RE: unlawful detainer filing

If a tenant “goes on record” in order to fight a u/d complaint, what are the credit implications?

When a Notice to Quit or U/D is filed/served it may be addressed as “(Name of owner of record) and all occupants, tenants and Does 1-10″ or something to that effect.

At that point, the tenant is anonymous and unknown. Once they file a Prejud claim of right of possession or any type of answer, they effectively “surface”, are updated in the evicting attorney’s paperwork, and are now known.

Even if the tenant prevails, the case is settled without an adverse judgment against the tenant,etc will the tenant’s answer and defense become public record and therefore scrap-able by the credit bureau data parasites?

Could an eviction end up on a tenant’s credit report even if the do not “lose” the u/d case?

Thanks.

When does the new “90 days notice to vacate to tenants in possession of the property at the time of the foreclosure” federal law actually cover?

“At the time of foreclosure” refers to what? The filing of the NOD, the NOT, or the actual date of reversion to the (lender) beneficiary on the deed of trust or sale to a 3rd party at the courthouse?

In other words, if someone is in possession BEFORE the sale date but AFTER the filing of the NOD and NOT what then?

What if the NOD was filed (so the effective date of the start of the foreclosure process) BEFORE the May 20, 2009 date of the federal legislation but AFTER the CA 1161b date?

Would a tenant be only protected by 1161 or would they have the federal protection?

This comes up quite a bit because even though it is technically a 111 day clock from NOD to sale date, many of the lenders have LAGGED big time on the foreclosure process. If they even file an NOD, they may wait months and months before filing the NOT, and then may postpone the sale repeatedly.

Bottom line – it can be a very drawn out process where it is quite possible for a unit to be rented out even though it may be well into the foreclosure process.

But, this duty prohibition does not apply unless the percentage rate on the loan will exceed by more than 8% the yeild on treasury bonds having a comparable term. You calculate the loan rate at the time the loan is taken out- not when it “explodes” to a higher interest rate after 5 years. A 30 year treasury bond is at least 2.5% so adding 8% to that means that unless the mortgage was 10.5% the broker has no duty to consider the consumer’s finances when arranging a loan, at least not under California statutes.

I have yet to see a loan that was 10.5% when it was taken out. In fact, I have yet to see a consumer situation where the consumer was able to benefit from the Truth In Lending Act. The bottom line is that the borrower is only able to rescind a loan if the borrower can pay the loan amount back to the lender. Only when this happens does the lender have a duty to let the borrower out of the loan and pay the borrower back all the interest and fees. The borrower can only do this by refinancing with another loan. The problem is that the property values have all decreased. No bank is going to loan money on a property that is worth less than the original loan.