they're a legit firm and not going to give no notice whatsoever.
...
Nick had notice, and he either "didn't get it" bc he's not tcb at all, or did and said fuck you, idc.
Nobody's suggesting that there was no notice; there absolutely will have been mailings to ignore, there absolutely will have been robocalls to leave unanswered, and there almost certainly will have been the "in person" attempt that in practice will have been nothing more than the perfunctory hanging of a neon-colored "please call us" note on a doorknob, perfectly suited for Nick to throw on the ground like a search warrant or speeding ticket with a curt "you're fucking bullshit lying, fuck off."
None of that is in dispute and my only point in the first place was that
notwithstanding those notices, it'd have been very much in character for Nick, who has himself described the job of a lawyer as something so simple as digging for the right "magic words" that wiggle out of any given predicament, to simply cobble together some typo-ridden incomplete loss mitigation application form downloaded from some shitty SovCit-tier lifehack website and toss the duct-taped envelope in a mailbox, followed by telling himself (and telling Kayla) "don't worry about it, we're good."
It'd further be in character to feel so invincible after his "magic words" that even any redundant subsequent rounds of notices could surely be ignored as apparent mistakes by one hand not knowing what the other's doing on the lender side, and if they dare to foreclose after his "magic words" were uttered, surely
they would be the ones in trouble, not him, so he could look forward to smugly eating a Dorito as they prostrate themselves before the throne of the Royal Court of Balldo with a settlement check for all his attorney fees and emotional distress damages in the glorious RESPA lawsuit that he totally would have the energy and work ethic to do. Then, when someone gets served with a sheaf of foreclosure papers on the driveway by a frustrated process server who had to sit in his car smoking cigarettes for hours until the Navigator or Rustang came back from an errand in town because nobody has answered the door for days, it would be in character for Nick to pivot to a whiny victim complex about the "surreal" and "ridiculous" shock that the bank didn't bow to the big-brained non-practicing lawyer's "magic words." Yep, that sounds like our guy.
I could think of one possible reason why Nick would deliberately either be indifferent to the house being foreclosed upon or intentionally causing the house to be foreclosed: to get the liquid cash value of the house. ... Actually, it would be a benefit to you for the house to be foreclosed upon, because upon the foreclosure sale, you would gain access to the whatever money remains after the bank takes it cut. That in effect would net you the entire value of the house in pure liquid cash.
From my understanding he can get the house back up to six months after auction, but what happens if the house auctions for say, 800k? Does he need to cough up 800k to save it, or just the original amount owed plus fees?
For what it’s worth I don’t think it’ll get auctioned, I’m just curious.
This may come as a surprise to some (and especially to Nick), but yes, if unexpected delays in the whorehouse closing push him past the point of no return where he can't just reinstate the mortgage by paying a measly ~$10K-$30K arrearage, then what
he mommy and daddy would have to cough up in a redemption is not limited to the ~$307K debt owed and could be inflated by public bidders, some of whom are savvy enough to collusively drive up the price for the sole purpose of making a redemption more difficult:
580.23 REDEMPTION BY MORTGAGOR; AFFIDAVIT OF NONAGRICULTURAL USE; WAIVER.
§ Subdivision 1. Six-month redemption period. (a) ...the mortgagor, the mortgagor's personal representatives or assigns, within six months after such sale, ... may redeem such lands, as hereinafter provided,
by paying the sum of money for which the same were sold, with interest..., together with any
further sums which may be payable as provided in sections 582.03 and 582.031.
Minn. Stat. § 580.23
The reason it may be surprising is because one could understandably expect that the redemption could use funds derived from the Robert Lord trust's substantive right to receive any portion of the bid amount in excess of the mortgage debt plus costs:
580.10 SURPLUS.
...if, after sale of any real estate, made as herein prescribed, there remains in the hands of the officer making the sale any surplus money, after satisfying the mortgage, with interest, taxes paid, and costs of sale,
the surplus shall be paid over by such officer, on demand, to the mortgagor, the mortgagor's legal representatives or assigns.
