Judge wipes out 525K worth of idiots' debt

[Jhhnn]

Not to defend or condemn any of the parties or the Judge, but I think it's important for the plaintiff in these actions to have accurate information and to present it in a straightforward fashion. Not doing that opens up a whole can-o-worms, opens them up to a variety of consequences that can and should be avoided.

In a few well publicized cases we've seen, the plaintiffs just didn't have their ducks in a huddle, basically tried to fake their way past a smart opposing attorney and an observant judge, maybe even a judge more sympathetic to the defendants than is proper, a judge with a political axe to grind. Regardless, it's really not that tough, given that the vast majority of such cases are slam-dunks for well prepared plaintiffs.

It's a wake-up call for servicers, creditors and their attorneys.

I suspect that one of the side effects of this whole securitized mortgage arrangement is that some servicers can make more for themselves in the short run through foreclosure rather than restructuring, pass their fees and losses onto the investors. It's really the only reason I can see for a truly hard-nosed approach, one that ignores the servicer's fiduciary duty to the investors.

And I could be completely wrong about that in this case and wrt the subject in general. It could be very much like Vic described, above. We'll likely know more about this case over time, as more information comes out.

 

[tk149]

where, and how do you know exactly?

You "doubt" the bank lied, but the judge pointed out several instances of intentional deceipt and reluctant admittance.

The judge himself pointed out in the opinion certain mitigating factors which while irrelevant to the law of the case weigh on the good faith nature of the parties to reaching settlement, yet you point out his inclusion of these facts as if you discovered some sort of "gotcha!" And the housing crisis is relevant, as the judge points out, as a matter of public policy. I don't think you understand the equity v. law argument so re-read thump's post above.

Basically with no knowledge of the case and a supremely inferior knowledge of the facts compared to the trier who heard the case for almost a year, you have determined bias. You know, if anyone's state of mind is being questioned here I think we can add you to that list.

Go back and read your own link. Critically. If you still can't find the errors, read it again. Basically with no knowledge of the case or the trier, you have a determined bias.

The judge claimed that the bank agents lied. I'd like to see the full transcripts of what he is claiming. Maybe he's right, and maybe he's not.

Is the judge truly interested in justice when he wipes out all of the debtor's obligation? Would it not have been more equitable to just cut the loan amount to the value of the house, minus principal payments, or even the full sum of all payments?

 

[whylaff]

The judge claimed that the bank agents lied. I'd like to see the full transcripts of what he is claiming. Maybe he's right, and maybe he's not.

Is the judge truly interested in justice when he wipes out all of the debtor's obligation? Would it not have been more equitable to just cut the loan amount to the value of the house, minus principal payments, or even the full sum of all payments?

The Judge referenced the testimony of a bank officer and the figures from court filings. Why on earth would a Judge lie in his own Court’s opinion about something that is a matter of court record? Moreover, you claimed that the bank officer may have simply been confused, and that may be the case, but ‘being confused’ is not an excuse that has to be accepted in a courtroom.

In your prior post as well, you assert that the Judge had a bias because he makes references to societal issues in his decision. As others have pointed out, decisions about foreclosure are based on equity, not law. Your bank perusing a foreclosure is not a matter of law; no laws broken, it is merely a contract. There is no concept of justice in the context you describe for that reason, there are simply equitable remedies. Equity, by its very nature, implies a consideration of the circumstances. How do you propose that a Judge appropriately consider circumstances and not point out societal trends, regarding the topic at hand, that are obvious to anyone?

 

[jonks]

Go back and read your own link. Critically. If you still can't find the errors, read it again. Basically with no knowledge of the case or the trier, you have a determined bias.

The judge claimed that the bank agents lied. I'd like to see the full transcripts of what he is claiming. Maybe he's right, and maybe he's not.

Is the judge truly interested in justice when he wipes out all of the debtor's obligation? Would it not have been more equitable to just cut the loan amount to the value of the house, minus principal payments, or even the full sum of all payments?

I haven't determined any bias. You are the one who claimed bias, and I don't see anything in my post that qualifies as the "errors of law" you claimed.

And the judge didn't "claim" that the bank agents lied, for which you say he may be right or wrong. He found, as the trier of fact, that the bank lied and/or was not credible. The appellate courts don't get to question the findings of fact, be it a judge or jury, unless such finding was "unreasonable", and if you don't know legal language, that's a giant hurdle to overcome for an appellant.

As to your last question, the judge squarely addressed that issue, so go read the opinion again. He weighed the behavior of both parties over the course of the case and decided that nothing less than cancelation of the loan was appropriate sanction for the bank's malfeasance. He found that simply reducing the mortgage would not provide sufficient incentive for the bank to cease such behavior in the future, that to merely reduce the outstanding loan would not, in fact, be equitable relief.

The bank will have their chance to appeal. The app div will decide if this judge went off the deep end.

 

[Zebo]

We need more of this. All this toxic debt should have been restructured instead of sticking the tax payers in hawk to bankers for eternity and throwing people on the streets. It's the only way to prevent top 1% for getting all the marbles.

There is historical precedence for this resetting. Jews called it jubilee. French and Chinese called it bloody revolution. Take your pick but one has to happen eventually. Sooner than most here think once our international charge card bounces which is racking up 2 trillion a year to stave off reality.

 

[dmcowen674]

Wow, this thread really goes after the heart of all the Bank apologists in here

 

[Zebo]

It is the hand of God. Islam permits only 2% interest. The lender should have been gutted.

No, Islam prevents al-riba entirely. Not sure how this is relevant though as we don't live under Sharia Law.