Countrywide Home Loans (Recontrust) - GoHaynesvilleShale.com2024-03-29T00:00:17Zhttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/forum/topics/countrywide-home-loans?commentId=2117179%3AComment%3A277199&feed=yes&xn_auth=noSo should the mortgage compan…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2008-12-06:2117179:Comment:2872422008-12-06T15:25:43.000ZP.G.https://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/PG
So should the mortgage company be allowed to profit by becoming the lease owner if the borrower defaults? (lets assume there is enough land, say a few acres with the house)<br />
Wouldn't that be an incentive for the mortgage company to put a borrower into default for any possible reason?<br />
<br />
(have you ever heard of this case?)<br />
I remember seeing this live on the news!<br />
Tony swore the banker had done things to force him into default (like steer buyers away) so they could get his property.<br />
(it got…
So should the mortgage company be allowed to profit by becoming the lease owner if the borrower defaults? (lets assume there is enough land, say a few acres with the house)<br />
Wouldn't that be an incentive for the mortgage company to put a borrower into default for any possible reason?<br />
<br />
(have you ever heard of this case?)<br />
I remember seeing this live on the news!<br />
Tony swore the banker had done things to force him into default (like steer buyers away) so they could get his property.<br />
(it got ugly)<br />
<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Kiritsis">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Kiritsis</a> They are a bunch of, lets say…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2008-12-06:2117179:Comment:2870412008-12-06T13:49:31.859Zcarl haddenhttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/carlhadden
They are a bunch of, lets say keep your wallet close
They are a bunch of, lets say keep your wallet close It's just a hypothetical. Let…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2008-12-06:2117179:Comment:2862472008-12-06T01:44:18.234ZP.G.https://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/PG
It's just a hypothetical. Let say details were typical of what's being used now.<br />
If the mortgage company agreed to become subordinate and it's agreed they get the royalties if the owner defaults. I am assuming the mortgage company would sell the property if they foreclosed because of a default. Would the lease still be in force? For whom? Would the new owner from the foreclosure sale get the minerals and royalties? Would the previous owner lose his mineral rights if he defaulted and the…
It's just a hypothetical. Let say details were typical of what's being used now.<br />
If the mortgage company agreed to become subordinate and it's agreed they get the royalties if the owner defaults. I am assuming the mortgage company would sell the property if they foreclosed because of a default. Would the lease still be in force? For whom? Would the new owner from the foreclosure sale get the minerals and royalties? Would the previous owner lose his mineral rights if he defaulted and the mortgage company seized the property but they were subordinate to a paying mineral lease? If the royalty payments were enough to cover the mortgage, would it still be a default? Sounds like it would be a mess! What would happen to a new ow…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2008-12-05:2117179:Comment:2858512008-12-05T23:32:31.531ZP.G.https://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/PG
What would happen to a new owner if a mortgage company allowed itself to be subordinate to a mineral lease and then had to foreclose and sell the property. Who would own the minerals? Would they transfer to the new owner?
What would happen to a new owner if a mortgage company allowed itself to be subordinate to a mineral lease and then had to foreclose and sell the property. Who would own the minerals? Would they transfer to the new owner? KB:
I have seen this done, i…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2008-12-05:2117179:Comment:2856452008-12-05T22:44:34.890ZDion Warr, CPLhttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/DionWarr
KB:<br />
<br />
I have seen this done, if it helps for the purpose of discussion:<br />
<br />
If it is financially advantageous to do so, begin the search to do a refinance of your mortgage. Prior to the commitment process in the refi, simply deed the minerals to the property to another entity solely controlled by the mortgagor (e.g. Bob and Sue convey their minerals via mineral deed to a viable established entity, the newly created Bob N Sue, LLC), and file of this of record in the courthouse.<br />
<br />
<br />
*** NOTE: it would…
KB:<br />
<br />
I have seen this done, if it helps for the purpose of discussion:<br />
<br />
If it is financially advantageous to do so, begin the search to do a refinance of your mortgage. Prior to the commitment process in the refi, simply deed the minerals to the property to another entity solely controlled by the mortgagor (e.g. Bob and Sue convey their minerals via mineral deed to a viable established entity, the newly created Bob N Sue, LLC), and file of this of record in the courthouse.<br />
<br />
<br />
*** NOTE: it would be important to do this prior to the commitment paperwork being executed, since you would have to give the bank the time to have their abstractor update your title, with the deed filed of record. If you wait until afterwards, you would have to disclose same to the institution as a subsequent act, according to most standard commitment paperwork.<br />
<br />
<br />
Next, sign the commitment paperwork, and wait for the refi to process. Once you clear the title process and get to the closing, you are home free. The mineral deed primes the new mortgage (which is generally dated as of either the commitment date or the closing date). Bob and Sue's old lender's sole recourse against them, which would be to accelerate the repayment, is rendered toothless, as they will be repaid via the payoff on the refi, and the new lender is powerless to enforce any provisions (since they signed off on the title, or their title attorney did).<br />
<br />
You could attempt to have the new lender hold your minerals out of the new mortgage, but good luck. They would know that your minerals would have value too, and probably would not write such a mortgage. More than likely the mortgage…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2008-12-02:2117179:Comment:2776232008-12-02T15:01:38.143ZThe_Baronhttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/The_Baron
More than likely the mortgage company would want to sell the forclosed house. This assumes that the mortgage company buys the home at sheriff sale. Should the home go to another buyer, it would be up to the buyers descresion on what to do with the renter, as it would be his/hers new property.<br />
<br />
In any event KB is correct, without a subordination the renters lease would be wiped out by the foreclosure process, this is why tge oil and gas companies need to have their leases subordinated.
