Civil forfeiture, who is responsible?

[DJOHNSON]

Civil Forfeiture Who is responsible???

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Hello, I hope I am not acting too hastly. I have this posted in the legal forum and it was suggested that maybe I should post here. So here it is and thank you for reading and help that may be provided.

Hello everyone. I am not sure if I am posting in the right forum or even the right website. But maybe someone can answer me this .

I had a house that I lived in for approx 25 years. I got into some trouble and the city took my house. There is a mortage owed on it around 35,000. Who is responsible?

I was ordered by the courts to vacate it . Which I have done. I paid up to the date the court ordered me out. I put in a request for part of my property taxes to be paid back to me. The county I live in paid me back some of my taxes . They looked at the court ruling and told me the city was exempt from property taxes. The county assesors office has the city I live in as the legal owner of the property.

The mortage company is trying to collect from me. Once I had moved out I contacted the mortage company and tlod them of my situation. Which I knew they were aware of because they had stopped mailing me statements. I was making copies of past statements and sending payments to them. But stopped once I had moved out of the house. Still no statements sent to me by the mortage company. I did receive notices of insurance they had put on the house. I stopped paying that after 2 months of being out of the house. Still no statements from the mortage company about the balance or past due notices.

When I contacted the mortage company the first time and told them of the judgement against me they said they had information about it. They asked me to fax them a copy which I did . I guess maybe I should have sent it by registered mail. At that point they told me I was still responsible for the mortage. And told to contact an attorney . I had been working with a attorney and he told me to suggest to them I would be willing to sign a deed in lieu of forclosure. The mortage company put me in contact with a attorney working for them and I told their attorney that I was willing to do the deed in lieu of forclosure and they said they would get back to me . I waited two months and tried to contact their attorney on three different occasions and left messages . Finally their attorney or as it turns out former attorney contacted me to let me know they no longer were representing the mortage company. They did however give a contact number to the mortage company. The number I was calling just got me in contact with people that either did not know anything or were just plain rude and treating me like a deadbeat who did want to pay.

The plain fact is I would pay if I could live there. But why should I pay if I cannot live there? I had to get another place to live. I could no longer keep paying the old house and pay to live in a new place. So if it has to go into foreclosure then it does and it trashes my credit. It does not seem too fair.

Anyway I think I covered everything . I have searched alot and cannot find any answers about who actually is responsible . It seems like the county thinks the city is now the owner of the house . The judgement says the court should order,adjudge and decree that all right ,title and interest of me in the Defendent In Rem, together with all appurtenances and improvments thereon be frofeited to the city pursuant to the RCW ####### and disposed of according to law.

To me that is saying the city now owns it and should be the responsible to pay. but maybe the law is not that way. That is why I am here.

Thank You for reading and any advice anyone can provide.

DJOHNSON

[jq26]

When the city "takes your house", they sell it and pay off whatever tax or fine that was past due. They receive "superpriority" and get paid first. If there is a lien on the home, whatever remains of the sale funds pays off the lienholder, your mortgage company. If there is still money leftover, you get sent a check for the remainder.

So what happened to the house? We need #s. How much did it sell for?

You are responsible for the mortgage. The debt doesn't just disappear. But if the asset is gone, the lender would have to sue you personally for the deficiency (ie remaining balance).

I reread your post and now I am confused...it appears this whole mess started with a JUDGMENT? If so, then they do not take a superpriority lien in the property. The mortgage lender would be paid in full first, then the judgment creditor second, then you. That's actually a better situation for you....

Do you still own the home or did title get transferred?

Edited September 3, 2010 by jq26

[DJOHNSON]

When the city "takes your house", they sell it and pay off whatever tax or fine that was past due. They receive "superpriority" and get paid first. If there is a lien on the home, whatever remains of the sale funds pays off the lienholder, your mortgage company. If there is still money leftover, you get sent a check for the remainder.

