NY Judge Gives Couple Thanksgiving Present , Wipes Out $525,000 Mortgage, Blasts Bank
By Logan Murphy Thursday Nov 26, 2009 12:30pm
Here's a feel-good story for your Thanksgiving day. Finally, a victory for the little guy:
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" acts.
The bombshell decision leaves Diane Yano-Horoski and her husband, Greg Horoski, owing absolutely no money on their ranch house in East Patchogue.
Spinner 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 Horoski's probably would have been able to make their mortgage payments, had it not been for our current health care system:
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.
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. Read on...
This story really encapsulates the sad state of affairs in America and sets an interesting precedent. Of course, OneWest will appeal the decision, but don't be surprised to see lawyers across the country cite this case. It's about time someone spoke loudly and clearly on behalf of the people!
Login or Register to post comments.
Bailout fever...catch it.
Absolutely agree.
the 100 investors around the world who bought, traded, and sold snippets of this debt mortgage obligation to court to claim ownership?
Are those breasts?
Pumpkins don't have breasts.
Those are rock-hard pecs.
That's the ticket. Go into court and demand that the bank produce the note on the house. No note? Cancel the debt.
I have an attorney pal who has been fighting for people in foreclosure.
He says he has been winning with the "Show me the promissory note" - more than a few times.
I get so sick of hearing about how the SOB banksters make out like bandits while the families are out on the streets.
We have enough problems with the homeless.
I think the most any bankster should do is rent the property to the owner in trouble for a year or two. See if they can get back on their feet.
Why not keep a roof over their heads for the time being?
The judge was pi$$ed!
Let this be a lesson to you kids. It's not smart to PO a cop. It's really not smart to PO a prosecutor.
But never, ever, PO a judge!
And frankly I don't get why the mortgage holders (if they can in deed (pun intended) prove they own the mortgage) are so quick to foreclose when the only thing they get is a house they can't sell.
To me, the bailout $$ should have gone to (responsible) homeowners who will pay the banksters back and spend $$ in the economy.
Top down just doesn't work with greedy bastards. And at the top, they're almost all greedy bastards.
"It's not smart to PO a cop. It's really not smart to PO a prosecutor.
But never, ever, PO a judge!"
was in class taught by a former federal ct. of appeals judge -- don't piss off the mind you are trying to pursuade...
affidavit that pegged the principal balance at $290k, the rest was interest and penalties which add up quick. Interest especially in the early years of a loan, check out an amortization table on a $300k loan for the first 5 years.
But I learned something a little while back and that is sorta how to beat the banks at their own game. You make advance payments for the principal only part of each payment separately with notice for which payment it is for on the upcoming months in the first year or 3 of the loan which in the first year for a 100k loan is only $10-20 a payment. If you pay the principal before the time the payment is due that is all you owe for that payment. You still have to send in the full amount on time, but it will be for the next payment in line. So you can effectively pay off the loan a year earlier and save $5000 in interest the first year by paying a couple of hundred early.
But you have to make sure to notify them what payments you are paying on and that it is to be applied to the principal only.
They are required by law to give you the amortization table if you ask for it.
the 'economy' is turning around for some people in some areas of the country, and the banks are going to be more than happy to kick people out of their homes if they think the local housing market will allow them to sell the home.
It is Long Island, not exactly the poorest part of the country.
Bet the banksters are shivering in their britches and peeing their pants over this one.
this sets a precedent.
Does this mean more tax dollars for that bank in order to pay off the debt that's on the bank books?
Everyone is looking for the banks to get their just desserts, however, the judge ruled against the plaintiffs basically because he didn't like their attitude.
It's one thing to find against the plaintiff if they can't produce the promissory note-they don't have standing to foreclose, it's another story to say the banker is a mean, nasty guy. This won't survive an appeal, though it was fun while it lasted.
I didn't buy a house I couldn't afford.
So... uh, can I have a free house too now?