More than likely the mortgage company would want to sell the forclosed house. This assumes that the mortgage company buys the home at sheriff sale. Should the home go to another buyer, it would be up to the buyers descresion on what to do with the renter, as it would be his/hers new property.<br />
<br />
In any event KB is correct, without a subordination the renters lease would be wiped out by the foreclosure process, this is why tge oil and gas companies need to have their leases subordinated. Keep in mind that I am still…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2008-12-02:2117179:Comment:2776172008-12-02T14:59:17.687ZGricehttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/SidGrice
Keep in mind that I am still trying to comprehend the demand for subordinating mortgaged property.<br />
<br />
In your scenario, the property owner has not severed its ties with the mortgage company. The property owner would still be obligated to honor the mortgage, regardless if he leases, or sells such lease to another. Should the property owner face foreclosure, the lease owner would need to petition the mortgage company for a subordination from the property owner's obligations, if they wish to…
Keep in mind that I am still trying to comprehend the demand for subordinating mortgaged property.<br />
<br />
In your scenario, the property owner has not severed its ties with the mortgage company. The property owner would still be obligated to honor the mortgage, regardless if he leases, or sells such lease to another. Should the property owner face foreclosure, the lease owner would need to petition the mortgage company for a subordination from the property owner's obligations, if they wish to maintain the lease during and after foreclosure. The subordination agreement would be contracted between the lease owner and the mortgage company, and have no burden upon the property owner. How would this be unlike say…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2008-12-02:2117179:Comment:2775122008-12-02T14:29:20.359ZP.G.https://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/PG
How would this be unlike say someone buys a house and uses a mortgage and then must later move and doesn't sell the house (which could happen in this housing market), but just leases it out. Then sells that lease to an investor for a discount to let the investor manage and collect the rents. What would happen to the investor if the home owner defaults on the mortgage? Wouldn't the mortgage company want to collect the rents?
How would this be unlike say someone buys a house and uses a mortgage and then must later move and doesn't sell the house (which could happen in this housing market), but just leases it out. Then sells that lease to an investor for a discount to let the investor manage and collect the rents. What would happen to the investor if the home owner defaults on the mortgage? Wouldn't the mortgage company want to collect the rents? KB, I am unable to directly r…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2008-12-02:2117179:Comment:2774622008-12-02T14:12:15.854ZGricehttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/SidGrice
KB, I am unable to directly respond to your previous post.<br />
<br />
The prior mineral owner would retain the mineral rights, and would create the mineral servitude upon exercising that right. This could be done by either self operations, or through the permission granted to another (forming a lease agreement). However, I do think the two compliment each other. Regardless if the mineral owner has created a servitude or not, prior to transfer of surface ownership, I reserve the opportunity for seeking…
KB, I am unable to directly respond to your previous post.<br />
<br />
The prior mineral owner would retain the mineral rights, and would create the mineral servitude upon exercising that right. This could be done by either self operations, or through the permission granted to another (forming a lease agreement). However, I do think the two compliment each other. Regardless if the mineral owner has created a servitude or not, prior to transfer of surface ownership, I reserve the opportunity for seeking justification of burdening the property owner of the request for subordination.<br />
<br />
On a secondary note; Would it be unfounded that, according to your response, by the simple request for subordination, mineral rights ownership would have been determined prior to the request? I do not believe you are wron…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2008-12-02:2117179:Comment:2773032008-12-02T13:20:20.482ZGricehttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/SidGrice
I do not believe you are wrong.<br />
<br />
From what I have read, the original practice of obtaining a subordination agreement, was to prevent a tenant from being evicted, should the landlord face foreclosure. The subordination was claimed by the tenant, allowing the tenant to pay all future payments directly to the lender, and remain as a tenant until the property was resold. From what I have read, this was usually not done until the tenant was advised of a potential eviction. This subordination…
I do not believe you are wrong.<br />
<br />
From what I have read, the original practice of obtaining a subordination agreement, was to prevent a tenant from being evicted, should the landlord face foreclosure. The subordination was claimed by the tenant, allowing the tenant to pay all future payments directly to the lender, and remain as a tenant until the property was resold. From what I have read, this was usually not done until the tenant was advised of a potential eviction. This subordination agreement was binding between the tenant and the lender, and did not require any obligation from the landlord.<br />
<br />
It is my belief that, should the lease owner (tenant) wish to subordinate their leasehold, in the event the mineral owner (landlord) face foreclosure, the lease owner should petition the mortgage company (lender), and should not burden the expense upon the mineral owner.<br />
<br />
Hopefully, someone can provide justification for requiring the mineral owner to seek a subordination agreement from their mortgage company. If so, maybe they could also relate that to how it would apply if the mineral owner is not the same as the surface owner. If the minerals were reserved by the previous owner, who would be required to seek subordination? Were it found that, through intensive title search, the property owner does not have the mineral rights to the property, would that completely void the intent of requiring the landowner to seek the subordination agreement?