JT-IL & Sheriff's Sales - Posted by Roxanne-OH

import · February 20, 2002, 12:02pm

Posted by JT-IN on February 22, 2002 at 24:21:45:

JohnBoy:

I have not seen any of the docs from this case so I certainly do not know the precise answers to your pungent questions, but let me say this about that which you ask…

The only way that this mess makes any sense is for there to be a mtg on the dirt and a seperate lien on the modular, as personal property. This is the type of thing that could get a Jr. banker fired, I would think. Or, it may have been intended for this property owner to file this affidavit, which he neglected to do, (which of course, the bank should have had signed and in the file origianlly), and at which point the Lender would have consolidated its liens on the modular, which would have been intended to be a temporary (interim) lien, into the mortgage only. This owuld have provided some protection for the bank in the event that Mr, Previous Owner does not perform, as in the manner of not filing this affidavit, et al ways.

Again, this is the only way that it works in my little noggin.

Very interesting, and one of the 10,000 ways that you can get sideways in this RE investing business. It is a good thing that there are at least 5 or 6 ways to make some money in this biz, to offset some of the 10K ways to go astray… LOL

The best to you… see you in Atlanta.

JT-IN

import · February 20, 2002, 12:02pm

JT-IL & Sheriff’s Sales - Posted by Roxanne-OH

Posted by Roxanne-OH on February 20, 2002 at 13:02:31:

JT
Please read my post in the legal forum about my sheriff sale situation and give me your take on the situation. JHyre said that you know just about everything dealing with OH sheriff’s sales. I am desperate for advice. Thank you

Roxanne

import · February 20, 2002, 7:58pm

Re: JT-IN & Sheriff’s Sales - Posted by JT-IN

Posted by JT-IN on February 20, 2002 at 20:58:45:

Roxanne:

This situation sounds remarkably similar to a set of circumstances recently discussed on the MH board… could this be the same situation? Check out the previous post here:
http://www.creonline.com/mobilehomes/wwwboard4/messages/12633.html

It is obvious that I will not be able to help much, without seeing the docs, etc. However, I would stand very close to the Sheriff, (and the Prosecutors) on this one, since they think the bank is wrong. They may all be right, or they may all be wrong, and attempting to stonewall the bank, in order to save face, in the event that the Sheriff made an error. Either way, I would do nothing to dislodge the Sheriff and Prosecutor, as they will be your best aly in this debockel, until settled.

The other issue at work here is, why did the Plaintiffs Atty not catch the clarical error in the newspaper, if in fact it did not state the fact that the home had a replevin order in place, and not being offered as part of the pkg. I think that this is a key factor, as well. I am sure that this Atty will have E&O Ins… hint, hint.

My guess here is that the bank is correct, having had the verbage in their orders to the Sheriff, and the Sheriff blundered claricaly. How this sorts out, I am sorry that I cannot even venture to guess. Well, maybe I will guess; I think that you and the bank will reach some form of agreement, maybe payments on a lessor amount… unless you decide to fight them and win outright.

I would shop for another Atty, maybe the best foreclosure Atty in the county, and preferrably someone that can’t stand the Atty representing the Plaintiff. Nothing like some raw emotions to fire up an Atty, against someone they dislike strongly… I would also do some research on your own, and not take at face value any advice that you are given, unless you read it and understand it, in black and white.

The other remedy here is to have the sale set aside. Even though confirmation and a deed have been issued, the Clerk of Courts can still set aside the sale for a whole host of reasons, and this could be one of them.

Very interesting case, and be certain to keep me informed of how it all goes. Best of luck on this one.

Just the way that I view things…

JT-IN

PS. John Hyre knows that I live a long way from him, but he put me over one too many states; I’m in Indiana, not IL. It is tax season and John is being gravely overworked.

import · February 20, 2002, 3:00pm

Re: JT-IL & Sheriff’s Sales - Posted by Tony in MI

Posted by Tony in MI on February 20, 2002 at 16:00:58:

Where would I find the sheriff sales in my area?

import · February 21, 2002, 12:39pm

The Cavalry’s Here! - Posted by JHyre in Ohio

Posted by JHyre in Ohio on February 21, 2002 at 13:39:46:

Thanks for riding in, pardner. I knew you’d send Roxanne in the right direction. Now, back to my regularly scheduled programming.

John Hyre

import · February 21, 2002, 4:07am

Re: JT-IN & Sheriff’s Sales - Posted by Ben

Posted by Ben on February 21, 2002 at 05:07:52:

This is the same story.

One of the interesting things about this is the issue of chattel. When does a modular become a pice of the entire parcel? A modular is simply a factory-built shipped and anchored to the foundation. It does not have an axle. In legal terms when does it become one with the land?

I question the original order to sell the home and land as seperate items. The error may have started here.

import · February 21, 2002, 11:53am

Re: JT-IL & Sheriff’s Sales - Posted by Roxanne-OH

Posted by Roxanne-OH on February 21, 2002 at 12:53:15:

They should have a legal news in your town that would contain this info. If not, contact the county courthouses and they should be able to help you.

import · February 20, 2002, 5:33pm

Re: JT-IL & Sheriff’s Sales - Posted by Michigan Andy

Posted by Michigan Andy on February 20, 2002 at 18:33:46:

Tony-
They are held, historically, on either the courthouse steps, or in the lobby of the courthouse where you live. I’m assuming Lapeer is your county seat, and that’s where I would go. Their Register of Deeds has a list of properties in foreclosure, just for the asking.

You haven’t made that million yet?

