On July 9, 2004, Harding executed a note for the amount of $173,600.00 to Suntrust Mortgage, Inc., in consideration for real property located at 4701 Sunbrook Avenue, Baltimore, Maryland 21206 (“the property”). The note was secured by a deed of trust executed by Harding. The original lender, Suntrust, subsequently indorsed the note to the Maryland Community Development Administration. Harding fell into default on July 2, 2012, still owing $155,088.03 on the note. A loss mitigation package was delivered to Harding on October 1, 2012, but as of January 24, 2013, it had not been returned to the lender. The Substitute Trustees docketed this foreclosure action on February 1, 2013. The parties underwent two foreclosure mediation sessions on April 22, 2013, and June 11, 2013, through which no resolution was reached. Moreover, the Substitute Trustees aver that as of June 21, 2013, they had yet to receive a complete loss mitigation workout package from Harding. A foreclosure sale was then scheduled for October 2, 2013. The sale, however, was canceled because of an automatic stay on foreclosure proceedings resulting from …show more content…
The letter, however, does not articulate whether the workout package was complete. Incomplete portions of an e-mail correspondence between Harding and M & T Bank suggest, however, that Harding was still in the process of completing her loss mitigation package at least as late as May 12, 2014. On May 7, 2014, the Substitute Trustees sent Harding a notice of impending foreclosure sale setting forth the time and location of the foreclosure sale scheduled to take place on May 23, 2013. The property was sold on May 23, 2014 for a purchase price of $173,204.03. In June of 2014, the Substitute Trustees filed a report of sale with the Circuit Court. At the time of the foreclosure sale, Harding owed $169,559.07 on the
This case study examines various real estate contracts – the Real Estate Purchase Contract (REPC) and two addendums labeled Addendum No. 1 and Addendum No. 2 – pertaining to the sale of 1234 Cul-de-sac Lane in Orem, Utah. The buyers in this contract are 17 year old Jon D’Man and 21 year old Marsha Mello; the seller is Boren T. Deal. The first contract created was Jon and Marsha’s offer to purchase Boren’s house. This contract was created using the RESC form, which was likely provided by their real estate agent as it is the required form for real estate transactions according to Utah state law. The seller originally listed the house on a Multiple Listing Service (MLS); Jon and Marsha agreed that the asking price was too high for the neighborhood (although we are not given the actual listing price), and agreed to offer two-hundred and seven-thousand dollars ($207,000) and an Earnest Money Deposit of five-thousand dollars ($5,000). Additionally, the buyers requested that the seller pay 3% which includes the title insurance and property taxes. After the REPC form was drafted, the two addendums were created. Addendum No. 1 is from the seller back to the buyer, and Addendum No. 2 is the buyer’s counteroffer to the seller.
The FHA 203k is a sister product to the FHA loan. While the FHA loan is used to buy or refinance a home, the 203k product is used to buy an existing property and also make repairs and improvements to the property. This loan basically allows the homebuyer to borrow more money than the asking price and use the extra funds for the work on the home.
Jones was party to the contract and mortgage together with Mrs Jones as surety for her husband, even though Mrs Jones was the actual owner of the property. This produced a legal consequence as it affected the appellants with a conduct on the part of the husband in relation to his wife which raised equities in her favour against the indication of a mortgage. The husband exercised undue influence on Mrs Jones to procure her signature to the mortgage which consisted of no consideration. The plaintiff brought proceedings against the defendant upon a contract to pay interest and principal contained in the mortgage over the property at Walkerville owned by Mrs Jones. It was understood that Mrs Jones executed the mortgage without understanding the effect of the contract and presumed various false misrepresentations. She argued that the mortgage which she s...
200% profit. The market value of a specific home when purchased is $300,000 and rises over a certain time to $350,000. The individual pays more than 2/3’s of the payments before foreclosure occurs. The specifics of the foreclosure are uncertain; however, this will not affect the resale of...
