Is it true? Will this bill give banks the ability to forclose without a note?

[TalkingDog]

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2011-12/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5275-S.pdf

the language in question:
(7)(a) That, for residential real property, before the notice of
7 trustee's sale is recorded, transmitted, or served, the trustee shall
8 have proof that the beneficiary is the owner of any promissory note or
9 other obligation secured by the deed of trust. A declaration by the
10 beneficiary made under the penalty of perjury stating that the
11 beneficiary is the actual holder of the promissory note or other
12 obligation secured by the deed of trust shall be sufficient proof as
13 required under this subsection.

As i read it, it only applies to the span of time BEFORE the legal papers have been filed.

But, knowing how the law is often misused or misapplied is there a way for bankcorps to use this to foreclose without a note?

The only wiggle word I see is sale. If you are still paying on your house, has the SALE been recorded? Legal types some feedback, please.

[Raven]

1. Yes, it does away with the requirement that the original note be

produced. It relies on the "honesty" of the person executing the affidavit. I wonder, going a step further, if, when I pay off my mortgage, I would get my original note back stamped "cancelled" as has always been the case. I guess not.

[msanthrope]

2. Yes. This proposed bill would stop "show the note" claims filed

by people trying to keep their homes....

It would allow for a declaration, but not physical presentation of the Note or other documents to the court.

This is a burden-shifting measure--the person being foreclosed on would then have to prove that the declaration was false and that the beneficiary in fact, does not have a legal right to the obligation.

All the beneficiary would have to do is merely state, under penalty of perjury, they they believed they had a legal right to the obligation, but not have to produce anything more than that signed declaration....see, the burden shifts from the forecloser to prove their rights to the person being foreclosed on having to prove that they don't have the right...


Find out who sponsored this legislation, and ask their office WHY this particular section was put in....there's dirty work afoot.

[Bigmack]

3. These are all Dems... one is my senator....

I will be in touch with them.

"A declaration by the beneficiary made under the penalty of perjury stating that the beneficiary is the actual holder of the promissory note or other
obligation secured by the deed of trust shall be sufficient proof."

Banks would never lie about such things.... would they? Lying fucks!

The Dems control the Senate... this fucking think will pass.

[angstlessk]

4. 'under penalty of perjury'...they will send the corporation to prison?

SO they can declare any home even if paid in full and owned outright to be in foreclosure if they swear they mean it? and the TRUE AND LEGAL OWNER MUST PRESENT PROOF OF OWNERSHIP..AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE?