Sound more like a rhetorical statement, but… - Posted by Bill Gatten
Posted by Bill Gatten on December 23, 1999 at 12:37:32:
Ha! 'Thought you had me there didn’t ya Jim?
Jim, we both know (in theory, at least) that an “IN”-stated loan doesn’t have to be delinquent to have gotten itself UN-instated. A loan can have been “DE”-instated for myriad other reasons (unauthorized transfer; death of a borrower, wherein some unrelated party tries to continues the payments; abandonment; vacation; disappearance of the property; etc.). Therefore, “RE”-instatement would become necessary if, for any of thease reasons, the loan were found to be not in its original “STATE”–irrespective of the reason for “UN/DE” -instatment in the first place.
Wouldn’t you agree?
This is my final STATEMENT.*
Bill Gatten
*Right to additional final statements are hereby reserved: but shall be forthcoming only in the event that unabated consternation would continue (See your dealer for details).
No! Once again…that’s not the point! - Posted by Bill Gatten
Posted by Bill Gatten on December 22, 1999 at 12:21:36:
NOOOOO!!!
PACTrust or no PACTrust, lenders WON’T (generally) call loans if the payments on their loans are current, unless they have other ulterior motives…or are trying to prove a point or trying set an example!!
My many (too many) posts on this stupid, over-worked issue, are not to ‘Blair-Witch’ anyone, for crying-out-loud! I’m only trying to get the point across that if anyone tells you that lenders will ALWAYS “look the other way,” or that they WON’T foreclose on a DOSC’ if and when they feel like it or have a motive…that’s just not true! This is not, however, to imply or infer that they have little polka-dot gremlins running around every where peeking in your windows for opportunities to foreclose on perfectly good, properly performing (hard to get) mortgages. Though, they could do so were they to get a burr up their saddle (to mix a metaphor) relative to a particular customer or loan! Piper and the others die-hards are absolutely right in suggesting that it is highly unusual (and unlikely) to see a loan called for no other reason: and maybe it only happens once in a millennium or two.
My point though, in this is, and has always been, that those “other reasons” are frequent enough that folks need to know whether there are protections available for Seller-Assisted, silent subject-to buyers and sellers, beyond just paying the payment on time. That is–a way to insure reinstatement when the defaulted loan has finally been brought current. Understand that reinstatement is just not always possible when a lender sees that the payor has abandoned the property and given up his control and ownership of it; and/or when the secondary payor (who created the default in the first place) can’t qualify for an assumption…much less an “Assignment AND Assumption.”
So No! No! No PACTrust property has ever been called under a DOS by any lender! Ever! But…that’s NOT because the deal was in a PACTrust, or because the PACTrust saved anyone from anything. It’s more likely because PACTrust evictions are (most often) so simple and fast that the payments are never that far behind, as the contingency fund is always large enough to cover the gap and costs of eviction (sometimes 5 or six payments are held). And…if the lender WERE to attempt foreclosure, the mortgagor could make a good and logical (and legal) case that the property was never sold…that it was only leased out; and that the control of the asset (the lender’s security) was never relinquished, and that the trust was in-fact never more than a simple revocable, living (inter vivos), beneficiary directed title-holding trust. Upon foreclosure, there would be no document anywhere indicating that there had ever been an unauthorized sale; divestiture of control; relinquishment of beneficiary status or power of direction; or a release of title interest (other than as wholly authorized by federal law under USC1701).