Although many articles on the web encourage homeowners to defend a foreclosure case on their own, they can most likely delay the foreclosure sale or eviction for a period of months. However, real justice is not likely to be expected in the case, as government judges are more likely to give preference to banks that pay filing fees.

Take the following story in the Wall Street Journal from Fort Myers, Florida, where courts are so far behind in foreclosure lawsuits that judges are now reviewing nearly a thousand of these cases every day. The point is not to judge the merits of the bank’s complaint against the owners or the borrowers’ circumstances or the legitimacy of the original loan or any possible abuse of service. No, the goal of the judges is, according to Lee County Florida Circuit Court Clerk Charlie Green, “to get these cases off our books.”

To get the cases off the books, judges have held a twenty-two-second hearing for foreclosure victims, asking two simple questions and giving homeowners a deadline to settle with the lender or face sale. from the bailiff and removal from your home. The following experience cited in the article is simply staggering for the little consideration shown to homeowners and the amount of credit implicitly given to the bank’s positions.

Hoping to save her home, Saundra Hill Scott arrived at the county courthouse with spent mortgage bills and letters from her lender.

He had no reason to bother. The foreclosure hearing lasted less than 20 seconds, and Judge John Carlin asked him two questions: Is he current on his mortgage and does he live in the house? She answered no and yes and then offered to show him her paperwork.

“I don’t need to see that. That’s between you and the bank,” he said as he gave Mrs. Hill Scott, her husband and three grandchildren 60 days to settle with their lender or vacate their three-bedroom home. .

Two questions! The judge asked the defendants two questions and then gave the responsibility of negotiating the mortgage with the homeowners to the original bank that is suing them to kick them out of their home. And the next 800 or 1,000 people will be treated in exactly the same disrespectful way, regardless of any predatory lending, fraudulent debt inducement, or mortgage servicing fraud issues.

Can anyone seriously imagine this same judge asking the lender two questions and, based on those answers, dismissing the case entirely? It could certainly be done.

First question: were your borrowers able to repay this long-term loan at the time it was originated?
Second question: do you own the original note and could you produce it for inspection by the court and the defendants?

For a significant number of foreclosure cases, the lender’s truthful answer to both questions would be “No.” Many homeowners facing foreclosure were given adjustable rate mortgages (ARMs), option ARMs, and other creative financing packages to get a home they could never afford for more than a few years.

But these types of loans were designed from the start to spread the risk of default. The originator sold the loan to a Wall Street firm, which bundled the loan with others and divided various rights to it. The mortgage servicer was able to collect the payments and collect a fee, while the thousands of end investors around the world got a small percentage of the monthly income generated by the loan. However, the original loan documentation may have been destroyed or lost at some point.

Maybe the judge could ask another question and immediately dismiss a thousand foreclosure cases a day. “Did the originating bank provide any real consideration for this loan, or was the money created out of thin air, i.e. bank reserves?” All loans that banks create are out of thin air, with borrowers’ promise to pay the only factor that creates a debt.

After all, who has the burden of proof in a foreclosure case? Certainly not homeowners, who are the defendants, so why should they get the two-question treatment and then schedule their home for auction? At the rate these judges are going, massive fraud and corruption will be lost on any number of mortgages. Who could keep up with the subtleties of hundreds of foreclosures every day?

The smugness and superiority complexes exhibited by the judges in this article should give most homeowners and foreclosure victims a good idea of ​​how difficult it will be to argue and win a case against a mortgage lender. Some choice quotes are below:

“A guy hasn’t paid his mortgage in over a year,” Judge Cary says. “What to talk about?”

…

“The problem is that the lenders have spent all this money on attorneys and filing fees,” Judge Cary says. “You’re so into it, would you really stop it at that point? It’s an expensive proposition.”

…

Many judges, including Judge Carlin, are giving homeowners far more time to stay in their homes than the law requires.

“That’s pretty humane when you consider that many landlords have been living rent-free for more than a year,” says Robert Hill Jr., a Fort Myers attorney who represents lenders.

The most important point for homeowners currently trying to stop foreclosure to remember is that it is absolutely necessary that they file a response to the bank’s complaint in the time allowed. When they don’t do this, banks and courts make it very, very easy to lose a foreclosure lawsuit. While it is best to research the various topics that can be used as a defense or to consult with an attorney, any type of written response can be considered a response to a complaint.

Judges say they sympathize with homeowners’ plight, but often cases can be decided after a short hearing because there are no legal issues in dispute that warrant a lengthy trial. Some homeowners do not understand that they must file documents before the hearing to challenge the lender’s case. Many of them never file the papers or hire lawyers, the judges say.

The simple act of filing a couple of motions can mean the difference between extra months to argue your case, save money and move comfortably, or a 15-second foreclosure hearing. If nothing else, homeowners who are serious about defending their homes should at least consult with someone familiar with the law and file a response. They should not expect justice, but they can hope to force the courts to respect their rights to trial and due process.