Problem: David H. Lucas purchased two beach front lots on Isle of Palms in Charleston
Defendant Hartford continues to dodge the fact that Service Master of Saint Cloud did not properly handle, and disposed, of the insureds personal property. Trey Swanson and Shaun Hickman contradicted each other during their testimony. Trey Swanson testified that Service Master would dispose of items but take an inventory. However, Mr. Hickman, his supervisor, stated that Service Master would not throw anything away without taking an inventory first. Nothing would be thrown away without the authorization of the insured, now the executor, RoxAnn Gendron. There is no testimony or evidence that there was any contact with Ms. Gendron.
"Home Owners Loan Corporation." Next New Deal. Roosevelt Institute, 2014. Web. 16 Mar. 2014. .
For the decades before the current housing crisis, buying homes and loaning money was a simple, but strict, affair and had had two outcomes. Either the borrower could pay back the money owed or they could not pay the money back. If the borrower could pay the money back, they could keep their house or whatever they took out the loan for. If they could not pay the money back, the lenders repossess the things that were not paid for. When this happens with a house, it is called foreclosure.
Carol Read and William Read Owned Mulberry Motor Parts, Inc.(MMP) together when they were married. They got divorced in 1985, and their divorce agreement required that the Ms. Read transfer all her stock to Mr. Read or to MMP at his election. On February 5, 1986, Ms. Read transferred all her stock to MMP and the selling price was $838,724. MMP provided her with $200,000 by check and issued to her “an installment promissory note in the amount of $638,724 and bearing 9% annual interest” page8
Gummow and Bell JJ concluded that clause 1 of the Deed signed Rural’s debts and its interests under the loan agreements to Equuscorp. Their Honours observed that the phrase “other remedies for these matters” located in clause 2 assigned a claim in restitution for money had and received . Heydon J agreed with this decision on similar grounds .
Palgo Holdings Pty Ltd carried on a business of making small secured loans. Each borrower would sign a two-part document. The first part of the document, titled “Secured Loan Agreement”, recorded the amount of the loan and the date on which the principal and interest was due. The second part of the document, titled “Bill of Sale/Goods Mortgage”, was made as a deed between the borrower as mortgagor and the lender as mortgagee. It also recorded that the terms of the bill of sale were set out in the schedule of terms attached.
(Central time). Further, the matter is set for trial on January 7, 2019. If the case does not settle at the upcoming pretrial conference, there are four Lend Lease witnesses that must be deposed along with wage loss witnesses, family/damage witnesses and several treating physicians. The parties would then progress to expert witnesses. In the event Lend Lease settles the case and Midwest waives its liens, we expect Lend Lease will pursue its contribution claim against Cives. Therefore, we would need to depose Lend Lease’s witnesses and then proceed to expert discovery to prepare for trial starting on January 7,
House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case, which originated out of a Tennessee trial court murder conviction and death sentence (Neubauer & Fradella, 2008). The case started with the murder of Carolyn Muncey late on the night of July 14, 1985, or in the early morning hours of July 15, 1985. Muncey disappeared from her home, and was found dead the next day, with her body having been dumped down an embankment and covered with brush and limbs. The defendant, Paul Gregory House, was seen in the area of the body dump site, on July 15, 1985, carrying a black rag, and reportedly coming up the embankment, in the area where Muncey’s body was later located (House v. Bell, 2006). Evidence collected from the body of
Mortgage loans are a substantial form of revenue for the financial industry. Mortgage loans generate billions of dollars in the financial industry. It is no secret that companies have the ability to make a lot of money by offering a variety of mortgage loan products. The problem was not mortgage loans but that mortgage companies were using unethical behavior to get consumer mortgage loans approved. Unfortunately, the Countrywide Financial case was not an isolated case. Many top name mortgage companies have been guilty of unethical behavior. Just as the American housing market was starting to recover from its worst battering since the Great Depression, a new scandal, an epidemic of flawed or fraudulent mortgage documents, threatens to send not just the housing market but the entire economy back into a tailspin (Nation, 2010).
Foreclosure is an extremely serious topic for so many people. For some, it simply means that there are cheap houses on the marker, for others, it is the end of their lives as they know it. Ultimately, there really isn’t a solution to foreclosure, but there I have formulated a plan to help slow down the process.