W
to afford a house you bought? After all, you can't predict the future. A young working couple has no trouble making a down payment on a house as they both have good jobs and a bright future. But then one of them is found to have terminal cancer. This is what happened to me and my husband. I was able to get the down payment back (cried on the phone to the realtor and they definitely were not crocodile tears) and the health benefits from my job paid my husband's medical bills since he lost his job as he couldn't work. Sorry to be morose but these things can happen to anyone. No one can predict that they're not going to be able to pay off their mortgage. Congrats to this couple and kudos to the judge.
First off-- sorry about your husband's cancer. That sucks and is going to make the rest of what I say sound cold and heartless... but here goes anyway.
"How do you know you'll not be able to afford a house you bought? After all, you can't predict the future."
When you agree to buy a house, you ARE making a prediction about the future. You and the bank are both assessing risks about the future, and you assume a responsibility to pay your mortgage with the understanding that if for any reason you cannot afford to continue paying, you'll lose the house. That is, the house is not really yours until it is paid for-- you are living in someone else's (the bank's) house. The bank has agreed to let you live there as you pay it off.
Those are the rules upon which you agreed. No one forced you to assume that responsibility, and you are taking immediate gain (moving into the house) in exchange for your continued financial obligations in the future.
If something unexpectedly bad happens to the bank (say, it goes insolvant and goes out of business), its creditors can NOT repossess your house and kick you out just because the bank has fallen on hard times. The bank (or its creditors) is legally obligated to let you stay in the home provided you continue to make the payments. And here's where I'm a dick, but-- if something bad happens to you (the economy crashes, you lose your job, you get sick, etc.), you are *still* expected to meet your obligations. Hopefully you had insurance to help cover expenses and a loss of income, but without insurance to back you up, by what reasoning would you expect to continue to live there for free?
There's no reason for the banks to be major league assholes as they seemed to have been in this case, and the fact that many banks DID go insolvent and their whole industry got huge string-free bailouts does color this whole thing. But I don't have very much sympathy for those "homeowners" (home-owers more like) who "bought" (ie, lied about being able to pay for) huge mansions they couldn't ever afford because "everyone was doing it" and because the money seemed free at the time. This inflated the prices of houses that actual responsible people might have otherwise been able to buy (and who are STILL renting to this day and whose taxes are being used to bail out the bankers AND the mansion-living people, etc. etc.)
So when this guy gets his house free, and the bank is bailed out by the taxpayers, I wonder- how many unemployed taxpaying renters just bought this guy a house?
... that the judge just felt sorry for these folks!?
The bank that bought the bank screwed up and didn't act in good faith.
They also have a record of ignoring the court's orders around the country.
Don't go by the article quoted by C&L, look up the court's findings.
The bank itself said they were only due about 300k, but the bank's rep to the court said it was over $500k.
BTW, I don't wish you ill health, or god forbid a fatal disease, but if that should happen then karma should take away your and your family's house and living just so you truly understand what it feels like.
Deathly ill and homeless is no way to go thru life son.
BTW, I don't wish you ill health, or god forbid a fatal disease, but if that should happen then karma should take away your and your family's house and living just so you truly understand what it feels like.
Gee, thanks. As should be clear-- my comments were not directed at bearing ill will towards johnscar, and my original snarky note was not particularly related to someone who gets sick. There is no question that getting ill (1) sucks, (2) is devastating to your personal life, and (3) can and often does drop an atom bomb in the finances of the sick person and their family-- through no fault of their own. That's why I'm all for a national health care system and insurance to act as a safety net in such cases. I am for shared risk and publicly shared responsibility.
But let's not forget that the failures borne by giant financial companies and those who exploited the housing boom have fallen on the shoulders of every taxpayer. I was an eyewitness to the greed of people who lied for access to virtually limitless credit without even having income to buy houses to flip. While other people, probably the majority, were prudent and didn't get involved with such a sketchy investment.
