I know the bank I financed the mortgage with. I know the debt is still outstanding, and that I still owe that debt, because it has not been paid. I have a debt paydown schedule and regardless of whether the note has been sold to another bank or not should not be relevant–the debt to me remains outstanding. The debt has not been paid BY ME. Which means it’s still outstanding. Why do you think the sale of the note to another holder causes your personal obligation to disappear?

Let’s cut to the chase–you believe ‘proof’ is required to show that you owe; frankly, you KNOW whether you still owe on your mortgage. Your servicer provides a monthly statement which confirms it. You and I will thus disagree as to the morality of walking away from an obligation into which you entered freely and which ultimately others will be forced to pay. Rationalize it how you will, but every other homeowner who doesn’t walk away from their mortgage and prospective homeowners will be paying for these individuals via higher taxes (through the numerous mod programs) and through higher interest rates or a overarching lack of credit being extended to new and existing homeowners.

Whoops,

I think you are totally out of touch. Do you have any idea who financed your “mortgage”? The bank did not! Why should you continue to pay for a mortgage when it has been paid for three times. When you signed your mortgage note the bank stamped paid to the order of and monetized it. Your original unaltered bank note no longer exist. Where is the proof of debt?

Ramona, this is a ridiculous response. The issues with foreclosures are primarily related to mortgages that were improperly assigned, not with foreclosures on properties where mortgage payments are being made. If it’s your contention that this isn’t the case, you are beyond ill informed.

In the cases where foreclosure has been initiated for lack of payment: When you can explain why a homeowner that isn’t paying the mortgage payments should be able to retain the property, then you’ll have some credibility. Spurious arguments about a bank ‘stealing’ property hold as much weight in water as a leaky bucket. And so do your comments.

the banks are foreclosing on homes that are paying their mortgages. Where have you been? the banks are stealing our properties. THE Banks benefit greater if they foreclose and even the courts are depending on the money from them here in florida!!

I don’t understand a thought process like this. There is no requirement for the mortgagor to know if the note is being transferred to another. Frankly, one could argue the only info the mortgagor needs to know is the mailing address of the servicer to whom the mortgage payment should be sent. This isn’t a constitutional matter, despite all your rethoric. On the one hand you talk about the banks having ‘lost track of their ownership and clouded title for them’; on the other hand you talk about the mortgagor as if they are the sole owner of the property without regards to the ownership interest of a third party. It’s pretty simple, really: If you pay your mortgage, you typically don’t end up having your property foreclosed on (notwithstanding the sensationalist news stories of one-off situations where the bank records were incorrect–those situations were rectified and the banks made restitution as appropriate).

Clouded would be a polite way to describe your posting, which is hardly based in any justifiable legal argument.

“Because they NEVER RECORDED ANY NOTES…”

Notes are not required to be recorded.

“They are using VERY UNFAIR AND DECEPTIVE PRACTICES A/K/A THE RICO ACT…”

RICO specifically involves racketeering. You may be confusing RICO and UDAP, or the Unfair and Deceptive Practices Act. That of course is Federal. Given that foreclosure is handled in state court folks might want to check the local consumer protection laws to see what, if any, state laws there are similar, or identical, to the Federal UDAP.

A) It suggests that the attorney may sign the verification. Other courts have found diffrent, that it is the plaintiff who must verify, not their counsel.

B) Note the last cc at the very very bottom left of the page: The Florida Bar. This should happen more a lot more often.

Otherwise a very good order.

I like the bit about the re-hearing being only on the subject of residential or not – but think the court could not actually enforce that section of the order, for a motion to re-hear may be directed to any part of the order hearing. For example the courts improper exclusion of an item of evidence. There again, it certainly informs the Plaintiff on what specific grounds the court is prepared to reconsider the order.