So what happened to the house? We need #s. How much did it sell for?

You are responsible for the mortgage. The debt doesn't just disappear. But if the asset is gone, the lender would have to sue you personally for the deficiency (ie remaining balance).

I reread your post and now I am confused...it appears this whole mess started with a JUDGMENT? If so, then they do not take a superpriority lien in the property. The mortgage lender would be paid in full first, then the judgment creditor second, then you. That's actually a better situation for you....

Do you still own the home or did title get transferred?

This is what I do not understand. As far as I can tell the county has transferred ownership of the house to the city. I have checked with the county assesors office and they have the city as owner of the house.

The house house has not been sold. The judgement states that I forfeit all interest in the house and property.

The attorney I did have said that the mortage company would get paid first once the house was sold and any profit above what I owed on the house would go to the city.

But what I do not understand is why the house would have to go into forclosure against me. I feel the city wanted the house so they should be responsible for the mortage. But maybe it just does not work that way. If so I guess I will have to live with this mess.

I wish the mortage company would work with me on this. I have also received letters stating that the loan has been sold to another company . It has not taken place yet but who would or should I be talking to about trying to resolve this? The old mortage company or the new one?

Why wouldn't they just want to do a deed in lieu of forclosure? Wouldn't that be better for the mortage company? I thought that maybe that would reduce court cost for them.

Thanks for reading and responding .

[Guest usctrojanalum]

I feel the city wanted the house so they should be responsible for the mortage. But maybe it just does not work that way.

The City did not sign the note with your mortgage company, you did. You will have a better grasp of things once the house is sold. How much is the house worth?

[DJOHNSON]

The City did not sign the note with your mortgage company, you did. You will have a better grasp of things once the house is sold. How much is the house worth?

Well I kind of understand. The confusing thing is they are listed as the owner of the house by the county assesor. But maybe that is the normal course of action. So I guess it will go through a foreclosure.

The county assesment is around 73,000. But the truth of the matter other houses in the neighborhood very simular to it have sold for 40,000 to 50,000. So I think it will sell for at least what is owed on it. I do not know if the city will make money , Maybe they will.

Another twist to this mess is I just received today in the mail that the mortage is now being serviced by wellsfargo. So maybe I can contact them next week and maybe they will do a deed in lieu of foreclosure.

I am not sure if that is the right thing to do. I just want to get this behind me. I feel that the mortage company before was not interested in my offer to them. I don't think anyone would keep paying on something they have been forced out of.

Well thnaks again for reading and any advice.

[jq26]

See my PM

[2ndTimeAround]

............The City did not sign the note with your mortgage company, you did.............

Good Answer........

When the city "takes your house", they sell it and pay off whatever tax or fine that was past due. They receive "super priority" and get paid first. If there is a lien on the home, whatever remains of the sale funds pays off the lien holder, your mortgage company. If there is still money leftover, you get sent a check for the remainder.

JQ26 is right.

In Lien holders position, the county/state is always in a silent first position, then in 2nd position the 1st mortgage, and if there is a 2nd mortgage they are in third position to the deed. If property taxes are not paid - then there is a government auction.

So maybe I can contact them next week and maybe they will do a deed in lieu of foreclosure.

If you had your taxes and insurance payments (escrows) with your regular payment, and these were paid the your mortgage company. You might have a recourse, but ultimately it was your responsibility to make sure these were paid. Normally you would of received notices that this was going to happen

Why did you wait this long to start asking for help???? You no longer own the property.

When the county sells the property - you mention prices around $40,000 minus the taxes you owe = _______ then minus the $35,000 plus for your mortgage????? My advice to you is speak with a bankruptcy attorney..........

[bobe]

The City did not sign the note with your mortgage company, you did. You will have a better grasp of things once the house is sold. How much is the house worth?

Do you even know what is really going on. Re-read the OP.

It is not that the OP did or does not want to pay the City seized the property.

