Talk:Foreclosure/Archives/2012

Article for deletion
Article listed on Votes for deletion Apr 14 to Apr 20 2004, consensus in that time was to keep. Discussion:


 * Dictionary definition -- Graham :) | Talk 13:02, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Expanded, keep. Smerdis of Tlön 16:39, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Cribcage 05:33, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Chane vote to keep, now it's been expanded. -- Graham :) | Talk 13:27, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * This certainly SHOULD have an article. jaknouse 03:59, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. BL 08:08, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep as expanded, although it still needs help. --ssd 04:07, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

-- 6-17-2006-Bob Geissler 00:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Took out a reference to a foreclosure business someone inserted. An attempt at advertising I think.

stalling foreclosure
I was wondering if anyone else thought it wise to include a small section for homeowners facing foreclosure with a general section on how it might be possible to delay eviction by using their rights to appeal and go bankrupt. I understand alot of people just move out without realizing they can easily stall it out and prepare themselves better for the inevitable move.

Does anyone have a suggested place in this article for such information, or possibly the creation of a new article pertaining to the subject?

Let me know what you all think.

Thanks, --The Pot Snob (talk) 20:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

=

debt liability
After the sale does the debtor owe any more money? Does the debtor have to pay back the difference between what is owed and what the house sold for when upside down? --Gbleem 04:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

After a foreclosed property is sold at a public auction, what happens to the second mortage, liens and judgments (if any) that are recorded against the property? Hsanoni 01:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Answer: The debtor owes any "deficiency" or difference between the sale price at foreclosure and the amount of the mortgaged debt. This difference can be recovered in a suit against the debtor personally (out of assets) because the debtor has signed a note for the debt. The property was only security (assuming that it was not a no-recourse loan). Almost all states limit the ability of a lender to do this (anti-deficiency legislation.

Answer: Any lien junior to the lien being foreclosed on will be "wiped out" by the foreclosure (this is the purpose of a foreclosure). Junior liens are paid out of the proceeds of the sale in order of priority (who recorded first). If there is not enough to pay all junior liens they are extinguished with no payment (debt still exists if it was against debtor personally, there is just no lien on the property to the next owner). - "Any lien junior to the lien being foreclosed on will be "wiped out" by the foreclosure (this is the purpose of a foreclosure)."

This statement is not exactly accurate. The purpose of a foreclosure is not to wipe out a junior lien. The purpose of the foreclosure is to force the collection of a debt through the sale of the debt security (e.g. real property). Once the foreclosure sale is complete the encumberance(s) on the debt security is/are removed. Giving the new owner of the real property clear title. The original debtor still has the debts, the junior liens. However, they are now unsecured debts. Moreover, a junior mortgage, can be foreclosed on. But, whomever, purchases the real property via foreclosure action of a junior mortgage is responsible for paying the senior mortgages. Normally, when this occurs the property is unencumbered from liens junior to the foreclosing mortgage.

spam links
RealtyTrac is a commercial site and is embedded throughout this document. This might as well be an advertising piece. We need to consider revamping this article and to negate bias towards specific foreclosure search companies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jbanning22 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

=

Corporate hijacking of article
As far as I'm concerned, the whole second paragraph ought to come out. It subtly attempts to steer vulnerable readers towards thinking about their options to avoid foreclosure. The article is supposed to be about foreclosure, not a how-to guide on avoiding it with handy links to sleazy refinance companies! Thoughts? Wbroun 03:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Wbroun, I think I need to hear more to consider. Without knowing exactly what you're talking about, I can't think of a single situation where foreclosure is the desired outcome for a property owner. Bankruptcy is a whole different story, but foreclosure is nasty, expensive, and undesirable for everyone. Gruber76 02:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Loss Mitigation
Loss Mitigation: This section seems as if it were written by a consultant that despises attorneys (okay, maybe that is a common sentiment, but I digress). It is hardly objective, and difficult to read. I'd say it should be cut way down or removed entirely.

Nesabishii 07:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Nesabishii

I agree Block quote

Lead section
The lead section is outrageously too long for the content of this article. There should be a short lead section with a brief definition of the topic, followed by sections dealing with notable subtopics. I recommend breaking the lead section into parts and moving some of them into their own sections. Twelvethirteen 17:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

how long
I live in the state of oregon and i am being foreclosed thy say i have until the 16th of june. How long after that will they lock my belongings in the house? How long until the foreclosure is complete?

