self-help remedies." KillerB

    I'm sure the Sheriff has heard this many times.

25. By dipstick

    9/12/09 at 2:28 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    the best way to avoid foreclosure is to buy within your means; some people chased the idea of owning a home way beyond their financial capability and are now suffering because of it. lets all go out and buy a LEXUS!!!!!!

26. By KillerB

    9/12/09 at 6:51 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    artswanson -- what "two schmucks"? Three were involved in the major Discussion here. Also, "needing" a note has nothing to do with any of this. A note is part of most if not all mortgages.

    I may be "totally out in space" but you're showing complete ignorance here.

    saltydawg -- what does Obama or "the Sheriff" have anything remotely to do with this Discussion?

27. By logic_should_rule

    9/30/09 at 8:42 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    ReasonRules? Hmmm

    Come up with that moniker on your own?

« Previous TenNext Ten »