----- Message from "Walk & Murphy, PLC" <osagelaw@osage.net> on Thu, 7 Dec 2006 17:15:54 -0600 -----

To:	"Jeffrey K. Robison" <JRobison@allenvernon.com>
cc:	<realestate@iabar.org>
Subject:	Re: Mortgage Foreclosure

I don't see how it is possible for the bank to be worse off because she did not sign it.  Prior to the foreclosure they may have been but if they raised all of the issues in the petition, specifically noted the failure to sign, etc.  The attorney should have taken care of all of the issues in the foreclosure decree.  If the decree did not address all of these issues then perhaps a problem.
 
If the attorney did address all of those issues the only real problem I see is if was agricultural property and did not contain a waiver of homestead but this also should have been addressed in the decree.  If a reasonably competent attorney did the foreclosure title should be good.  If an attorney did it that does not regularly practice in this area, it might be a problem.
 
Mark Walk
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Jeffrey K. Robison
To:  
Cc: realestate@iabar.org
Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 5:05 PM
Subject: Re: Mortgage Foreclosure

Kristen
 
The Decree can function as a decree of quiet title, or could go so far as to reform the mortgage itself.  Did the Decree address your issue?
 
I would be inclined to object, unless the issue were addressed and resolved in the Decree itself.  It would depend on the Decree.  
 
Jeffrey K. Robison, Allen, Vernon & Hoskins, P.L.C.
1175 Eighth Avenue, P.O. Box 488
Marion, IA  52302
319  377-9441  
Fax  377-8147

This email may contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is legally privileged.  The  information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above.  If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this message  in error, please immediately notify us by reply email and delete this message. Thank you.
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Kristen N. Ollenburg
To: realestate@iabar.org
Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 4:47 PM
Subject: Mortgage Foreclosure

I'm faced with an abstract showing the following:
 
1.  A deed to man and woman, not married, as tenants in common.
 
2.  A mortgage granted by man, single (NOT woman) to bank.  Woman was not listed as a mortgagor and did not sign the mortgage.
 
3.  A foreclosure of said mortgage by bank, naming both man and woman (now married) as defendants.  Both man and woman were properly served, filed answers, etc.  Bank bought at Sheriff's sale, and Sheriff's deed was filed in September 2006.
 
Now, I'm examining title for a third party buyer.  Did the bank only end up with an undivided one-half interest in the property?  Or did the fact that woman was properly served and failed to raise any objection preclude her from later asserting any interest?
 
Thanks in advance for your kind assistance.
 
Kristen N. Ollenburg
Pappajohn, Shriver, Eide & Nielsen P.C.
103 E. State St., Suite 800
Mason City, Iowa 50401
Phone: (641) 423-4264
Fax: (641) 423-3145
e-mail: ollenburg@pappajohnlaw.com
 
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail and any attached documents contain information from the law firm of Pappajohn, Shriver, Eide & Nielsen P.C., which may be confidential and/or legally privileged. These materials are intended only for the personal and confidential use of the addressee identified above. If you are not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering these materials to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this transmitted information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender of this message. Thank you.