Bank Sells Woman's Home By Mistake

Source: WPLG Local 10

HOMESTEAD, Fla. -- A bizarre series of mix-ups landed a South Florida woman out of her home and her furniture in the street when her home was sold without her even knowing.

...

On Wednesday night, Ramirez was evicted by a man who bought her house. The problem is, her house wasn't for sale. The bank, Washington Mutual, auctioned the house off by mistake while Ramirez was in the process of modifying her loan, Local 10's Roger Lohse reported.

"This is the deal that the bank already sent me, and I already sent my first payment, and I'm getting kicked out of my home. That's not right," Ramirez said that night.

In a matter of hours, all of the things she accumulated during her three years in this house were on the front lawn.

Long before the movers showed up, the bank acknowledged the mix-up and even went to court with Ramirez to get the sale reversed. But then the Miami-Dade County Clerk of Court's Office never filed the judge's order.

...

The clerk of court's office said it handles thousands of cases and this was caused by a human error. The clerk of courts said he planned to call Ramirez to apologize.

Read more: http://www.justnews.com/news/20436071/detail.html#

What an asinine thing to do to anybody.

that means she was almost a year behind. Should the bank then get an extra year of payments? I think she should sue the movers though. They have no right to damage her belongings.

not the bank. So the 200 days to foreclose is not a factor. Bank messed up the paperwork and sold a house that was being re-financed. The man, who thought he owned the house did the evicting. He and the woman were both victims of shoddy transactions on the part of the bank.

Both are owed apologies at the very least. Bank is owed closer scrutiny of their transactions by regulators.

The 200 days still applied. She was in foreclosure and the sale date was just not cancelled as it should have been. Considering she already made one payment on a modification, she was almost certainly over 200 days delinquent. Figure about 70 days of being delinquent and then an additional 200 before foreclosure. This was likely an honest mistake since the last thing that WAMU wants to do is take the loss by taking that property to sale.

She owned the home and had made her payment. You can say what you want about her missing past payments, but under the terms of the new agreement she wasn't delinquent.

Almost all modifications these days are trial modifications where you'll make 3, 6, or 12 payments and after that time period the loan is THEN modified. You're still delinquent during that time period. This still shouldn't have happened, but I can understand the mechanics. I'm more curious how the new owner got her evicted so quickly.

Time and again I read on the foreclosure/bankruptcy support boards of a bank approving the three-month trial mod, but proceeding with the foreclosure process regardless. Because sometimes it's a 90-day deal anyhow, they figure why not cover the bases, IMO.

The other delightful "trick" seems to be reporting to credit agencies that the borrowers are delinquent, even though the trial mod is in place, because hell, they *are* if you're thinking about the original loan. And then they seem to be tacking whatever wasn't paid during the trial mod onto the fourth month's payment due -- more of a forbearance, if I'm understanding the lingo, than a modification.

And then they deny a permanent mod. Back to square one, only now with late fees and other sundry charges. :(

To lose money? Once its sold at auction, its a MASSIVE loss. Probably 60% of the investment in that area.

...we're assuming the right hand knows what the left is up to. A lot to ask in a big bank. ;)

But let's say they do: the bank has several avenues not to get screwed, right?

If the lender had PMI/LMI, that will cover most of the bank's losses in foreclosure. And I understand banks have other avenues of insurance for foreclosures as well.

More, if the amount owed is sufficiently inflated -- late fees, etc. -- that hedge can bulk up the amount the bank seeks and gets in a deficiency judgment.

...And if they can't get blood from a stone, so to speak, they can sell to a collections agency, granted for a discount, but a discount of an inflated number can get close to that number.

I'm no expert, but it sounds like they're quite well protected and have no real reason to work these mods. :shrug:

Still a massive loss. Current note sales run about 2-5%. So for 100K loan, a servicer may get 2K-5K. You can seek a deficiency judgement put the percentage of those actually paid is miniscule. That really is it.