Now those people-- the ones I was addressing initially-- have put the entire economy at risk and have cost us all trillions.
My longwinded speech above was obviously not intended as a slam against someone who becomes sick. If you get terminal cancer, of course you should be treated with compassion and yeah, the community should ideally step up to help if possible -- via a true public insurance system. I was responding to the question of whether not being able to "predict the future" is a valid argument for why you should keep "your" house under all circumstances. People who get sick and can't pay the mortgage are in similar straits with those who bought more than they could afford and can't pay the mortgage-- but the former should be assisted via a public support system like a public health insurance & worker's compensation plan & private life insurance to cover mortgage costs (to the extent that they were able to pay before they got sick). And for the latter "speculators" who took a dump on the economy and knew they couldn't afford the house in the first place, I have very little sympathy.
W
You're just stating the facts and therefore I cannot disagree with you, except that these people did not get their house for free. If you read the article, that $525 amount was not correct - it was just an inflated amount presented by the greedy bank. Banks should just do their business and not be greedy, but this one was and they paid a price for it. I suspect that they (the bank) will lose on appeal - at least I hope so. And I, for one, am happy these days to be just a renter, and not someone faced with foreclosure as I almost did back then. I also agree with you about people buying 'mansions' or otherwise buying out of their league, except that this was not the topic of discussion here. Everything I said still stands - we're just talking from two different places.
Fair enough :)
W
this tired argument about people being greedy, buying houses they couldn't afford, it all being open and honest, is anything but honest and since you seem like a smart guy or gal you should know that....if you're being honest. Many people were deceived by shady loan officers/companies. Go ahead and refute that if you like, I for one am not gullible enough to buy your refutation and I don't give a shit if you agree with me or not.
Then, your argument reeks of the all-too-common Right-wing hypocritical holier-than-thou self-righteousness: "it's their fault they got duped." BS, that's why we have regulations because not every citizen should be expected to undertand all the ins-and-outs of loan agreements (amongst other complex transactions that affect their lives). What if there were no chance to sue doctors or dentists, they had no liability whatsoever? Are you so naive to believe that no doctor (or someone posing as one in one of these wild-west scenarios you laissez-faire worshippers are so fond of) would ever prescribe or perform unnecessary surgery, surgery which might fail or otherwise be life-threatening? Would you argue "well, the patient should have known that xxx procedure could lead to nerve impingement and the subsequent chronic pain and muscle degeneration that would cause him/her to be unable to perform his/her tasks at work, so when he/she lost their job it's all their fault, the half-assed doctor with the fake degree is blameless."
I hope people like you who adopt that self-righteous attitude someday get royally screwed in some venue where you don't have sufficient expertise to defend yourself. I really do.
Then, your argument reeks of the all-too-common Right-wing hypocritical holier-than-thou self-righteousness: "it's their fault they got duped."
Yeah, I'm so right wing. So "lassez-faire". Sorry, but buying a house is not akin to brain surgery or another complex medical procedure. Moreover, I am not against liability for dentists when they screw up a procedure due to negligence. That is very different from what we're discussing-- people who voluntarily agree to mortgage terms and then do not hold up their end of the agreement. I'm not condemning people who get seriously ill or were straight-out lied to over the terms of their loan-- that's fraud. However, I can tell you from direct personal experience that there was TONS of irresponsible buying and insane risk-taking going on in Southern California. Greed on the part of buyers was rampant. I saw it personally. It was in the air-- everyone and his sister were buying multiple houses and flipping them. People who said this was a bubble were called "naive"-- I had real estate agents I had met socially try to make me feel stupid for not "getting in the game." Ads ran on the radio station telling people they could be rich in real estate overnight and people believed it-- people without jobs talking about their multiple homes and how house prices in the us always go up...-- I saw this with my own eyes. I would walk by open houses and see the madness. And I DIDN'T get involved not because I am some kind of legal expert or have any more information than everyone else, but because it was so obviously too-good-to-be-true and because I had seen this same sort of insane feverish behavior during the Internet investment bubble of what, 5 years earlier?!
