I am trying to think through the process by which the lenders will “fix” their “sloppy paperwork.”*

At the most general level – leaving aside differences in state procedures – there will be two basic models needed: the proactive fix where the lender initiates the fix, and the defensive fix, where the present or former homeowner initiates, I suppose, a motion to vacate the judgment authorizing a sheriff’s/trustee’s sale.

As I thought through the proactive fix, I realized that this is going to be very expensive for lenders, and thus am somewhat doubtful about it taking place on a large scale.

The Lenders’ PR makes it sound as if they can just send in qualifying affidavits, the courts will accept them happily, and a new amended order confirming the original judgment will issue. I don’t think this can happen. For new evidence to be put into the court file, the case will have to be re-opened, and I don’t see any way that happens without some kind of motion by the lender for amended findings, conclusions, and order (or whatever the functional equivalent in a particular jurisdiction is). Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the lender will have to go through these steps:

1) Determine what evidence needs fixing. In the case of “true and correct copy” statements in affidavits, can the lender find the originals to which those statement refer? If not, why not? In the cases where originals are available, they need to be collected up. In the cases where they are not, start thinking about how this is going to be “splained” to the court. Need memo of theories and likelihood of success;

2) Order title search, and do a much more detailed examination to determine who could be potentially affected in addition to the original foreclosure defendant[s]. Do former junior lien-holders (2nd mtg holders, judgment creditors, IRS, State tax dept., child support collection, mechanics’ lien holders, homeowners associations etc.) need to be made parties? (States vary a lot on this one). Has there been a post-foreclosure sale? If so, the new owner and any secured party need to be joined (in addition to any secured lender, agin, it could be the IRS, child support collection, ex spouses etc.). Determine the method of service, if necessary, on those determined to be potentially affected.

3) Avoid suicide;

4) Draft a motion and notice of motion that allows the court to re-open the file, amend its order based of the “fixed” evidence;

5) Draft a memorandum of law that justifies the re-opening and acceptance into evidence of the “proper evidence.”

6) Follow state procedural rules on motions and scheduling a hearing;

7) Pay neceesary court fees for hearing a motion;

8) Serve on all potentially affected, that is, required parties;

9) Hope like hell they all ignore it;

10) If anybody does respond/object to the motion, determine what the likelihood of success is now in being able to get the new evidence in, now that somebody, or many bodies have objected;

Note: we’re not even in front of the judge yet and I’m tired. When actually in front of the judge, I would expect the questions to be exceedingly unpleasant for the lender.

Am I right here? This is a bare-bones account, IMO, and while I’ve anticipated some of the nasty nuances, I’m sure there are others just waiting to be discovered.

The revenge of the dead beats!!!

by the way we are not dead beats our homes, all our collective homes have been paid in full several times over