Nice job

Post #332,958 by drook 9/23/10 10:59:11 AM Reply	Nice job In announcing its decision this week to halt evictions and suspend sales in foreclosure cases, GMAC cited a deposition by Jeffrey Stephan in a Palm Beach foreclosure case in which Stephan said he did not verify all the documents and did not sign them all in the presence of a notary. Stephan said he signed as many as 10,000 documents a month. Assuming 20 working days per month, eight hours per day, that's 62.5 foreclosures signed per hour. I'm sure he reads each one carefully, and makes sure the paperwork is all in order. -- Drew
Post #332,962 by beepster 9/23/10 11:41:33 AM Reply	Hmmm looks to me like there's a serious government problem there along with (shockingly) some shady lawyers. Why, once a title transfer is recorded by the legal taxing authority, is the court not notified? Why, when another action is taken against that title, did the title company not notify the owner? All of this is governed by a mass of regulations...so much so that to even venture in to the business requires a 30 hour classroom venture and then gov certification... So, not sure who you are complaining about here when you call out "the marketplace" Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #332,965 by Another Scott 9/23/10 12:12:24 PM Reply	Some hints. Grodensky said he spent months trying to figure out what happened, but said his questions to Bank of America and to the law firm Florida Default Law Group that handled the foreclosure have not been answered. Florida Default Law Group could not be reached for comment, despite several attempts by phone and e-mail. Grodensky said he has filed a claim with his title insurance company, but that, too, has not resulted in any action. It wasn't until last week, when Grodensky brought his problem to the attention of the Sun Sentinel, that it began to be resolved. "It looks like it was a mistake in communication between us and the attorneys handling the foreclosure," said Bauwens. Court records show Countrywide Home Loans filed a foreclosure case in Broward County civil court against the former owner of the home on Southwest 14th Street in 2008. Bank of America took over Countrywide at the end of that year. The following year, Grodensky and his father Steven bought the house for cash as an investment property. Jason Grodensky's brother Kenny Sloan lives in the house now. They negotiated a short sale, which means the lender agreed to accept less than the mortgage amount. Documents show the sale proceeds were wired to Bank of America. The sale was recorded in December 2009 at the Broward County Property Appraiser's Office. But in court, the foreclosure case continued, the records show. There was a motion to dismiss the case in July, followed the next day by a motion to re-open it. A court-ordered foreclosure sale took place July 15. The property appraiser's office recorded the transfer of the title to the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) the same day. Bauwens said the lender would go back to court to rescind the foreclosure sale. Broward Chief Judge Victor Tobin, who set up the county court's foreclosure system, said this is the first he's heard of this type of mistake. "From the court's point of view we have no way of knowing that someone sells a house unless they tell us," said Tobin. "The bank would first have to tell the lawyers and the lawyers would presumably ask the court for an order dismissing the case." HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #332,970 by beepster 9/23/10 1:15:06 PM Reply	So you are blaming the banks.. ...for the fact that the Tax Assessor didn't inform the Court? So while you hoped..it didn't help. Because it looked to me like the resolution was offered and executed by the bank at their cost. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #332,973 by drook 9/23/10 1:33:57 PM Reply	Where was "Tax Assessor" in that story? I searched the page, and the word "tax" appears once, in a comment. You may be aware of a step in the process they outlined where the transaction is required to go to a tax assessor. That's on a state-by-state basis, so where would that happen? Do you mean the "Property Appraiser's Office"? They are apparently responsible for recording the sale. Which they did. Did B of A tell the Property Appraiser's Office about the pending foreclosure? Were they required to? If they did, is the Property Appraiser's Office required to forward that information to anyone in particular? If so, did they? If not, how much would it increase their workload to notify all relevant jurisdictions? How would they know who to notify? Who would bear that cost of research and notification? It's really easy to say who should have done what. But you don't like paying for government services. You also don't like businesses being told by government that they have to pay for services. Yet you still seem to like having these services. Or were you not suggesting that the Property Appraiser's Office should have notified the court? Either that or you think that a bank selling a house they don't own, and ignoring the rightful owner until the press gets involved, and only then "offering and executing the resolution", is acceptable. -- Drew
Post #332,974 by boxley 9/23/10 1:39:16 PM Reply	as a former real property title recorder you accept any document that meets statutory requirements and make it public. The recorder does not accertain that the documents are real, negatively impacting, just acts as a public library. Thats why title companies exist. Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #332,978 by drook 9/23/10 2:05:01 PM Reply	I knew that I used to work at a company that did mortgage paperwork for banks. Title search was a huge part of our business. For anyone who's never done it ... Before underwriting a loan, banks want to make sure who actually owns it. They would pay us to do a title search. We contracted out to local vendors in the relevant jurisdictions. The systems that maintained a list of what "relevant jurisdictions" were for a given address, and who was licensed to do a search there, were a significant competitive advantage for us. It's harder than you might think. Does the property have state taxes assessed? City? Regional? School District? Other? "Clean title" meant that after searching all relevant jurisdictions, the only documents found were the ones that listed the current owner and current mortgage holder. If we found anything else, banks could pay us extra to provide clean title, which meant contacting the parties on any other documentation found and asking if they could provide an update saying the issue was resolved. Frequently they could, which means lots of activities happened without the resolution ever being recorded like it should. After we provided the results, the bank decided if it wanted to write the loan. If they did, when the loan closed we would file the paperwork with the recorder. At this point no one verified that the documents were correct, that was up to the parties -- the bank and the borrower. As Box said, the recorder just recorded that the documents had been provided. Every step of this showed up as a line-item on the closing documents. The buyer paid all costs, but it was the bank that ordered all the work. (If the deal didn't close, the bank ate the cost.) Banks could save money, and close more loans, by skipping any part of this work, unless it was a HUD or other government-backed loan. The incentive to do the search anyway is that they don't give somebody lots of money to pay for a house that the recipient doesn't actually own. But as long as the courts are willing to give those houses to the bank anyway, that's not much of a disincentive any more. -- Drew
Post #332,977 by beepster 9/23/10 2:03:15 PM Reply	What do you think they appraise them for, anyway? and what was everyone's biggest complaint 9/11. This branch of gov doesn't talk to that branch of gov, records are not shared, etc. This isn't rocket science. Its data management. Bank notified the "Property Appraiser's Office" (Tax authority) that they no longer owned the property. Their legal company didn't get that notice, apparently. Bank fault. Sure. Title was then re-assigned by the appraiser at the request of the court. A simple check at that point would have ended all of this. A notification (easy with a bit of tech) to the title company would have also ended this. So while its tremendously easy to blame this all on the banks...there are gaping holes in the >legal< process that also could/should be easily fixed. Minor expectation of someone who sees his tax money being pissed away instead of invested in efficiency. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #332,981 by drook 9/23/10 2:11:59 PM Reply	"I don't know what's involved, so it must be easy." A simple check at that point would have ended all of this. ... ... there are gaping holes in the >legal< process that also could/should be easily fixed. See my other post. This is not an easy fix. And using the 9/11 emergency responder communication issue, I'd expect you to know that this problem still isn't solved. Another problem that's not as easy as it looks from the outside. -- Drew
Post #332,985 by beepster 9/23/10 2:29:40 PM Reply	sigh and the gaps in the legal process are the banks fault how???? And how is it not an easy fix to empower the Appraiser to reject a request from the court on behalf of someone who their documents show as NOT owning the house? This is difficult how, exactly? Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #332,989 by drook 9/23/10 2:42:14 PM Reply	Scott pointed out half the problem, same as me If you're asking the court to do the research, you're creating a huge change in the way courts operate. Now you seem to be saying it should be the recorder to makes the determination. Box already said, and I gave more detail, that the recorder doesn't do research either. They just record everything. It's been this way for decades. (If not centuries.) You say, "someone who their documents show as NOT owning the house," as though there is a document for every property, continually up-to-date, with a single field on it for "owner". That doesn't exist. The recorder keeps a stream of documents, which can be searched for and collected, which relate to (or may relate to) a property. Someone receiving this collection of documents can review them in chronological order to determine any apparent interests in a property. If you've only ever bought and sold houses that had clean title (see my other post) then it might have appeared easy when you saw the paperwork at your closing. "Yes, that document there says the title was transferred to the previous owner in January of 2001." As soon as you start dealing with liens, second mortgages (to different lenders), past-due taxes, lawsuits from contractors, and of course foreclosures, that pile of papers can get really big really fast. And many of them are claims against the property, which may or may not be legitimate. It's not simple, just because you want it to be. -- Drew
