NY Rocks: Diana Yano-Horoski speaks out and gives thanks in Indymac Case

Readers of Livinglies:

Firstly, might I say we were as shocked as anyone to learn of Judge Spinner’s ruling, so eloquently documented in his Jeffersonian-writing style.

We appreciate the notes and calls of support, but we are ordinary people whose only wish is to return to a normal life. As the court records indicate, we did act in good faith and the only reason we had taken this case into the judical system was because we could go no further. Every possible avenue was pursued to strike a deal with this bank, but to no avail. At one point, one of their own employees disclosed that a deal would never be struck. In our efforts to modify our loan, we maintained copies of all transactions that transpired; the evidence we provided to the court was sufficient and supported the Judge’s ruling. No matter what the ultimate outcome, we greatly respect Judge Spinner and his staff.

Many have accused us of profiting from this and view the bank as being wronged. One blogger went so far as to call me “Yoko,” an attempted slur at my Japanese surname, bastardized by Ellis Island, and referencing my husband as “doll man.” Perhaps, reviewing the court document would provide some insight to him, but his commentary was humorous. We, like millions of others, refinanced before the home market crashed; in fact, we supplied out-of-pocket money to propel the deal.

While this court order may be construed as a victory by some, but it came not without great price. While speaking with a news reporter, our beloved Shih Tzu, Timmy, was killed by an oncoming car; nothing can replace him or the sadness his death has caused. It has been a bittersweet time for us, and I am certain marks the beginning of yet another round with this bank.

Our views in today’s world may be unpopular: we believe in God, are proud to be Americans, residing in the greatest Nation in the world, and feel the real heroes are those who defend our freedoms here and abroad. It is for these that we offer thanks.

A Happy Thanksgiving to all, be appreciative of those you love and the blessings you have. For us, it will be wonderful to have a holiday after all this time without the sword of Damocles over our heads, even if it is short lived.

Diana Yano-Horoski

See Article Below

Judge blasts bad bank, erases 525G debt

Judge KOs 525G mortgage to slap bank

Last Updated: 3:34 PM, November 25, 2009

Posted: 3:46 AM, November 25, 2009

A Long Island couple is home free after an outraged judge gave them an amazing Thanksgiving present — canceling their debt to ruthless bankers trying to toss them out on the street
Suffolk Judge Jeffrey Spinner wiped out $525,000 in mortgage payments demanded by a California bank, blasting its “harsh, repugnant, shocking and repulsive” actsThe bombshell decision leaves Diane Yano-Horoski and her husband, Greg Horoski, owing absolutely no money on their ranch house in East PatchogueSpinner pulled no punches as he smacked down the bankers at OneWest — who took an $814.2 million federal bailout but have a record of coldbloodedly foreclosing on any homeowner owing money
“The bank was so intransigent that he [the judge] decided to punish them,” Greg Horoski, 55, said about Spinner’s scathing ruling last Thursday against OneWest and its IndyMac mortgage divisionIt erased up to $291,000 in principal and $235,000 in interest and penaltiesThe Horoskis — who had been paying only interest on their mortgage — had no equity in the homeHoroski, who had begged the bankers to let him restructure the loan, said, “I think the judge felt it was almost a personal vendetta.” Dealing with the bank, he said, was “like dealing with organized crimeOneWest said, “We respectfully disagree with the lower court’s unprecedented ruling and we expect that it will be overturned on appeal
It claimed it “has been extremely active in working with consumers on home loan modifications through the Obama administration’s Home Affordable Modification Program and other loan modification initiatives.The bank is owned by a private equity group that purchased the failed IndyMac bank.
Yano-Horoski, a college professor of English and cognitive reason, and Horoski, who sells collectible dolls online, bought their 3,400-square-foot, one-level house 15 years ago for less than $200,000.

In 2004, court records show, they refinanced, paying off their original mortgage with part of a $292,500 sub-prime loan from Deutsche Bank. They used what was left for health care and for his business.
The loan carried an initial adjustable interest rate of 10.375 percent, which soared to 12.375 percent.It eventually ended up being either owned or serviced by IndyMac, and the bank sued the couple in July 2005 when they began having trouble making payments because of Horoski’s health problems.