Globalize/USA
I didn't add that template, but it's clearly needed. To be frank, this is one of the worst examples I've seen in a significant article - no indication at all in the lead that the text is almost exclusively about the USA, and the rest of the world confined to "Other countries" as though this were an American encyclopedia rather than a world one. I did try to edit a bit, but gave up because I don't know enough property law in any country to trust myself with it. Someone who does, please either hugely improve the non-US coverage or do some splitting out that doesn't assume we're all Americans. Yes, it's a slightly sore point! :P 81.153.111.37 (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Where are foreclosures listed; state, county or city government sites?
I would like to know where I can find foreclosed property listings without going to a real estate broker initially. Are the foreclosed properties listed somewhere in a government site, office, or web-site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.3.113 (talk) 17:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Foreclosure Rules?
I'm confused, I live in Canada but know very little about foreclosure here. Does anyone recommend a good book or website that isn't Spam and actually tries to help you understand the process? I have been waiting for the market to crash so I can stomp in and buy something for dirt cheap price.

With the current state of events it is very obvious that Canada is in for a rough ride (similar to the US). "Yes, similar to the US." Don't be fooled! I'm fed up of hearing Canadian bank managers and real estate agents talking about how wonderful the market is in Canada while things are getting pretty bad in the US. It appears that everyone (with a conflict of interest) has something positive to say about the market. Ultimately, I forecast a terrible demise of the market in Canada to a level that couldn't even be imagined. I base this on the extended level of greed that's propelled the market so far.

Thanks for emailing me info! Phl philyoutube@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philyoutube (talk • contribs) 18:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Edits about legal defenses to foreclosure
I moved a listing of legal defenses to this page for discussion and sourcing. The edits are a list of terms sourced to a self-published book that will not meet WP:RS, but the raw list might be helpful if this is an area that needs to be covered in the article. Here are the edits I removed:
 * "Legal defenses to foreclosure include: predatory lending, unconscionability, breach of contract, Truth-in-Lending Act (TILA), Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (HOEPA), Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), failure to comply with pre-foreclosure conditions, failure to verify income or assets, bankruptcy, Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), Racketeer Influences and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), misrepresentation, breach of duty to act in good faith, breach of fiduciary, civil conspiracy, payment, and fraud. "

Anything useful in these edits? Flowanda | Talk 01:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I posted this list because I thought it would be helpful to people facing foreclosure to know that there are a number of defenses available to them. It might be better to include a substantive discussion of each of these legal defenses, but that would likely take pages to accomplish. (TILA alone spans dozens of pages and encompasses volumes of written information in any law library.) Should there be individual pages created for each foreclosure defense? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.186.210.39 (talk) 23:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Further, I don't think it would be appropriate to include the list without citing to the source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.186.210.39 (talk) 23:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed the quote of the entire court order under the defenses section in re validity of debt. It wasn't "case law" as the editor noted (nor was it even validly cited), but an order. There was no opinion or rule of law included. It was not controlling anywhere else other than Minnesota. It was possibly the most inane addition I have ever seen on Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.171.246 (talk) 08:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

How many foreclosures?
The BBC in 11/2007 said that 1.7 million U.S. homes had been foreclosed on in the first 8 months of 2007. Does anyone have a source as to how many total have been foreclosed on in the subprime crisis? Simesa (talk) 01:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Readability
Any chance that lead paragraph can be written so intelligent laypeople can understand it??? It's dense and could be technically correct, but it's a paragraph that only Thorsten Veblen could love. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.100.245.116 (talk) 23:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC) I second that - there are so many words that, while having normal meanings for common usage, such as DEFAULT, also have very specific meanings in financing. Would it be possible to rephrase the original paragraph into the form "... When the mortgagor (person borrowing money to purchase the property) defaults (fails to pay in term), ..." ? Thank you.Alcator (talk) 14:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

US Bias
This article needs to be fixed. Even the opening paragraph seems to expect the reader to know wtf a foreclosure is. There's no attempt to mention what word is used in the rest of the world. I am assuming that 'repossession' is the word used in other English-speaking countries but this article was of little use.--Xania talk 01:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Seriously? Then write an article in Italian about Italian foreclosure law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.171.246 (talk) 08:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

This article is gibberish...
... to anyone who doesn't already know the subject beforehand. Can somebody please rewrite the article, especially the lead in more understandable lay terms. Thank you very much. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 13:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The article may be technically o.k. but for me as a layman it is of little help to understand the foreclosure desaster currently sweeping the U.S.--Gr5959 (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

nice article, but very hard for a layman to understand. It will be nice if we can use simpler words instead of something like 'equitable right of redemption'.