Post #332,993 by beepster 9/23/10 2:55:09 PM Reply	You are missing it here. The court is supposed to decide between 2 parties, correct? If 2 parties are not present (as is the case in nearly all of these cases) then the court should require that clear authority is established by the plaintiff, meaning they have to research title at appraiser and PROVE they have claim and have that claim verified. Establishing ownership in property is the job of the government. I don't care if "its been that way for decades". And again, this is a DATA ISSUE. Even when you describe this, it is a DATA ISSUE. A simple verification of the DATA in this case would have shown the bank had no claim and the appraiser's office should have been empowered to reject that claim. It should be DAMNED HARD for a lien or judgement to be entered against a property. (and no, not all of my sales/purchases have been clean title). Just because "its always been that way" doesn't mean 1) it should be that way and 2) it has to stay that way. And the appraisers systems should be capable of doing this in a clear fashion. They have no problem sending the current owner a tax bill...and expecting it to be paid. I should have no problem, then, expecting them to know EXACTLY who owns a property. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #333,001 by boxley 9/23/10 4:27:04 PM Reply	nit fulton county finds it hard to find out who to send the tax bill to. Its only updated once a year and is frequently wrong Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #332,971 by drook 9/23/10 1:16:34 PM Reply	Two (and-a-half) issues First, when a bank has a foreclosure pending in the courts, it seems reasonable that they'd have to be the one to tell the court that they've got their money and to stop the foreclosure. The court doesn't have access to that information, even if they had time and money to research it. If all the paperwork was accurate when it was filed -- and in this case it was -- how is the court supposed to know that things have changed? It's the responsibility of the plaintiff and defendant to research and present the facts. The court only researches the law, and how it applies to the facts presented. One way to fix this is a two-part solution: 1. Fine the title holder (the bank) for court costs and punitive damages for continuing legal action after the loan is paid off. 2. Bar any attorney -- and their office -- from representing any party in a foreclosure for a certain period after repeated incorrect filings. Then there's this: There was a motion to dismiss the case in July, followed the next day by a motion to re-open it. Who filed the motion to re-open? That seems like kind of a big issue, don't you think? One issue where courts and banks are way too cozy is establishing who has standing in a case. When a bank doesn't even hold title to a property any more, why are they allowed to file a foreclosure on it? I had to sue someone over a car a while back. I went to court and the judge noticed that it was my wife's name on the loan. (The suit didn't involve the bank.) Even though Ohio is a community property state, he said I didn't have standing to sue someone over what they did with that car because I wasn't the owner. Can I get that in writing for when I stop paying and the bank comes after my wages? It seems when a business -- especially a bank -- tells a court that they own something, that's all the verification the court needs. But as an individual, there is some standard of proof that isn't documented anywhere. -- Drew
Post #332,980 by beepster 9/23/10 2:10:18 PM Reply	Re: Two (and-a-half) issues One, the court SHOULD have access to that information, since it is official government record (for tax purpose). 2) if their is no defendant present, then it should be held for verification. Again, all would have stopped dead if anyone on the government side had stopped and checked their own records. (had they the capability..which they should)..heck, here its all public record. http://www.brevardta...tor.com/index.htm Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #332,982 by Another Scott 9/23/10 2:19:12 PM Reply	Um, it's my understanding... In civil cases, a court decides between 2 parties that have a dispute. It doesn't act as a party itself; it doesn't collect its own evidence. It rules based on the relevant evidence presented by the 2 parties. It's not asked to rule on questions of law. In criminal cases, a court decides between the state and a defendant. It rules based on the relevant evidence presented by the 2 parties and the law. Why do you apparently think it is the court's business to do the work of one of the parties in a civil case? Cheers, Scott.
Post #332,987 by beepster 9/23/10 2:39:45 PM Reply	What I think... ...is that where one party is not present, the other must present clear legal authority. In other words, to repossess a home when the other party is not present..they must document ownership of the property...showing the current title...which should be a matter of public record. Had they been required to do this, this story would not have been published to discuss here. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #332,988 by Another Scott 9/23/10 2:41:19 PM Reply	<sigh> Reread the story. The fault is with the bank, the lawyers, and the title company. Not the court. Cheers, Scott.
Post #332,990 by beepster 9/23/10 2:43:11 PM Reply	And why is their no fault with the Appraiser? If gov is supposed to protect me, why are you so lax in a clear failure of it doing its job? Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #332,992 by drook 9/23/10 2:47:08 PM Reply	It's not their job Their job is to record documents brought to them. They did that. Are you saying you want them to be responsible for doing research and reaching conclusions? With no recourse to you if they get it wrong? -- Drew
Post #332,994 by beepster 9/23/10 3:01:59 PM Reply	Not even remotely they are currently the controlling legal authority. Those recorded docs are required, by law, and are required so that they can be the official record of ownership (so that they can tax you). I'm saying that it should be within their authority to reject, or at least defer, a court order, if said order is offered by someone not identified clearly by appraiser in the official record of ownership. (which is their responsibility). If they 1) had a system that was anywhere remotely up to date and 2) required notice be served (you have been served)...then this would not have happened. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #332,996 by Another Scott 9/23/10 3:10:11 PM Reply	I see the solution! Clearly we should cut federal, state and local taxes to fix this problem. That way the courts will have an incentive to do their constitutional duty to independently investigate the quality of evidence presented in a civil suit. </snark> IANAL, but it's my understanding that in civil cases the court relies on the 2 parties to present truthful evidence. Witnesses are sworn in, affidavits are signed, etc. Lying to the court is a very serious offense. Your opinions about what should happen in court, and how "simple" it would be to fix this problem, would require a wholesale change in the role of the courts in the US. It's not going to happen. Again: The fault lies with the plaintiff(s) - the banks and the people on their side. They presented faulty evidence as fact. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
Post #332,997 by drook 9/23/10 3:29:42 PM Reply	Now you trust the government to be perfect? You want unelected, low-level bureaucrats, to have the authority to reject court orders? 1. B of A bought the bank that held the mortgage. That corporate acquisition wasn't recorded by the appraiser. What criteria does the desk clerk have to determine who is "identified clearly ... in the official record of ownership"? 2. Aside from corporate mergers, what identification is legally acceptable to specify that "John Smith" works for B of A? I'm not aware of any legally recognized employee ID cards. And just because he works for B of A, what is their policy for who is authorized to act on their behalf in a given matter? 3. You want things to be up-to-date and efficient. That means electronic data interchange. (That's how we did things.) That means most paperwork today is filed electronically. If someone cracks that system, and the county recorder is the final arbiter of who owns property, what is your recourse? 4. You want them to reject "or defer" the documents. Defer until when? Until what happens? Who will do it? Under what authority? Who pays for it? All that is just off the top of my head. This is not an easy problem to fix. Making a deterministic system for real estate is comparable to developing strong DRM: A. It sounds easy, until you look at specifics. B. Once someone cracks the system it becomes trivial to subvert. C. And if something goes wrong, it's inflexible and resistant to correction. Whatever system is used has to be stable over long periods. Not months or years, but decades. It doesn't have to be error-free, but must be robust and recoverable. The current system works by assuming that if anyone claims something that isn't true, eventually someone will call them on it. Then everyone goes to court and a judge (or jury) makes the call. Extensive, expensive research is reserved for when there's a dispute. But let's forget all of that. Let's suppose someone comes up with a design that will be simple, cheap, reliable, error-free, yet flexible enough to deal with changing circumstances, changing legislation, MBSs and CDOs. (Who "owns" a mortgage that is part of a MBS?) Now that we've got our sunshine and unicorns system ... who will input 200+ years of existing real-estate documentation into the system? And what do you do when the Indians and Inuit start showing up and bitching? -- Drew
Post #332,999 by Another Scott 9/23/10 3:39:25 PM Reply	:-) Thank you.