A "half-assed doctor with a fake degree" as you say is to be held accountable if there's a botched surgery, right? So should a half-assed lender with a fake income statement be condemned if there's a botched mortgage.
I'm not saying these borrowers are bad people. They just made incredibly stupid, optimistic, and in some cases greedy decisions, which should be recognized. And by the way-- this isn't particularly controversial. Lots of people have owned up to it.
Those speculators who bought houses they could not afford to flip for easy money because of a belief that the housing market would never crash botched their mortgage and helped tank our economy. Similarly, financial institutions who did the same thing via CDOs and CDSs should be blamed, taken over, and their management replaced.
I hope people like you who adopt that self-righteous attitude someday get royally screwed in some venue where you don't have sufficient expertise to defend yourself. I really do.
Yes, because when you bought your house, you were "attacked", and signing an agreement with a bank was "defend"ing yourself?
As far as not being a lawyer-- it's not as if these people were screwed by the "fine print". It's the *basic* terms of the loan-- the cost of the house and the interest rates-- that became unsustainable.
As far as my "self-righteous attitude" and whatnot-- If I wasn't on the hook as a taxpayer (and participant in this torpedoed economy), I wouldn't be so vocal. You can screw yourself over however you want as long as you leave me out of it. But this affects EVERYONE negatively because we all have to pick up the pieces. And half the people on Wall Street are being rewarded for it.
So excuuse me for being a little unsympathetic. But believe me, I save the real vitriol for the people who made, bought, and sold mortgage derivatives.
W
PS-- I'm all for regulating the crap out of the financial sector, so you can take your claim of "laissez-faire" and blow it out your ass.
He and she were quite careful when they bought it. Like my subject line says, his level of purchase was not all that out of line for his life income.
No one can predict illness.
Your scolding of the homeowner shows how much you want YOUR COMMUNITY to give a whit when you fall into similar circumstances. I know. I rented for 30 years before buying my first house. I have empathy and sympathy for all homeowners going through this.
You may be happier if you practiced a little compassion towards and less judgment of others.
$200,000 dollar house on an interest only loan, where they only paid the interest, nothing on the principal. Then 10 years later refinanced it for 292,500 on a sub prime high interest ARM.
About the only time you do a interest only loan is for investment if you think there is going to be a large uptick in prices soon where you can sell it for a profit. Or if a standard loan would be a stretch. So they either bought it as an investment and should of sold when they had the chance or they overbought.
And I do have compassion, but I also understand reality. So I feel sorry for them but they signed a contract and should be held accountable under it.
It is way past time. I know from first had experience how banks will cheat people and have been cheating people since they have been in business. The bailout should have gone to the home owner and not directly to the banks. The way buchco worked things out the only people that get help are the people at the top, the people that could most afford to lose a few bucks without killing them.
I'm telling you republicanism/conservatism is a mental illness that is killing America!
... this one just might hold up on appellate review after all. From the court's opinion:
The key phrases here are "appropriate equitable disposition" and "unique facts and circumstances".
Of course there's more to winning on appeal than having the law and the facts on your side. You also need good appellate counsel. Hopefully the folks in this case will get one.
Good on that judge. FU to the banks.
Hit em' in the right nut once again!!! This is the only way there will be some justice
Everyone conveniently ignores that these people signed a contract that they breached by not paying, and the remedy when that happens is foreclosure. The judge has absolutely no law on his side, and he abused his discretion. I have no doubt this will be overturned on appeal.
I borrowed $300000 and put 30k of my own money down for a house that is now worth 250000, but I am still making my payments because I signed a contract saying I would. If I lose my job and can't pay anymore, the bank has every right to foreclose, so say the papers I signed.
I love this attitude of entitlement that because the house isn't worth what you paid, you shouldn't have to pay back what you borrowed. That's like investing in a stock that goes down, and then acting like you deserve to be reimbursed for the money you lost.
