Will the second pay off the first?

[HomeGuru]

You've lost me. I don't see how any of this is relevant to the OP's question ("Will the second pay off the first?").

Moreover, the result is not necessarily the same if the second forecloses. While the OP may lose the house in either scenario, one scenario may also have other ramifications.

**A: of course one scenario may have other ramifications.

 

[tranquility]

You've lost me. I don't see how any of this is relevant to the OP's question ("Will the second pay off the first?").

Moreover, the result is not necessarily the same if the second forecloses. While the OP may lose the house in either scenario, one scenario may also have other ramifications.

If the first forecloses, we both agree it is unlikely the second will pay off the first to stop foreclosure. Does you disagreement stem from the issue about if, in that situation, the second is not foreclosing? Because, I would say they are. They would be joined in the action and, in the sense of the question, would be allowing it to continue. If you want to say that is NOT "foreclosing" that's fine and I would not really disagree. But, it seems like you have some greater disagreement here. What it is, I don't understand and why you've "lost" me from the first.

 

[HomeGuru]

Who's on first? Third base. Is anyone in left field?

 

[CameronNewport]

If the first forecloses, we both agree it is unlikely the second will pay off the first to stop foreclosure. Does you disagreement stem from the issue about if, in that situation, the second is not foreclosing? Because, I would say they are. They would be joined in the action and, in the sense of the question, would be allowing it to continue. If you want to say that is NOT "foreclosing" that's fine and I would not really disagree. But, it seems like you have some greater disagreement here. What it is, I don't understand and why you've "lost" me from the first.

It's pretty simple: You didn't answer the OP's question by telling him that there is nothing stopping the second from foreclosing. And all of your subsequent talk about results is overly defensive and unnecessary.

You completely dropped the bankruptcy issue, which you also got wrong. Why are you trying so hard to save face on the foreclosure issue? So you didn't get the question this time around ... big deal.

 

[HomeGuru]

It's pretty simple: You didn't answer the OP's question by telling him that there is nothing stopping the second from foreclosing.

**A: did the OP even ask that question?

#########

And all of your subsequent talk about results is overly defensive and unnecessary.

**A: i disagree.

###########

You completely dropped the bankruptcy issue, which you also got wrong. Why are you trying so hard to save face on the foreclosure issue? So you didn't get the question this time around ... big deal.

**A: what issue? The OP just made a statement about filing BK and the first mortgage got discharged.

 

[tranquility]

It's pretty simple: You didn't answer the OP's question by telling him that there is nothing stopping the second from foreclosing. And all of your subsequent talk about results is overly defensive and unnecessary.

You completely dropped the bankruptcy issue, which you also got wrong. Why are you trying so hard to save face on the foreclosure issue? So you didn't get the question this time around ... big deal.

Please point out my error.

 

[HomeGuru]

This thread is a disaster. Although it's a bit stale, I'll chime in just in case the OP returns.

First, what is the value of the house? The tax appraisal is probably not very accurate. Go to Zillow.com for a more accurate estimate.

**A: I have had several situations where Zillow's estimate was off. A BPO would be better and an appraiser by a state certified appraiser even better.

 

[CameronNewport]

Please point out my error.

I already did.

1. The OP was not required to reaffirm the mortgage in order to keep the house.
2. The second is not going to foreclose.

As to your foreclosure statement, you are arguing that the result is the same whether the first or second forecloses, so it doesn't matter. I understand that, but you've missed the point.

Do you think that the OP read your answer and thought "he told me that there is nothing stopping the second from foreclosing, and if the second forecloses then I'll lose my house, so he must be implying that I am going to lose my house, and I'll lose my house if the second doesn't pay the first, so his answer to my question must be that the second will not pay the first."

C'mon dude. Nobody answered his question. That is the point. That is why I jumped in.

 

[tranquility]

Once again, you fail to clarify anything. Perhaps you should cut and paste to show the error rather than trying to summarize.

Your continued instance you have helped clear up this issue is astonishing. As to the OP's question,

My question is this: If GMAC starts to foreclose, what do you think the chances would be that the second lien holder will pay off the first to stop foreclosure.

From the numbers, it seems we both agree it is unlikely the second will pay the first to keep the loan going.

 

[CameronNewport]

Once again, you fail to clarify anything. Perhaps you should cut and paste to show the error rather than trying to summarize.

Your continued instance you have helped clear up this issue is astonishing. As to the OP's question,


From the numbers, it seems we both agree it is unlikely the second will pay the first to keep the loan going.

Sorry, but this is too tiresome for a simple matter. The OP asked a question and got lousy responses before I answered. If you don't see that ... well, that's why you responded to him the way you did in the first place.

