This is a BIG DEAL. Legally if a bank messes up the foreclosure documentation and process then the foreclosure is suspect. As in, might not be legal. As in, you can maybe keep your home. Now no judge has been ballsy enough to do this, usually they just throw the papers back at the banks and tell them to do it right (well USUALLY they just forgive the errors and rubber stamp whatever the banks put in front of them, but . . . ).
But that same courtesy of course does not get extended to homeowners who mess up paperwork. No. That is a one way ticket to homelessness avenue, population millions of Americans.
So how long can judges go on ignoring that banks are robosigning, foreclosing without actually having the note in hand, or just plain lying about their processes?
California Audit Finds Broad Irregularities in Foreclosures - NYTimes.com
An audit by San Francisco county officials of about 400 recent foreclosures there determined that almost all involved either legal violations or suspicious documentation, according to a report released Wednesday.
Anecdotal evidence indicating foreclosure abuse has been plentiful since the mortgage boom turned to bust in 2008. But the detailed and comprehensive nature of the San Francisco findings suggest how pervasive foreclosure irregularities may be across the nation.
The improprieties range from the basic — a failure to warn borrowers that they were in default on their loans as required by law — to the arcane. For example, transfers of many loans in the foreclosure files were made by entities that had no right to assign them and institutions took back properties in auctions even though they had not proved ownership.
Commissioned by Phil Ting, the San Francisco assessor-recorder, the report examined files of properties subject to foreclosure sales in the county from January 2009 to November 2011. About 84 percent of the files contained what appear to be clear violations of law, it said, and fully two-thirds had at least four violations or irregularities.
. . .
The depth of the problem raises questions about whether at least some foreclosures should be considered void, Mr. Ting said. “We’re not saying that every consumer should not have been foreclosed on or every lender is a bad actor, but there are significant and troubling issues,” he said.
. . .
In 6 percent of cases, the same deed of trust to a property was assigned to two or more different entities, raising questions about which of them actually had the right to foreclose. Many of the foreclosures that were scrutinized showed gaps in the chain of title, the report said, indicating that written transfers from the original owner to the entity currently claiming to own the deed of trust have disappeared.
. . .