This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Broke? You May Now Be Entitled To a Free Home

Tyler Durden's picture




 

It’s been seven years since the epic collapse of the US housing market, and there’s never been a better time to buy your first home. In Denmark for instance, the bank will tax depositors in order to pay you to take out a home loan. But before you move to a European country operating in NIRP-dom, consider Florida and New Jersey first because as Susan Rudolfi recently discovered, you can actually get a house for free by simply not making your mortgage payments. Here’s more via NY Times:

She is like a ghost of the housing market’s painful past, one of thousands of Americans who have skipped years of mortgage payments and are still living in their homes.

 

Now a legal quirk could bring a surreal ending to her foreclosure case and many others around the country: They may get to keep their homes without ever having to pay another dime.

 

The reason, lawyers for homeowners argue, is that the cases have dragged on too long.

 

There are tens of thousands of homeowners who have missed more than five years of mortgage payments, many of them clustered in states like Florida, New Jersey and New York, where lenders must get judges to sign off on foreclosures.

 

However, in a growing number of foreclosure cases filed when home prices collapsed during the financial crisis, lenders may never be able to seize the homes because the state statutes of limitations have been exceeded, according to interviews with housing lawyers and a review of state and federal court decisions.

It should come as no surprise that the free house legal loophole comes courtesy of the always dangerous and extraordinarily unpredictable combination of government ineptitude and TBTF inefficiency, and thanks to the fact that the Fed-sponsored, investment bank securitization-fee-fueled real estate bubble was allowed to inflate to the point where it swallowed the entire US economy, tens of thousands of borrowers may ultimately become owners by virtue of remaining resolute when it comes to not making payments:

It is difficult to know for sure how many foreclosure cases are still grinding through the court systems since the financial crisis. It is even harder to say how many of those borrowers are still living in their homes.

 

Bank of America, for example, has initiated the foreclosure process on roughly 20,000 mortgages that have not been paid in at least five years. The bank estimates that 90 percent of those homes are still occupied.

 

The courts are not the only source of delay. Over the years, the federal government has made 69 changes to its mortgage modification programs, forcing lenders repeatedly to scrap previous offers to homeowners and extend new terms.

 

Of course, the banks have also dragged out this reckoning through shoddy paperwork, botched modifications and general dysfunction as they struggled to cope with a flood of soured mortgages. Many cases were passed among lawyers like hot potatoes and lay dormant on court dockets.

This arrangement works out particularly well if the property you now own (because it’s cheaper to pay a lawyer than it is to pay the mortgage) can be used to generate rental income: 

[Rudolfi’s] working-class neighborhood is a short drive from Coconut Grove, a wealthy waterfront enclave of Miami. Her bedroom opens up onto a pool, shaded by palm trees. Outside her house, she parks a small motorboat she named Mermaid. The property includes an adjoining house that she rents out…

 

In November 2009, her mortgage servicer at the time, Aurora Loan Services, a unit of the now-defunct Lehman Brothers, filed to foreclose on her house.

 

Instead of making her roughly $1,300 monthly mortgage payment, she pays her lawyer $500 a month to represent her in court.

 *  *  *

So a bit of poetic justice we suppose for an investment banking community and a complicit Federal Reserve who facilitated the creation of a modern day tulip mania which lined Wall Street’s pockets even as it put Main Street (which was itself all too eager to finance a McMansion and a Hummer) on a path to ruin. But in the end, the Susan Rudolfis of the world ask: "What are you gonna do?"...

“I screwed up and they screwed up, so now what?” she said.

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Mon, 03/30/2015 - 11:32 | 5942011 SheepDog-One
SheepDog-One's picture

As long as you can just hold out long enough, all deadbeats will come out on top in new 'Murka.

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 11:46 | 5942064 PoasterToaster
PoasterToaster's picture

When the game is rigged, there's no such thing as a deadbeat.

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 11:48 | 5942068 Shocker
Shocker's picture

In the end,we all pay for this nonsense

Job Situation: http://www.dailyjobcuts.com

.

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 11:56 | 5942103 Creepy A. Cracker
Creepy A. Cracker's picture

<sigh...>  I feel SO stupid telling the truth, paying for things that I promised to pay for.

(And no, I didn't promise to pay for the government's irresponsible spending/wealth transfers - and neither did the U.S. Constitution.  Leftist aye-hole politicians forced that on me.)

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 12:06 | 5942149 pods
pods's picture

I think this is more about equitable interest than the SOL.

You hear that Linda Green?

pods

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 12:37 | 5942208 lordylord
lordylord's picture

deleted

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 12:58 | 5942341 General Decline
General Decline's picture

I smell an executive order on the way to fix this.

