- This topic has 175 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 10 months ago by
CA renter.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 8, 2011 at 9:47 PM #650733January 8, 2011 at 10:06 PM #649633
SK in CV
Participant[quote=Diego Mamani]This is bad news! What we have here, essentially, are deadbeats (“FBs”) being protected by the courts based on a technicality.
This ruling is simply more of the “deny and delay” approach that politicians on both sides of the aisle seem to prefer. The result is that prices will remain artificially inflated for a bit longer. Banks will incur higher costs which will make credit more costly. Good grief!
So now we have the Judiciary, in addition to the Executive, interfering with the free market system. Don’t they realize that postponing the inevitable will only make the pill more bitter to swallow?[/quote]
About as much of a technicality as a borrower not making payments. And there is nothing political about it. Agreements are made. Both sides are obligated to abide by those agreements. Not just one side. Not just the borrower. The lender too. The lender agrees (in fact, insists) that the contracts are to be enforced under the laws of the state. They could alternatively require some sort of mandatory arbitration. They don’t. They choose to afford themselves of the protections provided under the law. They’re really not complicated. They’ve remained essentially unchanged in most of the 21 states that require judicial foreclosure for over 100 years.
It’s not that I’m particularly sympathetic to borrowers in default. But neither do I have any sympathy for lenders, who received hundreds of billions of dollars of government bailouts, and have squandered those tax dollars by failing to follow relatively simple rules to which they contractually agreed. There’s lots of fault to spread around as to why the bubble ever existed and then burst. No one in the process is blameless. Not the borrowers, nor lenders or any of the dozens or so other parties involved. But this problem? No one is to blame other than the banks.
January 8, 2011 at 10:06 PM #649702Participant[quote=Diego Mamani]This is bad news! What we have here, essentially, are deadbeats (“FBs”) being protected by the courts based on a technicality.
This ruling is simply more of the “deny and delay” approach that politicians on both sides of the aisle seem to prefer. The result is that prices will remain artificially inflated for a bit longer. Banks will incur higher costs which will make credit more costly. Good grief!
So now we have the Judiciary, in addition to the Executive, interfering with the free market system. Don’t they realize that postponing the inevitable will only make the pill more bitter to swallow?[/quote]
About as much of a technicality as a borrower not making payments. And there is nothing political about it. Agreements are made. Both sides are obligated to abide by those agreements. Not just one side. Not just the borrower. The lender too. The lender agrees (in fact, insists) that the contracts are to be enforced under the laws of the state. They could alternatively require some sort of mandatory arbitration. They don’t. They choose to afford themselves of the protections provided under the law. They’re really not complicated. They’ve remained essentially unchanged in most of the 21 states that require judicial foreclosure for over 100 years.
It’s not that I’m particularly sympathetic to borrowers in default. But neither do I have any sympathy for lenders, who received hundreds of billions of dollars of government bailouts, and have squandered those tax dollars by failing to follow relatively simple rules to which they contractually agreed. There’s lots of fault to spread around as to why the bubble ever existed and then burst. No one in the process is blameless. Not the borrowers, nor lenders or any of the dozens or so other parties involved. But this problem? No one is to blame other than the banks.
January 8, 2011 at 10:06 PM #650288Participant[quote=Diego Mamani]This is bad news! What we have here, essentially, are deadbeats (“FBs”) being protected by the courts based on a technicality.
This ruling is simply more of the “deny and delay” approach that politicians on both sides of the aisle seem to prefer. The result is that prices will remain artificially inflated for a bit longer. Banks will incur higher costs which will make credit more costly. Good grief!
So now we have the Judiciary, in addition to the Executive, interfering with the free market system. Don’t they realize that postponing the inevitable will only make the pill more bitter to swallow?[/quote]
About as much of a technicality as a borrower not making payments. And there is nothing political about it. Agreements are made. Both sides are obligated to abide by those agreements. Not just one side. Not just the borrower. The lender too. The lender agrees (in fact, insists) that the contracts are to be enforced under the laws of the state. They could alternatively require some sort of mandatory arbitration. They don’t. They choose to afford themselves of the protections provided under the law. They’re really not complicated. They’ve remained essentially unchanged in most of the 21 states that require judicial foreclosure for over 100 years.
It’s not that I’m particularly sympathetic to borrowers in default. But neither do I have any sympathy for lenders, who received hundreds of billions of dollars of government bailouts, and have squandered those tax dollars by failing to follow relatively simple rules to which they contractually agreed. There’s lots of fault to spread around as to why the bubble ever existed and then burst. No one in the process is blameless. Not the borrowers, nor lenders or any of the dozens or so other parties involved. But this problem? No one is to blame other than the banks.
