Mr Cooper Group Inc (COOP)

[bkshadow]

SOF - The Michigan foreclosures...

...were precluded, based on the case of Kim versus JPMorgan, as the lower courts were upheld except for JPMorgan's (and FDIC-R) failure to conform with Michigan law. The result was that the MSC determined that the "foreclosure" was "voidable;" i.e., that the foreclosure process could be stopped for the failure by JPMorgan to properly record their security interest in the property via registry of ownership of the notes and mortgages.

The "foreclosure was voidable," they still owe on the loan. It didn't state that JPMorgan could NEVER foreclose (they, the FDIC-R, had corrective actions to undertake) to comply with Michigan recording laws. If they could NEVER foreclose, it would be "void ab initio." The MSC specifically rules such is not the case.

Here is a reference in many of the cases where others (who do not want to be foreclosed on and try to get out of the possibility of foreclosure completely, and some who don't want to ever pay off the mortgage) regarding this matter. The court further requires these plaintiffs to demonstrate "prejudice" and "better position" absent the recording noncompliance.

However, our Supreme Court subsequently reversed that portion of the Kim case that held an irregularity in recording a mortgage interest rendered a foreclosure void ab initio. In Kim v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA, 493 Mich. 98, 115–116; 825 NW 329 (2012), our Supreme Court explained:

We hold that defects or irregularities in a foreclosure proceeding result in a foreclosure that is voidable, not void ab initio. Because the Court of Appeals erred by holding to the contrary, we reverse that portion of its decision. We leave to the trial court the determination of whether, under the facts presented, the foreclosure sale of plaintiffs' property is voidable. In this regard, to set aside the foreclosure sale, plaintiffs must show that they were prejudiced by defendant's failure to comply with MCL 600.3204. To demonstrate such prejudice, they must show that they would have been in a better position to preserve their interest in the property absent defendant's noncompliance with the statute.

I have not included this matter in Michigan in the list of the Charade components because I don't recall seeing this counted as "escrow money." I might have missed it. If JPMorgan can't clean up the foreclosure compliance itself, then the FDIC and JPMorgan will have to work together as the FDIC holds WMB in the receivership. The P&AA would, IMO, require cooperation. In the meantime, JPMorgans Michigan PCI loans have decreased significantly since 2008 (the WMB PCI loans are identified by state in the Annual Reports). So, people are paying their mortgages.