Is My Mortgage Agreement Unenforceable

Angry_Cat

How about taking into account that SPML were paid in full by Eurosale for my mortgage.

This means if SPML were to sue me, they would be doing so for making no loss. As they have not made a loss what are right do they have to sue me ?

holly_hobby

Angry_Cat wrote: »

How about taking into account that SPML were paid in full by Eurosale for my mortgage.

This means if SPML were to sue me, they would be doing so for making no loss. As they have not made a loss what are right do they have to sue me ?

Were they paid in full ?

Probably the book was purchased by Eurosale for a lesser figure than the os liabilities. (much as you see with regulated debts, that are sold onto a DCA by the OC).

Nevertheless, IMHO the only reason why the possession order may be revert back to the OC for collection, would be if the DOA was proven to be incorrectly executed - which means that SPML effectively retained full beneficial rights (the mess up between them would be a sep issue for their ratification).

If Euro. simply purchased (under compliant execution) the legal & equittible rights from SPML, then you now owe Euro. not SPML - so no on those grounds SPML would have no basis for petition of possession, having sold the right to do so.

Holly

Dave_Ham

I do not pretend to understand some of the detail here, although happy to offer my free opinion.

OP - you are clearly not an idiot and have had some issues and therefore money is tight. Spend your time re-training in something you can do, spend time on this forum for increasing your income, assess that you are receiving all of the benefits you are entitled to from the state and speak with your new mortgage lender in words they can explain.

That would be something along the lines of, having financial difficuly, here is my income and expenditure form and can you please help.

Forget the rest, if by some chance someone else sets the marker down and wins the claim you can fill your boots then..

I wish you well.

Angry_Cat

holly_hobby wrote: »

Were they paid in full ?

Probably the book was purchased by Eurosale for a lesser figure than the os liabilities. (much as you see with regulated debts, that are sold onto a DCA by the OC).

Nevertheless, IMHO the only reason why the possession order may be revert back to the OC for collection, would be if the DOA was proven to be incorrectly executed - which means that SPML effectively retained full beneficial rights (the mess up between them would be a sep issue for their ratification).

If Euro. simply purchased (under compliant execution) the legal & equittible rights from SPML, then you now owe Euro. not SPML - so no on those grounds SPML would have no basis for petition of possession, having sold the right to do so.

Holly

Yes they were paid in full, I have copies of the mortgage sale agreement etc.

The charge on my deeds is still in the name of SPML and I have never been informed that my mortgage had been sold to Eurosale. I found out by reading threads about securitisation.

SPML are always the named claimants on possession cases and never Eurosale. Eurosale are not authorised by the FSA.

holly_hobby

You may find this useful ...

"Elsewhere in the SPML annual report the company makes clear that mortgages arranged by SPML for its unsuspecting homeowner victims are bundled together, securitised into a ‘derivative’ financial instrument as they laughingly name it, and sold on into a ‘Special Purpose Vehicle’ as SPML describe it ( it just means another separate company that simply holds all those bundled together mortgages as an asset to be further manipulated into a fantasy world of breathtaking deviousness).

Then, guess what ? The SPML annual report proudly announces these Special Purpose Vehicle companies, SPV’s for short in the childish jargon of these idiot ‘Masters of the Universe’, are all ‘legally and beneficially owned by charitable trusts and are included in the financial statements of the company (SPML) on a ‘linked presentation basis’. That is more jargon designed to confuse people into not quite realising SPML have hidden all their money in charitable trusts so it is protected from all the people owned money by Lehmans and its subsidiaries." Taken from a Telegraph article of 03.03.2010

So Eurosale actually appears to be a sub-company of the original Lehman (of which SPML also formed part of the group) - which is why as part of the same group, I guess the chargee remains as SPML - although the day to day monetary activity is actually channelled via Eurosale for reasons above - but that doesn't affect the monies owed.

Not sure how you know all possession orders have been presented under SPML - were any of these challenged re the assignment issues ? If you do want to pursue trying to have your mortgage agreement made unenforceable through the courts, a class action may bring more weight than a personal one - which IMHO will result in both a waste of time and money.

Holly

somethingcorporate

Great info Holly, it would be a hell of an expensive battle. Probably more than the value of the outstanding mortgage!

vectistim

Is it possible that possession orders have been issued by SPML acting as agent for Eurosale?
Wouldn't it make sense in securitisation deals to leave admin with the original lender to simplify payment, serving of notices, etc.

Personally I find the attempted tactics being suggested here, and in similar schemes trying to weasel out of payment because a full stop was upside down on the contract to be despicable.

Its quite straight forward two parties agree a contract and that contract allows for successor parties to the contract, just because some minor piece of admin may or may not have been carried out exactly correctly shouldn't nullify the entire thing.

But as long as you keep the payments up on your mortgage who cares how many investors have had your mortgage in a parcel of investments.

Trollfever

Personally I find the attempted tactics being suggested here, and in similar schemes trying to weasel out of payment because a full stop was upside down on the contract to be despicable.

And a Judge would normally dismiss such a case on a "de minimus" basis.

I do hope that the OP has very, very deep pockets to enable them to fund their legal challenge.

Angry_Cat

Dave_Ham wrote: »

I do not pretend to understand some of the detail here, although happy to offer my free opinion.

OP - you are clearly not an idiot and have had some issues and therefore money is tight. Spend your time re-training in something you can do, spend time on this forum for increasing your income, assess that you are receiving all of the benefits you are entitled to from the state and speak with your new mortgage lender in words they can explain.

That would be something along the lines of, having financial difficuly, here is my income and expenditure form and can you please help.

Forget the rest, if by some chance someone else sets the marker down and wins the claim you can fill your boots then..

I wish you well.

Thank you, very sound advice

Angry_Cat

vectistim wrote: »

Is it possible that possession orders have been issued by SPML acting as agent for Eurosale?
Wouldn't it make sense in securitisation deals to leave admin with the original lender to simplify payment, serving of notices, etc.

Personally I find the attempted tactics being suggested here, and in similar schemes trying to weasel out of payment because a full stop was upside down on the contract to be despicable.

Its quite straight forward two parties agree a contract and that contract allows for successor parties to the contract, just because some minor piece of admin may or may not have been carried out exactly correctly shouldn't nullify the entire thing.

But as long as you keep the payments up on your mortgage who cares how many investors have had your mortgage in a parcel of investments.

The tactics you mention are that as in the states, possessions are being stopped by lenders on the basis that once the mortgage is sold, the original lender no longer owns the mortgage and has no rights to bring proceedings.

Google what is happening on the other side of the pond, it is huge there but hardly anything but the submissions of Carmel Butler to the Treasury Commission over here