- This topic has 175 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 10 months ago by
CA renter.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 10, 2011 at 9:56 PM #652059January 10, 2011 at 9:58 PM #650955
bearishgurl
ParticipantIn trustee-sale speak, “postponement” is now a dirty word!
January 10, 2011 at 9:58 PM #651025ParticipantIn trustee-sale speak, “postponement” is now a dirty word!
January 10, 2011 at 9:58 PM #651606ParticipantIn trustee-sale speak, “postponement” is now a dirty word!
January 10, 2011 at 9:58 PM #651742ParticipantIn trustee-sale speak, “postponement” is now a dirty word!
January 10, 2011 at 9:58 PM #652069ParticipantIn trustee-sale speak, “postponement” is now a dirty word!
January 11, 2011 at 1:48 AM #651028CA renter
Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=Diego Mamani]
Take out Freddie, Fannie, and the FHA, and prices would really drop to reality! Painful? Yes, but I’d rather live in a painful reality than in a fantasy world that I know is unsustainable. Gov’t intervention, and now the courts meddling, are simply prolonging the fantasy, meaning, the pain will be even worse when the chickens come home to roost.[/quote]Explain please. How are the GSE’s keeping the prices up now as compared to in the past?[/quote]
If not for the govt-backed mortgage market, there would be no mortgage market, at least not at these interest rates, and not with down payments less than 20%, and even that’s optimistic, IMHO.
—————–Government-related entities backed 96.5% of all home loans during the first quarter, up from 90% in 2009, according to Inside Mortgage Finance. The increase was driven by a jump in the share of loans backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-owned housing-finance giants.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704093204575216530213580458.html
January 11, 2011 at 1:48 AM #651097Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=Diego Mamani]
Take out Freddie, Fannie, and the FHA, and prices would really drop to reality! Painful? Yes, but I’d rather live in a painful reality than in a fantasy world that I know is unsustainable. Gov’t intervention, and now the courts meddling, are simply prolonging the fantasy, meaning, the pain will be even worse when the chickens come home to roost.[/quote]Explain please. How are the GSE’s keeping the prices up now as compared to in the past?[/quote]
If not for the govt-backed mortgage market, there would be no mortgage market, at least not at these interest rates, and not with down payments less than 20%, and even that’s optimistic, IMHO.
—————–Government-related entities backed 96.5% of all home loans during the first quarter, up from 90% in 2009, according to Inside Mortgage Finance. The increase was driven by a jump in the share of loans backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-owned housing-finance giants.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704093204575216530213580458.html
January 11, 2011 at 1:48 AM #651678Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=Diego Mamani]
Take out Freddie, Fannie, and the FHA, and prices would really drop to reality! Painful? Yes, but I’d rather live in a painful reality than in a fantasy world that I know is unsustainable. Gov’t intervention, and now the courts meddling, are simply prolonging the fantasy, meaning, the pain will be even worse when the chickens come home to roost.[/quote]Explain please. How are the GSE’s keeping the prices up now as compared to in the past?[/quote]
If not for the govt-backed mortgage market, there would be no mortgage market, at least not at these interest rates, and not with down payments less than 20%, and even that’s optimistic, IMHO.
—————–Government-related entities backed 96.5% of all home loans during the first quarter, up from 90% in 2009, according to Inside Mortgage Finance. The increase was driven by a jump in the share of loans backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-owned housing-finance giants.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704093204575216530213580458.html
January 11, 2011 at 1:48 AM #651814Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=Diego Mamani]
Take out Freddie, Fannie, and the FHA, and prices would really drop to reality! Painful? Yes, but I’d rather live in a painful reality than in a fantasy world that I know is unsustainable. Gov’t intervention, and now the courts meddling, are simply prolonging the fantasy, meaning, the pain will be even worse when the chickens come home to roost.[/quote]Explain please. How are the GSE’s keeping the prices up now as compared to in the past?[/quote]
If not for the govt-backed mortgage market, there would be no mortgage market, at least not at these interest rates, and not with down payments less than 20%, and even that’s optimistic, IMHO.
—————–Government-related entities backed 96.5% of all home loans during the first quarter, up from 90% in 2009, according to Inside Mortgage Finance. The increase was driven by a jump in the share of loans backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-owned housing-finance giants.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704093204575216530213580458.html
January 11, 2011 at 1:48 AM #652142Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=Diego Mamani]
Take out Freddie, Fannie, and the FHA, and prices would really drop to reality! Painful? Yes, but I’d rather live in a painful reality than in a fantasy world that I know is unsustainable. Gov’t intervention, and now the courts meddling, are simply prolonging the fantasy, meaning, the pain will be even worse when the chickens come home to roost.[/quote]Explain please. How are the GSE’s keeping the prices up now as compared to in the past?[/quote]
If not for the govt-backed mortgage market, there would be no mortgage market, at least not at these interest rates, and not with down payments less than 20%, and even that’s optimistic, IMHO.