The fact is there is no law out there that says the bank has to modify the terms of the loan, even if the property value goes down, even if they took bailout money, and if you can't pay what you agreed to pay when you borrowed the money, they can foreclose.
Also, this whole "show me the promissory note" angle is nonsense. Most states have reestablishment laws that allow the bank to recreate the note by signing an affidavit that it is lost and agreeing to indemnify the borrower if some other bank shows up with the original note.
And I have met plenty of foreclosure defense lawyers and they are jokes for the most part. They file form documents with the courts alleging that the bank committed fraud, violated the truth in lending act, etc. And these allegations are true 1 out of 50 times. 49 times out of 50 they are baseless allegations, and the borrower just borrowed way more than they should have. And making these baseless allegations regardless of the facts not only makes it harder for borrowers that really were wronged to be taken seriously, but further makes lawyers as a group look bad.
I am a longtime leftist that restarted the Students for Democratic Socialism at my college, so don't accuse me of being a republican or some conservative nutjob. I just believe in personal responsibility. That means understanding the contract I am signing, and accepting the consequences if I don't live up to my end of the deal.
These people in this case borrowed some $300000, and they should have to pay it back, even if the bank is made up of douches.
but the banks are conveniently forgetting they were bailed out to prevent this sort of thing from happening.
These people WERE responsible and tried all sorts to deal with the bank.
So when you get sick, can't pay your mortgage and are in danger of losing your home, we expect you to go quietly, and try no avenue of recourse.
Yes they acted in good faith and the banks acted immorally.
JK,
It's called the Students for a Democratic Society. If you want to bullshit us, get your "facts" straight.
Seriously, if you're going to be a concern troll try to at least get your faux credentials straight.
How did the borrowers act in "good faith"? They couldn't pay as they agreed when they borrowed the money? As sad as it is, they are not entitled to not be foreclosed on just because they acted in supposed "good faith." What does good faith even mean in your post above?
How did the bank act "immorally," an incredibly subjective standard? By foreclosing, as is their right under the contracts when a borrower defaults?
If you review federal law associated with the bailouts, taking bailout money had no requirement that the bank not foreclose on defaulted borrowers. Should the law have provided for that? Probably, but it doesn't, which is why this decision will be overturned on appeal.
And I am aware of a different group called Students for Democratic Society that was big during the 60s and 70s. My different club, started at Florida State University (check the paperwork I filed with the university) with half a dozen friends around 2000, was the Students for Democratic Socialism. Because a different club with a similar name also exists doesn't mean I am lying, genius.
some people can't read...
"...the bankers at OneWest -- who took an $814.2 million federal bailout"
That's like investing in a stock that goes down, and then acting like you deserve to be reimbursed for the money you lost.
As I said above, the law provides no provision that says the bank can't foreclose if they took bailout money. Find me the provision of law that says that if a bank takes bailout money, they can't foreclose on defaulted borrowers, you may have a point.
Once again, just because the people that loaned these borrowers 300k (or so) are douches, doesn't mean these people shouldn't have to repay the money they borrowed.
...to see you think the judge is a loon based on the lack of info available in the article. It's not like judges are handing out 'freebies' on a whim across the country.
You sound very reactionary JK, a very un-progressive trait.
Yeah and every other situation is EXACTLY like yours! Life's just one big cookie cutter, isn't it?
Waste of your time, now waste of mine.
Perhaps you should actually read the article to get the true message---that the judge had had enough of this bank's arrogance and unnecessary hardball tactics. I agree that people should pay what they fairly owe but the bank here had no business being so highhanded and punitive. Hiding behind the excuse of "personal responsibility" does not justify their unseemly tactics.
They were so slipshod and smug they couldn't even come up with the right amount the defendant owed---which they apparently grossly overestimated. Small wonder their industry almost took themselves over the cliff with their incompetence.
