[carli]

BG, you must be pouring some hefty glasses of wine to only get 2-3 per bottle. Or maybe if scaredy’s wife is sharing that bottle with him, they’d polish it off in one night with 2-3 glasses each.

I can’t seem to curtail my 2 glasses/night habit. And I don’t drink the cheap stuff…I’ve often thought I should review the credit card statements to add up the wine shop total in a year, and then I’d probably be motivated to quit.

It’s a whole ritual thing…I always pour a glass as I’m making dinner and catching up with my husband and kids, then pour another with dinner. The habit of just those two is SO hard to break, which would make it even more gratifying and actually thrilling to be able to do it. I would probably feel like I ran a marathon or climbed Mt Everest!

Thanks for the inspiration, scaredy.

[carli]

Thanks, SK. That’s very interesting. Thank goodness I don’t need to know for personal reasons (phew)…I was just very curious after seeing this segment. Even with CA foreclosures generally not involved, I imagine the cleanup fund to be funded by banks will have to be huge…Sheila Bair said it would be “in the billions” last night when asked this question. Probably in the tens of billions at least.

[carli]

Thanks, SK. That’s very interesting. Thank goodness I don’t need to know for personal reasons (phew)…I was just very curious after seeing this segment. Even with CA foreclosures generally not involved, I imagine the cleanup fund to be funded by banks will have to be huge…Sheila Bair said it would be “in the billions” last night when asked this question. Probably in the tens of billions at least.

[carli]

Thanks, SK. That’s very interesting. Thank goodness I don’t need to know for personal reasons (phew)…I was just very curious after seeing this segment. Even with CA foreclosures generally not involved, I imagine the cleanup fund to be funded by banks will have to be huge…Sheila Bair said it would be “in the billions” last night when asked this question. Probably in the tens of billions at least.

[carli]

Thanks, SK. That’s very interesting. Thank goodness I don’t need to know for personal reasons (phew)…I was just very curious after seeing this segment. Even with CA foreclosures generally not involved, I imagine the cleanup fund to be funded by banks will have to be huge…Sheila Bair said it would be “in the billions” last night when asked this question. Probably in the tens of billions at least.

[carli]

Thanks, SK. That’s very interesting. Thank goodness I don’t need to know for personal reasons (phew)…I was just very curious after seeing this segment. Even with CA foreclosures generally not involved, I imagine the cleanup fund to be funded by banks will have to be huge…Sheila Bair said it would be “in the billions” last night when asked this question. Probably in the tens of billions at least.

[carli]

Ah, okay, that makes sense…still, I’m wondering if (even in CA) the homeowner can further tie up the foreclosure process by questioning that the home is actually owned by the foreclosing institution, or are you saying that a homeowner doesn’t have the right to even pose that question in the CA process?

[carli]

Ah, okay, that makes sense…still, I’m wondering if (even in CA) the homeowner can further tie up the foreclosure process by questioning that the home is actually owned by the foreclosing institution, or are you saying that a homeowner doesn’t have the right to even pose that question in the CA process?

[carli]

Ah, okay, that makes sense…still, I’m wondering if (even in CA) the homeowner can further tie up the foreclosure process by questioning that the home is actually owned by the foreclosing institution, or are you saying that a homeowner doesn’t have the right to even pose that question in the CA process?

[carli]

Ah, okay, that makes sense…still, I’m wondering if (even in CA) the homeowner can further tie up the foreclosure process by questioning that the home is actually owned by the foreclosing institution, or are you saying that a homeowner doesn’t have the right to even pose that question in the CA process?

[carli]

Ah, okay, that makes sense…still, I’m wondering if (even in CA) the homeowner can further tie up the foreclosure process by questioning that the home is actually owned by the foreclosing institution, or are you saying that a homeowner doesn’t have the right to even pose that question in the CA process?

[carli]

I just saw that segment on 60 Minutes, too. Scary! It was breathtaking to see the disregard throughout the entire industry (not just a few rogue banks) of administrative/legal basics, such as signatures on documents, during the mortgage securitization heyday.

We’ve all heard anecdotes about this stuff, but the 60 Mins piece showed how pervasive the ineptitude (or worse) was throughout the whole banking industry. Loans were being made and then sold off so fast that the process was concluded before the original bank actually signed the loan documents. As a result, homeowners facing foreclosure have a gigantic loophole to help keep them in their homes.

Any homeowner who sees this segment who is anywhere near getting foreclosed on would be crazy not to demand to see the actual signature page of the loan documents proving that the institution that’s foreclosing on the house OWNS the house. The segment made it seem like most institutions would not be able to produce the document/proof needed.

