Posted by NJDave on June 06, 1999 at 21:47:59:
The woman’s dilemma was brought to my attention clearly 5 months AFTER she lost the house at Sheriff’s Sale. The Society didn’t bid on the house at Sheriff’s Sale, it bid on the house when it was scheduled to be sold at AUCTION. It was the Society’s intent to be the successful bidder and stave off the family’s eviction from the premises. WE were the successful bidder, and after a convoluted process, were fortunate enough to have located several Investors who would consider making a purchase money mortgage loan to the former owner. The Society assigned it’s interest in that Contract to the former owner who was able to complete the purchase.
What made this case so interesting was that we determined that the former owner had not missed any mortgage loan payments to her then lienholder, and that the Sheriff’s Sale was a wrongful taking. Our appeal to the Judge though compelling, was denied due to the length of time that had elapsed between the Sheriff’s Sale, and our petition.
So the bottom line is this: the family’s residence of 27 years had been repurchased by the former mortgagors as an REO at a sales price of less than they had owed, and, based upon a prudent review of the facts, an investor will see a fair return a good investment.
The Society, staring at a possible $40,000 profit, instead charged the distressed (former) homeowner a nominal amount to cover expenses including long distance phone calls, faxes, FedEx, mileage, and time spent (about 3 months) devoted to this most unusual case. Incidently, nonprofit doesn’t necessarily mean “for free”. In this case, a mortgage broker’s commission would have substantially exceeded any fees charged to the Client.
Are we done? Lets move on.