Bank Sold My Home To A Third Party In The Middle Of My Lawsuit Against them

[EL1984]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Georgia

My Mortgage Company Foreclosed on me in early 2012, with no notice, and without ever missing or even being late for a mortgage payment. I was at the time in the middle of a loan modification under hamp ( again, I was not late, and had never missed a payment when I entered into this agreement back in 2009), and had been in constant contact with the bank all along, and had been providing more, and more documentation to them with the last set of documents requested being a written notice from my mentally disabled uncle who can not read or write, and has the mentality of a 7 year old, as well as a utility bill in his name. When I sent them a letter stating his condition, and his inability (they had already been told this numerous time) not only did they cancel me out of the modification, but they also foreclosed on my home at the next trustee sale without giving me any notice whatsoever. A notice had been published in November of 2011, and when I found out about it, I questioned the bank, and they told me that it was a mistake, and I was not going to be foreclosed on, as I had been current on my normal mortgage payments, as well as adhering to the guidelines set forth in the Hamp agreement.

Jump forward to May of 2012, an eviction hearing took place, and I appealed the magistrate court decision, and began my wrongful foreclosure suit at the same time.

Jump forward to November 2012 The Lender sold my home to another entity while the original case is tied of in court due to a large calendar of pending cases, and now this entity is trying to evict me at the same time I am waiting for my original case to be heard.

Is there anything I can do to stop this 2nd case from being considered? Shouldn't the original case be preceding this 2nd case with Due Diligence rights?

Thank you in advance.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

On the surface, it appears if you refer to your original contract with them, it likely gives them the right to foreclose and sell the property at their election. As it appears you were attempting to make the modification to take advantage of HAMP availability, rather than need, they were preemptive in thwarting you. I have a coworker who attempted something similar, they got him also, in a different way, they rejected him.

 

[justalayman]

You failed to seek an injunction preventing the bank from selling the home or continuing any adverse actions against you. Since you didn't do that, they continued on with the process of foreclosure and sale. An application for an injunction would surely have been contested by the bank. Unless you could show your suit having merit, the injunction would likely not have been granted.


So, you move out and continue your suit, amending your damages due to the sale of the home.


I suspect you have no valid suit anyway but you are welcome to go ahead and spend your money trying.

 

[LdiJ]

You failed to seek an injunction preventing the bank from selling the home or continuing any adverse actions against you. Since you didn't do that, they continued on with the process of foreclosure and sale. An application for an injunction would surely have been contested by the bank. Unless you could show your suit having merit, the injunction would likely not have been granted.


So, you move out and continue your suit, amending your damages due to the sale of the home.


I suspect you have no valid suit anyway but you are welcome to go ahead and spend your money trying.

This doesn't make any sense if the OP was never late on a payment. The original contract would still have full force and effect until a modification took place, so why in the world would a bank make that kind of mistake? Why would the bank take any adverse action at all if the OP was never late with a payment?

 

[nextwife]

This doesn't make any sense if the OP was never late on a payment. The original contract would still have full force and effect until a modification took place, so why in the world would a bank make that kind of mistake? Why would the bank take any adverse action at all if the OP was never late with a payment?

A party can default on OTHER aspects of their mortgage agreement, and still be current. Examples would be property tax default or a disallowed transfer, failure to keep insured, etc. The poster will need to return and advise if they were in default for something other than payments.

 

[justalayman]

This doesn't make any sense if the OP was never late on a payment. The original contract would still have full force and effect until a modification took place, so why in the world would a bank make that kind of mistake? Why would the bank take any adverse action at all if the OP was never late with a payment?

well, presumably OP had the opportunity to oppose the foreclosure hearing and either failed to do so or failed to present a valid defense to the action.

whoops, look at that:

Jump forward to May of 2012, an eviction hearing took place

OP failed to present a valid defense to the foreclosure action. I'm not trying to delve into that situation.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

This doesn't make any sense if the OP was never late on a payment. The original contract would still have full force and effect until a modification took place, so why in the world would a bank make that kind of mistake? Why would the bank take any adverse action at all if the OP was never late with a payment?

Because OP was attempting to utilize HAMP to get a better rate and/or forgiveness of part of the amount they owed, even though they could make the payments.

 

[LdiJ]

Because OP was attempting to utilize HAMP to get a better rate and/or forgiveness of part of the amount they owed, even though they could make the payments.

Still makes no sense. Nextie gave some info as to a valid scenario but none of the rest of it makes any sense legally.

 

[justalayman]

the thing is:

OP is contesting the foreclosure, or more accurately, appealing the decision. Apparently the OP believes he has a valid defense to the foreclosure although the court apparently didn't.

Regardless of that, the house has legally transferred to the bank and then to the new owner. OP is behind the ball on this. He has no legal claim to remain in the house. The new owner has a legal right to remove OP from the home and take possession. OP failed to take proper action to prevent the sale of the home (bad for him). IF OP wins, then he can deal with the fact the home has been sold to another party.

 

[EL1984]

Homeowners insurance, and taxes were both included in escrow in the monthly mortgage payments.

As for the foreclosure I was never notified that one even took place, there was no notice given, it was just sold on the courthouse steps one day.

When I found out about the foreclosure it was in May of 2012, when I received the 1st Notice of Dispossession in which I appealed, and began a wrongful foreclosure suit at the same time.

So here we have No notice of Foreclosure
No Reason to Foreclose (Never late on a payment, never missed a payment)

and now I'm fighting all of this in court, and the court does not seem to be allowing due process at all while the Superior Court works through their case load, slowly moving towards mine.

 

[nextwife]

Are you certain that the foreclosing lender is the same mortgage as the one with whom you applied for a HAMP mod?

 

[Antigone*]

I'd like to know why they wanted information from a mentally incompetent uncle?

 

[ecmst12]

Was this actually your uncle's house, not yours? Or was he a cosigner?

 

[latigo]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Georgia

Did you record a LIS PENDENS at the time you filed your "wrongful foreclosure suit" If not, you should have.

Whether you did or not you need to move for leave of court to amended your lawsuit to include as an additional defendant the person or entity that purchased the home. And see to it that a LIS PENDENS is made of record that includes the names of both defendants. That is, if you get to first base with this separate "wrongful foreclosure suit", because I foresee some serious problems with it. Particularly because it will necessarily involve the same issues that were before the magistrate court.
_________

But whatever, if you don't hire an experienced trial lawyer you are destined to flounder. That you can be assured of because if you try to solo, the bank's "bank" of overpaid lawyers will bury you!

They didn’t become ensconced in those luxurious ivory towers by learning law from wandering about the worldwide web.

 

[nextwife]

Are you also certain that all the on time, not missed payments cleared the account and actually were paid? I was involved in at least two cases this year in which the spouse THOUGHT all payments had been made because, sure enough, they did bring in checks every month. Too bad most of those on time checks went nsf, and they never replaced them with "good funds".