After a foreclosure was approved last January, Yano-Haroski successfully asked for a court settlement conference.
Spinner excoriated OneWest for repeatedly refusing to work out a deal, for misleading him about the dollar amounts at stake in the case, and for its treatment of the couple over months of hearings.
OneWest’s conduct was “inequitable, unconscionable, vexatious and opprobrious,” Spinner wrote.

He canceled the debt because the bank “must be appropriately sanctioned so as to deter it from imposing further mortifying abuse against [the couple].”

The bank is involved in a similar case in California, where it’s trying to foreclose on an 89-year-old woman, despite two court orders telling it to stop.


21 Responses

  1. Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v McRae
    2010 NY Slip Op 20020
    Decided on January 25, 2010
    Supreme Court, Allegany County
    Walker, J.
    Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
    This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the printed Official Reports.

    Decided on January 25, 2010

    Supreme Court, Allegany County

    Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, As Trustee for FFMLT 2006-FF13, Plaintiff,


    Terry A. McRae a/k/a Terry McRae, et. al., Defendants.


    Plaintiff: Steven J. Baum, P.C. by Megan B. Szeliga, Esq.; Defendant: No appearance

    Timothy J. Walker, J.
    Procedural History

    In July 2006, Defendant Terry A. McRae borrowed $45,000 from First Franklin, A Division of National City Bank of Indiana, and signed a promissory note providing for monthly payments over thirty (30) years to First Franklin (the “Note”). This debt was secured by a mortgage on Defendant’s real property located in the Town of Almond, New York, recorded in the Allegany County Clerk’s Office on July 11, 2006 (“Mortgage”). Thereafter, Defendant defaulted on the loan and on January 21, 2009, Plaintiff commenced this foreclosure action by filing a summons and complaint (in which it alleges, inter alia, that it is the owner and holder, by assignment, of the Mortgage and the Note).

    Thereafter, Plaintiff made an application for an order of reference. By order dated September 8, 2009, this Court denied the motion, without prejudice, on the following grounds: (1) Plaintiff failed to submit evidence of the proper assignment or delivery of the Mortgage and/or Note; and (2) Plaintiff failed to submit evidence of service of the 90-day notice required by RPAPL §1304 (Exhibit “A” attached hereto). In response thereto, Plaintiff filed a subsequent application, in which it claimed it cured these deficiencies. Plaintiff provided the court with sufficient proof that it timely served the 90-day notice required by RPAPL §1304. However, and for the reasons stated in this court’s November 5, 2009 Decision and Order (Exhibit “B” attached hereto), Plaintiff failed to cure the deficiency as to the assignment of the Mortgage and the Note.

    On or about December 7, 2009, Plaintiff filed the within Motion for an Order for Relief to Reargue, requesting that the court reconsider the evidence before it on the issue of the assignment.

    For the reasons which follow, the Motion to Reargue is granted, but the court’s prior [*2]Order and Decision on standing shall remain undisturbed.

    The Significance of Standing in Foreclosure Litigation – Legislature History.

    In 2008, New York enacted comprehensive subprime lending reform legislation [See Chapter 472 of the Laws of 2008]. One of the new laws added included CPLR §3408. Pursuant thereto, for residential foreclosure actions involving a high-cost home loan created between January 1, 2003 and September 1, 2008, or a sub-prime, or non-traditional loan where the defendant is a resident of the property, the court must hold a voluntary conference within sixty (60) days after the date proof of service of the foreclosure is filed with the county clerk, or on an adjourned date agreed to by the parties, if the defendant-homeowner requests a conference. The purpose of the conference is to allow the parties to reach agreement on an alternative to foreclosure. Likewise, the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) was amended to require the plaintiff in a foreclosure action to affirmatively allege that it owns and holds the note and mortgage, or has been delegated authority by the owner to foreclose [RPAPL §1302).

    While this court has interpreted CPLR §3408 as requiring the parties to act in good faith during the mandatory settlement conference process, in late 2009, the Legislature amended CPLR §3408 to expressly require good faith negotiations. In sponsoring the 2009 amendment, both the Assembly and Senate found that “[a]s the mortgage crisis has worsened … it has become evident that more must be accomplished to protect New Yorkers in these difficult times and beyond.” [New York Sponsors Memorandum, 2009 A.B. 8917 (June 27, 2009); New York Sponsors Memorandum, 2009 S.B. 5931 (June 27, 2009)].

