Free House? A legal question

[RandomGuy]

This is one for any lawyers in the bunch:

How do you remove a property lean on real estate in Texas, i.e. dispute a mortgage lien on a title?

I have been reading some of the goings on in "foreclosuregate" wherein a lot of the formal paperwork required by the ultimate holders of many mortgages to foreclose and sell is either shoddy, or in some cases, non-existant.

My knowledge of the way liens are disputed is that you generally have to get at the underlying claim that created the lien.

I generally understand how liens work for houses and so forth.

Let's say you have a lien on real property like a house whose underlying claim is from a mortgage, choose to challenge that lien in court. If the ultimate holder of that lien, being a far-removed successor entity from the originating party, can't prove that they have an actual legally supportable claim, would that then cause the lien to be removed from the title, giving you free and clear ownership?


How probable would such a legal victory be? What circumstances would have to exist to make this possible?

Just to be clear:

1) I am not endorsing this, just trying to wrap my head around the implications of what I read in the news. If it is possible, I have little doubt that someone, somewhere will try it.

If that person succeeds, that would be a tidal wave of bad mojo for the banks that packaged all the bad mortgages, as the ultimate investors who currently have been forced to swallow the losses, then would have a case to recoup their money from the banks that packaged the loans into bonds.

[RandomGuy]

No answers?

Surely there is ONE legal beagle somewhere with an opinion.

[CosmicCowboy]

You have 0% chance of pulling that off.

[RandomGuy]

You have 0% chance of pulling that off.

If a mechanic or a contractor puts a lien on your car/house, you have to attack the underlying claim to defeat the lien, and that is fully possible.

Think about it.

If you go to court, and your argument is: There is no underlying basis for this lien.

The burden is placed on the person trying to defend the lien. They have to produce something that says you indeed borrowed the money AND pledged the asset to secure the loan.

If NO ONE steps forth to defend that lien, either the originator, who presumedly no longer has the promissory note, or the ultimate investor who is supposed to have it, then you have won your case, to my understanding.

Tell me why this would not be legally possible. Trials generally aren't won by people saying they "are pretty sure" about somethign, they are won by providing documents to support claims.

[RandomGuy]

I'm not a lawyer, so I am not all too sure about this. My inexperience/ignorance when it comes to such things could well lead me to making a wrong conclusion, hence my question. :)

[Das Texan]

You need corporate successorship from each entity to another.

Then I believe all the current entity really needs to show is documentation stating payment/non payment of said claim in order for it to be valid or not valid.

Often if its been paid off, no bank will have any issue issuing a release of lien, though if its been merged a few times, especially to a large bank, then it might take a while.

I really dont buy the bullshit that I have read about needing to have the original paperwork on the mortgage since they are filed of record in the courthouse.

[Oh, Gee!!]

are you trying to buy real estate with a lien attached to it? unless you plan to pay the lien, don't bother.

[CosmicCowboy]

If a mechanic or a contractor puts a lien on your car/house, you have to attack the underlying claim to defeat the lien, and that is fully possible.

Think about it.

If you go to court, and your argument is: There is no underlying basis for this lien.

The burden is placed on the person trying to defend the lien. They have to produce something that says you indeed borrowed the money AND pledged the asset to secure the loan.

If NO ONE steps forth to defend that lien, either the originator, who presumedly no longer has the promissory note, or the ultimate investor who is supposed to have it, then you have won your case, to my understanding.

Tell me why this would not be legally possible. Trials generally aren't won by people saying they "are pretty sure" about somethign, they are won by providing documents to support claims.

You weren't talking about a mechanics lien (which anyone can file just by paying a filing fee) you were talking about trying to get out of the underlying mortgage lien on your house...

EVEN if they had made a technical error on your paperwork when the judge asks you...Did you borrow the money to buy the house from them? If you don't have a loan with them why have you been making monthly payments to them? Is this certified copy of your loan documents filed at the courthouse correct? etc.etc.

You just can't duck it that easily...If you lie about it the judge would very likely throw your ass in jail.

[Oh, Gee!!]

yeah, you can't get out of the underlying mortgage, but maybe the lien goes away and you're not foreclosed and you don't have to pay penalties and their attorney fees.

[RandomGuy]

You weren't talking about a mechanics lien (which anyone can file just by paying a filing fee) you were talking about trying to get out of the underlying mortgage lien on your house...

EVEN if they had made a technical error on your paperwork when the judge asks you...Did you borrow the money to buy the house from them? If you don't have a loan with them why have you been making monthly payments to them? Is this certified copy of your loan documents filed at the courthouse correct? etc.etc.

You just can't duck it that easily...If you lie about it the judge would very likely throw your ass in jail.

You don't argue that you never took the loan out. That would be a lie.

You argue that no one can prove *who* you owe the money to. You didn't borrow money from the person who is trying to collect it.

The loan originator that filed the initial lien has long since sold the asset (i.e. your loan). It isn't on their books. You can prove that you DO NOT owe them anything, simply by dint of the removal of the asset.


If the chain of title of the note is broken, then the borrower no longer owes any money on the loan.
(( http://gonzalolira.blogspot.com/2010/10/second-leg-down-of-americas-death.html ))

I have yet to hear anybody opine on this.

Paying money to someone doesn't prove that a clear chain of title exists. It proves you were making a good faith effort to pay your debt.

The problem is, essentially, is that if you can't provide a clear chain of title, then you have the same legal grounds to collect that debt as, well, any random stranger on the street.