Whether this stands on appeal or not, the judge sent them a very clear message---and I hope this filthy ass bank gets it and reins in their condescending and confrontational tactics right now. We don't need them or their supersize haughtiness---ever.
I still don't see how the bank acted arrogant or high handed. They attempted to foreclose on a house when the borrower stopped paying their mortgage. That is very clearly their right under the contracts and the law. There is no law that requires the bank to modify the mortgage or take a deed in lieu. Courts can't force parties to settle.
The bank may have gotten the money owed incorrect, but the proper procedure at that point is to have a hearing to determine the right amount.
Maybe the foreclosing entity DID NOT OWN THE LOAN in the first place. Maybe the foreclosing entity NEVER LENT A DIME in the transaction. Maybe this is a MAJOR SHELL GAME being perpetrated against millions of Americans that was meticulously executed to perfection.
Do you really think twenty million homeowners gathered around the kitchen table one night and said let's take down the entire financial industry, the entire US economy?
During the housing boom, "lenders" passed around mortgages as if they were whiskey bottles at a frat party. Appraisals were overinflated, notes were lost, destroyed, shredded, sold into multiple pools. Mortgages were not recorded and exorbitant fees were collected by the big firms on Wall Street.
Now that the bubble has burst, these “lenders” are trying to collect on loans they do not own, in most cases never lent a dime on the transaction, have no right to, or were paid 30 times over in bailouts, insurance, credit default swaps, etc.
In almost EVERY case these "pretender lenders" do not and did not have any "skin in the game". Almost all loans during the boom were securitized and it was investors that put up the money, not the banks.
Now these "pretender lenders", the "servicers", along with MERS, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, are unrightfully taking peoples homes by filing fraudulent mortgage assignments to process foreclosures.
Do the research. See for yourself...
It is all in the public records...
http://4closurefraud.wordpress.com/
4closureFraud
Just because it's their right doesn't mean that they have to employ hardball tactics against defendants. You intentionally softpedal this bank's arrogance and willful spite in this matter--which was not necessary. They probably could have just as easily worked out an amicable out of court agreement with the defendant and avoided the court action and resulting embarassment entirely. But no, they decided to be Dirty Harry and make the defendant's day---and through their slipshod preparation and arrogant presentation even managed to offend the judge here. Only a damn fool would think this was a sound business practice./p>
The defendant was right by terming this a vendetta, I'm personally glad the judge sent a message to these arrogant schmucks that they need to take it down a notch.
As for you, you ought to remember that the ends do not necessarily justify the means in this case.
They can redo the mortgage and lose far less money than foreclosing. If they foreclose then automatically lose about 30%. Sometimes they will even lose more. They can allow the owner to refinance at a lower interest rate and keep the principal. Their profit is lower and they lose nothing. They should be willing to redo the principal and interest upto the point were the losses are comparable to foreclosing. The bankers duty to the stockholders is to minimize losses not to screw their mortgagees.
really suck in this country.
Do you really think this should be a FIRST TIME story of this nature?
The rich really take care of their own, don't they.
Just one reasonable judge in 50 states?
I realize "MORE" is the American way, but a 316 square meter house for a couple is outrageous. Even in Australia, with a comparable consumerist society to the United States, the average house is only 206 sq. meters. My own house (with two bedrooms) in Mexico is 65 sq. meters and I think it's too big.
Not that I'm unsympathetic to the plight of people like the Horoskis, but it's no wonder the economy, let alone the entire planet is in trouble, when you don't question your "right" to this kind of excess.
It is a blight and a curse on our planet. We could live with a lot less and not be compromised in any way. The question whether we will voluntarily do so or be forced to change out of necessity.
Some believe that personal responsibility means that debt should never be forgiven. Long ago we sent debtor to debtor jail until their debt was paid. Most of the time they died there. Seems they couldn't make money in debtor jail to paid their debt. It meant only extremely desperate borrowed money. There wasn't much of a market for debt. Debt forgiveness created a condition that made many more people willing to take on debt. There are many bank CEO who are only interested in short term profit so they can boost the company stock price and cash out. They are extremely greedy and therefore treat their customers like garbage. Not caring that these customers will react negatively to the ill-treatment and will simple refuse to borrow in the future.
