InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 0
Posts 3
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 07/26/2016

Re: LTE post# 2187

Friday, 07/29/2016 12:48:47 PM

Friday, July 29, 2016 12:48:47 PM

Post# of 6680
De LIEGE NOT BORROWER ON PROPERTY Court records dont always tell the whole story. This site does not allow for the attachment of records, only links. This is from a letter provided by De Liege's attorney on the matter to certain parties:

July 26, 2016

Re: Daniel DeLiege,
Foreclosure Case No: 502009CA038334XXXXMB

To Whom It May Concern:

Kindly allow this correspondence to introduce the undersigned as counsel for Mr. Daniel DeLiege. I have been acquainted with Mr. DeLiege since on or about 2006. As his counsel, he has authorized me to provide a detailed explanation in regard to the above referenced foreclosure matter in order to alleviate any concerns that the public may have in regard to said foreclosure.

Mr. DeLiege was previously married to Kara DeLiege and obtained a Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage on or about August 5, 2008. On or about October 21, 2003, Kara DeLiege, the Former Wife, borrowed funds to purchase a property prior to their marriage. Both prior to the marriage, as well as after the date of the marriage, Kara DeLiege, refinanced the property in order to take advantage of the increasing equity in the real estate market. At all times, both before as well as after the marriage, the SOLE borrower of these funds from the bank, was Kara DeLiege.

As the Former Wife refinanced the property once again after the date of the marriage, Mr. Daniel DeLiege was required to join in execution of the mortgage as her Husband. Despite the fact that he was not a borrower from the bank, because Florida has such favorable homestead laws, lenders typically and regularly require a spouse to join in execution of the mortgage, even though said spouse is NOT liable on the underlying note/loan, so that, in the event of a foreclosure, the spouse cannot claim a homestead exemption and cause the bank difficulties in attempting to foreclose on the real property. Further, even though the recorded mortgage refers to the borrower(s) as Kara DeLiege and Daniel DeLiege, Husband and Wife, you must look at the underlying note in order to ascertain who is liable to the bank. Unfortunately, in Florida, the Note is not recorded, only the mortgage is recorded. Accordingly, I am attaching a copy of the underlying note which documents that Mr. Daniel DeLiege is not a borrower and that the sole obligor is his Former Wife, Kara DeLiege.

The Former Wife, Kara DeLiege, stopped remitting her obligation on the note to the lender. Thereafter, the lender filed a foreclosure action. In a foreclosure action, a plaintiff is required to foreclose any interest that may be claimed in the real property. Thus, the lender was required to name Daniel DeLiege as a defendant in the foreclosure action because he signed the mortgage as the spouse of the borrower. Mr. DeLiege was NOT a borrower of any funds from the bank nor did he fail to repay any funds that he was obligated to pay.

Accordingly, after the dissolution of marriage (divorce), the Former Wife, Kara DeLiege, filed for bankruptcy protection and surrendered her interest in the real property. The foreclosure proceedings were required to stop while she was in bankruptcy. Thereafter, Mr. DeLiege fully cooperated with counsel for the bank, via my services, by entering into a “Stipulation to Consent to Entry of IN REM Final Judgment”. The “IN REM” portion of the stipulation refers to the fact that the Final Judgment is only as to the real property and that there is no personal liability on behalf of Mr. DeLiege in regard to the underlying note or to any fees, costs, or other expenses incurred by the bank for the foreclosure as he was never a borrower of any funds. A fully executed copy of the IN REM Final Judgment is also attached hereto for your review.

I trust that this information clarifies that Mr. DeLiege did not recently “lose” a foreclosure matter. Further, any inference that he borrowed funds, failed to pay same, walked away from an obligation, and went on to “bigger and better” things at the expense of our financial system is simply untrue. Mr. DeLiege had no obligation to pay the note, had a Former Wife that had her own monetary issues, and fully cooperated with the lender in its foreclosure action.