One would think that if they seized the assets of said property they also would have to seized "Assume" the debt. Or what is owed on said property.

[DJOHNSON]

Do you even know what is really going on. Re-read the OP.

It is not that the OP did or does not want to pay the City seized the property.

One would think that if they seized the assets of said property they also would have to seized "Assume" the debt. Or what is owed on said property.

This is what I would like to find out. I do not know who is responsible for the debt . It does not make sense to me why they would be allowed to take the property and not pay off the loan against it. I have not been able to find any laws stating if I am still responsible or the city . Thanks for reading and responding.

[DJOHNSON]

See my PM

I read your PM . I left a message with my contact information.

Thanks again .

[jq26]

DJOHNSON- I got your message. I have to be in court all afternoon and then I have commitments tomorrow. I will look into it later this week.

JQ

[Guest usctrojanalum]

One would think that if they seized the assets of said property they also would have to seized "Assume" the debt. Or what is owed on said property.

Well somone who holds this belief obviously does not have a real grasp of contracts or real property law and they should consult an attorney immediately.

[DJOHNSON]

Well somone who holds this belief obviously does not have a real grasp of contracts or real property law and they should consult an attorney immediately.

I have no doubt you know way more than I do about this subject. That is why I am here to try to find out what is the process . I have searched and I have consulted an attorney but they could not really say it states in a law somewhere that if the property is seized and a debt is owed on said property who is resposonsible for the remainder of the debt. The person who had the property? Or the people seizing the property.

Thanks again for reading and responding to the post.

I forgot to ask you if you knew of what law said who is responsible . I would like to think that there would be a law that says who is still responsible for the debt ? Or a court ruling of such. I am sure I am not the only person this has happened to and I am kind of sure I won't be the last.

Thanks again

Edited September 16, 2010 by DJOHNSON
forgot to add more subject

[DJOHNSON]

DJOHNSON- I got your message. I have to be in court all afternoon and then I have commitments tomorrow. I will look into it later this week.

JQ

Ok I understand and will wait to hear from you. Thanks again

[bobe]

Well somone who holds this belief obviously does not have a real grasp of contracts or real property law and they should consult an attorney immediately.

USC, can youi please explain to me how an entity can seize ones property and not assume the debt owed on said property?

There is not a person in the world that would pay payments for a house they cannot live in or rent out, except perhaps .... you?

I know I would not.

[jq26]

It doesn't matter if the debtor would make payments on the home or not. They get sued for the deficiency because in many states they are personally liable for any remaining debt.

I think what USC was saying is that there are two pieces to this. You have the mortgage lien on the home, then you have the note. If you failed to pay taxes or did something to lose the home in a sheriff's sale, then the home is typically sold. The municipality gets paid first (superpriority), then the lender gets paid up to the full amount of their lien, then if anything left it goes to you (having $ back is unusual). If the lender's lien isn't fully satisfied, then in most states you are still responsible for it. And even in states with strong anti-deficiency protections, if there was a refinance or second mortgage then it isn't considered purchase money anymore and you are exposed to personal liability. You wouldn't keep paying your mortgage without living there- but youneed to know if you may be sued for the deficiency (unlikely unless you have non-exempt assets and/or a good paying job).

So we need to know- who "took" your house, who owns it now, why it hasn't been auctioned (or when), how much you owe whomever took the home, how much you owe on the mortgage, and how much the home is legitimately worth at auction.

[Guest usctrojanalum]

It doesn't matter if the debtor would make payments on the home or not. They get sued for the deficiency because in many states they are personally liable for any remaining debt.

I think what USC was saying is that there are two pieces to this. You have the mortgage lien on the home, then you have the note. If you failed to pay taxes or did something to lose the home in a sheriff's sale, then the home is typically sold. The municipality gets paid first (superpriority), then the lender gets paid up to the full amount of their lien, then if anything left it goes to you (having $ back is unusual). If the lender's lien isn't fully satisfied, then in most states you are still responsible for it. And even in states with strong anti-deficiency protections, if there was a refinance or second mortgage then it isn't considered purchase money anymore and you are exposed to personal liability. You wouldn't keep paying your mortgage without living there- but youneed to know if you may be sued for the deficiency (unlikely unless you have non-exempt assets and/or a good paying job).

