- This topic has 175 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 11 months ago by
CA renter.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 9, 2011 at 3:52 PM #651120January 9, 2011 at 4:32 PM #650023
SK in CV
Participant[quote=Diego Mamani][quote=SK in CV]The question is, should the lenders be allowed to ignore the law[/quote]
No one should be allowed to ignore the law, obviously. Have you ever thought of the distinction between the spirit and the letter of the law? The impression you give in this forum is that you are overly concerned with the letter of the law, without regard for the intent of the legislators or the intent of the law.
When a deadbeat or FB stops making payments, that constitutes a substantial violation of the loan agreement, and therefore, of the “spirit” of the law in addition to the “letter.” That behavior is the complete opposite of a technicality.
On the other hand, if we insist that lenders provide hard copies of every single document that prove that they are entitled to foreclose, we are putting the “letter” of the law over its “spirit.” In other words, a technicality.
You’re essentially defending those who “game the system”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaming_the_system
“[using] the rules and procedures meant to protect a system in order, instead, to manipulate the system for [a] desired outcome.”[/quote]I would suggest, that in this instance, the spirit of the law and the intent are same. Most contracts don’t have to be in writing. One of the exceptions are contracts related to real estate, including liens thereon. That isn’t accidental. That is the intent of the law. Real estate notes and liens have to be in writing, they have to be recorded, they have to be transferred through proper endorsement. They are negotiable instruments (at least the notes are, I’ve seen some arguments that liens are not).
I have not anywhere defended anyone that has gamed the system. I have no doubt there are a small minority of deliquent borrowers who have done just that. But using your definition of “gaming the system”, that percentage is dwarfed by the loan servicing industry which has repeatedly and illegally gamed the system in clear opposition to both the letter AND the spirit of the law the last three years.
(What’s an “FB”?)
January 9, 2011 at 4:32 PM #650092Participant[quote=Diego Mamani][quote=SK in CV]The question is, should the lenders be allowed to ignore the law[/quote]
No one should be allowed to ignore the law, obviously. Have you ever thought of the distinction between the spirit and the letter of the law? The impression you give in this forum is that you are overly concerned with the letter of the law, without regard for the intent of the legislators or the intent of the law.
When a deadbeat or FB stops making payments, that constitutes a substantial violation of the loan agreement, and therefore, of the “spirit” of the law in addition to the “letter.” That behavior is the complete opposite of a technicality.
On the other hand, if we insist that lenders provide hard copies of every single document that prove that they are entitled to foreclose, we are putting the “letter” of the law over its “spirit.” In other words, a technicality.
You’re essentially defending those who “game the system”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaming_the_system
“[using] the rules and procedures meant to protect a system in order, instead, to manipulate the system for [a] desired outcome.”[/quote]I would suggest, that in this instance, the spirit of the law and the intent are same. Most contracts don’t have to be in writing. One of the exceptions are contracts related to real estate, including liens thereon. That isn’t accidental. That is the intent of the law. Real estate notes and liens have to be in writing, they have to be recorded, they have to be transferred through proper endorsement. They are negotiable instruments (at least the notes are, I’ve seen some arguments that liens are not).
I have not anywhere defended anyone that has gamed the system. I have no doubt there are a small minority of deliquent borrowers who have done just that. But using your definition of “gaming the system”, that percentage is dwarfed by the loan servicing industry which has repeatedly and illegally gamed the system in clear opposition to both the letter AND the spirit of the law the last three years.
(What’s an “FB”?)
January 9, 2011 at 4:32 PM #650675Participant[quote=Diego Mamani][quote=SK in CV]The question is, should the lenders be allowed to ignore the law[/quote]
No one should be allowed to ignore the law, obviously. Have you ever thought of the distinction between the spirit and the letter of the law? The impression you give in this forum is that you are overly concerned with the letter of the law, without regard for the intent of the legislators or the intent of the law.
When a deadbeat or FB stops making payments, that constitutes a substantial violation of the loan agreement, and therefore, of the “spirit” of the law in addition to the “letter.” That behavior is the complete opposite of a technicality.
