2nd mortgage not paid but owner refinanced

[hammer751]

From reading this I might as well take the money and quit claim it. My attorney told me since all other liens were "extinguished" that I was sole owner/lien holder of the land, that is why I thought I might get replacement value. The reason I am in 1st position is I had a 3 year contract then a balloon payment was due in 2003. They were planning on paying it off when the refinanced it. When the title company searched the loan they noted that I had released the mortgage in 2003 (which I did not and was not paid a dime) the owners of the home cashed out and kept the money. The thing is if the house had not burned I would have owned it with no liens. So why wouldn't I get replacement value? I had insurance in place to start on the day of the sale. I was told by the adjuster that if I had it insured it would have brought up even more problems. One last question...If I owned a car but sold it on payments to someone, then in court the Judge said "you either give them $10,000 back or your lien will be extinguished and all rights to it will be taken away" wouldn't that mean that I had no interest in that car no matter what the insurance binder said? Who would get the money if the car was stolen, the people buying the car? If I'm the "sole" lien holder of the property even though the judgment was less than the value, why couldn't I get replacement value?

 

[justalayman]

If I'm the "sole" lien holder of the property even though the judgment was less than the value, why couldn't I get replacement value?

because it was not your insurance and you were not listed as a loss payee. As I said, you are only due the $41k in any situation because that is what you were owed. You are not entitled to anymore. That would be considered unjust enrichment and the courts do not like to see that. That means you are getting something for nothing and somebody else is getting screwed.

even if you were listed as loss payee, you still would only be paid the $41k.

and although the judge may have released the lien, that did not remove the loan the other people owed to them. that just meant the other bank could not foreclose to collect on the mortgage loan. all that did was free up the title so you could foreclose.

the borrowers still owe that other bank whatever they owe them.