—————–Government-related entities backed 96.5% of all home loans during the first quarter, up from 90% in 2009, according to Inside Mortgage Finance. The increase was driven by a jump in the share of loans backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-owned housing-finance giants.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704093204575216530213580458.html
January 12, 2011 at 9:58 PM #652583ParticipantThis just in today. Posted 1:45 PM 01/12/11
Why a New York Judge is Throwing Out Foreclosure Cases
On Oct. 20, New York state courts cracked down on robo-signing by ordering attorneys for foreclosing banks to swear that they had personally confirmed that the documents they are submitting are true and accurate. So far, attorneys haven’t been able to file many of the necessary affirmations.
Now, Judge Arthur M. Schack of Brooklyn has taken things a step further. Since the banks in cases before him have yet to begin complying with the new court rules, he has started throwing out foreclosure cases. But the question isn’t whether the banks will now choose to start complying with the rule: The question is: Will they even be able to?
The first case Judge Schack tossed was Citibank, N.A. v. Murillo, which he dismissed with prejudice on Jan. 7, as the blog StopForeclosureFraud reported. The attorneys for Citibank (C) in that case were from the Steven Baum law firm, a foreclosure mill that has been sanctioned for its involvement in frivolous cases. If the Baum firm couldn’t file a timely affirmation in the Murillo case, how many of its other cases will it be able to file affirmations in?
Schack tells me he’s thrown out a dozen or so more since Murillo, and he says until the banks and their attorneys start obeying his order to comply with the new affirmation rule, he’ll keep tossing cases. A court order is a court order, Schack explains. “They can’t just ignore it. In Murillo, they asked for more time, but they didn’t give me a reason. It doesn’t matter who you are, you have to obey court orders.”
By dismissing these cases “with prejudice,” Schack is forcing the banks to start the whole process over if they wish to foreclose. Given how long foreclosures take to complete, that alone is a significant penalty. Moreover, if the banks do refile any of these cases, they will be reassigned to him. “We don’t have judge-shopping in Brooklyn,” Schack explains. So the banks will have to get their papers in order before they refile.
See full article from DailyFinance: http://srph.it/es6ugp
What a mess, lol. Very sad. Nobody’s gonna get very far here. These NY foreclosures are going to take forever because these plaintiff banks don’t seem to be able to “affirm” their way out of a brown paper bag.
January 12, 2011 at 9:58 PM #652648ParticipantThis just in today. Posted 1:45 PM 01/12/11
Why a New York Judge is Throwing Out Foreclosure Cases
On Oct. 20, New York state courts cracked down on robo-signing by ordering attorneys for foreclosing banks to swear that they had personally confirmed that the documents they are submitting are true and accurate. So far, attorneys haven’t been able to file many of the necessary affirmations.
Now, Judge Arthur M. Schack of Brooklyn has taken things a step further. Since the banks in cases before him have yet to begin complying with the new court rules, he has started throwing out foreclosure cases. But the question isn’t whether the banks will now choose to start complying with the rule: The question is: Will they even be able to?
The first case Judge Schack tossed was Citibank, N.A. v. Murillo, which he dismissed with prejudice on Jan. 7, as the blog StopForeclosureFraud reported. The attorneys for Citibank (C) in that case were from the Steven Baum law firm, a foreclosure mill that has been sanctioned for its involvement in frivolous cases. If the Baum firm couldn’t file a timely affirmation in the Murillo case, how many of its other cases will it be able to file affirmations in?
Schack tells me he’s thrown out a dozen or so more since Murillo, and he says until the banks and their attorneys start obeying his order to comply with the new affirmation rule, he’ll keep tossing cases. A court order is a court order, Schack explains. “They can’t just ignore it. In Murillo, they asked for more time, but they didn’t give me a reason. It doesn’t matter who you are, you have to obey court orders.”
By dismissing these cases “with prejudice,” Schack is forcing the banks to start the whole process over if they wish to foreclose. Given how long foreclosures take to complete, that alone is a significant penalty. Moreover, if the banks do refile any of these cases, they will be reassigned to him. “We don’t have judge-shopping in Brooklyn,” Schack explains. So the banks will have to get their papers in order before they refile.