    Previously (in July 2006), the Legislature enacted the Home Equity Theft Prevention Act, which amended certain sections of New York Banking Law, RPAPL (L 2006, CH 308). From the language of the amendments, it is clear that the Legislature expanded protections to homeowners in the unfortunate throes of foreclosure actions. For example, in adding Real Property Law §265-a, in Section 3 of the Act, the Legislature declared that “it is the expressed policy of the state to preserve and guard the precious asset of home equity, and the social as well as the economic value of home ownership” (Real Property Law §265-a[1][b]). Similarly in relevant part, section 3 of the Act states that “[t]he intent and purposes of this section are to … ensure, foster and encourage fair dealing in the sale and purchase of homes in foreclosure or default … and to preserve and protect home equity for the homeowners of this state” (Real Property Law §265-a [1][d]).

    Consistent with the intentions and purposes stated in Section 3 of the Act, Section 4 of the Act added new Section 1303 to the RPAPL, regarding required notices in foreclosure actions. Effective February 1, 2007, the foreclosing party in a mortgage foreclosure action (similar to plaintiff herein) is required to provide a statutorily specific notice to the mortgagor/homeowner regarding information and assistance about the foreclosure process.

    Discussion of Applicable Law

    It is well-settled that, in order to establish a prima facie case in an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff must establish the existence of the mortgage and mortgage note, ownership of the mortgage, and the defendant’s default in payment [see Household Fin. Realty Corp. of NY v. Winn, 19 AD3d 545 (2nd Dept. 2005)]. Thus, foreclosure of a mortgage may be [*3]brought by one who has title (i.e., standing) when the action is commenced. [Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. V. Coakley, 41 AD3d 674 (2nd Dept. 2007) emphasis added); RPAPL §1302)]. A mortgage can be assigned in two ways – by the delivery of the bond and mortgage by the assignor to the assignee with the intention that all ownership interests thereby transferred, or by a written instrument of assignment. [Fryer v. Rockefeller, 63 N.Y.265 (1875); Curtis v. Moore, 152 N.Y.159 (1897); See generally, 78 NY Jur 2d mortgages and deeds of trust §272.].

    In this case, the complaint was prepared, and verified by Plaintiff’s attorneys, who allege “upon information and belief” that “Plaintiff is the holder of a Note and Mortgage being foreclosed.” [Complaint, at par. “First”) (emphasis added)]. There can be no valid line of reasoning that this statement satisfies the requirements of RPAPL §1302.

    Plaintiff relies further upon a written instrument of assignment — not physical delivery of the Note and the Mortgage. First Franklin purported to assign the Mortgage and the Note to Plaintiff by an “Assignment of Mortgage,” dated January 20, 2009 (the “Purported Assignment”). The Purported Assignment provides, in relevant part, as follows:

    Said Assignor hereby assigns unto the above named Assignee the said Mortgage, and the full benefit of all the powers and of all the covenants and Provisions therein contained, and the said Assignor hereby grants and conveys unto the said Assignee, the Assignor’s beneficial interest under the Mortgage. (Emphasis added).

    As the above-quoted language clearly indicates, it does not assign the Note, or the underlying obligation. Indeed, the operative language ends with the assignor assigning its “beneficial interest under the Mortgage” alone, with no reference to the debt.

    By contrast, McKinney’s Real Property Law §258 [Form O], contains a form assignment of mortgage which clearly assigns both the mortgage and the underlying debt, as follows:

    assignor … hereby assigns a certain mortgage … together with the bond or obligation described in said mortgage, and the moneys due and to grow due thereon with interest … . [Emphasis added]

    While an assignor is not required to use statutory Form O, if it intends to assign the mortgage and the underlying debt, it is well advised to employ language that unambiguously does so.