Post #333,018 by beepster 9/24/10 7:21:13 AM Reply	sigh you are essentially saying to me... it has always been like this...so it will always be like this and you throw in a couple of what ifs, as if they would be "fait accompli". I like your thinking. Who needs progress? ------- BTW, the process you described did not happen in this case. One party came to court in this case (not 2) and that party was given legal authority by the government to change ownership documents on a home they had no legal claim to. This was done with no opposition, and no protection afforded the legal owner of the property. And this is what you like and defend. ___ Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #333,022 by drook 9/24/10 8:30:51 AM Reply	Try to keep up, I'll type slow I do not like what happened. I do not defend what happened. The document management should be improved, and is being improved but: 1. You keep saying how easy this problem is to solve, and ignoring two people who have worked in the industry saying it's not. 2. You are demanding a change in legal responsibility for determining who owns a property. A change that would require not just solving the first problem, but back-filling the new system with the paperwork for every existing property. 3. That change in responsibility you want would be imposing new research requirements on the court. "From the court's point of view we have no way of knowing that someone sells a house unless they tell us," said Tobin. Even if the first two problems are solved, this would set a precedent that fundamentally changes the court from a disinterested arbiter to an advocate. You haven't offered a real solution to the first problem, other than saying again and again how easy it is. If you admitted it wasn't easy, then you'd have to explain who would do it and how they'd pay for it. And you haven't even touched the second and third issues. And just to throw in one more thing that's been nagging at me. The owner of the house when the foreclosure was completed was not the owner of the house when it started. Court records show Countrywide Home Loans filed a foreclosure case in Broward County civil court against the former owner of the home on Southwest 14th Street in 2008. I've gone back through the article and checked, and there's nothing to indicate whether the former owner was or was not notified. Even if we assume the former owner was not notified, you're still wrong for all the reasons above. If the former owner was notified, what are you left with? -- Drew
Post #333,025 by beepster 9/24/10 9:25:48 AM Reply	who needs to type slow, I wot... if the system were better organized..(heck, I'm in a small county and our records are online)...then a requirement that a clerk type in an address to validate a claim is not a "huge new research requirement". Is it a new requirement, yes. Is it research? Yes. Is it "huge". No. AND, if it eliminates a few hundred spurious cases it 1) improves efficiency and 2) improves accuracy. The case is then summarily rejected until plaintiff can validate any controlling interest in the property. Since these cases are being done "en masse"...I would think you would support making it just a tad more difficult for a bank or any other creditor to try and claim ownership to your property. Guess I was wrong there. and the continuing fact..you ignore, though you point it out here..is that it is the FORMER OWNER being sued. the FORMER OWNER AND THE BANK had passed legal title to the new owner BY FILING WITH THE CONTROLLING LEGAL AUTHORITY (CLA). THE CLA then responded by changing title based on a claim from someone who no longer had a right to said claim based on documents controlled by aforementioned CLA. If the CLA is staffed by low level clerks only, and those low level clerks only have access to piles and piles of paper stuffed into filing cabinets, well then yes, I would say that the expectation of mistakes is a real one. I would also wonder what the hell I'm spending 10% of my salary to maintain. I'm not demanding a change in legal responsibility. The appraisers office is currently, and I'm recommending remain the CLA. What I'm also recommending is that they put in a system that is somewhat representative of technology that existed 30 years ago and is really, really advanced now. Sure, the initial backscanning issue would be time consuming..paid for by all the free time left for those clerks who no longer have to handle, but only must validate, any further documents, ever. http://www.ehow.com/...ty-ownership.html Right from the benginning The ownership of any property is part of public record and can easily be found in the records of whatever government agency in a locality is responsible for keeping such records. Its not hard. Its kept artificially hard. You have an expectation now that it has been, will be, and apparently will remain hard forever. and securing the system is a separate issue and completely irrelevant. Any system can be secured. What's to stop me from gaining access to the paper records now and make changes? Its a very simple solution that would have ended this case. BOA sues old owner. Old owner, not present most likely cause he doesn't give a shit, is not present. BOA wins (no opposition, d'uh). Court sends change of title to Appraiser, who complies. This is what happened. What should happen. BOA sues old owner. Old owner doesn't respond. Address is entered into government recorded database (they are already the responsible party)...BOA is not a listed current owner (since they have already filed with the CLA that they have sold the house). Case is dismissed pending validation of claim. Tell me why this can't work? Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #333,030 by Another Scott 9/24/10 10:09:31 AM Reply	The court is not a party in a civil case. You continue to advocate that the court become a party in a dispute between 2 sides in a civil case. That is not how the system works. It doesn't matter how hypothetically easy it is for a court to do a title search of perfect online records. It's not the court's job. If you change the system for real estate disputes, you'll need to change it for all civil cases. The court would have to independently investigate the quality of the evidence in all civil cases. Personal injury. Probate. Contract disputes. You really want to go down that road? You want all contracts, even verbal ones, to be entered in some hypothetical perfect online database? Who will pay for it? You keep saying: "It's easy; it's no big deal". You're wrong. The job of the court in a civil case is to make a judgment based on evidence presented by the 2 interested parties. Default judgments happen all the time (when the defendant doesn't show up). It's not the job of the court to collect its own evidence. :-/ Cheers, Scott.
