toneart
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4901
Registered: 7-23-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: Skeptical
|
|
Fedeicomisos
Does anyone know what would happen to your property if you just stopped paying the bank on your Fedeicomiso? What are the legal steps?
Would the bank repossess?
Would the government take it over?
If you still occupied your house, how would they get you out and what would become of your house that you built?
Could you claim squatter's rights?
If they auctioned it off would you be entitled to any proceeds?
Your opinions are OK here, but if anybody really knows the legal answers, I would like to know. (I have a friend who is think of doing this).
|
|
|
DENNIS
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 29510
Registered: 9-2-2006
Location: Punta Banda
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by toneart
Would the bank repossess?
|
Probably not the procedure since they already hold the Pink Slip.
|
|
|
oldlady
Banned
Posts: 1714
Registered: 10-31-2005
Location: BCS
Member Is Offline
|
|
Agree with Dennis, bank owns it. Can't see where government has role to take it over. Once the contract (trust) is broken, solely up to the bank
what they do with it. Since Fides aren't citizens, doubt they have Mexican sqautter's rights.
|
|
|
toneart
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4901
Registered: 7-23-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: Skeptical
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by oldlady
Agree with Dennis, bank owns it. Can't see where government has role to take it over. Once the contract (trust) is broken, solely up to the bank
what they do with it. Since Fides aren't citizens, doubt they have Mexican sqautter's rights. |
The bank holds the title in trust in the Fiedo's name on behalf of the Mexican Government, which owns the land.
|
|
|
DianaT
Select Nomad
Posts: 10020
Registered: 12-17-2004
Member Is Offline
|
|
I do not remember where, but one thing that I read said that if one defaults, they report to US credit agencies is one defaults---definitely not first
hand information, but maybe something to check out and consider.
|
|
|
oladulce
Super Nomad
Posts: 1625
Registered: 5-30-2005
Location: bcs
Member Is Offline
|
|
I guess it depends if they ever want to sell their property? I'm sure the bank won't sign off on a sale until the annual fees plus penalties for
late payments have been collected. They can either pay them now, or pay them more later when they need the bank's blessing to sell .
|
|
|
irenemm
Senior Nomad
Posts: 623
Registered: 7-16-2009
Location: vicente guerrero, baja
Member Is Offline
Mood: relaxed
|
|
I am pretty sure if you owe money they can and will embargo the property.
If the property is your's why would you stop paying your Fedeicomiso?
If they auction it they must put that information in the paper 3 times in 3 different papers as public notice. Remember that is in Spanish and if you
do not read the paper daily you could lose your property. That will be the only notice.
He should check with a Lawyer to be sure.
|
|
|
k-rico
Super Nomad
Posts: 2079
Registered: 7-10-2008
Location: Playas de Tijuana
Member Is Offline
|
|
I just spent some time searching for answers and found none. I asked a similar question a while back: "What happens to abandoned fidei property?"
It may be a mistake to compare fideis to what is commonally understood to be a trust, but typically there is a trustor, trustee, and the
beneficiary(ies).
I would think that if the terms of the trust agreement aren't honored by the beneficiary, the trustee would return the property to the trustor. I was
told at the meeting when I closed my deal at the notaries office that the "seller" was the trustor.
One nomad said that the seller signs away all of his/her rights so that leaves a void, no trustor, that perhaps the Government fills as tomeart
suggested.
Unfortunately this is my first experience with trusts so I don't really know.
???????
[Edited on 5-16-2010 by k-rico]
|
|
|
MitchMan
Super Nomad
Posts: 1856
Registered: 3-9-2009
Member Is Offline
|
|
Good, no, very good question, Toneheart. I am going to get the answer when I go to La Paz in a few weeks.
When I got my Fide, I kind of had the same questions you do as the Fide isn't exactly structured the way our American trusts are. I was satiated when
I asked the questions by the "effective" result of the Fide providing me (ostendsibly, that is) with all the rights of ownership (similar to the
position of a combo trustor/beneficiary in an American trust with the corpus of the trust being real estate). American trusts stipulate that the
trustor owns the trust and has the ability to change the trustee and beneficiary and the type of authority/benefits thereto to an extent. The trustee
is the holder of the title in name only in a type of agency wherein the trustee has the signatory rights/duties and some decision making powers
consistent with what the trustor wants as reflected in the trust document. Also, the Trustee has a fiduciary responsibility to the trustor and the
beneficiary to conduct its obligations/duties in good faith consistent with the well being of the trustor and beneficiary and care of trust assets.
The trouble with the Mexican Fide is that I don't get the same sense of the "fiduciary" responsibilities of the bank trustee to the "so called"
trustor/beneficiary, i.e., me. I get the sense that the trustee has some authorities/responsibilities, maybe even fiduciary obligations to
stipulations of the government. This is just a guess at this time.
