Has anyone ever had this happen?
I've worked my tail off on this nice renovted historic home with 66 acres that rents for 3 or 4 times the average rent (probably due to the mortgage amoutn)

CFK, Lease agreement. ...... the tennant knows how to milk the system. Finally went to court to evict.

This week i receive an email from Fannie mae that says:
This property has been eliminated from Fannie Mae ’s inventory due to an invalid foreclosure. Please stop all efforts immediately on this property.

I think it's another stall tactic by the occupant. The former owner is in Hawaii. property in Tennessee. Rent was handled thru property mgmt company.

I think they are all in cahoots! I think property management company scammed the rent. Property management company even gave a letter of recommendation for the occupant.

heck, the occupant is a shiester. After jumping thru hoops to get a lease agreeement, the occupant refuses to sign it. Then the Asset manager has to send the file to evictions. The occupant is just "Buying Time".

anyway. Once they figure out (in all likelyhood) that the forclosure was in fact Valid, and it gets back in que for to be listed, I feel like it may go to another agent after I've worked my tail off with this low life of a tenant.

Anyone else ever have a listing STOP mid process due to INVALID FORECLOSURE???

Google "Ibanez MA foreclosure" or something to that effect.

One of my AMC's lost 29! properties in one day due to invalid foreclosures in MA. It is a HUGE deal here.

Basically (really basic) is that, in a case where the mortgage was transferred to a different bank, the attorneys did not record that assignment until AFTER the foreclosure complaint was recorded. So, from my understanding, an assignment might have taken place on 1/2/2008 and didn't get recorded. Then the foreclosure complaint was sent out and recorded on 2/2/2008 in the name of the new bank BUT the assignment was recorded on 3/2/2008 (or even NEVER recorded). So it's now an invalid foreclosure.

Makes sense to me. If attorneys had been doing their job as they were supposed to there would be no issues. Going to take months and months to re foreclose all these properties properly in MA.

It could be for real, they are getting very sloppy on foreclosures in some cases. I had one not long ago that there was a valid Chapter 13 bankruptcy in place two weeks before the sale but it went to sale anyway. Ooops.

Sounds more like the occupant got awarded 90 days to remain in the house by the judge under the bona fide tenant rule. I have heard of foreclosures being invalid, but I think its rare.

We have had several. One they did not foreclose on the exwife so it has been sitting for 9 months (it was found by title after a signed purchase agreement was in place. They even tried to auction it after and I kept telling them it had a bad title but they took it to the wire before stopping the auction. We do usually get them back though.

I had one with Nationstar. I had a great offer on the table and they dragged for 3 weeks with a repsonse. I kept getting the run around. The they dropped it on me. I am not a fan of this. Get your cr@p straight, then call me.

Thanks for all the reply's. I'm thinking Jgizzi is right. I like his theory. The tenant actually thinks he has a lease until december. Under TN landlord and tenant act, the new owner can give a 30 day notice to vacate. I wish I had gone to the foreclosure hearing. (but I wasnt invited. lol).

Can this sort of problem be addressed with a Scrivener's Affidavit?

I had one, the day 3 offers came in it got pulled and was in "litigation" AKA nice way of saying we messed up.
6 months later I got it back.
I kind of knew it was coming back, since they kept on having me do MSR'S while it was in 'Litigation".

Had to google that one but it looks like it is for Missouri only.

Anyway, don't think there is anyway around it as banks are now "re foreclosing" on all properties known to have been invalid foreclosures. I'm sure its going to take months to find them all and then months to re foreclose.

Here’s my understanding. This started as a case challenging if the NOD had to be in the local paper or if any paper with a circulation in the properties’ area was sufficient. Judge Long ruled that the publication was sufficient. However, to gain his 15 minutes of fame, he ruled that since the statute ONLY allowed the mortgage holder to foreclose, the assignment must be dated prior to the first publication of the NOD. I.E. the assignments were being signed at some point after the NOD. The defending lenders position is that the transferring parties have a contract transferring the mortgage; however it’s not in recordable form. (Does not meet the Registry of Deeds recording requirements). They argue that the law does not require “recordable form”, but only that that mortgage has been transferred. They further argue that this is based on various case law going back 143 years.
BTY, a similar ruling took place somewhere in the Midwest about a year ago.
As a result of this ruling, the title companies will not insure any new FCs where the dates aren’t sequential. However, they will insure over a property where they’re already on the hook. That last sentence is directed on those properties that have sold over the last 143 years and the dates were not in proper order. Those sales now have a cloud on the title.
Regardless of whether or not Judge Long overturns or upholds his ruling the opposite party will probably appeal. Ibanez is now represented by counsel, as are the lenders. One local attorney expects that this will drag on for a year.
From what I’ve experienced, this is affecting about a third of the properties that were in the pipeline. Those that closed recently (up to 143 years ago), are valid sales, but with a title flaw. Those that have not been conveyed are the items biting us.
Although this is a Massachusetts specific ruling, I would not be surprised if another jurisdiction has a jurist looking for their name up in lights.
There’s a ton of info available via Google at “Ibanez land court”.
Just to emphasize, this is my understanding, NOT a legal opinion.

JackREO - "those sales now have a cloud on the title" from your post above:

I think I even caught a bit on the news that a buyer of a foreclosure is now trying to sell and is stuck with the property until this is cleared up. Is that your understanding also?

What a mess!

That's not what I was told. I had received some correspondence from an attorney that handles a bushel of FC's. It contained a memo of instructions from the major title companies. It stated that the title companies would reinsure those properties that they already had policies on, but would not take on any more without the proper date sequence. I also watched the newscast and was suprised at how little information they supplied. If a buyer purchased a FC without title insurance, they're out of luck with regard to title insurance. BTY, I had 30+ properties either bust out of contract, pulled from active to "on hold" of placed in special exception due to this. What I also found interesting is that when this ruling first went down I was the party that notified my seller's of the issue rather than their attorneys. Says a lot about the way our industry is structured!!!

I am amazed that some of the (buyers) attorneys I've spoken, even up to last week, had not heard of this case.

I had a listing that was in eviction and just when the occupants moved out, the asset manager told me that the foreclosure was being cancelled because of a bankruptcy and might come back to us later. The property stayed vacant and safeguard put a lockbox on it. It's been a little while. During a search on the MLS, I see the property is now listed for sale as a short sale. What you think?