Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
Has that been upheld in any court in the land.
It sounds like the same logic as you not having to pay a collection firm that purchases bad debt because they satisfied the original debt.
I don't think it legally works that way.
|
The contract was signed by family x with company A. Company A sells the contract to company B. Company A still wants the money - show me the original contract. If it can not be produced (because they are not in possession of it) but they have received money for the original contract the facts would be the contract has been satisfied.
Now perhaps the company who owns the mortgage would then get the money but
those " investment funds" now no longer exist. That's what is different here.
I have no idea about collection debt - this was derived from a guy in Texas who occupied a house that was foreclosed. I'll try to find the news story but I have no idea where I did see it. There is also an 80 year old man who has done the same with many homes in California (I think).
Here it is. The guy didn't own the house previously, but he is still occupying the house today.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/texas...ry?id=14099714