 

[tranquility]

If it is too tiresome, why do you continue? The answer given gave the OP what he needed. Yours? Um...yea, that was better. Heck, you claimed the question was not answered, and I show how it was. You claim answers rife with errors and when clarification is asked for you make the same conclusory statements. When asked to cut and paste the errors, you..well cycle back again. I'm sorry other answers were not to your satisfaction. You still have not described any difference between how I answered and how you answered in response to the OP's question. Yet, you are vehement in that the differences are broad. Oh, by the way, just to make sure there is valid content here, from Maine Statutes:

14 �6321. COMMENCEMENT OF FORECLOSURE BY CIVIL ACTION
After breach of condition in a mortgage of first priority, the mortgagee or any person claiming under the
mortgagee may proceed for the purpose of foreclosure by a civil action against all parties in interest in either
the Superior Court or the District Court in the division in which the mortgaged premises or any part of the
mortgaged premises is located, regardless of the amount of the mortgage claim.[2007, c. 391, �9
(AMD).]
After breach of condition of any mortgage other than one of the first priority, the mortgagee or any
person claiming under the mortgagee may proceed for the purpose of foreclosure by a civil action against
all parties in interest, except for parties in interest having a superior priority to the foreclosing mortgagee, in
either the Superior Court or the District Court in the division in which the mortgaged premises or any part
of the mortgaged premises is located. Parties in interest having a superior priority may not be joined nor will
their interests be affected by the proceedings, but the resulting sale under section 6323 is of the defendant or
mortgagor's equity of redemption only. The plaintiff shall notify the priority parties in interest of the action
by sending a copy of the complaint to the parties in interest by certified mail.[2007, c. 391, �9
(AMD).]
The foreclosure must be commenced in accordance with the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure, and the
mortgagee shall within 60 days of commencing the foreclosure also record a copy of the complaint or a
clerk's certificate of the filing of the complaint in each registry of deeds in which the mortgage deed is or
by law ought to be recorded and such a recording thereafter constitutes record notice of commencement
of foreclosure. The mortgagee shall further certify and provide evidence that all steps mandated by law
to provide notice to the mortgagor pursuant to section 6111 were strictly performed. The mortgagee shall
certify proof of ownership of the mortgage note and produce evidence of the mortgage note, mortgage and
all assignments and endorsements of the mortgage note and mortgage. The complaint must allege with
specificity the plaintiff's claim by mortgage on such real estate, describe the mortgaged premises intelligibly,
including the street address of the mortgaged premises, if any, which must be prominently stated on the first
page of the complaint, state the book and page number of the mortgage, if any, state the existence of public
utility easements, if any, that were recorded subsequent to the mortgage and prior to the commencement
of the foreclosure proceeding and without mortgagee consent, state the amount due on the mortgage, state
the condition broken and by reason of such breach demand a foreclosure and sale. If a clerk's certificate of
the filing of the complaint is presented for recording pursuant to this section, the clerk�s certificate must
bear the title "Clerk's Certificate of Foreclosure" and prominently state, immediately after the title, the street
address of the mortgaged premises, if any, and the book and page number of the mortgage, if any. Service
of process on all parties in interest and all proceedings must be in accordance with the Maine Rules of Civil
Procedure. "Parties in interest" includes mortgagors, holders of fee interest, mortgagees, lessees pursuant
to recorded leases or memoranda thereof, lienors and attaching creditors all as reflected by the indices in
the registry of deeds and the documents referred to therein affecting the mortgaged premises, through the
time of the recording of the complaint or the clerk's certificate. Failure to join any party in interest does not
invalidate the action nor any subsequent proceedings as to those joined. Failure of the mortgagee to join, as
a party in interest, the holder of any public utility easement recorded subsequent to the mortgage and prior
to commencement of foreclosure proceedings is deemed consent by the mortgagee to that easement. Any
other party having a claim to the real estate whose claim is not recorded in the registry of deeds as of the
time of recording of the copy of the complaint or the clerk's certificate need not be joined in the foreclosure
action, and any such party has no claim against the real estate after completion of the foreclosure sale, except
that any such party may move to intervene in the action for the purpose of being added as a party in interest
at any time prior to the entry of judgment. Within 10 days of submitting the complaint for filing with the
court, the mortgagee shall provide a copy of the complaint or of the clerk's certificate as submitted to the
court that prominently states, immediately after the title, the street address of the mortgaged premises, if any,
and the book and page number of the mortgage, if any, to the municipal tax assessor of the municipality in
which the property is located and, if the mortgaged premises is manufactured housing as defined in Title 10,
section 9002, subsection 7, to the owner of any land leased by the mortgagor. The failure to provide the notice
required by this section does not affect the validity of the foreclosure sale.[2009, c. 476, Pt. B,
�5 (AMD); 2009, c. 476, Pt. B, �9 (AFF).]

 

[HomeGuru]

Sorry, but this is too tiresome for a simple matter. The OP asked a question and got lousy responses before I answered. If you don't see that ... well, that's why you responded to him the way you did in the first place.

**A: you don't make any sense.