Kevin and Deborah Keith - Page 4




                                        - 3 -                                         
               Petitioners apparently defaulted on their obligation to                
          repay the loan according to the terms of the note.  As a result,            
          on December 13, 2000, foreclosure proceedings were initiated by             
          Countrywide, and on August 29, 2002, the property was seized from           
          petitioners pursuant to a writ of execution.  On November 26,               
          2002, the property was sold for $80,500 to third-parties.                   
               At the time the foreclosure proceeding was initiated, the              
          principal balance on the loan was $112,035.  In accordance with             
          Pennsylvania procedures in such matters, for purposes of the                
          foreclosure proceeding, the property was valued pursuant to a               
          Broker’s Price Opinion in a range from $90,000 to $100,000                  
          depending upon the “marketing time”.2                                       
               Countrywide’s recovery on the note as a result of the                  
          foreclosure proceeding is not known.  To the extent that it                 
          received less than petitioners owed, the company, although                  
          entitled to do so under Pennsylvania law, did not seek a                    
          deficiency judgment against petitioners.  As Countrywide viewed             
          the matter, following the foreclosure proceeding, petitioners               
          owed the company $22,035, computed by subtracting the lower range           
          of the Broker’s Price Opinion, that is $90,000 from the amount of           
          principal on the loan then outstanding, that is $112,035.                   
          Because Countrywide did not seek a deficiency judgment against              

               2 The phrase “marketing time” as used in the valuation                 
          report is not familiar to the Court, and neither party offered an           
          explanation as to what it means.                                            






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: March 27, 2008