Post #333,035 by beepster 9/24/10 10:30:01 AM Reply	No I'm not. I'm requiring that, in matters where government records are the controlling document, and a plaintiff is operating un-opposed, that the claim be validated. Courts make judgement on admissibility of evidence in every case every day. And no, this is not about contract disputes, verbal contracts, or any other area that you can come up with as a red herring. This is about physical home/property ownership. Deeded, surveyed, tracked, recorded and taxed by the government. I'm asking they do their job correctly. I guess I'm asking too much. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #333,045 by Another Scott 9/24/10 11:18:44 AM Reply	You're waving your hands around about a perfect world. I'm requiring that, in matters where government records are the controlling document, and a plaintiff is operating un-opposed, that the claim be validated. No, you're not. You're introducing a new mandate for people to do things that are not their job. You're introducing a new system to government in an attempt to fix a problem that was caused by a bank and their agents. I'm not the one waving my hands around and introducing red herrings. Courts make judgement on admissibility of evidence in every case every day. In civil cases, they rule on evidence submitted and objections by the other party. If the other party doesn't object, the court doesn't introduce its own judgment. And no, this is not about contract disputes, verbal contracts, or any other area that you can come up with as a red herring. I served on a jury in a civil case regarding a highway fatality. It was a dispute between 2 parties. The state was not a party. The evidence introduced was from the 2 sides - not the state. For instance, we had no access to the police report on the accident because it wasn't introduced into evidence. It was he said/he said along with the evidence they presented. We couldn't say - "well the police report said it happened this way..." - there was no state involvement. Millions of dollars, a family's financial future, and someone's business were at stake. Tell me how your principle of the state verifying evidence presented in a civil case shouldn't apply there as well? It's a civil case with BoA, here. Those are civil cases. It's the same principle. This is about physical home/property ownership. Deeded, surveyed, tracked, recorded and taxed by the government. It's about a dispute between two parties regarding who has claim to a property. The bank is there as a result of a claimed contract. I'm asking they do their job correctly. If by "they" you mean the banks and their agents, we're in agreement. ;-) Otherwise, you continue to be wrong. Cheers, Scott.
Post #333,046 by beepster 9/24/10 12:09:26 PM Reply	Re: You're waving your hands around about a perfect world. >You're introducing a new mandate for people to do things that are not their job< and by this not existing, allowing certified >legal< ownership to be subverted by other parties, unopposed. Yes, I am advocating that a branch of government (courts) have access to records from another branch of government (appraisers) in a specific circumstance (litigation about ownership where plaintiff is unopposed). In other words, I'm advocating a solution to the situation you brought forward as a problem. Gee, sorry. Didn't think you would be so ready to tell me that it isn't the government's job to protect its citizens. <I served on a jury in a civil case regarding a highway fatality> Sorry to hear about that. Sounds to me like both parties were present (at least someone there was arguing for the deceased). Additionally, final proof was not to be established by an official government record. Apples/Oranges. <It's about a dispute between two parties regarding who has claim to a property. The bank is there as a result of a claimed contract. > A contract that by law must be recorded in the same location and to the same authority that issues title. GA for example.. <44-14-33. In order to admit a mortgage to record, it must be attested by or.... In order to admit a mortgage to record, it must be attested by or acknowledged before an officer as prescribed for the attestation or acknowledgment of deeds of bargain and sale; and, in the case of real property, a mortgage must also be attested or acknowledged by one additional witness. In the absence of fraud, if a mortgage is duly filed, recorded, and indexed on the appropriate county land records, such recordation shall be deemed constructive notice to subsequent bona fide purchasers. 44-14-34. When executed outside this state, mortgages may be attested,.... When executed outside this state, mortgages may be attested, acknowledged, or probated in the same manner as deeds of bargain and sale. 44-14-35. Mortgages on realty shall be recorded in the county where the land is.... Mortgages on realty shall be recorded in the county where the land is located. Where a mortgage upon realty is executed to secure the payment of money or other thing of value and the same is not recorded as provided by law but the mortgage is renewed or reexecuted, the mortgage shall operate as a lien upon the property of the mortgagor only against the mortgagor himself and those having actual notice of the mortgage except from the date of the record of such mortgage. 44-14-36.> So, all records related to ownership are held in one place. By law. Who controls that place? Its a one word answer. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #333,047 by Another Scott 9/24/10 12:48:35 PM Reply	You're still not getting it. Yes, I am advocating that a branch of government (courts) have access to records from another branch of government (appraisers) in a specific circumstance (litigation about ownership where plaintiff is unopposed). You're not advocating that they have access. You're advocating that the courts do their own investigation. That's not the court's role. Especially not in a civil case. If you say the courts should independently investigate the quality of evidence in real estate cases, there's no logical reason why it shouldn't do the same in all civil cases (your objection noted but rejected). "But it's the appraisers responsibility!" Make up your mind. Is the court responsible or not? In my jurisdiction, the following PDF summarizes the various legal documents for land records - http://www.fairfaxco.../pdf/CCR-A-61.pdf (8 page .pdf). Not the columns Grantor and Grantee. The County isn't a party - it simply collects and stores documents presented as a result of agreement between 2 other parties. They don't investigate anything. It's not their job. Your excerpt above talks about "attested by" and similar. They take a sworn statement. Just like courts do. They don't investigate anything. "But they should!" No, they shouldn't. People who submit legal documents have a responsibility to get them right - the system doesn't have a responsibility to check their work. Rather than advocating destroying our civil court system, why not advocate that the banks and their agents do their jobs when presenting information to the courts? Cheers, Scott.
Post #333,052 by beepster 9/24/10 1:46:35 PM Reply	Simple question. You still didn't answer. Who is the responsible legal authority to maintain records related to property ownership? Is the answer to above a branch of government? Are the Courts a branch of government? Is it the government's role to offer some measure of protection to its citizenry? So where in this do I advocate destroying our civil court system? Ah, I see. We need to trust the banks and/or any other plaintiff to get their information correct before they file or have some penalty imposed upon them. (as opposed to carving out unopposed property ownership disputes) and which one of us is advocating destruction of the civil court system? Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #333,054 by drook 9/24/10 2:09:45 PM Reply	We already have a system, if we would use it Who is the responsible legal authority to maintain records related to property ownership? I'll assume you mean real-estate. My TV is property, too. If someone takes that, I go to the police and we end up in court. Then the two of us present evidence to support our claims of ownership. It's exactly the same with real-estate. Yes, there is a system for recording ownership of real-estate. As you like to point out, how else would they collect taxes on it? But as Box has pointed out, the records used for collecting taxes are frequently wrong, and only updated annually. And if a tax bill is sent to the wrong person, they can present evidence of that, and get things changed. Your pie-in-the-sky system seems to depend on keeping bad data from ever getting into the system. "Refuse or delay ... not accept ... exclude evidence ..." All those ideas are saying you rely on a strong gatekeeper function. The stronger the gatekeeper is, the more rigid it is. The only way to allow flexibility is to make it slower. The system is breaking down now because it's overloaded. So where in this do I advocate destroying our civil court system? Where you suggest that the court research ownership and reach a conclusion before evidence is presented. Ah, I see. We need to trust the banks and/or any other plaintiff to get their information correct before they file or have some penalty imposed upon them. Not trust: Demand. Show me another area of law where you can knowingly submit false documentation and not face severe penalties? -- Drew
Post #333,060 by beepster 9/24/10 2:39:11 PM Reply	Re: We already have a system, if we would use it as opposed to not reviewing any evidence and issuing orders, like they do now in FL. I like my idea for government better than yours. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #333,063 by drook 9/24/10 3:23:19 PM Reply	Your idea, right "Government, which I am convinced can't be trusted to do anything right, should just start magically operating the most efficient, flawless system imaginable. I don't care that people who know what they're talking about say it's not that easy, after all I pay my taxes so I get to demand whatever ridiculous bullshit I want. And if they don't do it, that's further proof that government can't be trusted to do anything right." -- Drew
