Posted by kevin on January 26, 2012 under Foreclosure Blog | 
2011 was a slow year for foreclosures in NJ. The robo-signing issue put practically all foreclosures on hold. When the NJ Supreme Court finally gave the go ahead to most of the banks to continue with foreclosure action, the banks decided to sit on the fence for two reasons: first, to get a ruling from the Supreme Court of NJ on what exactly must be presented in a Notice of Intent to Foreclose and what the penalty for non-compliance is; and second, to see if the national robo-signing deal pushed by the Obama administration could be effected. As of this date, neither has occurred. However, if I were a betting man, I would bet that the NJ Supremes will come down with their decision in the Notice of Intent to Foreclose case (Guillaume) before the people in Washington get off their duffs. In fact, that decision should come down any day now.
Read more of this article »
Posted by kevin on January 19, 2012 under Foreclosure Blog |
This post is geared more for the lawyers; however, we invite all interested readers to follow.
From Contracts I, we learn that a wronged party to a contract is obligated to mitigate damages. This is black letter law. How can it apply to foreclosure defense? Well, I have some ideas which, at least in New Jersey, are untested. However, when the spigot opens and the lenders start their new wave of foreclosures, I will be testing the theory.
Read more of this article »
Posted by kevin on January 15, 2012 under Foreclosure Blog |
The buzz among foreclosure attorneys is that the NJ Supreme Court was going to issue expeditiously a decision in the Guillaume case, which dealt with whether a Notice of Intent (NOI) to Foreclose could just list the name and address of the servicer as opposed to the name and the address of the lender as specifically provided by the statute. Although not an issue in the lower court decision since they ruled that the name and address of a servicer was good enough, the second issue that everyone hopes that the Supremes deal with is what is the remedy for a violation. Some lower courts have said that the only remedy can be dismissal without prejudice; others say that putting case on hold until new notice is sent out is good enough. I believe that dismissal without prejudice is the proper remedy.
Read more of this article »