...Then the question would be, why are the lenders not spending more (hiring, training etc.) to get these mods going? Or reducing principal? What's the motivation for inaction? Wouldn't the smart move to do about anything to avoid foreclosures -- compared to, say, next to nothing? :D

(p.s. I love kicking this stuff around with you, you're clearly well informed. :hi: )

A lot of people can't pay no matter how much you lower the interest rate or principal(you obviously don't want to give away equity). Another problem is that the majority of loans are non-risked base and an investor makes the decision based on their internal mathematical models or even whims. So Nomura bank may tell WAMU that intereat rates can't be lowered past 3% or something of that nature. This also applies to the Obama mods where the criteria for qualification are very strict. The third reason is that servicers are losing money at an alarming rate so its hard to hire and train a ton of people so human error, delays, etc can happen. Thanks, I used to work in the industry and I just like to impart a little knowledge on what's going on behind the scenes.

another human, are they exempt from negligent homicide charges? Are they exempt from civil liability? Since it was an honest mistake?

The bank is liable for their honest mistake, both to the homeowner and the person who thought they were the new homeowner.

Now the bank and the city can deny responsibility and force both parties to take them to court. But I would expect that the bank and city will lose. Honest mistake doesn't absolve liability.

And it doesn't matter at all if the woman was previously delinquent or if she is an immigrant from France, or if she didn't pay a parking ticket in Arizona. That doesn't in any way mitigate liability of the bank and of the clerk of court.

A better analogy would be if a person makes an honest mistake and hits the gas pedel instead of the brake and mows down your parked motorcycle what are you entitled to.

is not something you should be defending or minimizing as an "honest mistake". :banghead:

Let's just say this member is well known for his/her hardline stances. Whether this is the correct board for it is questionable.

situations before his judgments and hallowed pronouncements start. He's never failed to defend the strong against the weak, big business and corporatists against the consumer, no matter what the situation. He apparently also thinks that victims of medical malpractice, no matter how egregious the negligence or how dead the victim (like my lifelong best friend, killed by gross medical negligence, who died after a full year of needless suffering) should just suck it up because the poor doctors are always right and it's such an injustice to hold THEM accountable in any way. Yeah, right.

And as a former real estate paralegal, I know that more than half of what he says in these foreclosure/mortgage/property threads just either isn't true or the context is wrong. I watched my parents have to deal with a foreclosure process right up until just before the sale when family came through, and I have no patience with that. My parents were responsible and hard-working all of their lives and my father's unexpected chronic, incurable illness in his fifties destroyed them financially.

I alerted on the post and most of those that I happen to notice.

A reading of its posts and one quickly realizes it took a wrong turn on the free(p)way.

was certainly warranted.

I've noticed everything you mention in your post, plus the large number of stories from this person from Fox.

or the servicer WANTED to lose money which seems unlikely.

by mistake the 200 day statistic is not relevant. The payments could be current but if a house/lot number is in error, there it goes. I've done a lot of loan audits and due diligence in my profession and checking numbers 2 and 3 times as well as descriptions is mandatory, to avoid mistakes like this.

The usual situation is that the house has a sales date set, but that sale date is not rescinded when the modification begins. Usually due to a miscommunication with the foreclosure attorney or the courts.

and yet her house was sold and she was evicted. Sounds like a monetary relief in the form of a piddling one year's mortgage payment would be cheaper than a lawsuit with the bank, etc.

She can still go after the movers separately.

but I still owe payments on it. You then owe me a new paid for a car?

What if it was my prized '83 Chevette? Would you be responsible for giving me a Bentley? I really loved that Chevette.

I really loved that Chevette. It had sentimental value and I'm sure I'd need an extremely large monetary settlement to ever break from despair.

sorry - but that house is now HERS!!!

I wish I were a lawyer - this woman will OWN that bank!!!

Can you imagine? Get home, and your stuff is all over the lawn?

I think my temper would have gotten the better of me.

to taint the water with some brain numbing substance?

Good lord, in Texas, not the friendliest of all states to debtors, it takes 8 days to get an uncontested order, and 22 to get one if a hearing is required.

And you would think that anyone with a lick of sense would realize that a house full of belongings must be currently occupied.

Course, this is a "mistake." The bank can't be held accountable. When I make a "mistake", like being in the hospital unconscious after an accident for 14 days, the electric company is free to disconnect me and charge me a large new deposit and reconnect after I get out.

I'm sure this woman's credit will reflect forever that her home was auctioned off; good luck in ever getting a correction of that.

