I believe the first point of this Bill is to protect homeowners from situations, however, the Bill is also designed to ensure that Banks have their paperwork in order.
The only long-standing element of this Bill is to ensure banks comply with their administrative responsibilities.
Note that the spikes in home foreclosures are forcing housing values through the floor and also devaluing a primary tax base. We accept that foreclosures will happen, of course, but we need to stem the bleeding and pull back to take stock.
I'm needing to be convinced of the point of allowing banks to continue to foreclose when they no longer have ownership of that mortgage. At present I would not support the amendment.
The new owners would be able to foreclose on them if they have their paperwork in order? Otherwise I agree with trying to slow down the rate of foreclosures.
The point is the if banks do not have their paperwork in order, then they either have to halt proceedings until they do, and if they don't possess the paperwork they cannot.
As I said earlier, this is the only element of this Bill that will be in place beyond the moratorium/adjustment periods.
If the paperwork is in order and the mortgagee does not qualify for the hold notice.
The consequences for delinquency beyond that period most certainly exist. And as long as the mortgage holder (bank etc etc) has fulfilled their administrative requirements, then the foreclosure can go ahead.
My goal for this, is to slow down the rates of foreclosures, to stop the ones that are going ahead illegally, and to put in place an orderly process to ensure banks are doing what they're supposed to do and make sure people who might be under significant financial pressure beyond their control have some degree of flexibility... however, if someone is delinquent in their payments and the all proper paper work can be found... then this does not stop foreclosures after the initial 90-day moratorium.