Post #333,065 by beepster 9/24/10 3:29:01 PM Reply	Getting there. and I'm glad that 20 yr old tech that I've seen manage hundreds of thousands of documents per year and eliminate rekeying and feed automatically into massive ERP systems that control multibillion dollar organizations can't be applied to a local country appraisers office because >that< would be too fucking complicated. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #333,078 by boxley 9/24/10 4:29:48 PM Reply	no, charge 3k for recording fees and they would have it instant internet lookup and smiley faces. Dont hold yer breath Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #333,070 by Another Scott 9/24/10 3:51:56 PM Reply	Your question doesn't matter. Who is the responsible legal authority to maintain records related to property ownership? I haven't answered because it doesn't matter who is the legal authority over the paperwork. What if it were a private entity? Would that make the court situation different? No, it wouldn't. Civil cases are about disputes between 2 parties before an impartial judge. Full stop. That is the issue. It doesn't matter if a perfect database of perfect information exists somewhere in some county office, or some UN agency in Ulan Bator, or in an office park at One Infinte Loop. What matters is what information is presented by the 2 parties to the court. We need to trust the banks and/or any other plaintiff to get their information correct before they file or have some penalty imposed upon them. Yes, that's how the civil court system works and has for hundreds or thousands of years. It's an adversarial system - the truth comes out in a battle between the two sides before an impartial judge. The system depends on the 2 sides presenting factual information. Not on the court deciding, on its own, what is or is not a fact. You continue to want to make this issue a failure of some government entity. It's not. It's a failure of the banks and their agents to do their jobs. They cut corners, bamboozled the system, and deserve to be held accountable. HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #333,073 by beepster 9/24/10 4:04:34 PM Reply	No it isn't. You are expanding the scope. Not I. This is a dispute about a very specific item where the controlling legal authority is clearly defined. It certainly matters. Or are you saying that if I show up with pretty paperwork claiming your house and you aren't there..the judge should give me your house without question...because thats the way the system has worked for thousands of years? Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #333,076 by Another Scott 9/24/10 4:27:26 PM Reply	This is hilarious. You've been given several concrete examples of how you're wrong, by people who have worked in the industry. Yet you still won't back down and continue to rely on pie-in-the-sky "solutions" that put the costs on someone else. This is a dispute about a very specific item where the controlling legal authority is clearly defined. The "controlling legal authority" [Why do you keep bringing that term up? Some sort of residual dig at Al Gore or something?] isn't a party to the dispute. Again, it's irrelevant. Or are you saying that if I show up with pretty paperwork claiming your house and you aren't there..the judge should give me your house without question...because thats the way the system has worked for thousands of years? What does that have to do with the topic at hand? Your strawman about what "should" happen isn't relevant. What actually happens in the US civil court system is that people win default judgments all the time. The US civil court system <GIANT FLASHING BOLD TEXT WITH SPRITES AND GONGS> relies on evidence presented by the two parties </GFBTWSAG>. It relies on the 2 parties being truthful. Your wishing for some government authority to independently investigate and certify documentation <GFBTWSAG> provided by the parties to the government recording offices </GFBTWSAG> puts the onus on the wrong entity. If someone shows up at my house claiming ownership, they can expect a lawsuit. Under your system, of perfect data, that somehow has a mistake even after being certified by the Grand Certification and Verification Poohbah of Land Records, the party bringing the claim and winning a judgment in court can also expect a lawsuit. (I'm sure you're aware that most government entities have immunity from suits in the performance of their duties.) Your magical, free, "perfect" data system wouldn't change that. Nobody is arguing that land records shouldn't be accurate. Yes, they should be accurate. (Happy?) Where we differ is that you seem to think that some magical efficiency fairy will make all land records error-free and cost-free for someone else to do a plaintiff's job. What happened to personal responsibility? Why shouldn't the bank and its agents be called to account and punished for causing this problem? Sheesh. Cheers, Scott.
Post #333,079 by drook 9/24/10 4:34:07 PM Reply	Hmmm ... A single person mentioned in the article admits to signing 10,000 documents per month. Let's take Box's round number of 30 pages (which I can confirm is normal for simple deals with clear title). That's 300,000 pages per month to review. From one agent at one bank. Other than, "Here's what they gave me, at 4:32 p.m. on September 24th," what is the person at the county recorder's office supposed to do, that he doesn't do now? -- Drew
Post #333,031 by drook 9/24/10 10:11:45 AM Reply	Okay eHow says that it's easy, so it must be true. Okay, you win. Ahem. BOA sues old owner. Old owner doesn't respond. Address is entered into government recorded database (they are already the responsible party)...BOA is not a listed current owner (since they have already filed with the CLA that they have sold the house). BOA never was the owner. They were party to a loan agreement that had the property as collateral. That's why they need a court to take that property from the previous owner and award it to BOA. All the recorder does is record the paperwork whereby two parties agreed to transfer ownership of a property, potentially one (or more) party/parties forfeit claims against that property, and potentially one (or more) party/parties assert a claim against that property. Whoa, now I'm talking about four or more parties. How did that happen? 1. The previous owner. 2. The new owner. 3. The mortgage and/or lien-holders with claims against the property when held by the previous owner. 4. The mortgage holder(s) with claims against the property when held by the new owner. If I pay cash for a property that is owned outright by the previous owner, we can record the change of title without doing a title search. That's the simplest possible case. Then there are regular mortgages with clean title. Also pretty easy. And properties bought by investment groups to flip. Who is "the owner"? If the group is a partnership instead of a corporation, then it isn't a "legal person". Which members of the partnership are legally allowed to sign over title to a new owner. And what happens when the partnership breaks up? Now who can sign? And properties that have been in the family, continuously occupied, for generations and no one ever bothered to record a change of title. (Yeah, there's a lot of those.) That's just on the question of who owns a property. Yes, I'm talking about the exceptions, but exception handling is well over 90% of the time and effort in mortgages. Then we get into mortgages, liens and other claims against a property. When a mortgage is rolled up into a MBS, stuffed into a CDO, and the original mortgage holder goes bankrupt, who has a claim on the property? Oh, but the MBS and CDO were never recorded, since those new financial instruments were just invented recently and there's no regulation saying they have to be recorded. So it's just the primary mortgage holder. Unless they sell the mortgage to someone else. Is that recorded? (Hint: No.) Would it have to be recorded for your simple solution? (Yes.) Would that increase the workload on both financial institutions and the county recorder? (Duh.) Are banks lining up to pay for this increased workload? (Duh, again.) Two people who have worked in this industry are telling you it's a hard problem. You keep insisting it's not, without addressing any of the specifics. You say we're making it hard, but haven't explained how any of the situations we keep bringing up would be handled. You clearly want this to be the government's fault, and the way you've chosen to explain it is that the issue is easy, and the only reason the government hasn't done it is ... well, I don't know, you haven't explained that. Maybe we should start there. You clearly believe people are making the problem harder than it needs to be. You've said as much. Why do you think we're doing that. What do Box and I gain by insisting this is hard when it's obviously not? -- Drew
Post #333,036 by beepster 9/24/10 10:40:08 AM Reply	oh for chrissakes. I've explained the solution to you in about 5 running posts now. When you do a title search...what do you do, where do you go? When a lien is entered against a property, or a mortgage, or a second mortgage..where is it recorded? When a home is sold, where is that recorded? The cdo/mbs is a red herring, not addressable here. not applicable, at all. And homes, that have been occupied for generations, get their tax bill...how does this happen? Who pays. Who records that payment? Documenting a claim to a property based on a lien or mortgage is a chain of ownership problem for the BANK, not the single entity responsible for everything else listed above. There is a registered claim, they would have to show chain of ownership to that. Not the appraisers problem. You see, every single item you say complicates things is documented and controlled in a single location. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #333,050 by drook 9/24/10 1:31:16 PM Reply	Let's start from the beginning There is an existing system. There has been a rash of recent problems with the existing system. We would like to prevent these types of problems. Can a system be designed that would have prevented the recent problems? What would it take (time and money) to build it? Would it need to be back-populated with historical data? How far back? Time and cost? How would you handle documents that don't have the now-required data? How would you normalize the data requirements across the thousands of local jurisdictions that currently have their own documentation requirements? By what authority would you dictate to those local agencies that they change their systems? What would it cost to change existing public and private systems to meet the new requirements? Who would pay for that? How would you balance ease of use with the needed flexibility to accommodate future changes in legislation? Are there provisions in the existing system that could alleviate the recent problems? Who would need to exercise those provisions? What would it take (time and cost)? Would it require any changes to existing systems, or it it purely a procedural change? The first option -- a new system -- gets uglier the harder you look at it, for all the reasons you've been studiously ignoring. The second option -- a procedural change -- is relatively trivial, in systems terms. And I already suggested it long ago: Fine the companies that file inaccurate paperwork, and ban any attorneys or agencies that pursue cases based on inaccurate paperwork. The current system depends on everyone involved being honest and accurate, which depends on the courts being able to straighten things out when they're not. And when the dishonesty or inaccuracy is flagrant and repeated, judges need to be able to apply sanctions sufficient to discourage it in the future. I would have thought you would like a system that assumes people are doing business honestly, and the state only gets involved to settle disputes. -- Drew
