catfive Posted May 16, 2014 Report Share Posted May 16, 2014 So here is the story up to now; Foreclosure in ArkansasOwners moved to Arizona prior to non-judicial foreclosureSuit filed against owners in Arizona just a few days prior to the 1 year SOL by the mortgage insurance company. (Claiming subrogation rights) Plaintiff claims a payment made to Note holder for the full amount of the deficit. However, the MI in question is currently under an Order of Supervision in North Carolina and is prohibited from paying in excess of 60% of its claims. The other 40% is being held by the MI and the North Carolina Department of Insurance has allowed them to utilize the funds as a statutory asset in order to help it meet its minimum holding requirements. The other 40% is listed as a deferred payment obligation. In short, plaintiff only paid 60% but blatantly states they paid the full amount. Wouldn't this be considered “miscalculation of debt” and be grounds for dismissal? Or, do they have a legal right to collect an an amount that is only hypothetically going to paid at some point in the future? Any help and/or links to relevant law/cases would be GREATLY appreciated.....I have to submit the response to MSJ Monday morning. Thanks in advance. (My apologies to anyone who wasted their time reading my first post....I provided incorrect information concerning the SOL.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catfive Posted May 16, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 16, 2014 (Just deleting the incorrect information I posted earlier) Still looking for information regarding the deferred payment obligation issues... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clydesmom Posted May 16, 2014 Report Share Posted May 16, 2014 Arkansas law will apply because that is where the property and mortgage was that was foreclosed on regardless of where the home owner lives now. As for the SOL: your time line is too hard to follow it is best that you consult an attorney on that one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catfive Posted May 17, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 17, 2014 Thanks, Clydesmom. Any thoughts on whether the PMI can sue for the full deficiency even though they did not pay out the full amount? I can't find ANY information about this, and I'm usually pretty good at finding this kind of information! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clydesmom Posted May 17, 2014 Report Share Posted May 17, 2014 They can sue for the actual deficiency. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Seaward Posted May 17, 2014 Report Share Posted May 17, 2014 They can sue for the actual deficiency.On what authority? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.