    The Purported Assignment continues with the following language, which similarly fails to assign the underlying debt and instead confirms that the assignment is limited to the Mortgage:

    TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said Mortgage, and also the said property unto the said Assignee forever, subject to the terms contained in said Mortgage. [emphasis in original]

    By way of the September 8, 2009 Order, this court previously determined that Plaintiff lacked standing, because it failed “to submit evidence of proper assignment/delivery of mortgage and note.” Thereafter, Plaintiff submitted a second copy of the Note, which for the first time contained an endorsement by First Franklin, a Division of National City Bank of Indiana, to First [*4]Franklin Financial Corporation, and an endorsement in blank by First Franklin Financial Corporation. The endorsement in blank, however, is undated. In stark contrast, the copy of the Note attached to the complaint bears no such endorsements. Obviously, the endorsements were made in response to the September 8, 2009 Order, which post-date the commencement of this case (in January 2009), and are ineffective. [MERS v. Coakley, at 674; see also Kluge v. Fugazy, 145 AD2d 537 (2nd Dept. 1988) (absent assignment or delivery of the note, the assignment of the mortgage is a nullity)]. There being no evidence that the endorsements were made prior to the commencement of the action, Plaintiff failed to establish that it was in possession of the Note at the time it commenced this action.

    A plaintiff seeking judicial redress must have standing before this court. “If standing is denied, the pathway to the courthouse is blocked” (Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce, Inc. v. Pataki, 100 NY2d 801, 812 [2003], cert denied 540 U.S. 1017 [2003]). “Standing … requires an interest in the claim at issue in the lawsuit that the law will recognize as a sufficient predicate for determining the issue at the litigant’s request” (Caprer v. Nussbaum, 36 AD3d 176 [2nd Dept. 2006]).

    Although recent decisions by the Second Department have held that a defendant waives standing where it is not raised in the answer or pre-answer motion to dismiss (see, Wells Fargo Bank Minn v. Mastropaolo, 42 AD3d 239, 244 [2nd Dept. 2007]; HSBC Bank USA v. Dammand, 59 AD3d 679, 680 [2nd Dept. 2009]; Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v. Delphonse, 64 AD3d 624, 625 [2nd Dept. 2009]), those cases are distinguishable. In both Mastropaolo and Delphonse, the defendants filed answers containing either counterclaims or affirmative defenses, without asserting a standing defense [see, Mastropaolo, 42 AD3d at 240; Delphonse, 64 AD3d at 625]. In so doing, the defendants acknowledged that the plaintiff was a proper party for the prosecution of those foreclosure actions. By stark contrast, Defendant has not appeared or filed an answer and therefore has not waived the right to challenge Plaintiff’s standing. This court’s prior decision is also distinguishable from Mastropaolo, because the court dismissed the case without prejudice, which would allow Plaintiff, should it still hold the note and mortgage, to refile the action (see, Mastropaolo, 42 AD3d at 241; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Abbate, 2009 NY Slip OP 52154U, *4[Supreme Court, Richmond County 2009]; 2005-WNC Mortgage pass-through Security Series v. Rielly, 23 Misc 3d 1107A [Westchester County 2009]; Citigroup Global Markets Realty Corp. v. Bowling, 2009 NY Slip OP 52567U [Kings County 2009]).

    Today, with multiple and (and often unrecorded) assignments of mortgage obligations and multiple securitizations often related to the same debt, the courts should carefully scrutinize the status of parties who claim the right to enforce these mortgage obligations. For the unrepresented homeowner, the issues of standing and real party in interest status of the foreclosing party are never considered. Without such scrutiny, there is a risk that the courts will give the judicial “seal of approval” to foreclosures against unrepresented homeowners who have little, if any, understanding of these issues, much less the legal significance thereof. To quote my colleague in Kings County, “[a]llowing this case to proceed on behalf of a plaintiff without standing at the commencement of the action would [also] open the door to potential fraud and place in jeopardy the integrity of title to the property to be foreclosed.” [Bowling, supra at p. 4].

    It is against this backdrop that the court, on reargument, affirms its prior order with dismissal without prejudice. [*5]

    This constitutes the Decision and Order of this Court. Submission of an order by the parties is not necessary. The mailing of a copy of this Decision and Order by this Court shall constitute notice of entry.


    Hon. Timothy J. Walker, J.C.C.

    Acting Supreme Court Justice

    Dated:January 25, 2010

    Buffalo, New York

  2. Deidre,

    Yano-Horowski was Pro Se

    Indymac Bank F.S.B. v Yano-Horoski
    2009 NY Slip Op 52333(U)
    Decided on November 19, 2009
    Supreme Court, Suffolk County
    Spinner, J.


