Banks are claiming “They don’t own foreclosed property due to the up keep cost.”


By Sherrie

banks, properties, ownershipThis is so classic.  Banks foreclosed on people and judges of course allowed it through the fraud.  Banks have to claim “ownership” and rights to foreclose due to ownership.   Once they foreclose they kick the people out through FRAUD of the foreclosure.

They then leave the properties empty and unattended if they are not able to sell the properties.  Now with so many empty fraudclosure of homes they are claiming “they are not the owners nor are they responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the properties.”

So… let’s think about this, banks foreclosed then they can’t sell the properties in the mean time they threw people out on the street instead of working with them to stay in their homes…. the houses stay abandoned for years and then banks don’t want to spend the money of mowing their lawns or maintaining them?!

banks, properties, foreclose, ownership,

 Portion from article:

The complaint alleges that U.S. Bank, through foreclosures, has become since 2008 the owner of “thousands of residential properties” in L.A. “which it has completely failed to maintain.” The result, it says, is that hundreds of these homes have fallen into disrepair, “causing blight and destabilizing communities.”

A city press release says the bank’s potential liability is in the “hundreds of millions of dollars.”

banks, properties, foreclose, ownership, Tom Joyce, director of corporate public relations for Minneapolis-based U.S. Bancorp (U.S. Bank), says in an email statement to ABC News that the bank, no less than the city attorney, is troubled that properties are not properly maintained and have a corrosive impact on neighborhoods.

He says, however, that the city attorney has chosen the wrong party to sue: U.S. Bank is not the owner of the properties, “nor are we responsible for the servicing” of them.

The homes, says the bank’s statement, are owned by trusts and by investors in those trusts. Only the companies to whom homeowners send their mortgage payments are responsible for the homes’ upkeep. Says the bank’s email: “It is clear from the complaint that the city does not understand our role.”

Frank Mateljan, spokesman for the city attorney’s office, says he understands U.S. Bank’s role just fine.

“They’re named on the deed,” Mateljan tells ABC News. “Much as the bank would like to blame gardeners and the pool man, it’s the bank’s responsibility to maintain these properties or to sell them to somebody who can.”
banks, properties, foreclose, ownership,
Says Mateljan: “We find that funny and disturbing at the same time—a major bank asking, ‘Tell us what properties we own and which are in disrepair.’ If you’re the owner and named on the deed, you have the benefits of being owner and the burden of maintenance.”

L.A.’s suit, he says, is very similar to one the city brought last year against Deutsche Bank. These two actions “have lit a fire under both Deutsche Bank and U.S. Bank to get a better inventory of their properties, and do a better job keeping them up to code.” The Deutsche Bank case is pending.

Deutsche Bank’s position is that the city attorney “has sued the wrong party,” for reasons almost identical to those advanced by U.S. Bank.

Now, is this information that can be used in lawsuits against the banks in defense against fraudclosures?   They are denying they are the owners of property after they committed fraudclosure!

Also…. isn’t it a shame that they kick families out of homes and then they let them go down.  Look at Detroit.  Thousands of families were kicked out of their homes and the city bulldozed the neighborhoods, about 40 square miles worth.  What would it be like now if the courts had actually adhered to real estate laws in judging if a fraudclosure could happen?  Then those neighborhoods would still have families living there.

Just out – Geithner and the Treasury Department ignored all the Foreclosure Fraud of the Banks.

In response to homeowner complaints about mortgage servicers, Treasury “demonstrated no interest in taking even the most modest steps to punish them,” Barofsky writes. “That was unconscionable, given the pain being inflicted on so many home owners.”
In a meeting with Geithner — this one involving fewer f-bombs than others — Barofsky says he finally realized the root of the Treasury Department’s apparent lack of interest in helping homeowners: They apparently had another goal in mind.