San Diego Housing Bubble News and Analysis

Well, I don't want to go to jail either, but I would be very happy if:

(a) borrowers who can afford to pay off some negative equity that is subject to a recourse loan, but trying to avoid it, were exposed as the untrustworthy cheats of their creditors that they are, and

(b) lenders who are not even making a good-faith effort to recover on recourse loans, and who are planning to participate in a later bailout, were also exposed as the untrustworthy cheats of the taxpayers that they are.

It wouldn't surprise me if, whatever legal grounds the executive is now claiming, the real reason he is trying to silence ocrenter is because his unnecessary failure to pay his debts has been exposed to all.

Patient renter in OC

Not a lawyer either, but studied a little law in school. Pretty sure the only difference being a public figure or not makes in a libel case is that if you are a public official, you have to prove some factual statement was not only false, but that the publisher knew it was false and published it anyway.
Public figure or not, I don't think you can win a libel case unless you prove a statement was false. Opinions cannot be proven false.
If anyone has extra info on this topic I'd love to hear it.

I guess the real lesson to be learned here is that folks that f* up their finances comes in all shapes, colors, and sizes. Good lord. 

selfportrait

----- Sour grapes for everyone!

If I remember correctly, the borrower in question is employed in the financial services business. I can see why negative opinions about his financial acumen and his ethical conduct might cut into his employment.

Connecting address and tax records gave a name

It is not clear to me if OCRenter published the name or a reader could infer it from his own research. If OCR didn't publish the name, I think he is on pretty strong ground. If he did, that was probably not a good idea. His story would be equally interesting if he just said "Joe Smith " (or even F*D Borrower!) without revealing buyer's identity.

JWM in SD

Pretty sure he mentioned the name. I agree, it probably would have been wiser to not name the person, but I don't what the legal ramifications are as a result if any.

What I don't get is usually everything is in public records, so anyone can do a search and piece things together. I'm not getting folks who what to sue over a blog. Some people are just too sensitive these days. PC this, pc that. Ssssh. Still, i guess it's best practice to be anonymous.

If folks really want to be anonymous, there's way to register with the county so that some of your records are so easily searchable.  

Man, maybe I need to change my handle. I might be offending vertically/horizontally challenged or lazy or unionized people.

selfportrait

----- Sour grapes for everyone!

Hello!! Hello!!

Sounds like a hollow threat made by an irked jerk.
YOu can practically hear the echo when look within to see
if there is any substance...

ciao for now...

nope, no names were mentioned on the original post nor by myself in the commentary. I tried to remove a post containing the name of the defaultee, but couldn't keep up.

I didn't have time to keep removing the "name" once readers started digging things up.

the defaultee was the CIO of a company that specialized in mortgage fraud fighting software. then became the CEO of a company that specialize in electronic mortgage and loan documents.

If folks really want to be anonymous, there's way to register with the county so that some of your records are so easily searchable.

this guy made himself very searchable by google, you get his entire bio and resume and hobbies within seconds. that's why my readers had a field day on this one.

If you didn't publish the name and someone else researched and published it, I just can't imagine you being in legal jeopardy for any reason. But they can always harass and threaten you, completely illegally!

I remember looking at that post and OC didn't post a name. He did say he was a CIO, then CEO, not even saying what company. He did not disclose that info. Anyone "really" interested could go to county and look it up, if it mattered and you wanted to bother.

I think it's BS. Shame on them for stooping so low. Public information and NOT making any false statements. Call the ACLU.

Here you go for more titilating information.

http://www.socalbubble.com/2008/02/speec...

I don't believe there's anything wrong with publishing this public information as long as there's no potentially libelous comments. Rich can delete this post if he wishes. Up to him.

14160 BRYCE POINT, Poway, CA 92064
4 beds, 5.5 baths, 7,716 sq ft on 1.3 acres
05/2005: purchased for $3.42 million
06/2007: listed on MLS for $3.295 million
Price Reduced: 08/23/07 — $3,295,000 to $2,995,000
Price Reduced: 01/08/08 — $2,995,000 to $2,895,000
Price Increased: 01/10/08 — $2,895,000 to $2,995,000
Price Reduced: 01/10/08 — $2,995,000 to $2,895,000
02/04/2008: NOD filed.
02/21/2008: 247 days on market and over $500,000 discount from almost 3 years ago and still no sale.

libelous

li·bel·ous

adjective
Definition:
false and harmful to somebody's reputation: constituting or containing a false published statement that damages somebody's reputation

------
It appears the guy can't pay his property taxes. It's doubtful that he has the resources to pursue a case all the way to trial.

I wonder if the providers of fraud management solutions are being sued left and right by their clients for non-performance. And with mortgage companies folding every day, I'm sure software companies are losing a lot of support related income, not to mention sales revenue.

http://www.sdlookup.com/Property-AEC1C77...

There should be an element of public shame to not fullfilling your financial obligations, or has that concept gone the way of dodo as well?

I think there's some irony to all of this. I have no sympathy at all.

Here you have a guy who was an executive at Credco trying to squash public information. He's made a living cross-referencing, aggregating and peddling public info on American consumers, often times with little regard for their privacy.

Credco is the mother of public info value-added providers. That's how they built their business. They aggregate credit report information as well as public records for lenders.

This guy's house informaion is available to any title officer. If you want, you can call up any title company's customer service and ask for a report on a house (or your realtor can get it for you). They'll be happy to provide you the report, free of charge, with the hope you'll use them during the next transaction.

patientlywaiting, I think your instincts are on target.

