• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

The bank split the baby... NOW WHAT!

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

pplwizard

Junior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Currently... The state of confusion... AKA California

Approximately 26 years ago I purchased a property in Yorba Linda. The address is in Yorba Linda, California 92886. The loan number Loan # xxx-xxx9. The overall property is made up of two separate properties with two separate parcel ID numbers, and two separate tax bills. The parcel numbers are listed as follows:

Parcel #1
Parcel xxx-xxx-24 (Yorba Linda House)

Parcel #2
Parcel xxx-xxx-23 (Stable) Not part of current loan

When I bought properties I was told there were two separate properties and I could sell one of them off anytime I want.

In 2005 the bank came to me and said (and I paraphrase) " property values are up interest rates are down and we will refinance your home by itself giving you the stable property free and clear". That sounded like a good deal to me so I said yes.

In 2007 and started into a divorce has lasted over seven years and is still going on to this day. But in 2010 the family court awarded me the family home as my soul and separate property. Though the courts have awarded it to me as my sole and separate property her name remains on the mortgage. Approximately two years (2012) later my ex wife asked the courts to have her name removed.
The court requested that I do this. To accomplish this there were five options:
1) sell the home 2) refinance the home 3) Assume the loan 4) short sale the home or 5) turning in the keys and walk away

I contacted central mortgage and asked if I could assume the loan. They said no. I then asked if I could refinance the loan. Again they said no. It was at that point they decided to go for outside financing. At about that time family court had requested appraisals on the property. It was during this process that it was discovered that a building, that was on the property since the day I bought it was built across both property lines. see: www.helpfrom.us/bank

Once this became known issue, to my dismay I discovered the following:

Refinancing a home to another bank was no longer an option because of the encroachment issue. Short selling the house, which was not I wanted to do, also was not an option because of the encroachment issue. I also spoke to private investors who also wanted nothing to do with the property. Even hard money lenders based on the encroachment issue would not make the loan.

In short the only option that I had was to turn the keys over to the bank and walk away. This would cost me hundreds of thousands of dollars. I never would've agreed to the new loan had I known this was a problem.

Nobody buys a house pays on it for 26 years and invests thousands of dollars in upgrades if they know they can never sell it. When the bank refinanced the house of 2005 and separated the properties from each other I was never informed of a lot encroachment issue.

The bank is fully aware that I just spent in the last two years over $385,000.00 upgrading the inside of the house. I never would have spent that kind of money if I had known that the house could not be sold.

While I was still current with my payments I notified the bank of the situation and ask for their help. They assigned someone to make contact with me said they would look into it and turn it over to their resolution department. Again at this time I was not behind my payments. Months went by and I got no response. I was being pressured by the family court to resolve the issue.

But because the bank had put me in a loan with a no win situation there was nothing I could do.

The bank has acted in bad faith, when there are situations that would allow us both to win. By that I mean they get paid and I could keep living in my family home. But instead the bank has tried foreclose.

The bank had taken out the title insurance policy that now according to the bank does not cover the encroachment issue. The fact that they were experienced in real estate and finance could not take out the proper policy was not my fault.

I also have a title insurance policy and it will cover this issue allowing both the bank to get paid me to keep my house. But the banks lawyer has told me that "it's flat out easier to foreclose on me than to file against title insurance".

If the bank would work with me I would be willing to make sure that the proceeds from the title insurance went to the unpaid balance of the note to the bank.

The bank has fraudulently put me in a no win situation, and without any negotiation has tried foreclose rather than work out a solution. They had told me that they would not foreclose, but we're going to work with me, but then with only the smallest amount of notice is legally available, acting in bad faith they attempted to foreclose.

I filed a TRO and went to court last week. (Most scary). The bank presented their side and I presented mine. I was granted a preliminary Injunction.

Questions to the forum: 1) any case law anyone knows that will help? and any good ideas as how to proceed?
 
Last edited:


OHRoadwarrior

Senior Member
It sounds like you need to put the baby back together as a package loan. This should pump all kinds of equity into the deal.
 

pplwizard

Junior Member
The bank split the baby

It sounds like you need to put the baby back together as a package loan. This should pump all kinds of equity into the deal.
an Idea I have considered ...IF the bank would be reasonable... some additional information:

Parcel #1 (the house) has a $1,150,000 loan and is upside down about $600,000.
parcel #2 (the stable) which I own free and clear is worth about $450,000.

if title insurance pays off I will then combine them into one large lot but not as things now exists.

also in California banks will not lend on two parcels as one loan and will not loan on non residential property.
 
Last edited:

OK-LL

Member
an Idea I have considered ...IF the bank would be reasonable... some additional information:

Parcel #1 (the house) has a $1,150,000 loan and is upside down about $600,000.
parcel #2 (the stable) which I own free and clear is worth about $450,000.

if title insurance pays off I will then combine them into one large lot but not as things now exists.

also in California banks will not lend on two parcels as one loan and will not loan on non residential property.
If you join the parcels together (an opposite action from a lot split) that would make the property a single residential property and CA banks will lend on that. You skipped over it, but did you stop making payments on your mortgage? That was a mistake; the family court cannot force the lender to rewrite, modify or otherwise change a mortgage; the worst they can do is order you to put the property up for sale, but since it is upsidedown, you would not have been able to sell it unless the lender agreed to a shortsale and that's unlikely if you were current on your mortgage payments. Sounds like you screwed yourself on this one.
 

pplwizard

Junior Member
Spliting the baby

If you join the parcels together (an opposite action from a lot split) that would make the property a single residential property and CA banks will lend on that. You skipped over it, but did you stop making payments on your mortgage? That was a mistake; the family court cannot force the lender to rewrite, modify or otherwise change a mortgage; the worst they can do is order you to put the property up for sale, but since it is upsidedown, you would not have been able to sell it unless the lender agreed to a shortsale and that's unlikely if you were current on your mortgage payments. Sounds like you screwed yourself on this one.
Yes I am aware that I could put the lots together, I think you are missing the point. the bank has put me in an no win option. because of the encroachment (which was not my fault) my only real (financially realistic) option is to fight the bank. to combine the lots at this time helps the bank but what is in it for me. I should not have to forfeit a valuable lot because the bank didn't do their job correctly.

Remember I do have a title Ins policy that should pay off on this.
 

pplwizard

Junior Member
spliting the baby

I do not think you are going to receive a title insurance payout based on the way they were originally bought.
I think you my want to read the title insurance policy before making that statement. I would be glad to email a copy to you.

But, the properties were sold as two separate properties each with it's own APN & TAX id NUMBER. on the title insurance policy under the heading of building encroachments it is typed in all caps "NONE" which means they "missed" the building building encroachment.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top