After all, there is a government agenda in limiting ownership of the restricted Mexican property to foreigners instead of allowing foreigners fee
simple ownership, and I do not think that includes allowing restricted property to flow to the hands of a private entity such as a bank that never
paid for the property in the first place. The idea behind the Fide is for an additional level of Mexican security of coastal/border property...
nothing to do with prospective bank ownership. I always assumed that the whole purpose of the trust was for the Mexican federal government to have a
mechanism bywhich they could quickly, easily and legally confiscate this trust property when they wanted to, ostensibly for national security reasons.
Just a guess at this point. But, I will do my best to get some real info on this.
Based on the stuff I stated above, I do not think that unpaid trustee fees results in losing trust property to the bank. Logically, as the trustee
bank accumulates this receivable of unpaid trustee fees against the trust assets, the bank/trustee becomes a legitimate lien holder against the
property. The danger to the trustor/beneficiary is if Mexican law allows the trustee/bank to auction off the property to get its fees. The question
is, at what point or size of unpaid legal fees can permit the bank/trustee to auction off the property. If the auction ever accurs, I think that an
insider will get the property for a song. Admittedly, all conjecture at this point.
[Edited on 5-16-2010 by MitchMan]
|
|
|
The Gull
Super Nomad
Posts: 2223
Registered: 8-28-2003
Location: Rancho Descanso, BCN
Member Is Offline
Mood: High
|
|
Known Condition
The Bank and the government are very patient. They will wait for the payment until the Fide-holder wants to transfer the property. If the property
owner is not paying because they are no longer alive and did not leave a beneficiary, then things get a little harder to resolve.
If a claim can be made on the property, like a lawsuit in the US resulting in an obligation to pay being brought over the border and properly noticed
or a local obligation to pay being properly noticed, then the Bank gets paid when the court awards the property to the new owner.
The speed of something like this can take five or more years from when the debt collection process starts.
In Mexico it is common practice that a debt can only be enforced for five years, penalties included. While not a Mexican attorney, I have witnessed
dozens of settlements which take the obligation back only five years and even then it is peso based and negotiated. This is true with property taxes
as well.
There are many trust payments not paid in the country...Mexico and the banks just wait because they have time on their side and the cost to litigate
is normally not worth the effort. Cagey Americans allow the payments to lapse and then negotiate the five year deal after ten years. I knew of one
owner doing that three times.
�I won\'t insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe what you just said.� William F. Buckley, Jr.
|
|
|
toneart
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4901
Registered: 7-23-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: Skeptical
|
|
I think that all of you are giving good answers.
For sure, the property couldn't be transferable in a sale because it would be encumbered. If the owner didn't care about that, as Gull says, the
eviction process could and probably would stall for years.
Because a fellow homeowner asked me, it got me to wonder. My interest is just a hypothetical; a mental exercise.
Of course it would render the property pretty worthless to the present owner other than extending many years of enjoyment in the property with fewer
expenses. What would be the steps in the process of eventual eviction? Probably slow to none. Until death do we part? (Seems to be a rocky marriage at
best).
This may be the least of the potential potholes that are coming with the new immigration laws that remove FM3s. That could range from inconvenience or
larger hassle factor, to outright cause to forfeiture if you cannot get there to renew one year, and without the protection and rights the FM3
provided. Ejidos are always lurking and become emboldened if they perceive an opening to claim and seize. Then there are natural disasters. 
|
|
|
MitchMan
Super Nomad
Posts: 1856
Registered: 3-9-2009
Member Is Offline
|
|
Toneheart, are you saying that the new immigration laws are eliminating the FM3? I thought it was just changing some of the administrative aspects of
obtaining the FM3, not the character or existance of the FM3. Am I wrong and the FM3 is being eliminated? Are those of us that have an FM3 now are
going to be getting some other Visa althogether? What about the FM3 holders that have it because they own a Mexican Corp?
[Edited on 5-17-2010 by MitchMan]
|
|
|
toneart
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4901
Registered: 7-23-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: Skeptical
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by MitchMan
Toneheart, are you saying that the new immigration laws are eliminating the FM3? I thought it was just changing some of the administrative aspects of
obtaining the FM3, not the character or existance of the FM3. Am I wrong and the FM3 is being eliminated? Are those of us that have an FM3 now are
going to be getting some other Visa althogether? What about the FM3 holders that have it because they own a Mexican Corp?
[Edited on 5-17-2010 by MitchMan] |
There is nothing certain about this. I did pick up an inference in the New Immigration Law thread. The Mexican government seems to be
thinking their way through the changes and things are bound to evolve...for better or for worse. (?)
What you find out in La Paz will be interesting. Please post what you learn.
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
