Where was "Tax Assessor" in that story?

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

Welcome to IWETHEY!