See full article from DailyFinance: http://srph.it/es6ugp
What a mess, lol. Very sad. Nobody’s gonna get very far here. These NY foreclosures are going to take forever because these plaintiff banks don’t seem to be able to “affirm” their way out of a brown paper bag.
January 12, 2011 at 9:58 PM #653238ParticipantThis just in today. Posted 1:45 PM 01/12/11
Why a New York Judge is Throwing Out Foreclosure Cases
On Oct. 20, New York state courts cracked down on robo-signing by ordering attorneys for foreclosing banks to swear that they had personally confirmed that the documents they are submitting are true and accurate. So far, attorneys haven’t been able to file many of the necessary affirmations.
Now, Judge Arthur M. Schack of Brooklyn has taken things a step further. Since the banks in cases before him have yet to begin complying with the new court rules, he has started throwing out foreclosure cases. But the question isn’t whether the banks will now choose to start complying with the rule: The question is: Will they even be able to?
The first case Judge Schack tossed was Citibank, N.A. v. Murillo, which he dismissed with prejudice on Jan. 7, as the blog StopForeclosureFraud reported. The attorneys for Citibank (C) in that case were from the Steven Baum law firm, a foreclosure mill that has been sanctioned for its involvement in frivolous cases. If the Baum firm couldn’t file a timely affirmation in the Murillo case, how many of its other cases will it be able to file affirmations in?
Schack tells me he’s thrown out a dozen or so more since Murillo, and he says until the banks and their attorneys start obeying his order to comply with the new affirmation rule, he’ll keep tossing cases. A court order is a court order, Schack explains. “They can’t just ignore it. In Murillo, they asked for more time, but they didn’t give me a reason. It doesn’t matter who you are, you have to obey court orders.”
By dismissing these cases “with prejudice,” Schack is forcing the banks to start the whole process over if they wish to foreclose. Given how long foreclosures take to complete, that alone is a significant penalty. Moreover, if the banks do refile any of these cases, they will be reassigned to him. “We don’t have judge-shopping in Brooklyn,” Schack explains. So the banks will have to get their papers in order before they refile.
See full article from DailyFinance: http://srph.it/es6ugp
What a mess, lol. Very sad. Nobody’s gonna get very far here. These NY foreclosures are going to take forever because these plaintiff banks don’t seem to be able to “affirm” their way out of a brown paper bag.
January 12, 2011 at 9:58 PM #653376ParticipantThis just in today. Posted 1:45 PM 01/12/11
Why a New York Judge is Throwing Out Foreclosure Cases
On Oct. 20, New York state courts cracked down on robo-signing by ordering attorneys for foreclosing banks to swear that they had personally confirmed that the documents they are submitting are true and accurate. So far, attorneys haven’t been able to file many of the necessary affirmations.
Now, Judge Arthur M. Schack of Brooklyn has taken things a step further. Since the banks in cases before him have yet to begin complying with the new court rules, he has started throwing out foreclosure cases. But the question isn’t whether the banks will now choose to start complying with the rule: The question is: Will they even be able to?
The first case Judge Schack tossed was Citibank, N.A. v. Murillo, which he dismissed with prejudice on Jan. 7, as the blog StopForeclosureFraud reported. The attorneys for Citibank (C) in that case were from the Steven Baum law firm, a foreclosure mill that has been sanctioned for its involvement in frivolous cases. If the Baum firm couldn’t file a timely affirmation in the Murillo case, how many of its other cases will it be able to file affirmations in?
Schack tells me he’s thrown out a dozen or so more since Murillo, and he says until the banks and their attorneys start obeying his order to comply with the new affirmation rule, he’ll keep tossing cases. A court order is a court order, Schack explains. “They can’t just ignore it. In Murillo, they asked for more time, but they didn’t give me a reason. It doesn’t matter who you are, you have to obey court orders.”
By dismissing these cases “with prejudice,” Schack is forcing the banks to start the whole process over if they wish to foreclose. Given how long foreclosures take to complete, that alone is a significant penalty. Moreover, if the banks do refile any of these cases, they will be reassigned to him. “We don’t have judge-shopping in Brooklyn,” Schack explains. So the banks will have to get their papers in order before they refile.
See full article from DailyFinance: http://srph.it/es6ugp
What a mess, lol. Very sad. Nobody’s gonna get very far here. These NY foreclosures are going to take forever because these plaintiff banks don’t seem to be able to “affirm” their way out of a brown paper bag.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