Chrissam (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the complex terms are technical terms of law. They speak to the process of individual foreclosures as generally as possible (considering the laws mostly vary state to state). For more consumer-oriented explanations, readers will need to go to materials provided by entities and offices that target such readers. Otherwise, those complex terms will need to be linked to Wiki articles explaining legal terms that have been in use for hundreds of years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.171.246 (talk) 08:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Foreclosure crisis
What is the foreclosure crisis ?. --Nopetro (talk) 12:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Foreclosure is different from sale
I see that although the article defines foreclosure as extinguishment of the right of redemption (debt) of a mortgagor it tries to convey that sale is the end product of the foreclosure. The fact is foreclosure in itself has nothing to do with judicial sale or sale in manner. When a mortgage is created it transfers "general interest" (all interest) in the property in favour of mortgagee. However, the legal owner continues to be the mortgagor. The rights of mortgagee in the mortgaged property are subject to the right of redemption of the mortgagor. In case at anytime after the amount has become due and mortgagee has not paid off by the mortgagor the mortgagee may file a suit for foreclosure or a suit for sale.

When a suit for sale is filed in a court, the court if the mortgagee succeeds will pass decree to the effect that the mortgagor lost his right to redeem the debt. In otherwords the mortgagor cannot get back his property even after payment of the debt. The mortgagee on obtaining the decree of foreclosure is not obliged to transfer the interest (which he got at the time of creation)in property back to the mortgagor.Usually the court also passes a declaration in the same decree to the effect that the mortgagee having vested with the general interest in property by way of mortgage and the mortgagor having lost his right to redeem mortgagee is the legal owner of the property.

In no situation, foreclosure and sale are same or are related to each other. Once the mortgagee becomes legal owner of the property he can sell the property among other things. On the other hand, a mortgagee will be forced to file a suit for judicial sale of the property when default happens because he does not have absolute title to the property. The court once it auctions the property and concludes sale gives legal title to the concerned purchaser of the property.

In net, a mortgagee will prefer filing a suit for foreclosure when he wants to become the legal owner of the property and he will file a suit for sale when he is not interested in owning it but is interested in only the proceeds of the sale in order to cover the debt amount. 124.124.230.149 (talk) 09:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Whomever wrote the strict foreclosure parts doesn't understand what strict foreclosure is
It's true that strict foreclosure was the original form of foreclosure, but the article as it stands doesn't make it clear how it worked. At common law, a mortgage was due and payable in full on what came to be known as "law day." Remember, the mortgagor holds the equitable title and the mortgagee holds the legal title. If the mortgagor didn't pay the mortgagee in full on or before law day, then the mortgagor couldn't get his legal title back (hence the term "law day"). The equity of redemption was developed by the Court of Chancery to ease the harshness of law day, but in turn, the ability of the mortgagor to redeem for a certain time period created frustrating uncertainty as to whether the mortgagee held clear title. So in turn, what we now call strict foreclosure was developed as a way to foreclose the equity of redemption---to kill off redemption and ensure that the mortgagee would hold clear legal and equitable title. --Coolcaesar (talk) 09:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Comprehensibility
I can understand quantum mechanics and mathematical economics, and hold degrees from some of the top universities in the world, but cannot for the life of me understand this article or even any of the "legal terms" it links to. I feel like I'm lowering my IQ 50 points while reading it. I've even taken some upper level law classes. As Einsten said, make things as simple as possible but not simpler. It almost seems like whoever is writing is trying to obscure meaning to make this subject seem very abstract/advanced/exclusive when really everything is simple and just being obscured by jargon. It does not show understanding of the subject, but rather complete stupidity that you can't explain things with lucidity. It is NOT that complicated. First, explain the subject properly without using jargon to those who are more intelligent and don't have the patience to deal with things that obscure true understanding and promote verbosity. Then you can go ahead and engage in your silly legal terms which you property practitioners pretend give you some semblance of intellectualism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poodlepantz (talk • contribs) 08:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Most of the article is a mess (apparently because it's been mostly written by anti-bank borrowers and leftist housing activists), but the two lead paragraphs do accurately and concisely summarize what a foreclosure is.
 * Part of the problem is that many of the articles this article links to are getting contributions from lawyers outside of the United States, but most other legal systems never underwent the Plain English revolution that hit American law around 1965-1970, so the quality of those lawyers' writing is atrocious by American standards. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree - one of the main problems is that the language is in some cases not just "specialized", it's poor English. Maelli (talk) 13:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I hope you find the first sentence and its cite an improvement. patsw (talk) 03:08, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