January 8, 2011 at 10:06 PM #650423Participant[quote=Diego Mamani]This is bad news! What we have here, essentially, are deadbeats (“FBs”) being protected by the courts based on a technicality.
This ruling is simply more of the “deny and delay” approach that politicians on both sides of the aisle seem to prefer. The result is that prices will remain artificially inflated for a bit longer. Banks will incur higher costs which will make credit more costly. Good grief!
So now we have the Judiciary, in addition to the Executive, interfering with the free market system. Don’t they realize that postponing the inevitable will only make the pill more bitter to swallow?[/quote]
About as much of a technicality as a borrower not making payments. And there is nothing political about it. Agreements are made. Both sides are obligated to abide by those agreements. Not just one side. Not just the borrower. The lender too. The lender agrees (in fact, insists) that the contracts are to be enforced under the laws of the state. They could alternatively require some sort of mandatory arbitration. They don’t. They choose to afford themselves of the protections provided under the law. They’re really not complicated. They’ve remained essentially unchanged in most of the 21 states that require judicial foreclosure for over 100 years.
It’s not that I’m particularly sympathetic to borrowers in default. But neither do I have any sympathy for lenders, who received hundreds of billions of dollars of government bailouts, and have squandered those tax dollars by failing to follow relatively simple rules to which they contractually agreed. There’s lots of fault to spread around as to why the bubble ever existed and then burst. No one in the process is blameless. Not the borrowers, nor lenders or any of the dozens or so other parties involved. But this problem? No one is to blame other than the banks.
January 8, 2011 at 10:06 PM #650748Participant[quote=Diego Mamani]This is bad news! What we have here, essentially, are deadbeats (“FBs”) being protected by the courts based on a technicality.
This ruling is simply more of the “deny and delay” approach that politicians on both sides of the aisle seem to prefer. The result is that prices will remain artificially inflated for a bit longer. Banks will incur higher costs which will make credit more costly. Good grief!
So now we have the Judiciary, in addition to the Executive, interfering with the free market system. Don’t they realize that postponing the inevitable will only make the pill more bitter to swallow?[/quote]
About as much of a technicality as a borrower not making payments. And there is nothing political about it. Agreements are made. Both sides are obligated to abide by those agreements. Not just one side. Not just the borrower. The lender too. The lender agrees (in fact, insists) that the contracts are to be enforced under the laws of the state. They could alternatively require some sort of mandatory arbitration. They don’t. They choose to afford themselves of the protections provided under the law. They’re really not complicated. They’ve remained essentially unchanged in most of the 21 states that require judicial foreclosure for over 100 years.
It’s not that I’m particularly sympathetic to borrowers in default. But neither do I have any sympathy for lenders, who received hundreds of billions of dollars of government bailouts, and have squandered those tax dollars by failing to follow relatively simple rules to which they contractually agreed. There’s lots of fault to spread around as to why the bubble ever existed and then burst. No one in the process is blameless. Not the borrowers, nor lenders or any of the dozens or so other parties involved. But this problem? No one is to blame other than the banks.
January 9, 2011 at 2:01 AM #649683CA renter
Participant[quote=GH]Perhaps a really big point is being missed somewhere along the way. Have the occupants being making their mortgage payments or not? I agree the banks may well have royally screwed up the paperwork in the bubble frenzies, but leave this to a judge to decide. In the mean time, the courts should assume control of disputed properties and kick the FB’s out given they have ample opportunity to demonstrate they have indeed made payments as agreed, or the bank does not have the right to reposes the home as it is a wrong address etc.
FB’s who cause issues should also be notified that their loan apps will be subjected to criminal investigation if it turns out they lied substantially on their application. Particularly stated income loans.[/quote]
Love this post, GH.
What seems to be missing in all this rhetoric is the fact that most of these FBs have defaulted on their loans, in one way or another. The paperwork glitches need to be fixed, but that should not mean that idiot speculators get to have “free” houses.
January 9, 2011 at 2:01 AM #649752Participant[quote=GH]Perhaps a really big point is being missed somewhere along the way. Have the occupants being making their mortgage payments or not? I agree the banks may well have royally screwed up the paperwork in the bubble frenzies, but leave this to a judge to decide. In the mean time, the courts should assume control of disputed properties and kick the FB’s out given they have ample opportunity to demonstrate they have indeed made payments as agreed, or the bank does not have the right to reposes the home as it is a wrong address etc.
