COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary
“… maybe the crisis will make the banks realize that they ought to be doing fewer foreclosures and more loan modifications — sensible adjustments that allow deserving families to stay in their homes. And if this happens, we’ll have the lawyers to thank.
“These may be technicalities, but there’s nothing mere about them. For one thing, if borrowers are expected to play by the rules, lenders should be expected to do the same. For another, there can’t be a functioning real estate market without the ability to establish clear title. Lawyers probing this aspect of the foreclosure crisis are doing the system a favor.
“Sharp-eyed attorneys, representing delinquent homeowners, have unearthed cases in which high-volume “robo-signers” submitted affidavits attesting that they reviewed all the loan files personally — when, in fact, they had not. This is just the sort of thing that puts judges in a really bad mood.
Lawyers got it right on the foreclosure mess
Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud | Tagged: Eugene robinson, modifications, robo signers, technicalities, title, Washington Post |
There is a lot of argument being made that the borrowers are looking for a free lunch. But the banks are also looking for a free lunch …
All we got was indigestion, then food poisoning. They are still burping and rubbing their bellies from the decades-long banquets. And worse, they STILL want a free lunch.
I can only imagine how rewarding this current change of tide is for the fearless few who swam upstream for years. Thank you for your diligence in this matter.
I would also thank your readers doing Pro Se work. Myself and thousands of others have been asking questions and taking action on their own behalf. Thank the brave and courageous people just asking for fairness and justice.
Time to put some pork on the butcher’s chopping block. Get those hogs slaughtered (figuratively), already in time for the holidays.
This would be a ‘holiday ham’ that even vegetarians and Jews could enjoy. The banksters would and should choke on it!
The banksters will soon be standing in line for their measurements. Never again will you bastards over inflate and deflate my neighborhood to provide for your unjust enrichment. Every one of these dirty S.O.Bs and their counter parts belong in jail. Let me know when is time to place the order for the orange jump suits
Lisa–l ove that adage!
gwen,
I think the problem is that the banks want a free breakfast and dinner as well. There is another old adage that says something like “Pigs get fat but hogs get slaughtered”!
What is most disturbing in my opinion is the old adage of “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander”. There is a lot of argument being made that the borrowers are looking for a free lunch. But the banks are also looking for a free lunch–they are not being held to the same standards as the borrowers. This is a country of a rule of law–if we are willing to overturn 400 years of property law in the name of “efficiency” or “th’s the way we do it now”, we can toss the constitution out the door. What I will be anxious to see is what happens when one or more cases reaches a circuit court of appeals or better yet the U.S. SCt. For those who practice extensively particularly in the fed courts we know how conservative that group of judges are–will they support the financial instituions and republicans who put them there or will they, as conservative jurists insist the law is followed. To date it appears bankrtuptcy judges and trustees are insisting on “produce the note”. There are few appellate state court decisions let alone federal. However, if we let the banks MERS and servicers convince the AG’s, Congress and the Administration that we must “amend” the laws so “this will pass”, then the American People should be really angry and many will tkae up those vaunted Second Amended Rights (I don’t own a gun and never will–the courts are my recourse). People are angry about this and they should be–but shoving it under the rug, making retroactive laws and thumbing our nose at 400 years of property law is not solution–there should be no institution that is “too big to fail” if they don’t follow the law.