Legal loophole gives home ownership: Woman renting homes she doesn't own won't be charged

[mfcorey1]

ATLANTA -- The foreclosure boom has forced tens of thousands of Georgians from their homes, but a Channel 2 Action News investigation has found one case where the bank is backing down and the woman who says she now owns the home got it for free.

Susan Weidman is under indictment in Cobb County and under criminal investigation in DeKalb County. Investigators say she filed court documents declaring a million-dollar foreclosed home to be abandoned and assumed ownership by Adverse Possession -- basically squatters’ rights.

Now she appears to have taken over another home in Cumming. Forsyth County sheriff’s deputies told Channel 2 investigative reporter Jodie Fleischer that they did find evidence of a crime and that prosecutors wanted to file charges. The home, at 6645 Shade Tree Way, is owned by Chase Bank. Authorities told Fleischer the bank was not cooperating but that changed once they found out about the Channel 2 investigation.

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/29306086/detail.html

[Scuba]

1. It would appear there are many cases where the bank cannot prove they own the home....

... not surprising, considering the rampant fraud they committed.


Interesting legal questions here. Any attorneys care to comment?

[dkf]

2. Which goes to why getting a home without paying for it is wrong and unfair.

Some will cheer this woman on, but a society where the cheaters are applauded and the people who make cautious prudent decisions don't get any benefit above the reckless sets bad examples.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

3. LOL "where the cheaters are applauded"

No. They are given stock options, millions in bonuses and cabinet positions.

[dkf]

4. Knowingly cheating is wrong no matter who does it.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

5. Oh she's a scammer, no doubt.

But she is scamming the bigger scammers. Let them go to court and try to enforce their fraudulent documents. It will be an interesting show.

[dkf]

7. You sure she isn't scamming Freddie or Fannie?

That is us you know. Or maybe she is scamming a bond holder which could be you if you have a pension plan.

It really beats me why people think only the banks suffer over foreclosures. It's like people never heard of securitization in which case they are mssing most of the picture.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

9. If the lenders gave a shit about the bond holders they wouldn't ...

... have written all those bad loans, secured them with tainted documents or foreclosed on properties without trying to save the deal by working with the homeowner.

The damage has already been done. You just haven't figured it out yet.

[dkf]

11. No they didn't give a shit.

And maybe they didn't do anything because they were simply servicing it for the poor schmuck who got stuck holding the bag who could be you!

Would that be ironic?

[Ikonoklast]

6. How is using the law as written 'cheating'?

If the banks cannot prove legal ownership of the property, then the laws as written were used correctly by this woman.

If a mortgage holder cannot prove the lien against your property, they has no legal right to enforce it.

I cannot force you to pay me one red cent if I cannot prove you owe it to me.

If you characterize the lack of following the laws as 'cheating', you may have a point; the banks cheated the people by foreclosing when they had no clear right to do so.

[dkf]

8. Squatting is cheating.

We should get rid of that law. It's ridiculous.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

10. And leaving houses abandoned and deteriorating causes blight in neighborhoods.

We should encourage adverse possessions. Maybe the lenders will take note.

[dkf]

12. A million dollar home depresses the properties around it? Lol.

You are actually making a case for faster foreclosures.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

14. A million dollar home, falling apart, will become a not-million dollar home.

As will the neighboring homes. Why is that a difficult concept for you to grasp?

[jberryhill]

15. The law favors productive use of property

Yes, if you are thoroughly ignorant of the historical development of the doctrine of adverse possession and the very difficult standards required to demonstrate it in the US, one can easily reach the conclusion it is "ridiculous".

One can reach that conclusion from a position of supreme ignorance on just about any topic, dkf.

The way it is applied in the UK would drive you positively batty.

[petronius]

13. It would seem to me that the original owner would still have a claim

If her case rests on the fact that the original owner was pushed out unlawfully and under threat, that would not seem to fit a reasonable definition of 'abandoned'...

[Hassin Bin Sober]

17. The original owner only has rights if he/she asserts them. Not fair but that's the way it is.

Their first and final mistake was vacating the property.

[ms.smiler]

16. It appears to me that Ms. Weidman has some knowledge of securitized mortgages

and is putting that knowledge to use in an unusual but legal way perhaps though not legal in all aspects of her conduct.

Adverse Possession laws vary from state to state with differing lengths of time and requirements.

In my ideal world, it would have been the original homeowner that was wise to mortgage securitization and who rather than abandoning their property, chose instead to fight the banks and the foreclosure action.

The mortgage securitization scheme is purposely designed though to take advantage of homeowners’ lack of understanding plus their honorable and equitable views so homeowners unfortunately most often acquiesce to the wishes of banks and mortgage servicing companies.

My own preference is to see ordinary people make use of property for habitation or even profit rather than the banks who may no longer be owed money on the securitized loans.

That second set of books over on Wall Street is not shared or applied to the accounting of mortgage loans over here on Main Street.


Edit for missing word.