Business can do no wrong, people are always wrong. The mantra of the 21st century.

This used to be common in NY since to evict a renter takes an act of Congress so landlords would hire a crew to "help" people move out.

the folk who hired the thugs would be well in order.

that the new owner went to move his stuff in with some movers, but then the movers put her stuff outside. But re-reading the article, it's hard to tell what exactly happened--aside from the fact that bot this woman and the new "owner" were fucked over by the bank.

No wonder the banks are in a mess.

They sure as hell don't want this going before a jury of her peers!

They got the sale reversed by a judge before any damage was done. The County Clerk then screwed it up. If she actually gets the county to issue an apology that will be better than most folks get when a government agency screws them over.

Of relocating her belongings back into the hous, plus whatever money she was out while she regained ownership of her home.

I agree that the movers sound like a do it yourself mob--probably the new buyer's friends and family. Though it's not that buyer's fault--he thought he was buying a house and legally obtained ownership of it. Still it would have been the neighborly thing to wait until they could at least talk to the woman before throwing her stuff on the front lawn.

I just bought a foreclosed house at auction so I can understand the joy and excitement of getting a bargain. But my house was vacant for almost a year and the previous owner (who defaulted on the loan after she couldn't sell it) had moved to another state.

The bank deserves to get zinged for this, severely. Unfortunately, a Clerk of Court's Office cannot be sued -- but someone's head should still roll. This is why I get upset every time some RWer prates on about "tort reform."

Jesus, I've seen some fuckups in my day, but a mortgage company selling the wrong fucking house is about the worst. :eyes:

:P

Could be because there is no Washington Mutual anymore...

The same ones who defend the banks "honest mistake" are the first to indict an individuals "honest mistake" when they overdraw.

I imagine our biases illustrate themselves whether we realize it or not.

And fuck the apology if it isn't made with cash.

Source: http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local-beat/Womans-House-Mistakenly-Auctioned-by-Bank-53583357.html

You know times are tough when people are getting kicked out of their house when it’s not even for sale.

That’s what happened to Anna Ramirez after she found all of her stuff out on the front lawn of her Homestead home last week and a strange man demanding she get out of his newly purchased house.

The eviction came after Ramirez’s home was mistakenly auctioned off to the highest bidder by her bank, Washington Mutual. Usually, you get a warning before you get the boot. A foreclosure letter. Maybe a sign saying your house is up for sale. Not Ramirez, who found her belongings bashed and battered in the street.

"This came out of nowhere," Ramirez said. "The bank took the house from right under my feet."

Top News Photos
Top News Photos
LOOK

Top News Photos

Weird News Photos
Weird News Photos
LOOK

Weird News Photos

The man who bought the house told Ramirez he paid $87,000 for it, which shocked Ramirez, who bought the house for $260,000.

What's worse is her husband, daughter and grand children were also kicked out by Homestead and Miami-Dade police officers, said Martha Taylor, who witnessed the unexpected eviction.

"I have never seen anything like it," Taylor said. "They literally threw all her stuff on the front lawn. I didn't sleep that night and it wasn't even my house."

Ramirez and her family had three hours to get out of the house, police ordered. They had to stash their belongings at multiple locations and shacked up with a friend for the night as cops chained the doors of their home. With Taylor's help, Ramirez appeared before a judge two days later to explain what happened.

"I had all my stuff scattered everywhere," she said. "They did this in front all my neighbors. It was so embarassing."

A mistake in the Miami-Dade Clerk's Office appears to be behind the mishap, which landed Ramirez homeless for more than 24 hours.

The sale was eventually reversed by a Miami-Dade judge, allowing Ramirez to return to her old digs. Ramirez said she wants to sue for the damage to her furniture.

Ramirez has lived in the house for three years and recently refinanced the home with the bank.

"This shouldn't be happening, you know, because we did the right thing," she said. "We went step by step."

Read more: http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local-beat/Womans-House-Mistakenly-Auctioned-by-Bank-53583357.html

They should be able to recover enough from their lawsuit against Miami-Dade to pay off their house and get out from under that debt.

;-)

Hope she has a good lawyer. She should get punitive damages, as well.