On the other hand, if we insist that lenders provide hard copies of every single document that prove that they are entitled to foreclose, we are putting the “letter” of the law over its “spirit.” In other words, a technicality.
You’re essentially defending those who “game the system”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaming_the_system
“[using] the rules and procedures meant to protect a system in order, instead, to manipulate the system for [a] desired outcome.”[/quote]I would suggest, that in this instance, the spirit of the law and the intent are same. Most contracts don’t have to be in writing. One of the exceptions are contracts related to real estate, including liens thereon. That isn’t accidental. That is the intent of the law. Real estate notes and liens have to be in writing, they have to be recorded, they have to be transferred through proper endorsement. They are negotiable instruments (at least the notes are, I’ve seen some arguments that liens are not).
I have not anywhere defended anyone that has gamed the system. I have no doubt there are a small minority of deliquent borrowers who have done just that. But using your definition of “gaming the system”, that percentage is dwarfed by the loan servicing industry which has repeatedly and illegally gamed the system in clear opposition to both the letter AND the spirit of the law the last three years.
(What’s an “FB”?)
January 9, 2011 at 4:32 PM #650810Participant[quote=Diego Mamani][quote=SK in CV]The question is, should the lenders be allowed to ignore the law[/quote]
No one should be allowed to ignore the law, obviously. Have you ever thought of the distinction between the spirit and the letter of the law? The impression you give in this forum is that you are overly concerned with the letter of the law, without regard for the intent of the legislators or the intent of the law.
When a deadbeat or FB stops making payments, that constitutes a substantial violation of the loan agreement, and therefore, of the “spirit” of the law in addition to the “letter.” That behavior is the complete opposite of a technicality.
On the other hand, if we insist that lenders provide hard copies of every single document that prove that they are entitled to foreclose, we are putting the “letter” of the law over its “spirit.” In other words, a technicality.
You’re essentially defending those who “game the system”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaming_the_system
“[using] the rules and procedures meant to protect a system in order, instead, to manipulate the system for [a] desired outcome.”[/quote]I would suggest, that in this instance, the spirit of the law and the intent are same. Most contracts don’t have to be in writing. One of the exceptions are contracts related to real estate, including liens thereon. That isn’t accidental. That is the intent of the law. Real estate notes and liens have to be in writing, they have to be recorded, they have to be transferred through proper endorsement. They are negotiable instruments (at least the notes are, I’ve seen some arguments that liens are not).
I have not anywhere defended anyone that has gamed the system. I have no doubt there are a small minority of deliquent borrowers who have done just that. But using your definition of “gaming the system”, that percentage is dwarfed by the loan servicing industry which has repeatedly and illegally gamed the system in clear opposition to both the letter AND the spirit of the law the last three years.
(What’s an “FB”?)
January 9, 2011 at 4:32 PM #651135Participant[quote=Diego Mamani][quote=SK in CV]The question is, should the lenders be allowed to ignore the law[/quote]
No one should be allowed to ignore the law, obviously. Have you ever thought of the distinction between the spirit and the letter of the law? The impression you give in this forum is that you are overly concerned with the letter of the law, without regard for the intent of the legislators or the intent of the law.
When a deadbeat or FB stops making payments, that constitutes a substantial violation of the loan agreement, and therefore, of the “spirit” of the law in addition to the “letter.” That behavior is the complete opposite of a technicality.
On the other hand, if we insist that lenders provide hard copies of every single document that prove that they are entitled to foreclose, we are putting the “letter” of the law over its “spirit.” In other words, a technicality.
You’re essentially defending those who “game the system”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaming_the_system
“[using] the rules and procedures meant to protect a system in order, instead, to manipulate the system for [a] desired outcome.”[/quote]I would suggest, that in this instance, the spirit of the law and the intent are same. Most contracts don’t have to be in writing. One of the exceptions are contracts related to real estate, including liens thereon. That isn’t accidental. That is the intent of the law. Real estate notes and liens have to be in writing, they have to be recorded, they have to be transferred through proper endorsement. They are negotiable instruments (at least the notes are, I’ve seen some arguments that liens are not).
