[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.”

[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.”

[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.”

[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.”

[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.”

[Diego Mamani]

[quote=SK in CV]About as much of a technicality as a borrower not making payments.[/quote] Not making payments is a very substantial issue! Nothing could be further from a technicality.

I’m not sympatethic to banks either. My concern is that slowing down the foreclosure process will only delay the return to sanity in the housing market.

[Diego Mamani]

[quote=SK in CV]About as much of a technicality as a borrower not making payments.[/quote] Not making payments is a very substantial issue! Nothing could be further from a technicality.

I’m not sympatethic to banks either. My concern is that slowing down the foreclosure process will only delay the return to sanity in the housing market.

[Diego Mamani]

[quote=SK in CV]About as much of a technicality as a borrower not making payments.[/quote] Not making payments is a very substantial issue! Nothing could be further from a technicality.

I’m not sympatethic to banks either. My concern is that slowing down the foreclosure process will only delay the return to sanity in the housing market.

[Diego Mamani]

[quote=SK in CV]About as much of a technicality as a borrower not making payments.[/quote] Not making payments is a very substantial issue! Nothing could be further from a technicality.

I’m not sympatethic to banks either. My concern is that slowing down the foreclosure process will only delay the return to sanity in the housing market.

[Diego Mamani]

[quote=SK in CV]About as much of a technicality as a borrower not making payments.[/quote] Not making payments is a very substantial issue! Nothing could be further from a technicality.

I’m not sympatethic to banks either. My concern is that slowing down the foreclosure process will only delay the return to sanity in the housing market.

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[Author]

Posts