[SK in CV]

[quote=surveyor]
I, and others, have proceeded to utterly destroy your arguments….

[/quote]

No, you haven’t.

[SK in CV]

[quote=surveyor]
I, and others, have proceeded to utterly destroy your arguments….

[/quote]

No, you haven’t.

[SK in CV]

[quote=surveyor]
I, and others, have proceeded to utterly destroy your arguments….

[/quote]

No, you haven’t.

[SK in CV]

[quote=surveyor]
I, and others, have proceeded to utterly destroy your arguments….

[/quote]

No, you haven’t.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]I read the opinion. I’m glad to see it came out the way it did and the suit was thrown out in its entirety. Obviously, Gomes has a right of appeal but, like you said, he may be running out of $$ for legal expenses. He will also increase his exposure to pay more of Countrywide/MERS/ReconTrust’s expenses if he does so. I don’t see the CA Supreme Court taking it on.

[/quote]

I think Gomes either got bad legal advice or didn’t pay attention when his counsel explained the extraordinarily low likelihood of prevailing. I suspect they were hoping for some sort of settlement during discovery, based on what’s happened in some other states. What you and I, and hopefully his attorney know, is that California is not those other states. As consumer friendly as it might be, non-judicial foreclosure is pretty straightforward. There may be some cause of action that borrowers have against lenders in California, but without some extraordinary circumstances, I can’t imagine what it would be as an affirmative defense against foreclosure.

Other states, it’s a whole different story. Some states have regulations requiring recording of transfers of security interests. Many have requirements of physical possession of a properly endorsed note. There are all kinds of causes that should give mortgage servicers heartburn. But not here.

I suspect he has no choice but to appeal, even if it’s spending his last penny, because that penny is likely to be gone if he pays defense costs anyway. But I agree with you, I’d be at least mildly suprrised if the state supreme court agrees to hear it.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]I read the opinion. I’m glad to see it came out the way it did and the suit was thrown out in its entirety. Obviously, Gomes has a right of appeal but, like you said, he may be running out of $$ for legal expenses. He will also increase his exposure to pay more of Countrywide/MERS/ReconTrust’s expenses if he does so. I don’t see the CA Supreme Court taking it on.

[/quote]

I think Gomes either got bad legal advice or didn’t pay attention when his counsel explained the extraordinarily low likelihood of prevailing. I suspect they were hoping for some sort of settlement during discovery, based on what’s happened in some other states. What you and I, and hopefully his attorney know, is that California is not those other states. As consumer friendly as it might be, non-judicial foreclosure is pretty straightforward. There may be some cause of action that borrowers have against lenders in California, but without some extraordinary circumstances, I can’t imagine what it would be as an affirmative defense against foreclosure.

Other states, it’s a whole different story. Some states have regulations requiring recording of transfers of security interests. Many have requirements of physical possession of a properly endorsed note. There are all kinds of causes that should give mortgage servicers heartburn. But not here.

I suspect he has no choice but to appeal, even if it’s spending his last penny, because that penny is likely to be gone if he pays defense costs anyway. But I agree with you, I’d be at least mildly suprrised if the state supreme court agrees to hear it.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]I read the opinion. I’m glad to see it came out the way it did and the suit was thrown out in its entirety. Obviously, Gomes has a right of appeal but, like you said, he may be running out of $$ for legal expenses. He will also increase his exposure to pay more of Countrywide/MERS/ReconTrust’s expenses if he does so. I don’t see the CA Supreme Court taking it on.

[/quote]

I think Gomes either got bad legal advice or didn’t pay attention when his counsel explained the extraordinarily low likelihood of prevailing. I suspect they were hoping for some sort of settlement during discovery, based on what’s happened in some other states. What you and I, and hopefully his attorney know, is that California is not those other states. As consumer friendly as it might be, non-judicial foreclosure is pretty straightforward. There may be some cause of action that borrowers have against lenders in California, but without some extraordinary circumstances, I can’t imagine what it would be as an affirmative defense against foreclosure.

Other states, it’s a whole different story. Some states have regulations requiring recording of transfers of security interests. Many have requirements of physical possession of a properly endorsed note. There are all kinds of causes that should give mortgage servicers heartburn. But not here.

I suspect he has no choice but to appeal, even if it’s spending his last penny, because that penny is likely to be gone if he pays defense costs anyway. But I agree with you, I’d be at least mildly suprrised if the state supreme court agrees to hear it.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]I read the opinion. I’m glad to see it came out the way it did and the suit was thrown out in its entirety. Obviously, Gomes has a right of appeal but, like you said, he may be running out of $$ for legal expenses. He will also increase his exposure to pay more of Countrywide/MERS/ReconTrust’s expenses if he does so. I don’t see the CA Supreme Court taking it on.

[/quote]

I think Gomes either got bad legal advice or didn’t pay attention when his counsel explained the extraordinarily low likelihood of prevailing. I suspect they were hoping for some sort of settlement during discovery, based on what’s happened in some other states. What you and I, and hopefully his attorney know, is that California is not those other states. As consumer friendly as it might be, non-judicial foreclosure is pretty straightforward. There may be some cause of action that borrowers have against lenders in California, but without some extraordinary circumstances, I can’t imagine what it would be as an affirmative defense against foreclosure.

Other states, it’s a whole different story. Some states have regulations requiring recording of transfers of security interests. Many have requirements of physical possession of a properly endorsed note. There are all kinds of causes that should give mortgage servicers heartburn. But not here.

I suspect he has no choice but to appeal, even if it’s spending his last penny, because that penny is likely to be gone if he pays defense costs anyway. But I agree with you, I’d be at least mildly suprrised if the state supreme court agrees to hear it.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]I read the opinion. I’m glad to see it came out the way it did and the suit was thrown out in its entirety. Obviously, Gomes has a right of appeal but, like you said, he may be running out of $$ for legal expenses. He will also increase his exposure to pay more of Countrywide/MERS/ReconTrust’s expenses if he does so. I don’t see the CA Supreme Court taking it on.

[/quote]

I think Gomes either got bad legal advice or didn’t pay attention when his counsel explained the extraordinarily low likelihood of prevailing. I suspect they were hoping for some sort of settlement during discovery, based on what’s happened in some other states. What you and I, and hopefully his attorney know, is that California is not those other states. As consumer friendly as it might be, non-judicial foreclosure is pretty straightforward. There may be some cause of action that borrowers have against lenders in California, but without some extraordinary circumstances, I can’t imagine what it would be as an affirmative defense against foreclosure.

Other states, it’s a whole different story. Some states have regulations requiring recording of transfers of security interests. Many have requirements of physical possession of a properly endorsed note. There are all kinds of causes that should give mortgage servicers heartburn. But not here.

I suspect he has no choice but to appeal, even if it’s spending his last penny, because that penny is likely to be gone if he pays defense costs anyway. But I agree with you, I’d be at least mildly suprrised if the state supreme court agrees to hear it.

[SK in CV]

[quote=CA renter]
Who says a “Great Depression” has been avoided? Look at what’s happened to our national debt, much of it attributed to the bailouts of the financial industry.

[/quote]

In fairness, that claim is not really true. The TARP bailout was about $700 billion. Much of the rest of economic rescue monies over the last few years can’t accurately be called financial industry bailouts. It total, it’s probably around $1 trillion. Out of $13 trillion in federal debt. Something less than 8%. Not to minimize it, but even if none of the bailouts ever happened, we’d still have a huge debt problem.

[SK in CV]

[quote=CA renter]
Who says a “Great Depression” has been avoided? Look at what’s happened to our national debt, much of it attributed to the bailouts of the financial industry.

[/quote]

In fairness, that claim is not really true. The TARP bailout was about $700 billion. Much of the rest of economic rescue monies over the last few years can’t accurately be called financial industry bailouts. It total, it’s probably around $1 trillion. Out of $13 trillion in federal debt. Something less than 8%. Not to minimize it, but even if none of the bailouts ever happened, we’d still have a huge debt problem.

[SK in CV]

[quote=CA renter]
Who says a “Great Depression” has been avoided? Look at what’s happened to our national debt, much of it attributed to the bailouts of the financial industry.

[/quote]

In fairness, that claim is not really true. The TARP bailout was about $700 billion. Much of the rest of economic rescue monies over the last few years can’t accurately be called financial industry bailouts. It total, it’s probably around $1 trillion. Out of $13 trillion in federal debt. Something less than 8%. Not to minimize it, but even if none of the bailouts ever happened, we’d still have a huge debt problem.

[SK in CV]

[quote=CA renter]
Who says a “Great Depression” has been avoided? Look at what’s happened to our national debt, much of it attributed to the bailouts of the financial industry.

[/quote]

In fairness, that claim is not really true. The TARP bailout was about $700 billion. Much of the rest of economic rescue monies over the last few years can’t accurately be called financial industry bailouts. It total, it’s probably around $1 trillion. Out of $13 trillion in federal debt. Something less than 8%. Not to minimize it, but even if none of the bailouts ever happened, we’d still have a huge debt problem.

[SK in CV]

[quote=CA renter]
Who says a “Great Depression” has been avoided? Look at what’s happened to our national debt, much of it attributed to the bailouts of the financial industry.

[/quote]

In fairness, that claim is not really true. The TARP bailout was about $700 billion. Much of the rest of economic rescue monies over the last few years can’t accurately be called financial industry bailouts. It total, it’s probably around $1 trillion. Out of $13 trillion in federal debt. Something less than 8%. Not to minimize it, but even if none of the bailouts ever happened, we’d still have a huge debt problem.

[SK in CV]

[quote=socrattt]Both sides fall victim Brian, but in this case he was appointed by the left and YOU made the comment. Sorry if I was quick to judgement, but I think it’s fair to say your left arm is probably touching the ground as we speak.

[/quote]

No, he wasn’t appointed by the left. He was appointed by a centrist President.

[Author]

Posts