Another judge in Ohio has stopped a foreclosure because lawyers could not legally prove that Wells Fargo owned the mortgage.
The judge said the foreclosure lawsuit was filed before Wells Fargo owned the mortgage - thus, the suit was premature.
The ruling - the first of its kind by a state court judge in Ohio since the subprime mortgage crisis erupted this year - could have profound implications on how foreclosures are handled in Ohio, which leads the nation in the percentage of mortgages in foreclosure. The local ruling comes as three federal court judges - in Cleveland, Dayton and Columbus - have issued similar opinions in foreclosure cases in the last month. The Consumer Law & Policy blog notes that this decision could cause trouble for banks who are foreclosing on properties where the original lender has gone bankrupt. In other cases, however, especially when the original lender has gone bankrupt or otherwise imploded, it may be difficult or impossible to get the necessary signatures, and the necessary documents, to complete a legal transfer of the mortgage that was not completed before the foreclosure. There is no reliable way to estimate the percentage of cases where ownership paperwork will be unavailable, but it will be significant. Hopefully, while the servicers search frantically for the missing paperwork, they can focus more time and attention on making reasonable modifications of loan principal and interest to allow homeowners to stay in their homes, and mitigate losses to investors.
Freddie Mac 
Losses from the subprime meltdown are going to hurt Bank of America, but they won't say how badly. They just want investors to be prepared when the 4th quarter numbers come in, says the NYT.
He also expects the bank to take bigger write-downs on collateralized loan obligations than the $3 billion that have previously been reported. How much bigger? Mr. Lewis didn't go there, either. In fact, he said the final write-down amounts were "unknowable." We're not experts or anything but that sounds "bad."
Reuters is reporting that government-backed mortgage lender Freddie Mac expects to lose $10-12 billion before the subprime meltdown is over. Previously, everyone was freaking out about their
The Washington Post has a really interesting article about a housing counselor in the D.C. area who saw the subprime meltdown first hand.
Coppedge saw it coming in slow motion. Around this time last year, she was mostly dealing with renters who were behind on payments. Rarely did she counsel at-risk homeowners. When she did, they were usually suffering a one-time setback such as job loss.
"Then in midsummer, we felt the tide turning," Coppedge said. "People started trickling in. First they came in to express concern about their loans and gathered information. Then by September, everything picked up speed and suddenly people were telling us they were behind on their mortgages."
Many of those people had taken out adjustable-rate loans. Some used them to buy homes they otherwise could not afford when prices soared in 2005 and 2006. Others were constantly refinancing to pull cash out of their homes.
These loans were usually subprime mortgages, typically made to people with blemished credit. But they were in no way limited to low-income borrowers, said Coppedge, whose recent clients typically earn $60,000 to $110,000 a year.
"People from all walks are getting hit by this," Coppedge said. Meanwhile, the word over at the Credit Slips blog is that the Bush mortgage rate freeze will mainly help lobbyists for the banking industry avoid a particularly distasteful bankruptcy bill that is currently being kicked around in congress.
Local Home Foreclosures on the Rise [Washington Post]