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 13:22 | 5942484 froze25
froze25's picture

It gets even better if you have a forensic accountant go through the banks records to show where they actually put up consideration to make the loan happen.  Bottom line is that they didn't lend you anything.  UCC 1269, the note you sign is handled like a check, it is deposited and actually finances the loan that you took out.  So the question to the Bank is "show me the Loan".  It is the mortgage that spells out the "repayment" terms (interest, number of payments etc.)  The bank puts nothing at risk.  Lets not even get into assignments of loans into pools after the closing date of the pools and notarized blank endorsements (illegal for a notary to do).  There are so many "f"ups in the loan process from 2002 - 2008 if you have a good lawyer who accurately studies the laws and litigates most of the time you are good to go.  If you have a MERS # and your loan servicing agent changed multiple times those are tell tail signs that you have a securitized loan where the original docs have been either destroyed and/or the chain of title has been broken.

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 13:42 | 5942578 Dr. Richard Head
Dr. Richard Head's picture

While you are indeed correct about the point of financial consideration NOT being extended by the bank, you are wrong about the LIARs...I mean lawyers willing to put their head on this, let alone a court actually going along with that argument.  

I went this alone with my credit cards with JP Morgan, back before I knew who those fucks were, and had to fight it alone with JPM credit card.  In the end, I paid them 12 cents on the dollar for the credit card debt, just to make them go away. 

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 13:53 | 5942624 froze25
froze25's picture

Its not that they just use that argument it is one of many points they raise.  You need to raise everything under the sun in the beginning so that if you need to appeal you can.  Lawyers will use that btw, not all but I can name one.  I know it for a fact.

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 14:25 | 5942722 TruthInSunshine
TruthInSunshine's picture

The argument about lack of consideration is entirely empty. Anyone making such an argument lacks a proper understanding as to what qualifies as legal consideration sufficient enough to bind a party to a contract.

There's been subsequent national legislation upholding MERS transfers.
It was tacked onto HAMP/HARP statute (funny how that sweeping under the rug thing works retroactively when sold as a "benefit to the oppressed," huh?).

There's a slim to nearly zero chance (lottery ticket - I've only seen it happen on commercial properties, and even then, it's very rare) anyone who has defaulted on their mortgage will be able to successfully claim fee simple title by any suit for quiet enjoyment.

Also, the mortgage notes regarding a great many of these properties the NYT article references are now in the hands of government GSEs (Freddie & Fannie), so good luck arguing quiet title - this is why it's critical to understand that MERS was a way, during the residential RE boom, for the mortgage & title industries to avoid physically recording actual original documents In Rem - and that mortgages and their accompanying notes (the actual security collateralizing the mortgage itself) were flipped to another party by the originating "lender" as soon as the purported transactional documents were signed, and that to further complicate things, these individual docs were sliced up into segments/fractions and bundled into "synthetic MBSs" and sold to institutional investors.

Finally, anyone who wants to take the moral position that deadbeat homebuyers are the root of all evil should really consider the other side of the transaction in many of these cases as deadbeat, bailout kings and wards of the taxpayers, writ large, too

Watch this funny/tragic clip & try an maintain your simple narrative:

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/qatlaz/mortgage-bankers-association-st...

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 15:12 | 5942964 cnmcdee
cnmcdee's picture

So the bank has so much money in their fists a few nickels fell between their fingers - that is pretty much all this is..

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 16:01 | 5943210 Pendolino
Pendolino's picture

"The argument about lack of consideration is entirely empty."

Not quite:

https://criminalbankingmonopoly.wordpress.com/montgomery-vs-daly/

(although I'm sure they've found a way to weasel out of it since 1969!)

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 22:56 | 5944370 TruthInSunshine
TruthInSunshine's picture

Jerome Daly, the plaintiff in that case & an attorney, was disbarred & convicted of tax evasion, and the case was overturned.

I'm not arguing what is just or not, I'm presenting the state of things as they exist, which sadly, is FUBAR.

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 15:55 | 5943044 ThroxxOfVron
ThroxxOfVron's picture

IRS will fix it.

Proceeds of unpaid loans will eventually deemed income, just like defaulted credit card balances are.

A lot of indigents/squatters are gonna get a bill from the IRS for the full principal amount on their flopped mortgage one day.

Maybe the IRS will also impute unpaid rental or interest charges into that equation as well...

-Then there will be frenzied attempts to snag quiet title and try to sell before the whole mess comes apart...

 

That $200K or $400K or $600K, etc. mortgage that wasn't paid is going to turn into precisely as much undeclared income and a massive tax arrears complete with interest and penaties and fees.