    Steven J. Baum P.C.

    Attorney for Plaintiff

    P.O. Box 1291

    Buffalo, New York 14240

    Diana Yano-Horoski

    Defendant Pro Se

    8 Oakland Street

    East Patchogue, New York 11772-5767

    Jeffrey Arlen Spinner, J.

  3. I’d like the name of Diane Yano-Horoski and her husband, Greg Horoski’s lawyer. I need help with my Loan Modification. I had an accident, broke my back, thus lost my income. I’m on a modest disability. My husbands place of business closed for a year, leaving us with very little income and a huge mortgage that we were able to pay before all this happened. Now we’ve been through 7 months of HELL with Bank of America (our mortgage was with CountryWide) We’ve just completed the Home Affordable Modification…blah, blah, blah, and after 7 months of anguish and jumping through multitudes of hoops, they gave us a final monthly figure that is $200 less than our original mortgage payments! I could clip a few more coupons and save that much in groceries! And they tacked on $41,555.00 to our principle for interest and third party services!!!! What’s that about? We have spent the last 7 months dealing with BOA and suddenly they are giving us 5 days to sign, seal and deliver the final agreement papers! I’d at least like to have an attorney look at these papers. I’d like at least a months notice of the $676.00 jump in my monthly payments. Where does one find $676.00 in 5 days? I’m disgusted. The president’s plan is a BUST! The banks get $1,500 for each person who signs up for the modifications. The government matches dollar for dollar on the amounts that are lowered in the mortgages and payments. The banks got bazillions of dollars of our money to keep afloat. What are they doing for us? Nothing. Just making more money and taking our homes.

    Does anyone know who represented the Horoski’s?
    I need to speak with them to see if they might be doing a class action type of thing.

  4. In response to Carol,

    I am in the same situation and was basically yelled at by one of IndyMac employees that they would not help me unless I was late or didn’t make payments. As long as you are current the bank will not help was the response I was told. Initially I didnt want to ruin my credit so I continued to apply for modifications every 45 days and they would not help. At that point I was becoming behind and deliquent on other bills so I became late with my mortgage and they still did not help. My advice is if you have it pay it. I am now in pre-foreclosure, my high credit score has gone down 200 points and they still haven’t come up with a resolution to modify my condo which has also gone down by $150k.

    I am hoping that cases like these will help others that are in similar situations. Hopefully the bank will come up with resolutions to avoid further court orders.

    Good luck!!!

  5. I have been battling and battling with OneWest for some help. I am not behind on any payment, but simply have a terrible loan that will adjust making my payments over $6,000 per month on a condo that is has appraised $200,000 less than purchase price 2 yrs ago! OneWest will not work with me because I am current and told me to stop making payments – which I am not willing to do.

    I couldn’t be more supportive and thankful of the Horoski’s for fighting this (as they should have) and Judge Spinner for seeing the truth. This bank is exactly as described as harsh, repugnant, shocking and repulsive” and maybe this will wake both OneWest and Congress up on the deplorable treatment of consumers committed by this bank. A bank that took taxpayer money, but isn’t the least bit interested in helping the very people whose money they took. It’s disgusting.

  6. Deontos,

    Well all I can offer you is my rant contact me maybe I can help you. Who knows

  7. I will agree that unless you walk in the footsteps of someone being foreclosed upon, I can not verify the good and bad actions of the banks.

    Mr. Dell and Mr. Soros are well known generous philanthropists, but I know enough from my business degree from Cornell that basically all rich people are
    rich because they put money before emotion
    and compassion.

    Only know that at some point when a borrower cannot make payments and value is there, choices need to be made. As Kenney Rogers would say,
    “know when to fold them.”

    As far as the elderly couple, now just widow very sad.
    I never did a loan for anyone over 70. But saw more than once when offspring being middle age, needing cash for various reasons, especially their own kids college tuition pressure their parents to use the house as an ATM, instead of waiting for a future inheritance.

    Almost all elderly people being of the Depression age are very credit conserative.

    Obviouslly a Reverse Mortgage would have been a better choice.

    Again, I only did Conforming. As an AE I did get some applications where some unethical broker would state Social Security as $5,000 or over.
    There were broker offices we caught off.

    That never passed in conforming–you can google the 2009 ssi pay–believe max is somewhere around $2700.