Minn. Stat. § 580.10
At first blush, it would appear that this means Nick could extract the surplus funds more or less in real-time, and recycle them into a tender of redemption. So in your example, suppose the bank's opening credit bid on February 5th is $315K inclusive of its then-interest and costs, and a few local investors then get into a bidding war ending in a $800K final bid. Nick might be under the mistaken impression that he could then just walk into the Sheriff's lobby the following week, be handed a check for the $485K surplus, deposit that into his checking account, beg mommy and daddy for "only" $315K-335K, and combine the two to walk in a ~$800K-820K redemption (inclusive of post-sale interest and costs) anytime before the August 5th deadline. Unfortunately for him, the process is not quite so simple for two reasons.
First, courts since the horse-and-buggy days have routinely interpreted the term "assigns" in that statute to include any and all manner of junior encumbrancers who may exist at the moment of the auction (e.g. the Monty judgment, IRS/MNDOR liens that could spring up at any moment, any additional security that Randazza may have insisted on or may soon insist on, types of liens that don't even need to be recorded to attach such as mechanic's liens, etc.), so from the sheriff's perspective Nick wouldn't
presumptively have the only seat at the table and there would need to be some potentially slow internal process or even slower adjudicative process for determination of whether he's
solely entitled to the surplus funds or not:
When property is sold under the execution of the power of sale, the
proceeds of the sale stand in place of the property sold.
Carlson v. Headline, 100 Minn. 327, 330, 111 N.W. 259, 260 (1907);
see Ness v. Davidson, 49 Minn. 469, 477, 52 N.W. 46, 47 (1892).
Liens transfer from the security sold and attach to the proceeds, out of which the secured debts must be paid. Hage v. Drake Marble Tile Co., 145 Minn. 113, 115, 176 N.W. 192, 193 (1920). We have stated that "[t]he rights of the parties, as they before existed, are not transposed by the sale, and
the court will apply the fund in accordance with their rights as they existed in respect to the land." Brown v. Crookston Agric. Ass'n, 34 Minn. 545, 546, 26 N.W. 907, 907 (1886);
see, e.g.,
Finlayson, 47 Minn. at 79, 49 N.W. at 400.
Shaw Acquisition Co. v. Bank of Elk River, 639 N.W.2d 873, 877 (Minn. 2002)
Second, as comforting as the terms "shall" and "on demand" in the statute may seem, as a practical matter sheriff's offices can be very skittish about forking over surplus funds willy-nilly without absolute certainty that no junior encumbrancers exist with a superior claim to the owner's, because they run the risk of direct liability for even honest mistakes failing to disburse to the correct interestholders, plus a potentially huge 20% statutory penalty plus costs:
387.06 FAILURE TO PAY OVER MONEY.
If any sheriff or deputy... shall
fail to settle with and pay over to the person entitled thereto any money the sheriff may have collected or received by virtue of any... process... or in any other way by virtue of office, such... person may
proceed against such sheriff or deputy in a summary manner before the district court, by an order to show cause why the sheriff should not pay over such money; and, upon the hearing thereof, the court may order such sheriff or deputy to
pay to such... person the amount found due, with 20 percent thereon as damages for such failure,
together with the costs of the proceedings; and, upon failure to comply with such order, such sheriff or deputy may be committed to jail as for a contempt.
Minn. Stat. § 387.06
They have become especially paranoid about this risk in recent years after watching a colleague get burned for such an honest mistake at tremendous expense, which naturally made its way into powerpoint presentations as a cautionary tale at sheriff's association civil process training junkets ever since:
In a scramble to cover their ass from this exposure, sheriffs' offices oftentimes just err on the side of an overabundance of caution by depositing the funds with the district court and leaving it up to any actual or even hypothetical competing interestholders to beg a judge to fork over the money, especially when even an apparent sole interestholder's demands to the sheriff get uncomfortably pushy in the way that Nick "me me me" Rekieta's addiction to instant gratification likely would:
Needless to say the wheels of justice grind slowly, so if the sheriff's office were to tie up the surplus proceeds with a district court deposit even as early as February, it's entirely possible that the August 5th deadline could come and go before Nick could get a disbursement before the August 5th deadline comes and goes.
TLDR: Nick would have to be Nick-tier retarded to willingly pass the point of no return on February 5th due to reliance on any redemption for any inflated bid amount being able to use his surplus proceeds that could end up tied up in a Kafkaesque red tape nightmare. If he willingly takes that risk, he'd better be damned sure that mommy and daddy will bail him out absolutely no matter what.