Post #333,053 by beepster 9/24/10 2:09:19 PM Reply	Lets. >Can a system be designed that would have prevented the recent problems? detailed several times already. >What would it take (time and money) to build it? Infrastructure costs/per office less than 50k. (one clerk, fully loaded cost/one year equivalent) With technology, full upgrade every 3 years. So its 1/3rd the cost of a clerk. Would it need to be back-populated with historical data? Possible to do so, but also possibly impractical. Imaging and or referencing to back material also possible. Not a roadblock to progress. The devil in details is establish validity of current baseline data and giving a timeline for this to become "official". >How far back? Statue of limitations? Beginning of time? You pick. >Time and cost? Asked and answered. >How would you handle documents that don't have the now-required data? Are you telling me that current docs don't have date, owner, lender, lienholder? or did you just pass over the 185 standardized HUD forms? >How would you normalize the data requirements across the thousands of local jurisdictions that currently have their own documentation requirements? Are you telling me the HUD 1 is not required? Law will tell you differently in most cases. In limited cases where is not currently required, change that...fed level..just like they did to get HUD1 standard in the fisrt place (RESPA) >By what authority would you dictate to those local agencies that they change their systems? Answered. >What would it cost to change existing public and private systems to meet the new requirements? What do I pay my taxes for? Cost of these systems would actually be negative, given the efficiencies created. >Who would pay for that? What do I pay my taxes for plus asked and answered. >How would you balance ease of use with the needed flexibility to accommodate future changes in legislation? How is this accomplished now? Future legislation would need to be mindful of the possible. >Are there provisions in the existing system that could alleviate the recent problems? Obviously not. >Who would need to exercise those provisions? If I listen to you two, its not their job. >What would it take (time and cost)? What do I pay my taxes for? >Would it require any changes to existing systems, or it it purely a procedural change? Its called automation. You might have heard of it. Its designed to compliment and speed current systems. If you wish to redesign said systems to enhance efficiency of automation, that's your call. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #333,056 by drook 9/24/10 2:17:29 PM Reply	Got a question Do you actually mean any of this? You're a smart guy, but you also like tweaking people for fun. And I wouldn't put it past you to go through all this just to make some point about what government can and can't be trusted with. I've worked in the industry. I built the automation. I designed the interface for working with HUD data. It's not simple. There are more exceptions than rules, and there are thousands of pages of rules. If you really mean this: The devil in details is establish validity of current baseline data and giving a timeline for this to become "official". ... then you don't know how much you don't know. And you refuse to listen to people who do. -- Drew
Post #333,058 by beepster 9/24/10 2:36:28 PM Reply	Its about effecting change. What you are telling me, by default, is that there is no official establishment of ownership. Ever. You built automation to access a dataset to access HUD data? Then you validate my proposal as possible. And since it obviously doesn't exist and can't possibly be built...I may have just stumbled upon something to make me filthy rich at the expense of taxpayers. Cool. Nowhere in my posts have I advocated destroying any single document, invalidating any possible claims, reducing availability of the courts and/or official records to dispute and or change. Are you telling me that making HUD1 standard is impossible? Are you telling me it is impossible to make a standard notice for mortgage satisfaction? These guys think differently. http://www.law.upenn.../2004finalact.pdf So, we can define standards for sale. We can define standards for notification of liens/ownership. But we can't standardize what exactly? I'm talking about bringing to bear 20 year old technology to improve a government function...and would have thought better than to get a "we should never expect accuracy from our government" response for you. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #333,062 by drook 9/24/10 3:20:44 PM Reply	You like that Act? It's good to see that someone is trying to address this issue, but I notice a few things: First, that's 59 pages about ensuring that notice of satisfaction of a mortgage lien is properly prepared and recorded. Policies, penalties, standards. Very little about technology. But there is a little bit about technology: (a) A person gives a notification by: (1) depositing it with the United States Postal Service with first-class postage paid or with a commercially reasonable delivery service with cost of delivery provided, properly addressed to the recipientÂs address for giving a notification; (2) sending it by facsimile transmission, electronic mail, or other electronic transmission to the recipientÂs address for giving a notification, but only if the recipient agreed to receive notification in that manner; or (3) causing it to be received at the address for giving a notification within the time that it would have been received if given pursuant to paragraph (1). I think physical mail and faxes are going to wreak havoc with your super-system. Second, that entire proposed Act is designed to address the problem of slow provision of satisfaction documents. It doesn't do anything to address accuracy or fraud, except for accuracy of payoff amount. Rather than go section-by-section pointing out why it doesn't address the problem at issue (mortgagees submitting false documents), can you point to where and how it does address that? I'm guessing you'll point to the phrase, "the Act provides a form of satisfaction document that contains only the minimal information necessary for a satisfaction to be appropriately indexed". This will be your magic bullet to standardized automated recording and reporting. Is that it, or something else? -- Drew
Post #333,066 by beepster 9/24/10 3:33:11 PM Reply	You are the one telling me that nothing can be automated because it isn't standardized. HUD 1 is a standard. Is it not? This would be a standard for bank notice, would it not? The "super system" has nothing to do with the banks at all. Its about maintenance of records accurate enough to be deemed "official" to which a claim that doesn't match would require a higher standard of proof to be acted upon uncontested. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #333,069 by drook 9/24/10 3:48:14 PM Reply	Standard format != data validation -- Drew
Post #333,072 by beepster 9/24/10 4:01:06 PM Reply	so what? standard format means automation of records. No keying. Those keying validate. (less of them, mind you). Key data fields managed, definition of those key data fields can vary if needed, but a standard subset already exists (as min standards exist because of HUD1) In the case given, hud filed. zero delay in system entry (no backlog) would show that there was no lender on property. Lender had no claim. Clerk enters prop number, no lenders/liens listed, not met burden of proof of ownership claim. Next. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #333,075 by drook 9/24/10 4:25:02 PM Reply	Punt Steve Yegge handled this already -- http://steve-yegge.b...ed-marijuana.html VPs have what my brother Mike refers to as "Shit's Easy Syndrome". You know. As in, shit's easy. If it's easy to imagine, then it's easy to implement. ... Shit is NOT easy. Remember that. Shit is NOT easy. If you think it's easy, then you are being naïve. You are being a future VP. Don't be that way. Read that whole essay. When you're done, say to yourself (in my voice): "What he said." -- Drew
Post #333,081 by beepster 9/24/10 4:50:50 PM Reply	Except I've seen these systems built and I've seen them operate. They take non-standard formats with standard fields and map this, correctly, to a data template with high 90s accuracy across tens of thousands of documents per day. Those documents, in addition to being mapped to the system are then digitally stored, for as long as you like. (in addition to being keyword indexed and searchable, btw) The originally documents are referenced, boxed and archived for, also, as long as you like. For us its 15 yrs past end of engagement, since we are required to be accurate by the government that you aren't requiring to be accurate...and must have originals to be reviewed if asked (sort of like, public records, eh?). I'm not imagining anything. These systems exist and are in use today. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #333,086 by drook 9/24/10 5:55:18 PM Reply	data entry != data validation -- Drew
Post #333,088 by boxley 9/24/10 6:55:24 PM Reply	hi 90's accuracy for legally binding docs? watchu smoking? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #333,091 by crazy 9/24/10 11:13:33 PM Reply	He's corporate The VP in charge of that project declared victory and moved on. Probably got a raise, while the next guy caught hell for years. No legal consequences. Different. Beep don't get it.
