[h=2]BOMBSHELL - Massachusetts Supreme Court Rules That Most Foreclosure Sales From Previous 5 Years Are VOID[/h]http://dailybail.com/home/bombshell-massachusetts-supreme-court-rules-that-most-forecl.html
I don't know what to say. Regardless of the validity of their ruling, do they have any idea as to how many families would be on the street if this law were enforced?
In essence, the ruling upheld that those who had purchased foreclosure properties that had been illegally foreclosed upon (which is virtually all foreclosure sales in the last five years), did not in fact have title to those properties.
So I actually CAN afford that multi million dollar house on the beach afterall!!
Can buy a lot of beer and pizza without a mortgage payment!! What about car payments, are those null and void as well? I'd like to get a Beamer!
6. The land court correctly reasoned that the remedy available to Bevilacqua was not against the wrongly foreclosed homeowner but rather against the wrongly foreclosing bank and/or perhaps the servicer (depending on who actually conducted the foreclosure)
IMO, what's really too bad about this whole thing is the people that believe their house is an asset, when in fact it is a liability. And a rather large one at that.
Depends on if they own it outright or not. Insurance covers legal liability. Financial liability is largely covered by simply keeping it up.
True, and true. However, the point of it being a liability rather than an asset is the "keeping it up" part. You spend money to maintain the condition, and thus the value. And because of that it is a liability. Now, improving it is another matter, and can lessen the liability significantly. But keep in mind that you're still spending money that you MIGHT get back IF you sell the house. And like you say, if you own it outright, that makes a HUGE difference.
I'm not saying that owning a house is a bad thing, just pointing out that it's not nearly the asset that most people think it to be.