Just kidding.
Good Luck.
Andy

import · February 21, 2002, 9:07pm

Re: JT-IN & Sheriff’s Sales - Posted by JD

Posted by JD on February 21, 2002 at 22:07:33:

The mobile is ‘merged’ with the real estate when the mobile home title is ‘purged’ via the assessor’s office. And the property and mobile are taxed as one entity.

import · February 21, 2002, 1:56pm

Re: JT-IN & Sheriff’s Sales - Posted by JohnBoy

Posted by JohnBoy on February 21, 2002 at 14:56:20:

It has always been my understanding that if it has axles attached it is separate from the land.

If it doesn’t have axles or even if it once did have axles and they were removed, where the structure is anchored to the property on a foundation then it becomes part of the property.

I think I remember something about this pertaining to tax issues also. I think it was pertaining to the assessed value of a property. If someone placed a mobile home on the land where the axles were removed then the mobile was part of the property and the value was assessed as such. If you put the MH up on blocks and left the axles on, even though it was intended to be permanently attached, only the land was assessed as real estate for tax purposes.

In my opinion a modular that is anchored to a foundation on land IS part of the real estate.

If the modular is being assessed a tax value as being part of the real estate just like any other house would be, then it’s part of the real estate. In that case you would even have the county tax assessor claiming it to be part of the real estate. The tax bills would show evidence of this!

import · February 21, 2002, 4:01pm

Re: JT-IN & Sheriff’s Sales - Posted by Ben (OH)

Posted by Ben (OH) on February 21, 2002 at 17:01:20:

Hi JohnBoy–

We received a clarification today. Turns out the previous owner, i.e., the party that was foreclosed upon had failed to file an affidavit (or some other document) with the tax assesor therby linking the land with the house. The filing of this document establishes the parcel as one with home and land thereby removing the “title” of the modular home.

The previous owner having failed to file this forced the foreclosing lender to foreclose seperately, which the had the right to do, but failed to do.

The only issue now is the validity and enforability of the replevin order. Does it have any substance or merit? According to the new owners counsel it does not and may ultimately go to trial. In the meantime if it does go to trial the new property owner (our associate here at work) may be entitled to rent from the foreclosing lender while the home sits on her land, of which there is no dispute as to ownership.

Will keep this thread alive until settled. Thanks for your input.

Ben

import · February 21, 2002, 5:20pm

One remaining missing element… - Posted by JT-IN

Posted by JT-IN on February 21, 2002 at 18:20:35:

Ben:

The one missing element here is whether the lender would have had to sign off on an encumbered “vehicle” as part of the filing of this affidavit/document by the (previous) owner, before it becomes “real property” Somewhere in this matter, the lender has to ackowledge this and not lose his standing on the underlying security, in this case the “modular home”.

Look at it from the stand point of any landowner having the dirt financed with Lender X, and the Modular financed with Lender Y. Obviously any consolidation of modular to real property cannot dilute the position of the secured party Lender Y, holding a lien on the modular. I realize that in this instance, (as I understand it, anyway) that the Lender is one and the same on the dirt and the modular, but the fact remains. They must not have been given the opportunity to relinquish the lien, and consolidate the encumbrance, as a result of the (former) owner not filing this affidavit and getting the acknowldgement of the Lender.

This all makes perfectly good sense; I think. I also think that the Lender has great standing here, and will ultimately prevail. It would behove the new owner of the land to negotiate a settlement… has the Lender ever broached this subject?

Again, a very interesting case. Keep me posted.

JT-IN

import · February 21, 2002, 4:35pm

Re: JT-IN & Sheriff’s Sales - Posted by JohnBoy

Posted by JohnBoy on February 21, 2002 at 17:35:54:

So here’s the questions?

Was the filing of affidavit something that was OPTIONAL by the previous owner OR was this a REQUIREMENT that he was suppose to do, but never did?

Had the tax assesor KNOWN about the modular home being attached to the land on a foundation, WOULD they have assessed that property in addition to the land as real estate or not?

If this is a requirement of owners that they are suppose to do and/or if the tax assesor would assess taxes if they know about it, then that would show the home is part of the real estate and not personal property.

The mere failing to file an affidavit on the owners part wouldn’t change anything unless that is an optional choice by property owners as to whether they could choose to have the home become part of the real estate or keep it as personal property. Somehow that wouldn’t make sense that the tax assessor would go for. Otherwise everyone putting modular homes on their land would never file the affidavit to avoid additional property taxes. Yes?

So what would the tax assessor do now that they KNOW about it and if the home was to remain on the property??? Would they assess taxes on it as real estate or would they allow the new owner to have the option of making that choice?

If affidavits are SUPPOSE to be filed then the fact the previous owner never did should be irrelevant! Ingnorance of the law is no excuse!

In fact, if this is a requirement where the tax assessor has the right to tax the building as real estate, then I wonder if they could go back and re-assess the value for back taxes that would have been owed now that they know about it?

import · February 21, 2002, 10:44pm

Re: One remaining missing element… - Posted by JohnBoy

Posted by JohnBoy on February 21, 2002 at 23:44:46:

These were financed by the same lender, but were they financed separately or together with the land? Was the land also secured in the note with the modular as one lien against both? Or was this a second on the modular secured against both or just the modular?

Or was this just a note secured by the modular alone?

What is this lenders normal policy on lending against modulars and mobile homes? Many lenders won’t make these loans unless they are a part of the dirt included. If this were the case with this lender then wouldn’t that show they intended the modular to be part of the land as all being real estate?

This is an interesting case. I would like to know the final out come of this one also.