Post #333,102 by beepster 9/25/10 10:55:35 AM Reply	Excuse me thats first pass. There is a validation following. So instead of elimination 100% of the keying (which is also not 100% accurate) it only eliminated 97% That's alot of free time for clerks to make sure things are correct. And no one else here seems to think its their job to make sure they are correct either, so why are you both acting surprised? Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #333,105 by crazy 9/25/10 11:43:10 AM 9/25/10 11:43:42 AM Reply	I don't think you know what that word means Clerk. And I don't mean one of those high paying elected positions, or those right-hand of mayor positions. I mean the type of person who you think will be able to decide what is right and wrong when it goes in, and I mean free form text. Because you are going county by county for a LONG time dealing with these records. http://en.wikipedia..../Data_entry_clerk So now, either tell me this is the type of person, with associated pay and lack of responsibility, or something else? And if something else, and they really do what you think they are supposed to so, please tell me how many more you need in the total country. Since you will be slowing down the paperflow dramatically. Every decision these people make will have legal consequences. They don't (and won't) be paid enough if they care, and if they don't care (since the gov can't get sued if they screw up), we don't want them in that position. Edited by crazy Sept. 25, 2010, 11:43:42 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #333,108 by beepster 9/25/10 1:47:48 PM Reply	for a guy who worked in mass mail, I would expect you to know more about doc management that anyone here. I, apparently, was incorrect. Same time of clerks that I deal with every day. Like I don't know. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #333,112 by drook 9/25/10 2:10:01 PM Reply	So now ... The content of the argument doesn't matter, it's all about who says it. So every discussion for you is a "my credentials are bigger than yours" dick-measuring contest? -- Drew
Post #333,114 by beepster 9/25/10 2:17:46 PM Reply	Ah, so.. all clerks are stupid is a valid argument? And he's talking about slowing down paperwork when I'm talking about systems that speed it. Thats what my expectation of his expertise was. To understand just how fast you can make paper move. Again. I've seen these systems operational. Using non standard forms where key terminology can be somewhat intelligently mapped from form header. Not entirely unlike HUD1 or similar variations. Where >clerks< were re-tasked or eliminated and document throughput was increased by over a factor of 10. but I don't know anything about it at all. THIS APPLICATION is too hard. There can be no system brought to bear that could improve throughput or accuracy of records that is less expensive than hiring data entry clerks and office managers who sit and key all day long so that there are up to 6 month backlogs created in the official record. Obviously I'm an idiot. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #333,142 by crazy 9/25/10 10:47:40 PM Reply	Ah, let's compare our big swinging credentials. Nah, let's not. Have I argued the tech point here? Nope. Tech is not the block. Acceptance that the tech will be used correctly, and paid for, and programmed well enough not to fuck too many people over as the kinks are worked out, etc, yeah, it's all doable. Except: WE know tech (and all possible solutions) have a possible error rate. The issue is that while tech can pretend to be all above board, we really can bury a shitload of hidden code (faulty on purpose or not) that can be to our benefit. As a non-coder, you may intellectually accept that as a reasonable statement. As a tech, is an incredibly scary one. I envision not just how the system will fail because the people involved fucked it up, I also think about how many people will be attempting to game it. Both on the tech and the politics. And if you say, sure, that's easy, just: Blah blah blah, you only reinforce the VP syndrome. This is not a bad idea. This is not an idea that can't be done. This is a simply an idea that shouldn't be done, 1st, because it simply is a transfer of power that I think is stupid (and illegal), and #2, if it even got started, it would be a gold mine for scumbags to go attack every implementation projects (and there will be thousands). The current system may suck, as far as you are concerned, but the alternative you present is far worse. SRCMC worse.
Post #333,145 by drook 9/26/10 9:19:37 AM Reply	You're still fixing the wrong problem Banks submitted paperwork that wasn't true. I'm not "favoring the banks" no matter how many times you say it. I'm not "trusting the banks to get it right", I'm saying that should be required by law with appropriate penalties when they're wrong. -- Drew
Post #333,147 by beepster 9/26/10 10:30:07 AM Reply	Re: You're still fixing the wrong problem and what appropriate penalties would those be that would necessarily also apply to all plaintiffs in all civil trials..and how would this not destroy the court system any less than advocating a check of official record in specific instance of where lenders try to confiscate property unopposed. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #333,156 by drook 9/26/10 11:54:19 AM 9/26/10 11:54:34 AM Reply	They already do Are you aware of a trend of plaintiffs in some other area of law habitually and repeatedly submitting inaccurate documents and not being sanctioned for it? Second issue: Why in this case are you saying that this change "would necessarily also apply to all plaintiffs in all civil trials", but your suggestion to task the courts with doing their own research would not apply to all courts in all civil trials? -- Drew Edited by drook Sept. 26, 2010, 11:54:34 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #333,161 by folkert 9/26/10 2:19:52 PM Reply	Look at SCO v IBM. SCO v Novell. SCO v AutoZone... SCO v Chrysler
Post #333,040 by malraux 9/24/10 10:50:33 AM Reply	Re: who needs to type slow, I wot... Any system can be secured. What's to stop me from gaining access to the paper records now and make changes? cough electronic voting cough You trust the government to get this right? Paper records have the important quality of Physical Existence, which electronic records do not. WORM drives do not fix this, because you can still fiddle the indexes. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #332,991 by drook 9/23/10 2:45:26 PM Reply	They did ... sort of First, how do you know you have the latest title document without doing a search? And who does the search? You keep ignoring that. Second, the bank did have documentation when the foreclosure started. Then when they agreed to a short sale and took their money, they didn't bother to tell the court that it was resolved. I still want to know who filed to re-open the case after someone filed to dismiss. -- Drew
Post #332,995 by beepster 9/23/10 3:04:13 PM Reply	Who is the controlling authority for that title? The Appraiser. It should be brain-dead simple for a title search to show their records were not current. So simple a court clerk could do it and reject the case as without merit. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #333,002 by boxley 9/23/10 4:33:24 PM Reply	WTF beep it isnt a brain dead activity especially with all of the foreclosures. It takes a couple of hours to research a title with the public indexed documents, then there is the mindnumbing task of reading every single document that isnt indexed yet but has been accepted for recording. During the alaska housing bubble burst in 1983 we were up to 6 months behind in indexing and that is for a relatively small city much smaller than West Palm Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #333,016 by crazy 9/24/10 6:33:25 AM 9/24/10 7:06:34 AM Reply	Ahh, a magic moment When the reality of box's world world (along with Drook), both who have knowledge and experience, collides with Beep's perfect world. Sorry Bill, too easy. And you do try to live in your perfect world. Edited by crazy Sept. 24, 2010, 07:06:34 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #333,020 by beepster 9/24/10 7:26:03 AM Reply	1983? 2011. We're talking about a document management solution here. But its government. It can't be simple or it mustn't be right. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #333,021 by Another Scott 9/24/10 7:55:57 AM Reply	FIFY We're talking about a ~~document management solution here~~ company that presented faulty evidence in court and took shortcuts here. Fixed it for you. More - http://finance.fortu...reclosure-tricks/ HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #333,026 by beepster 9/24/10 9:35:21 AM Reply	Re: FIFY d'uh. I'm advocating a check in the system against these things and am told i'm asking too much of the poor clerks that are responsible for maintaining the records that prove you own your home. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #333,033 by Another Scott 9/24/10 10:23:50 AM Reply	People keeping records aren't investigators. HTH.