I have not anywhere defended anyone that has gamed the system. I have no doubt there are a small minority of deliquent borrowers who have done just that. But using your definition of “gaming the system”, that percentage is dwarfed by the loan servicing industry which has repeatedly and illegally gamed the system in clear opposition to both the letter AND the spirit of the law the last three years.
(What’s an “FB”?)
January 9, 2011 at 6:29 PM #650053Anonymous
GuestAgree that the loan originating and servicing industries have repeatedly gamed the system…as illustrated by (lest anyone forget):
1) manipulating compensation to brokers to escape disclosure requirements in ways that cost consumers;
2) herding consumers into misleading, negative amortization mortgage schemes (not referring here to real estate speculators, but those who were induced to take mortages they did not understand);
3) either knowingly or with gross negligence selling or approving mortgage loans based on inflated appraisals, assuming ever-rising prices, and accepting documentation showing no income, or worse, blatantly falsified information;
4) fostering, and basing entire business models on, the sell-first, fill-later and spin-gold-from-dross environment in mortgage securitization; and
5) either knowingly or with gross negligence causing the rating agencies to misapprehend the risks associated with the mortgages which formed the basis of the securitiesJanuary 9, 2011 at 6:29 PM #650122GuestAgree that the loan originating and servicing industries have repeatedly gamed the system…as illustrated by (lest anyone forget):
1) manipulating compensation to brokers to escape disclosure requirements in ways that cost consumers;
2) herding consumers into misleading, negative amortization mortgage schemes (not referring here to real estate speculators, but those who were induced to take mortages they did not understand);
3) either knowingly or with gross negligence selling or approving mortgage loans based on inflated appraisals, assuming ever-rising prices, and accepting documentation showing no income, or worse, blatantly falsified information;
4) fostering, and basing entire business models on, the sell-first, fill-later and spin-gold-from-dross environment in mortgage securitization; and
5) either knowingly or with gross negligence causing the rating agencies to misapprehend the risks associated with the mortgages which formed the basis of the securitiesJanuary 9, 2011 at 6:29 PM #650705GuestAgree that the loan originating and servicing industries have repeatedly gamed the system…as illustrated by (lest anyone forget):
1) manipulating compensation to brokers to escape disclosure requirements in ways that cost consumers;
2) herding consumers into misleading, negative amortization mortgage schemes (not referring here to real estate speculators, but those who were induced to take mortages they did not understand);
3) either knowingly or with gross negligence selling or approving mortgage loans based on inflated appraisals, assuming ever-rising prices, and accepting documentation showing no income, or worse, blatantly falsified information;
4) fostering, and basing entire business models on, the sell-first, fill-later and spin-gold-from-dross environment in mortgage securitization; and
5) either knowingly or with gross negligence causing the rating agencies to misapprehend the risks associated with the mortgages which formed the basis of the securitiesJanuary 9, 2011 at 6:29 PM #650840GuestAgree that the loan originating and servicing industries have repeatedly gamed the system…as illustrated by (lest anyone forget):
1) manipulating compensation to brokers to escape disclosure requirements in ways that cost consumers;
2) herding consumers into misleading, negative amortization mortgage schemes (not referring here to real estate speculators, but those who were induced to take mortages they did not understand);
3) either knowingly or with gross negligence selling or approving mortgage loans based on inflated appraisals, assuming ever-rising prices, and accepting documentation showing no income, or worse, blatantly falsified information;
4) fostering, and basing entire business models on, the sell-first, fill-later and spin-gold-from-dross environment in mortgage securitization; and
5) either knowingly or with gross negligence causing the rating agencies to misapprehend the risks associated with the mortgages which formed the basis of the securitiesJanuary 9, 2011 at 6:29 PM #651165GuestAgree that the loan originating and servicing industries have repeatedly gamed the system…as illustrated by (lest anyone forget):
1) manipulating compensation to brokers to escape disclosure requirements in ways that cost consumers;
2) herding consumers into misleading, negative amortization mortgage schemes (not referring here to real estate speculators, but those who were induced to take mortages they did not understand);
