Negotiating a specialized deal with a major bank

[Greg K.]

I know it's quite common that when the owner of a property gives you full permission to negotiate on their behalf, you might find yourself in contact with some person, who is in turn, representing the interests of a major international bank, that holds a significant amount of interest in the property's equity via a mortgage(in this case a securitized, sub-prime, sold and re-sold many times mortgage).

It would be very common in this situation to arrange something like a Short Sale.  However that particular type of arrangement was not suitable, yet the bank is quite keen on liquidating their asset.  So they said to me:   "Give us an offer.  Make a proposal"

It seems as though they are willing to concede anything imaginable, but I have to draft the proposal.  No problem I will.

Question:  When sending a preliminary proposal over email, summarized in layspeak, would adding the standard 'This email in no way shall be interpreted as a contract to.....etc" be sufficient protection from even the most advanced legal 'gotyas' that might get thrown at me?   Has anyone ever experienced anything damaging that survived such a clause?  The party negotiating for the bank is an attorney and is currently in the midst of some rather novel litigation against the property owner.

I already plan to have an attorney that specializes in this field, licensed in my state look over the proposal before i formally offer it.

Can anyone recommend a resource for reading up on best practices and/or precedent for such situations?  Be it speaking with the other side over the phone, via email, in front of a judge, or in lieu of in front of a judge?  (all of these scenarios are plausible in the near future).

Thanks!

[Wayne Brooks]

@Greg K. So,

The property actually went to the foreclosure sale/auction?

A third party bought it, or the bank got it back?

My assumption is....the bank realized something was wrong with the foreclosure, usually this involves failing to notify a junior lien holder or an error in the legal description, etc. I have many sales here rescinded due to such errors. 

The intent of “reinstating the mortgage”, which was “extinguished by law” (no release/cancelation of the mtg needs to be recorded) is so that the bank can start the foreclosure over, correctly this time. 

I’m not sure what federal statute you are referring to, but often people try to apply some federal statute that doesn’t actually apply to a foreclosure case. 

If no deed/transfer was recorded from the sale, the plaintiff likely discovered their error and had the court halt the recording....in order that they could rescind, then regime the foreclosure. 

If they do rescind the sale, then the original borrower will still be the owner.