pre 2005 Chap 7 - debtor did not reaffirm mortgage
Date: Fri, 02/19/2010 - 14:24
Hi Folks, Great website. I read thru the thread with the similar subject line but the answers were all in the context of post 2005 rule changes. Here's my story.... can anyone help figure out who still has an interest in the property?
Colonel Mustard - with the candlestick - in PENNSYLVANIA (ha ha). The property is a poorly maintained house of lowlevel drug dealing. I moved in next door and my goal is to acquire title and level the place.
===========================
1995 BOB and SUE own house (in PA) with Bank-1
July 1997 Per divorce agreement, SUE deeds her share to BOB and BOB refi-s through Bank-2
Aug 1997 BOB rents to JILL under an "Article of Agreement" containing an option to purchase
Jan 1998 BOB files Chap 7; He states an intent to reaffirm the mortgage with Bank-2 but never does; Trustee files "no assets" report and BOB's bankruptcy is discharged
2000 Bank-2 acquired by Bank-3
================
Today:
JILL still resides in house
Taxes still assessed to BOB at house (but since he lives in another county he is not claiming PA's residence-discount); Taxes are paid on time so local gov't has no record of who actually writes the checks.
Bank-3 has no record of the property or the loan
No civil actions filed in the names of any of the players
Last recorded thing for ANY propety in either BOB or JILLs name was the divorce deed and refi mortgage mentioned above.
Incidentally I only know about the articles of agreement (lease with option) between BOB and JILL because it was mentioned in BOB's bankruptcy file which I obtained from the federal archives.
I have the 97 deed, the 97 mortgage, and the complete BK file. I have never seen the alleged articles of agreement nor the note associated with the mortgage.
==========================
If I understood the earlier thread, I surmise that BOB's BK attorney advised BOB to "ride-thru" the mortgage under the pre-2005 rule change; That BOB's failure to reaffirm, the trustee's statement of "no assets", and the ultimate discharge made BOB's mortgage with Bank-3 go away, but Bank-3 would still have a lien under the note; That the filing of the BK place the mortgage in default; That Bank-3 could file a complaint for judicial foreclosure immediately after the stay was lifted; and that PA's statute of lims for such actions would have started at that time.
===================
Anybody? Who's on first?
Thanks for all thoughts, especially on the BK angles.
Steve
Colonel Mustard - with the candlestick - in PENNSYLVANIA (ha ha). The property is a poorly maintained house of lowlevel drug dealing. I moved in next door and my goal is to acquire title and level the place.
===========================
1995 BOB and SUE own house (in PA) with Bank-1
July 1997 Per divorce agreement, SUE deeds her share to BOB and BOB refi-s through Bank-2
Aug 1997 BOB rents to JILL under an "Article of Agreement" containing an option to purchase
Jan 1998 BOB files Chap 7; He states an intent to reaffirm the mortgage with Bank-2 but never does; Trustee files "no assets" report and BOB's bankruptcy is discharged
2000 Bank-2 acquired by Bank-3
================
Today:
JILL still resides in house
Taxes still assessed to BOB at house (but since he lives in another county he is not claiming PA's residence-discount); Taxes are paid on time so local gov't has no record of who actually writes the checks.
Bank-3 has no record of the property or the loan
No civil actions filed in the names of any of the players
Last recorded thing for ANY propety in either BOB or JILLs name was the divorce deed and refi mortgage mentioned above.
Incidentally I only know about the articles of agreement (lease with option) between BOB and JILL because it was mentioned in BOB's bankruptcy file which I obtained from the federal archives.
I have the 97 deed, the 97 mortgage, and the complete BK file. I have never seen the alleged articles of agreement nor the note associated with the mortgage.
==========================
If I understood the earlier thread, I surmise that BOB's BK attorney advised BOB to "ride-thru" the mortgage under the pre-2005 rule change; That BOB's failure to reaffirm, the trustee's statement of "no assets", and the ultimate discharge made BOB's mortgage with Bank-3 go away, but Bank-3 would still have a lien under the note; That the filing of the BK place the mortgage in default; That Bank-3 could file a complaint for judicial foreclosure immediately after the stay was lifted; and that PA's statute of lims for such actions would have started at that time.
===================
Anybody? Who's on first?
Thanks for all thoughts, especially on the BK angles.
Steve
PS sorry... I meant to say that BOB and SUE owned the house subj
PS sorry... I meant to say that BOB and SUE owned the house subject to a mortgage with Bank-1, instead of owning it together with the bank