So we need to know- who "took" your house, who owns it now, why it hasn't been auctioned (or when), how much you owe whomever took the home, how much you owe on the mortgage, and how much the home is legitimately worth at auction.

You are a very wise man!

[DJOHNSON]

It doesn't matter if the debtor would make payments on the home or not. They get sued for the deficiency because in many states they are personally liable for any remaining debt.

I think what USC was saying is that there are two pieces to this. You have the mortgage lien on the home, then you have the note. If you failed to pay taxes or did something to lose the home in a sheriff's sale, then the home is typically sold. The municipality gets paid first (superpriority), then the lender gets paid up to the full amount of their lien, then if anything left it goes to you (having $ back is unusual). If the lender's lien isn't fully satisfied, then in most states you are still responsible for it. And even in states with strong anti-deficiency protections, if there was a refinance or second mortgage then it isn't considered purchase money anymore and you are exposed to personal liability. You wouldn't keep paying your mortgage without living there- but youneed to know if you may be sued for the deficiency (unlikely unless you have non-exempt assets and/or a good paying job).

So we need to know- who "took" your house, who owns it now, why it hasn't been auctioned (or when), how much you owe whomever took the home, how much you owe on the mortgage, and how much the home is legitimately worth at auction.

Ok here it goes again. The city seized the house . It was not due to any taxes owed. Just me in desperate times and listeniong to the wrong people . Anyway the court ruled in favor of the city. Now I do not know who owns the house for sure. The county assesors website has the city listed as the owner. When I took the judgement ruling into the assesors office they told me that I may get some of the property taxes paid on it. I did get some taxes back and soon after they listed the city as owner. I do not know if there was title transfer or not. The new mortage and the old mortage company both said there has not been. The mortage was sold to another company .

Here is what my attorney I did have working on it said would happen. The city would assume ownership but they most likely would not be paying on it and then the mortage company would start foreclosure . Then they would sell it and any money over what debt is owed on it would go to the city. I think perhaps the county assesor does not know what has happened . They just read the judgement and assumed the city was the owner now. So they listed themas the owner not checking with the title company . I am not sure I guess I am just worried about my credit but what ever happens will happen. I can only hope that the house will sell for what is owed . I think it would right now but by the time all the BS is done I am worried that there will be alot of late fees and other charges on it maybe it won't.

Thanks everyone. I know everyones time is valuable.

[myhouse]

The city seized the house . It was not due to any taxes owed. Just me in desperate times and listeniong to the wrong people. Anyway the court ruled in favor of the city.

On what grounds did the city seize the house? The reason matters.

The city would assume ownership but they most likely would not be paying on it and then the mortage company would start foreclosure.

Right. The city has no obligation whatsoever to make the house payments. If you don't make them, the mortgage company will foreclose on YOU. Plain and simple. Ownership of the house and responsibility for the mortgage are two different things. YOU are still responsible for the mortgage, even if the city does own the house now.

I am just worried about my credit but what ever happens will happen.

Your credit is shot already. You are delinquent (or probably by now in default) on the mortgage.

I can only hope that the house will sell for what is owed.

If it doesn't, depending on what state the house is in, the mortgage company may come after you for the difference.

Edited September 24, 2010 by myhouse

[Methuss]

I'm not sure why the city would sieze a home like this unless there was some sort of building code violation that went unfixed or it was for emminent domain.

But the general consensus is correct, if this was not for unpaid taxes, then the city has to pay the lienholder first before they get anything and any remaining amount after that has to be paid to the former property holder.

This is a very odd situation. I think some part of the description is not being disclosed.