    Have been out of the business for two years, but that loan would NOT have gone thru Conforming–at least my past employers.

    I have seen friend’s parents lose their home once they go into a nursing home or need assisted care.
    The costs for both are overwhelming on a monthly case.

    Possibly conveyancing attorney before or at least at closing (knowing they had 3 days to rescind), ask the couple for the number of a relative or their own attorney.

    With enough caring and concerned individuals such as yourself posting their story, hopefully someone with great means will come forward and help her.

    But the elderly unfortuantely have been victimized by many, contractors, financial planners and obvioussly
    an occasional LO.

    sorry for typos–have the flu, not seeing straight

  8. Mario,

    Can you share more about your idea?

  9. To: Susan Judd,


    The Indymac crowd are THUGS. With no respect for the law.
    Do you know who owns that bank?

    The same Indymac Bank in a California case:
    Xhttp://www.courthousenews.com/2009/11/23  /Bank_Won_t_Quit_Demands_on_Elderly_Wid ow.htm

    From Court News:
    Tuesday, November 24, 2009

    In Oakland, California, Courthouse News Service reports:

    * Indymac Bank and its successor, One West Bank, keep trying to foreclose on an elderly widow’s house despite two court orders telling them to stop, the 89 year-old woman says in Alameda County Court, Oakland. She says stress from the repeated threats of foreclosure made her husband depressed and may have contributed to his death.

    Irene Jones says foreclosure proceedings on her Oakland home were halted twice, first by an order restraining Indymac from foreclosing in February 2008, then by a second order invalidating Indymac’s foreclosure proceedings in March 2009. Nonetheless, Jones says Indymac and One West notified her they would begin foreclosing again in October.

    CASE FILE: Jones v. One West Bank F.S.B., et al.
    Xhttp://www.courthousenews.com/2009/11/23  /ElderHouse.pdf

  10. Well I discovered how to stop all creditors.

  11. We should all live in a 3400 house since 2005 making not even real estate taxes, that is 45 minutes from Manhattan.

    Not to mention the $100,000 that was taken out and then 6-9 payments later the house was in foreclosure.

    Go to Zillow–house is worth over $500,000

    Davein is correct–lending standards will be tightened, and we will all pay the price.

    Were does in state that Just Because—-you are entitled to live in a LARGE HOUSE IN ONE OF THE Most EXPENSIVE AREAS OF THE COUNTRY.

    2005 when Real estate Market was flying and homeowners were 2 months behind in their payments,
    they choose to not sell.

    What were they expecting to WIN THE LOTTERY—
    poor planning, but it worked since Bad Behavior is Now Rewarded.

    Three adults lived in the house, looks like real estate taxes had not been paid for years. Now that is a responsible trio of citizens.

    Let their neighors pay the salaries of the Firefighters,
    Police Officers and Teachers.

    Though I bet if a police call was delayed, they would be the first to complain.

    Both are so prone to exagerating–
    “It was like dealing with organized crime.”

    When has he dealt with organized crime.

    Diane makes reference to Karen Dickinson :you must be smoking crack..” That comes out of the mouth of a middle age English Professor.

    What does she know about crack?

    Zillow–8 Oakland, East Patchouge, New York

    The daughter was willing to buy the house at $540,000 or actually $250,000

    I have read $250,000

    No dis-respect o the daugter’s hospital job, but very hard as a single individual early in one’s career to qualify alone for a HALF-MILLION DOLLAR MORTGAGE.

    The court should publsh more of the details, since tax payers money is paying for this very nice property.

    Such as the following:

    Daughter’s purchase offer

    What 25% of Father and Daughter Income would be that IndyMac Rejected.

    Keep in mind that taxes and hazard alone on the house are over $1,200.

    Their income would need to be substantial to just use 25% to pay back any part of the $525,000

    Even with $10,000 Monthly income only $1300, because of the other 1200 Taxes and Hazard) would be left.

    Does not make sense–

    Plus daughter posted that she Hoped to attend medical school in 2 years. Therefore, her income would disappear, and borrowers would just be going off of Greg’s

    For the Judge to allow them to make such a small partial payment towards the $525,000 while they claim medical disabilities (that would unable them to maintain the house)

    Guess with their other income they could hire lawn maintenance, snow removal, painting etc.