3) either knowingly or with gross negligence selling or approving mortgage loans based on inflated appraisals, assuming ever-rising prices, and accepting documentation showing no income, or worse, blatantly falsified information;
4) fostering, and basing entire business models on, the sell-first, fill-later and spin-gold-from-dross environment in mortgage securitization; and
5) either knowingly or with gross negligence causing the rating agencies to misapprehend the risks associated with the mortgages which formed the basis of the securitiesJanuary 9, 2011 at 6:36 PM #650058bearishgurl
Participant[quote=beatrix]Agree that the loan originating and servicing industries have repeatedly gamed the system…as illustrated by (lest anyone forget):
1) manipulating compensation to brokers to escape disclosure requirements in ways that cost consumers;
2) herding consumers into misleading, negative amortization mortgage schemes (not referring here to real estate speculators, but those who were induced to take mortages they did not understand);
3) either knowingly or with gross negligence selling or approving mortgage loans based on inflated appraisals, assuming ever-rising prices, and accepting documentation showing no income, or worse, blatantly falsified information;
4) fostering, and basing entire business models on, the sell-first, fill-later and spin-gold-from-dross environment in mortgage securitization; and
5) either knowingly or with gross negligence causing the rating agencies to misapprehend the risks associated with the mortgages which formed the basis of the securities[/quote]Great post, beatrix. You hit on all of it!
January 9, 2011 at 6:36 PM #650127Participant[quote=beatrix]Agree that the loan originating and servicing industries have repeatedly gamed the system…as illustrated by (lest anyone forget):
1) manipulating compensation to brokers to escape disclosure requirements in ways that cost consumers;
2) herding consumers into misleading, negative amortization mortgage schemes (not referring here to real estate speculators, but those who were induced to take mortages they did not understand);
3) either knowingly or with gross negligence selling or approving mortgage loans based on inflated appraisals, assuming ever-rising prices, and accepting documentation showing no income, or worse, blatantly falsified information;
4) fostering, and basing entire business models on, the sell-first, fill-later and spin-gold-from-dross environment in mortgage securitization; and
5) either knowingly or with gross negligence causing the rating agencies to misapprehend the risks associated with the mortgages which formed the basis of the securities[/quote]Great post, beatrix. You hit on all of it!
January 9, 2011 at 6:36 PM #650710Participant[quote=beatrix]Agree that the loan originating and servicing industries have repeatedly gamed the system…as illustrated by (lest anyone forget):
1) manipulating compensation to brokers to escape disclosure requirements in ways that cost consumers;
2) herding consumers into misleading, negative amortization mortgage schemes (not referring here to real estate speculators, but those who were induced to take mortages they did not understand);
3) either knowingly or with gross negligence selling or approving mortgage loans based on inflated appraisals, assuming ever-rising prices, and accepting documentation showing no income, or worse, blatantly falsified information;
4) fostering, and basing entire business models on, the sell-first, fill-later and spin-gold-from-dross environment in mortgage securitization; and
5) either knowingly or with gross negligence causing the rating agencies to misapprehend the risks associated with the mortgages which formed the basis of the securities[/quote]Great post, beatrix. You hit on all of it!
January 9, 2011 at 6:36 PM #650845Participant[quote=beatrix]Agree that the loan originating and servicing industries have repeatedly gamed the system…as illustrated by (lest anyone forget):
1) manipulating compensation to brokers to escape disclosure requirements in ways that cost consumers;
2) herding consumers into misleading, negative amortization mortgage schemes (not referring here to real estate speculators, but those who were induced to take mortages they did not understand);
3) either knowingly or with gross negligence selling or approving mortgage loans based on inflated appraisals, assuming ever-rising prices, and accepting documentation showing no income, or worse, blatantly falsified information;
4) fostering, and basing entire business models on, the sell-first, fill-later and spin-gold-from-dross environment in mortgage securitization; and
5) either knowingly or with gross negligence causing the rating agencies to misapprehend the risks associated with the mortgages which formed the basis of the securities[/quote]Great post, beatrix. You hit on all of it!
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.