[SK in CV]

[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”?)

[SK in CV]

[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”?)

[SK in CV]

[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”?)

[SK in CV]

[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”?)

[SK in CV]

and you know you’re an old timer when you remember when the following didn’t even exist!

Rancho Bernardo (or it’s high school)
San Carlos (or it’s high school)
Penasquitos
Tierra Santa
Scripps Ranch
Fashion Valley (there was a ball park there, and bison next door)
The Community Concourse (NOT the convention center)
Sea World
The Wild Animal Park

in comparison, you’re practically a newcomer if all you can remember is when the following didn’t exist:

Carmel Valley
La Costa (the community, not the country club. The country club belongs in the category above.)
anything called East Lake
The first EVER Price Club (now Costco) on Morena
Horton Plaza

[SK in CV]

and you know you’re an old timer when you remember when the following didn’t even exist!

Rancho Bernardo (or it’s high school)
San Carlos (or it’s high school)
Penasquitos
Tierra Santa
Scripps Ranch
Fashion Valley (there was a ball park there, and bison next door)
The Community Concourse (NOT the convention center)
Sea World
The Wild Animal Park

in comparison, you’re practically a newcomer if all you can remember is when the following didn’t exist:

Carmel Valley
La Costa (the community, not the country club. The country club belongs in the category above.)
anything called East Lake
The first EVER Price Club (now Costco) on Morena
Horton Plaza

[SK in CV]

and you know you’re an old timer when you remember when the following didn’t even exist!

Rancho Bernardo (or it’s high school)
San Carlos (or it’s high school)
Penasquitos
Tierra Santa
Scripps Ranch
Fashion Valley (there was a ball park there, and bison next door)
The Community Concourse (NOT the convention center)
Sea World
The Wild Animal Park

in comparison, you’re practically a newcomer if all you can remember is when the following didn’t exist:

Carmel Valley
La Costa (the community, not the country club. The country club belongs in the category above.)
anything called East Lake
The first EVER Price Club (now Costco) on Morena
Horton Plaza

[SK in CV]

and you know you’re an old timer when you remember when the following didn’t even exist!

Rancho Bernardo (or it’s high school)
San Carlos (or it’s high school)
Penasquitos
Tierra Santa
Scripps Ranch
Fashion Valley (there was a ball park there, and bison next door)
The Community Concourse (NOT the convention center)
Sea World
The Wild Animal Park

in comparison, you’re practically a newcomer if all you can remember is when the following didn’t exist:

Carmel Valley
La Costa (the community, not the country club. The country club belongs in the category above.)
anything called East Lake
The first EVER Price Club (now Costco) on Morena
Horton Plaza

[SK in CV]

and you know you’re an old timer when you remember when the following didn’t even exist!

Rancho Bernardo (or it’s high school)
San Carlos (or it’s high school)
Penasquitos
Tierra Santa
Scripps Ranch
Fashion Valley (there was a ball park there, and bison next door)
The Community Concourse (NOT the convention center)
Sea World
The Wild Animal Park

in comparison, you’re practically a newcomer if all you can remember is when the following didn’t exist:

Carmel Valley
La Costa (the community, not the country club. The country club belongs in the category above.)
anything called East Lake
The first EVER Price Club (now Costco) on Morena
Horton Plaza

[SK in CV]

[quote=Diego Mamani]

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.[/quote]

I don’t disagree with that at all. The question is, should the lenders be allowed to ignore the law, which at times can (and has) lead to illegal foreclosures, in order to more quickly lead to a stable residential real estate market (which is what I presume you mean by “a return to sanity”)? I would propose that they should not be allowed to ignore the law.

I would also propose that we have already returned to sanity in the housing market on a macro basis. We are no longer in a bubble. Supply exceeds demand, so we have falling prices. If what you are looking for is a return to consistent and significant year over year increases in value, and builders building more than 2 million units a year, that isn’t likely to happen in the next 10 years.

Builders are building at a rate of about 1/2 a million units a year (for 2 years now), at close to an all time low (as in forever). When the over-supply is absorbed, we’re more likely to return to something still much lower than any time in the last 20 years, maybe a million units a year for the next decade at least. (There is evidence it could be even 20 years before more than a million units a year will be needed to supply new house formations.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=Diego Mamani]

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.[/quote]

I don’t disagree with that at all. The question is, should the lenders be allowed to ignore the law, which at times can (and has) lead to illegal foreclosures, in order to more quickly lead to a stable residential real estate market (which is what I presume you mean by “a return to sanity”)? I would propose that they should not be allowed to ignore the law.

I would also propose that we have already returned to sanity in the housing market on a macro basis. We are no longer in a bubble. Supply exceeds demand, so we have falling prices. If what you are looking for is a return to consistent and significant year over year increases in value, and builders building more than 2 million units a year, that isn’t likely to happen in the next 10 years.

Builders are building at a rate of about 1/2 a million units a year (for 2 years now), at close to an all time low (as in forever). When the over-supply is absorbed, we’re more likely to return to something still much lower than any time in the last 20 years, maybe a million units a year for the next decade at least. (There is evidence it could be even 20 years before more than a million units a year will be needed to supply new house formations.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=Diego Mamani]

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.[/quote]

I don’t disagree with that at all. The question is, should the lenders be allowed to ignore the law, which at times can (and has) lead to illegal foreclosures, in order to more quickly lead to a stable residential real estate market (which is what I presume you mean by “a return to sanity”)? I would propose that they should not be allowed to ignore the law.

I would also propose that we have already returned to sanity in the housing market on a macro basis. We are no longer in a bubble. Supply exceeds demand, so we have falling prices. If what you are looking for is a return to consistent and significant year over year increases in value, and builders building more than 2 million units a year, that isn’t likely to happen in the next 10 years.

Builders are building at a rate of about 1/2 a million units a year (for 2 years now), at close to an all time low (as in forever). When the over-supply is absorbed, we’re more likely to return to something still much lower than any time in the last 20 years, maybe a million units a year for the next decade at least. (There is evidence it could be even 20 years before more than a million units a year will be needed to supply new house formations.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=Diego Mamani]

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.[/quote]

I don’t disagree with that at all. The question is, should the lenders be allowed to ignore the law, which at times can (and has) lead to illegal foreclosures, in order to more quickly lead to a stable residential real estate market (which is what I presume you mean by “a return to sanity”)? I would propose that they should not be allowed to ignore the law.

I would also propose that we have already returned to sanity in the housing market on a macro basis. We are no longer in a bubble. Supply exceeds demand, so we have falling prices. If what you are looking for is a return to consistent and significant year over year increases in value, and builders building more than 2 million units a year, that isn’t likely to happen in the next 10 years.

Builders are building at a rate of about 1/2 a million units a year (for 2 years now), at close to an all time low (as in forever). When the over-supply is absorbed, we’re more likely to return to something still much lower than any time in the last 20 years, maybe a million units a year for the next decade at least. (There is evidence it could be even 20 years before more than a million units a year will be needed to supply new house formations.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=Diego Mamani]

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.[/quote]

I don’t disagree with that at all. The question is, should the lenders be allowed to ignore the law, which at times can (and has) lead to illegal foreclosures, in order to more quickly lead to a stable residential real estate market (which is what I presume you mean by “a return to sanity”)? I would propose that they should not be allowed to ignore the law.

I would also propose that we have already returned to sanity in the housing market on a macro basis. We are no longer in a bubble. Supply exceeds demand, so we have falling prices. If what you are looking for is a return to consistent and significant year over year increases in value, and builders building more than 2 million units a year, that isn’t likely to happen in the next 10 years.

Builders are building at a rate of about 1/2 a million units a year (for 2 years now), at close to an all time low (as in forever). When the over-supply is absorbed, we’re more likely to return to something still much lower than any time in the last 20 years, maybe a million units a year for the next decade at least. (There is evidence it could be even 20 years before more than a million units a year will be needed to supply new house formations.)

[SK in CV]

[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?

[Author]

Posts