    Doubt it, Indy made a decision that borrowers could not afford the house. Why should taxpayers keep a roof (LARGE ROOF) over the head of 3 adults when no children even lived in the house.

    After all Court releases how unreasonable Indy is.


    Guess, we should be naive and just accept without question that Indy was like dealing with organized crime.

  12. How about this Dave in Philly guy? A sad day for capitalism? We need a few more of those. Poor little defenseless capitalism which has brought the United States to its knees. Made it into a developing country full of people who long to work… but there are no more jobs. We don’t make stuff in the US now. It’s made elsewhere. And by the same token we claim the right to be the best, to strongest and the most powerful. And we meddle in other peoples’ affairs in the interests of capitalism. Poor America. Poor citizens bamboozled by the banks.. Deer in the headlights America the headlight Americans who get nothing but a false idea of freedom whereupon they can pound their chests and boast about being the Best. How naïve they are. Nothing in return for high taxes. No paid vacations, job security, health insuracne or even decent public transport systems. It’s a mess over there. Bravo Jeff. Ww are all your fans. Cheers, Suzanne White

  13. To Karen:

    If I may, I’m working with an attorney up here in Dutchess County, New York. His number 845 691 3659.

    His website address http://www.hudsonvalleyhope.com/index.htm

    Hope this helps and God bless.

  14. Mrs. Yano-Horoski,
    Thank you for inspiring me as well. I’ve been battling for over a year now and very much dreaded going into Federal Court on Dec 21st as a pro se Defendant. I was actually considering hiring a lawyer simply to placate the Judge in my case but instead I am back to believing that I should not HAVE to hire a lawyer to get justice.

    My condolences also on the loss of your pet. That may seem like an insignificant detail to some, but it shows that you are human with feelings, unlike the corporations/ banks/ lenders that are stealing this country (and world) blind.

    Thank you for sharing.

  15. I take the opposite view. II hope the Horoski’s lose on appeal and then have to pay all attorney’s fees thus far for both parties. It is a sad day for capitalism when a judge can rip up a valid contract and violate the rule of law, just because some irresponsible people want to use their house as an ATM machine and subsequently can’t make the payments when their wild spending catches up with them because they can’t keep up with the Jones’s down the street.

    As a private investor and an occasional private lender to people looking for a mortgage, you can be sure that I will never lend out another mortgage again. And there are many more people like me who see this judge legislating from the bench and, like me, vow to just stick with corporate and municipal bonds from now on. The risk is just too great when it comes time to foreclose. Mortgage money will be harder to get when people like me leave the market. Sad day for America today.

  16. looking back Mrs. Yano-Horoski, when those feelings of getting out attack me, you will be an inspiration. They never last too long, I suddenly regain my Jack Russell like mentality and go on, your story will get me on track a lot more quickly.
    You are inspiration to me and many I am sure.

  17. To Mrs. Yano-Horoski, and Mr Horoski,

    Thank you for fighting so hard that you reached the next level.
    I applaud your perseverance. I know first hand how difficult it is. I am sorry for the loss of your dog. I am sorry individuals with no knowledge of your situation, who do not have an ounce worth of your fortitude. The adversity I know you faced is such an enormous challenge, with you riding the waves, up and down. It gets very difficult I speak for my self in that I have had so many moments when I would love to give up.

    Congratulations on your victory, You and your family will be in my prayers.

  18. Neil,

    You made history, congratulations, as I said your hard work paid, and my hard work paid too, in the beginning very few of us were seeing the truth,now many do. enjoy
    Mario Kenny

  19. Dear Diana,

    Your beliefs may not be popular, but believe me, there are more people like you who hold to your beliefs than you know. Keep the faith and hopefully we can all “share” in your victory.

  20. Dear Mrs. Diana Yano-Horoski,

    Your family has made history.

    Please accept my condolences on the loss of your beloved dog, another fatality in this relentless foreclosure mega-catastrophe.

    May your family find the courage and strength to carry on this fight that is sure to continue somehow.

    Please do not be weighed down by the words of bigots, which give no information about your family’s character yet reveals much information about the one who utters such inanities.

    Lisa E (Pro Se, Florida)
    ForeclosureHamlet @ gmail . com


Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: