The comment's on JB's thread on Boundary Line Establishment make me wonder:
What do you do if there are mortgage companies involved? What if they are not parties to the agreement the owners actions in singing a boundary line agreement? I have a hard time believing that one mortgage company would accept that they now own less land than they did. My mortgage stated that I did not have the authority to sign such an agreement, and that if I did the entire balance was immediately due. Has anyone here ever seen a boundary line agreement signed by a mortgage company?
Excellent questions. It would make sense that those who hold some kind of interest in the property would need to be a party to the agreement action. Most property owners today do not have the entire bundle of rights without restriction.
Jim, you got me to chuckle, thanks to a little typo. The following part of your post brought to mind an opera-like scene set near the agreed upon boundary; that is...singing a boundary line agreement. Two sets of owners, a lawyer or two, various and sundry mortgage holders and title company representatives all singing in unison as to the sanctity of their actions.
> The comment's on JB's thread on Boundary Line Establishment make me wonder:
>
> What do you do if there are mortgage companies involved? What if they are not parties to the agreement the owners actions in singing a boundary line agreement? I have a hard time believing that one mortgage company would accept that they now own less land than they did. My mortgage stated that I did not have the authority to sign such an agreement, and that if I did the entire balance was immediately due. Has anyone here ever seen a boundary line agreement signed by a mortgage company?
Jim,
That may be because you very likely have a participatory mortgage, which gives the lender more rights than a Non-participatory mortgage.
Your lender can probably force a sale, even if you are up to date on all payments without ever having been late, just because they believe that you might default at a later date.
B-)
Haven't ever seen a mortgage co. sign a BLA, but in the utility r/w acquisition business they sometimes are a key player.
A lot of people (owners) don't read the small print on the mortgage they've granted. The size of the easement requested, the size of the mortgage and the amount of money that is being offered for the easement are all factors.
I've seen mass-murderers with warmer hearts than some mortgage outfits.
LOL - well, didn't they sing at the Feast of Terminalia?!
BLA's don't transfer title. BLA's only work if the exact boundary location is unclear. So technically, the mortgage company isn't losing anything.
bingo :good: :good:
Before a homeowner can buy, sell or trade portions of a property that is under lien with a mortgage company, there must be an agreement about the value and amount of property that has reached equity value.
Then the mortgage company will release that amount of property from the lien conditions and property will be free and clear for the owner to do with as they will.
😉
What if the requirements for boundary by agreement (or any other location doctrine) were fulfilled years before the current owner and current (or prospective) mortgagor were involved?
Does a mortgage holder have the power to undo what has been previously legally done merely because they don't like it, or are they in the "same boat" as the buyer, ie, bound by the actions of the previous owners, and if so how?
> What do you do if there are mortgage companies involved? What if they are not parties to the agreement the owners actions in singing a boundary line agreement? I have a hard time believing that one mortgage company would accept that they now own less land than they did. My mortgage stated that I did not have the authority to sign such an agreement, and that if I did the entire balance was immediately due. Has anyone here ever seen a boundary line agreement signed by a mortgage company?
It's not an issue for a boundary line agreement. The BLA only acts to remove the uncertainty or to settle a dispute over the existing boundary by establishing its location. No new boundary is created; no land is transferred. The courts view the agreement as establishing the line where it has always been located and in accordance with the deed.
Jim's point is definitely a concern when parties undertake to create a new line through a boundary adjustment process. That process does affect title to the property by transferring ownership to the new line. When undertaking a boundary adjustment, the parties should consult their lender (good luck finding a party who will understand the issue and will have authority to sign off on the agreement). If you are able to negotiate with the lender, they will typically allow a partial release of any portion granted along with a modification which will swap the encumbered parcel for the new parcel. Without the modification, the lender can only foreclose on the original parcel, thereby undoing the agreement or leaving behind the added strip.
If and when the parties choose to forgo the lender notification, the worst case scenario is that the lender may call the mortgage due or they could undo the agreement in the event of a foreclosure. The lenders don't like foreclosures because they usually loose out on the deal. Foreclosure is a way for them to cut their losses which are unlikely unless the property is upside-down and they're looking for an excuse to get rid of it. Even if they were to foreclose, chances are the properly is worth more with an agreement in place as the likelihood of a potential boundary suit is nullified.
Would you rather own a parcel where all the boundaries are known with certainty, accepted, and honored by all the neighbors, or one with a potential dispute awaiting a surveyor's visitation?
JBS