The concept of "lien" and "security interest" can be explained in the article. patsw (talk) 23:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The first sentence is NOT an improvement because it totally misses the point. It describes debt collection in general, which is NOT what foreclosure is about.  Foreclosure is the process of recovery of the balance of a secured debt by obtaining title to the real property collateral that secures the debt.  (It doesn't even include possession, which is why the lender then has to initiate eviction to obtain possession if the borrower refuses to voluntarily vacate.)
 * Your sentence is nearly as silly as trying to describe Barack Obama in the first line of his article as just a 50-year-old male American politician of partial African descent. While absolutely true, a lead sentence like that would miss the point of the article (namely, the fact he is the President of the United States). --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The "main point" of Barack Obama is that he was elected President in November 2008. The "main point" of foreclosure is that is an attempt at recovery from a borrower in default.  The concepts of a title, lien, security interest, eviction, etc. can be introduced later.  A large complex sentence such as the one you've given above is incomprehensible to a non-expert.  "What" should be the point of  the first sentence.  "How" and "Why" come later. patsw (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You're still not getting it. Your lead sentence describes debt collection and is vague enough to encompass activities like collection calls and loss mitigation, neither of which has anything to do with foreclosure itself.  --Coolcaesar (talk) 22:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, guys, I'm here from the 3O board. I tend to agree with Patsw in spirit; that is, the previous lede was far too complicated. However, I also tend to agree with Coolcaesar's objections to the new lede, which doesn't distinguish foreclosure from other forms of debt collection. Sadly, I'm not extremely familiar with the topic, but I suggest something like this: Is this (or something like it) better? As I said, I'm not too familiar with foreclosure, so the language in the bolded section might not be precisely accurate; if so, could it be rewritten to satisfy Coolcaesar's concerns while making a simpler introductory sentence per Patsw? Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that's almost right except that I would use the phrase "offered to secure the loan" instead of "assets associated with the loan." --Coolcaesar (talk) 13:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's much better, I think. I had been having difficulty finding a natural-sounding way to word that.  Any comments, Patsw? Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 14:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think "offered" is not the correct word for technical reasons or for comprehensibility. This is my tweak:


 * I think "repossession" is a weaker version of "forced sale." Both appear in various glossaries. patsw (talk) 01:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, that doesn't quite work either; one could refinance, or take out a loan on an asset that was either already paid-off or was originally bought free and clear, and then default and get foreclosed on too. --Coolcaesar (talk) 14:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What are your specific concerns with Coolcaesar's version, Patsw? Specifically, what makes "offered" the wrong word?  Is it something that could be solved by a synonym with different connotations, like "provided" or "rendered"? Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 16:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * We're talking about the first sentence, not the entire article. All kinds of exceptional cases can be covered later in detail in the article. The problem I have with "offered" it makes it seem like there's a renegotiation of the lien. "Used" is plain and accurate. patsw (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. I was considering using the word collateral, but didn't know if it was technically correct. Coolcaesar, comments? Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 04:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * My error in one of the versions above was seeming to refer to foreclosure as only the consequence of a default on a first mortgage. While that is the common case, a foreclosure can happen when the collateral is real property and the loan is for a second mortgage, home improvement, construction loan for a second house, cash out, etc. patsw (talk) 12:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Getting better. I think the latest version is satisfactory.  I have no problem with that one being inserted as the lead sentence. --Coolcaesar (talk) 13:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Awesome. I'm gonna unwatch this page; leave me a message on my talk if you think I can help any more.  Thanks! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect link
The link to the German "Zwangsvollstreckung" entry is wrong - it definitely IS NOT the same thing as foreclosure. Who imagined it was??? Maelli (talk) 12:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)