Leslie Stahl interviewed Sheila Bair, who is urging the banking industry to pay into a cleanup fund to provide for settlements of future homeowner litigation on this issue. She basically said that paying into such a fund would be less costly to banks than having to produce the legal proof that they own the houses they’re foreclosing on, which it sounded like they literally would not be able to do…not just a few rogue banks, but basically most of the industry.

Here’s a link to the segment – http://www.cbs.com/primetime/60_minutes/video/?pid=CzUKTPuRNBcG_rBEgSMWF27hKjSsZGyP

[carli]

I just saw that segment on 60 Minutes, too. Scary! It was breathtaking to see the disregard throughout the entire industry (not just a few rogue banks) of administrative/legal basics, such as signatures on documents, during the mortgage securitization heyday.

We’ve all heard anecdotes about this stuff, but the 60 Mins piece showed how pervasive the ineptitude (or worse) was throughout the whole banking industry. Loans were being made and then sold off so fast that the process was concluded before the original bank actually signed the loan documents. As a result, homeowners facing foreclosure have a gigantic loophole to help keep them in their homes.

Any homeowner who sees this segment who is anywhere near getting foreclosed on would be crazy not to demand to see the actual signature page of the loan documents proving that the institution that’s foreclosing on the house OWNS the house. The segment made it seem like most institutions would not be able to produce the document/proof needed.

Leslie Stahl interviewed Sheila Bair, who is urging the banking industry to pay into a cleanup fund to provide for settlements of future homeowner litigation on this issue. She basically said that paying into such a fund would be less costly to banks than having to produce the legal proof that they own the houses they’re foreclosing on, which it sounded like they literally would not be able to do…not just a few rogue banks, but basically most of the industry.

Here’s a link to the segment – http://www.cbs.com/primetime/60_minutes/video/?pid=CzUKTPuRNBcG_rBEgSMWF27hKjSsZGyP

[carli]

I just saw that segment on 60 Minutes, too. Scary! It was breathtaking to see the disregard throughout the entire industry (not just a few rogue banks) of administrative/legal basics, such as signatures on documents, during the mortgage securitization heyday.

We’ve all heard anecdotes about this stuff, but the 60 Mins piece showed how pervasive the ineptitude (or worse) was throughout the whole banking industry. Loans were being made and then sold off so fast that the process was concluded before the original bank actually signed the loan documents. As a result, homeowners facing foreclosure have a gigantic loophole to help keep them in their homes.

Any homeowner who sees this segment who is anywhere near getting foreclosed on would be crazy not to demand to see the actual signature page of the loan documents proving that the institution that’s foreclosing on the house OWNS the house. The segment made it seem like most institutions would not be able to produce the document/proof needed.

Leslie Stahl interviewed Sheila Bair, who is urging the banking industry to pay into a cleanup fund to provide for settlements of future homeowner litigation on this issue. She basically said that paying into such a fund would be less costly to banks than having to produce the legal proof that they own the houses they’re foreclosing on, which it sounded like they literally would not be able to do…not just a few rogue banks, but basically most of the industry.

Here’s a link to the segment – http://www.cbs.com/primetime/60_minutes/video/?pid=CzUKTPuRNBcG_rBEgSMWF27hKjSsZGyP

[carli]

I just saw that segment on 60 Minutes, too. Scary! It was breathtaking to see the disregard throughout the entire industry (not just a few rogue banks) of administrative/legal basics, such as signatures on documents, during the mortgage securitization heyday.

We’ve all heard anecdotes about this stuff, but the 60 Mins piece showed how pervasive the ineptitude (or worse) was throughout the whole banking industry. Loans were being made and then sold off so fast that the process was concluded before the original bank actually signed the loan documents. As a result, homeowners facing foreclosure have a gigantic loophole to help keep them in their homes.

Any homeowner who sees this segment who is anywhere near getting foreclosed on would be crazy not to demand to see the actual signature page of the loan documents proving that the institution that’s foreclosing on the house OWNS the house. The segment made it seem like most institutions would not be able to produce the document/proof needed.

Leslie Stahl interviewed Sheila Bair, who is urging the banking industry to pay into a cleanup fund to provide for settlements of future homeowner litigation on this issue. She basically said that paying into such a fund would be less costly to banks than having to produce the legal proof that they own the houses they’re foreclosing on, which it sounded like they literally would not be able to do…not just a few rogue banks, but basically most of the industry.

Here’s a link to the segment – http://www.cbs.com/primetime/60_minutes/video/?pid=CzUKTPuRNBcG_rBEgSMWF27hKjSsZGyP

[Author]

Posts