I know a guy in a very similar business as The Person Whose Name Shall Not Be Uttered ("TPWNSNBU") and his company (the guy's) is absolutely sucking wind. They might shut down this year. And they've been in the business for over 20 years.

Also, it appears that TPWNSNBU was a partner with a group of investors that purchased the company (the "Company") from its previous owners in late 2004. (There doesn't appear to be any high and mighty private equity firm behind the Company - probably just a group of normal investors.) Now, where do you think valuations for mortgage-related companies were in late-2004? Yup, pretty high. Now, how does business compare today with late-2004 for most of these companies? Yup, pretty shitty. Now, what are valuations like today for such mortgage-related companies? Yup, pretty shitty. You see where I'm going with this?

This whole situation smacks of petty desperation.

IANAL (I am not a lawyer) but it is possible to sue for false light or invasion of privacy, even if the published facts are true. I've often wondered how long it would take for FBs to start suing bubble bloggers.

Ironically, as a CEO, "He Who Must Not Be Named" could be deemed a public figure and has weaker grounds for a lawsuit than the average person.

invasion of privacy is if someone go digging for personal information that is confidential (ie personal medical information or bank statement) and broadcast it.

notice of default and listing of your home on the MLS are public in nature. first one is publically announced by the county, second you are actively searching in public for someone to buy your house.

this is by no means not by a long stretch invasion of privacy.

Lawyers understand the deep pocket principle.

I wouldn't mess with the bloggers if I were him. Information can spread like wild fire and get replicated to hundreds of websites. Trying to shut all of them down would employ a whole team of lawyers several years. Even then, the information would still be searchable.

I love poetic justice stories.

The info base industry has been lobbying for years that there's no privacy in public information. Funny that is comes back to bite one of their own insiders. If it weren't for services such as foreclosure.com few would know that there was an NOD on that house.

OCrenter, thanks for the blog and continue the good work for transparency in the industry. You're awesome!

Maybe countersue for filing a frivilous lawsuit.

Why work to pay for your home when you can sue someone instead?

Long time reader, rare poster, just giving my 2 cents, not expressing my legal opinion or giving any type of legal advice but, anyone can sue anybody for a number of reasons, doesn't mean they are going to be successful in their lawsuit. I can foresee no viable lawsuit stemming from this. As far as libel, slander, false light and invasion of privacy are concerned they are some of the more difficult cases to win.

The common element with three of the four is the info has to be in fact false.

How do you define "public figure?" Isn't the CEO, by default a public figure in that the CEO is the face of a corporation to the public?

Rebecca Hearst was not a public figure until CNBC reported that her $22 million beach front estate in FL went into foreclosure this morning! (Source: Maria Bartiromo, CNBC - do don't sue me!)

From expertlaw.com:

The concept of the "public figure" is broader than celebrities and politicians. A person can become an "involuntary public figure" as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention. For example, people accused of high profile crimes may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established, on the basis that the notoriety associated with the case and the accusations against them turned them into involuntary public figures.

A person can also become a "limited public figure" by engaging in actions which generate publicity within a narrow area of interest. For example, a woman named Terry Rakolta was offended by the Fox Television show, Married With Children, and wrote letters to the show's advertisers to try to get them to stop their support for the show. As a result of her actions, Ms. Rakolta became the target of jokes in a wide variety of settings. As these jokes remained within the confines of her public conduct, typically making fun of her as being prudish or censorious, they were protected by Ms. Rakolta's status as a "limited public figure".

I think folks if your read ocrenters what I quickly latched onto was the sheer hassle if one gets entangled into a lawsuit, regardless of how frivolous it is. Time is money, and if that other guy really wants to be a prick and spend time trying to go after people (even if it most likely won't stand up in court), being on the receiving end, you'll have to spend some time in court, legal fees, etc. Even if you win your case, what do you really win? There's no monetary compensation for you in winning your defense...So while I think ocrenter's blog is great, I can understand the pragmatism in what was done. Besides, that guy has brought so much attention onto himself, that this story has spread on the internet beyond the initial blog. Ironic isn't it?

I can sort of relate to these lawsuits, because if you've even been involved in a minor fenderbender where the other guy/gal just wants blood, you'll realize what a P.I.T.A. people in CA can be. Sometimes, even if the person clearly was at fault for causing the accident, you'll inevitability run into some prick that not only later refuses to acknowledge he/she was the cause, but actually tries to lie and turn the story around and blame you for it. That's why, I always travel with a handle digital camera and video camera. You never know when it will be handy.

 
I have to say though. Some people need to chill on being so defensive about "reputation" from what is said in a blog. I guess working in corporate america for so long, I can't count how many times people at work at backstabed others or me, or tried to question my credibility, etc. Do i have grounds to sue? I think not.

selfportrait

----- Sour grapes for everyone!

Ocrenter: Have you considered counter-suing the guy for time/income loss (opportunity cost)? Just curious.

masayako, no, that's not in the works.

FLU was right, this becomes a purely pragmatic decision. when you weight a blog that is purely hobby vs. family, life, job, money and time, even the strongest advocates on the blog for reposting and taking on Mr. Douche would likely make the same pragmatic decision. this is why the post "speech is not free," most of us don't have the time or resources when faced with something like this to defend our 1st amendment right.

All you would win is atty's fees OCR. The shame of the legal system is if you get sued, no matter how incredulous, you are going to be out some money. It's an unfortunate situation to say the least. I'm sure this guy continues to monitor your posts so if he is or if his atty is all I can say is I hope they aren't dumb*sses and pr*cks and waste valuable court and taxpayer resources to make a frivilous lawsuit. Good luck OCR.