FB’s who cause issues should also be notified that their loan apps will be subjected to criminal investigation if it turns out they lied substantially on their application. Particularly stated income loans.[/quote]
Love this post, GH.
What seems to be missing in all this rhetoric is the fact that most of these FBs have defaulted on their loans, in one way or another. The paperwork glitches need to be fixed, but that should not mean that idiot speculators get to have “free” houses.
January 9, 2011 at 2:01 AM #650337Participant[quote=GH]Perhaps a really big point is being missed somewhere along the way. Have the occupants being making their mortgage payments or not? I agree the banks may well have royally screwed up the paperwork in the bubble frenzies, but leave this to a judge to decide. In the mean time, the courts should assume control of disputed properties and kick the FB’s out given they have ample opportunity to demonstrate they have indeed made payments as agreed, or the bank does not have the right to reposes the home as it is a wrong address etc.
FB’s who cause issues should also be notified that their loan apps will be subjected to criminal investigation if it turns out they lied substantially on their application. Particularly stated income loans.[/quote]
Love this post, GH.
What seems to be missing in all this rhetoric is the fact that most of these FBs have defaulted on their loans, in one way or another. The paperwork glitches need to be fixed, but that should not mean that idiot speculators get to have “free” houses.
January 9, 2011 at 2:01 AM #650473Participant[quote=GH]Perhaps a really big point is being missed somewhere along the way. Have the occupants being making their mortgage payments or not? I agree the banks may well have royally screwed up the paperwork in the bubble frenzies, but leave this to a judge to decide. In the mean time, the courts should assume control of disputed properties and kick the FB’s out given they have ample opportunity to demonstrate they have indeed made payments as agreed, or the bank does not have the right to reposes the home as it is a wrong address etc.
FB’s who cause issues should also be notified that their loan apps will be subjected to criminal investigation if it turns out they lied substantially on their application. Particularly stated income loans.[/quote]
Love this post, GH.
What seems to be missing in all this rhetoric is the fact that most of these FBs have defaulted on their loans, in one way or another. The paperwork glitches need to be fixed, but that should not mean that idiot speculators get to have “free” houses.
January 9, 2011 at 2:01 AM #650796Participant[quote=GH]Perhaps a really big point is being missed somewhere along the way. Have the occupants being making their mortgage payments or not? I agree the banks may well have royally screwed up the paperwork in the bubble frenzies, but leave this to a judge to decide. In the mean time, the courts should assume control of disputed properties and kick the FB’s out given they have ample opportunity to demonstrate they have indeed made payments as agreed, or the bank does not have the right to reposes the home as it is a wrong address etc.
FB’s who cause issues should also be notified that their loan apps will be subjected to criminal investigation if it turns out they lied substantially on their application. Particularly stated income loans.[/quote]
Love this post, GH.
What seems to be missing in all this rhetoric is the fact that most of these FBs have defaulted on their loans, in one way or another. The paperwork glitches need to be fixed, but that should not mean that idiot speculators get to have “free” houses.
January 9, 2011 at 9:08 AM #649803Participant[quote=CA renter]
What seems to be missing in all this rhetoric is the fact that most of these FBs have defaulted on their loans, in one way or another. The paperwork glitches need to be fixed, but that should not mean that idiot speculators get to have “free” houses.[/quote]What about idiot speculators who made bad loans and didn’t take the very simple steps required to protect the security interest in those loans?
January 9, 2011 at 9:08 AM #649872Participant[quote=CA renter]
What seems to be missing in all this rhetoric is the fact that most of these FBs have defaulted on their loans, in one way or another. The paperwork glitches need to be fixed, but that should not mean that idiot speculators get to have “free” houses.[/quote]What about idiot speculators who made bad loans and didn’t take the very simple steps required to protect the security interest in those loans?
January 9, 2011 at 9:08 AM #650457Participant[quote=CA renter]
What seems to be missing in all this rhetoric is the fact that most of these FBs have defaulted on their loans, in one way or another. The paperwork glitches need to be fixed, but that should not mean that idiot speculators get to have “free” houses.[/quote]What about idiot speculators who made bad loans and didn’t take the very simple steps required to protect the security interest in those loans?
January 9, 2011 at 9:08 AM #650592Participant[quote=CA renter]
What seems to be missing in all this rhetoric is the fact that most of these FBs have defaulted on their loans, in one way or another. The paperwork glitches need to be fixed, but that should not mean that idiot speculators get to have “free” houses.[/quote]What about idiot speculators who made bad loans and didn’t take the very simple steps required to protect the security interest in those loans?
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