Post #333,037 by beepster 9/24/10 10:41:01 AM Reply	and if they keep the correctly there wouldn't be much to investigate, would there? Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #333,023 by boxley 9/24/10 9:16:58 AM Reply	so you got the money in west palm? title company joe shows up in front of a recorder with todays docs from all closings, filings. How many docs? 30 docs for 200 closings sound fair? total 6k recorder has to examine each one for compliance. How much time does that take? after compliance he must book and page each one with a stamp. Times 8 or 10 title companies per day plus the odd walk in that needs shit explained. Now we have approximately50k pieces of paper that need to be indexed then scanned. How do you index? It requires data entry, that takes time. with the foreclosures hitting triple the paperwork. I used to live in west palm so I know the dedication and skill set of the local government workers. They are lucky to have a running system at all, much less an efficient one. The true libertarian answer would be to close all courthouse recording systems and let the title companies compete for most accurate systems, I can picture that :-) Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #333,028 by crazy 9/24/10 9:56:51 AM Reply	No, a true libertarian would never leave the house He'd be sitting back, with his gun, waiting for someone to take what is his. Of course, he'll never have time to go to work, so he better work at home. Libertarian is another word anarchy.
Post #333,029 by beepster 9/24/10 10:01:10 AM Reply	6k times 5...30k, sound outlandish? at 30k, assuming that the proper government formatted forms are used (lawyers are involved, think we can assume that a given)...represents 2 hours and 30 minutes work on a production volume scanner. (leaving 5hrs and 30 minutes per day for backscanning) Add enterprise OCR, such as http://www.brainware.com/ over top of a well designed document management system with a tad of intelligence thrown in (maybe that is reserved for that lowly clerk) to validate ownership transfer is properly reflected in the system, throw the originals (referenced by the doc mgt system to a storage box number, so when folks like drew who think paper is a must can go digging) into a numbered box and keep in in whatever bunker you like. Next? Total system expense for this for my county would be paid for by the taxes of the homes on my block., which, by the way, still has 10 empty lots. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #333,034 by drook 9/24/10 10:28:18 AM Reply	Where did I say I want paper? assuming that the proper government formatted forms are used Doesn't currently exist. Who would design them? Who would pay for all existing data interchanges to be updated? How long was your tax return last year? Mine was 35 pages once all the worksheets were added in, and that was a pretty simple return. Do you know how long a "standard" mortgage document would need to be to cover every possibility? The 30 pages Box mentioned is the simple ones. And they don't all have the same 30 pages. leaving 5hrs and 30 minutes per day for backscanning Backscanning of documents that predate the current system, and are frequently hand-written, not typed. Oh shit, all the historical paperwork would have to be entered by hand. And the stuff that's recorded electronically -- let's be wildly optimistic and say the last 30 years' worth -- still predate the standardized format, so every field has to be mapped, by hand. Add enterprise OCR So now you're not just trusting low-level bureaucrat to make a legal determination, you're trusting a computer program run by a bureaucrat. a well designed document management system Yes, because those are so easy to get right. "It's easy, it's easy, it's easy. Lalalalala ... I can't hear you." Not much of an argument there. -- Drew
Post #333,038 by beepster 9/24/10 10:42:54 AM Reply	Ok. fine. no progress is possible. Its too hard. I was never here. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #333,039 by malraux 9/24/10 10:49:03 AM Reply	Two things: ICLRPD: "So now you're not just trusting low-level bureaucrat to make a legal determination, you're trusting a computer program run by a bureaucrat." Having been a part of several projects that involved creating document management systems for governments, I can say that in my experience well-designed document management systems for governments simply do not exist. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #333,042 by beepster 9/24/10 10:55:08 AM Reply	Back to this. they are the responsible party for determining who owns property. and everyone seems to be resigned to the fact that they will do it badly. so now I guess I should go to pure libertarian status and just stop paying taxes. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #333,041 by beepster 9/24/10 10:52:21 AM Reply	Re: Where did I say I want paper? pbp. who is GREAT at designing forms? why, the government. not everything has to be scannable to OCR. relevant fields only. rest can be archived, stored to image. Same point on history. Not all needed to be ocr handled or keyed, as the current record is (hopefully) at least somewhere on a computed. And guess what, now I have a system by which that low level bureaucrat is used to validate a process instead of doing something like taking a piece of paper that has typing on it and re-typing it. And when its simply replacing a file cabinet, yes, they are easy to get right. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #333,043 by beepster 9/24/10 10:55:46 AM Reply	Forms http://www.hud.gov/o...ps/forms/hud1.cfm when's the last time you closed without one of these. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #332,984 by drook 9/23/10 2:21:59 PM Reply	Don't you know how courts work? I already said this once, but I'll try again: Courts only consider the facts introduced into evidence. If no one introduces a fact, it doesn't exist. In this one case, maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea for the court to go double-check the documents. Seems straightforward, right? Does that mean that all courts now must verify all documents submitted in all cases? Whoa, that's a big new mandate. Are you willing to fund it? And what if the low-level bureaucrat doing the search misses something that costs you your house? You can't sue the government, and there are no other avenues for doing your own research because the court does it all. I thought you wanted the government to have less authority, because they can't do anything right? Pick your argument, please. You just switched sides again. It's always been possible for someone to go to court with fabricated documents and claim title to a house they don't own. Small-time operators still do this all the time. The disincentive is that eventually the rightful owner shows up with authentic paperwork, and the crook is prosecuted. What's happening now is that the banks are the ones coming to court with fabricated documents. Except they get to call their junk docs "clerical errors" and nothing happens. Except that it sometimes costs the real owners thousands of dollars and months of their lives to get it fixed ... if they ever can get it fixed. -- Drew
Post #332,986 by beepster 9/23/10 2:30:58 PM Reply	Nice red herring read my other post. it is simple. you want to complicate it. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.

Welcome to IWETHEY!