I think the reason that many get upset, is because it is an unfair situation. This rule doesn't apply to everyone and this will be a one-off event most likely. It is also unfair, because yet again, it feels like those who were part of the issue are getting a free pass while the rest are paying the bill and being responsible.
There were two culprits in this mess. 1. The Banks 2. The Mortgage Holders.
The first group has been bailed out by Obama with taxpayer money and given nothing back to the community they have helped destroy and people are rightfully mad.
The second group played a role in this too. I live in Arizona, which was a particularly crazy place during the housing boom. It was amazing to see people buying multiple houses who couldn't afford them, or selling their houses and moving into one that pushed their budget to the extreme on the hopes they would earn more money off of the increase in prices.
Everyone wanted to buy houses for short-term money, or pull all the equity out of their homes thinking they could just pay it back when their house when up in value again. Everyone was willing to pay any price for a home, because they figured they would win anyway.
Meanwhile, there were people who saw the fire coming and chose to avoid it. There were renters who paid higher and higher rents as property kept going up in value thanks to the lenders and borrowers. First-time homebuyers who maybe had enough to afford and keep a reasonably priced home were pushed out of the market as those already in the market kept demanding more and more expensive houses to pay for more and more things.
Although, I had a medical problem, too, and was caused to lose my job. I am now sleeping on the floor at a friend's house. I owe tens of thousands in debt to the government for student loans on a degree that probably would have paid for itself already had there not been massive unemployment that was created strictly because of this housing problem that the lenders and borrowers created.
Irresponsible lenders and borrowers created a situation where it is difficult to find a decent, well-paying job and yet those same people are getting free homes. No one is going to come along and strike down my student loan debt, even though I am facing unprecedented competition for fewer and fewer jobs with less benefits and lower and lower wages and this is with the knowledge that irresponsible borrowers and irresponsible lenders in a system I was not involved in created this climate that is now affecting me.
Personally, I think it's a fairness thing. Banks and debtors getting a free ride, while renters who stayed out of the whole thing are facing just as much of a problem. Guess what? Renters lose their job too, but we get evicted and it happens much faster. Yet, no one cares about anyone who isn't a banker or a borrower. Even though, their decisions have managed to put many people in bad situations that had nothing to do with them.
I'm not saying that nothing should be done to help people in that situation, though. We as a society should help each other and the banks shouldn't be allowed to steamroll over people. Although, to erase $300,000 of legitimate debt, and that doesn't include interest, which everyone must pay on almost all debt, is a little beyond the pale I think. Unless, of course, someone wants to change the rules and say that NO ONE can get kicked out of any dwelling for non payment, but at least then it would be fair.
P.S. Is he in such a predicament that he couldn't afford to let the house go and become a renter himself or is being a renter too harsh a punishment for a "homeowner."
Now. Now. OneWest.
Let's say OneWest sold that Promissory Note, all nicely gift wrapped up in an over-rated AAA bond as, oh, say, a Morgage Backed Security. Let's say that a group of investors put up the money for that loan, along with a few hundred others.
Now, there's possibly some shenanegans at loan origination. Maybe a few points slipped in for good measure, or what say you of appraiser fraud in this house that seemed to zoom up in value?
Now, good ole' OneWest was successful in their attempt to foreclose (and they may succeed on appeal), grab the equity, add on hundreds of thousands in fees, collects the default insurance from the FDIC, sell off the house for pure profit (minus litigation expenses & taxes & insurance)? Wonder what that investor group has to say 'bout that?
GOT FRAUD?
http://www.ForeclosureHamlet.org
http://twitter.com/4closureFraud
http://livinglies.wordpress.com/
Login or Register to post comments.