The States and Municipalities will be also be faced with budget deficits or onerous tax increases.  They will want their cut of this undeclared income as much as the Feds at some point.  It will be politically impossible to ignore the vast unpaid taxes outstanding once State and Municipal pension funds go critical..

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 16:06 | 5943228 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

But if they are never given title, only allowed to live there indefinitely, then there is no tax issue.

Its funny because there is always a tax issue, as it is the only thing that gives meaning to government.

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 16:28 | 5943311 pods
pods's picture

If the loan goes poof, the 1099 will come.  That is the income. Has only to do with the loan. It is independent of the home. 

pods

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 17:24 | 5943448 ThroxxOfVron
ThroxxOfVron's picture

"If the loan goes poof, the 1099 will come.  That is the income. Has only to do with the loan. It is independent of the home.  "

 

That is exactly what I think is likely going to happen.  

Indeed, the property isn't income.   However, in a credit/debt based fiat system un-repayed credit is taxed as income.  

A default or write-off of any kind implies that the unredemed credit is income for taxation purposes.

This income will eventually 'realized' by the IRS.  When this happens it will be also very likely be realized as income in one calendar year for the sake of taxation and be be taxed all at once, and thus at a very high rate of implied interest.  Maybe even at a penalty rate as 'previously undeclared hidden' income...

IF a $200K loan is suddently transformed into $200K of income the tax bracket that this debt is going to be assayed at will obviously be in a very high tax bracket.

Not only will the late IRS imposed late payment penalties and fees be high, so shall the interest rates charged on this large outstanding debt.  

..And the present W4 income earned as well ! 

..And this suddenly crazy high 'income' will also have other knock on effects in .GOV/IRS regulation.  For one, any ACA subsidies based on projected income are gonna obviously be clawed back if projected income of say $35K becomes 'realized income' of $235K when a $200K flopped loan gets tacked onto the return with a 1099...  

And so on!!  

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 18:20 | 5943641 willwork4food
willwork4food's picture

Absolutely what POD says. If the mortage goes poof, the 1099 will come...and so will the eviction notices.

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 19:10 | 5943774 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

Nonsense.  The 1099 may come, but it may also get thrown in the trash.  http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc431.html

Canceled Debt that Qualifies for EXCLUSION from Gross Income:

 

  1. Debt canceled in a Title 11 bankruptcy case
  2. Debt canceled during insolvency
  3. Cancellation of qualified farm indebtedness
  4. Cancellation of qualified real property business indebtedness
  5. Cancellation of qualified principal residence indebtedness

The exclusion for qualified principal residence indebtedness provides tax relief on canceled debt for many homeowners involved in the mortgage foreclosure crisis currently affecting much of the United States. The exclusion allows taxpayers to exclude up to $2,000,000 ($1,000,000 if married filing separately) of canceled qualified principal residence indebtedness.

Generally, if you exclude canceled debt from income under one of the exclusions listed above, you must reduce certain tax attributes (certain credits, losses, basis of assets, etc.), within limits, by the amount excluded. You must file Form 982 (PDF), Reduction of Tax Attributes Due to Discharge of Indebtedness (and Section 1082 Basis Adjustment), to report the amount qualifying for exclusion and any corresponding reduction of those tax attributes. For cancellation of qualified principal residence indebtedness that you exclude from income, you must only reduce your basis in your principal residence.

You might also want to look at page 8, here: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p4681.pdf .  Essentially, qualified principal residence indebtedness is incredibly broad.

Worst case scenario, you face capital gains on a zero basis house...  but, since gain on the sale of a principal residence is not taxed (up to certain thresholds), even if you have a zero basis, you're not going to pay a dime in tax...  alternatively, you can start renting it out for a couple years, then 1031 out of it...  keep trading properties until you kick the bucket and your heirs take a stepped up basis.

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 19:16 | 5943810 ThroxxOfVron
ThroxxOfVron's picture

The Devil is going to be buried in the details.

I still think a whole lot of 1099 are going to be issued and upheld, and that this exeption is going to be sunset eventually...

 

http://www.irs.gov/publications/p525/ar02.html#en_US_2014_publink1000229351

"Excluded debt.   Do not include a canceled debt in your gross income in the following situations. 

  • The debt is canceled in a bankruptcy case under Title 11 of the U.S. Code. See Publication 908, Bankruptcy Tax Guide. 

  • The debt is canceled when you are insolvent. However, you cannot exclude any amount of canceled debt that is more than the amount by which you are insolvent. See Publication 908. 

  • The debt is qualified farm debt and is canceled by a qualified person. See chapter 3 of Publication 225, Farmer's Tax Guide.

  • The debt is qualified real property business debt. See chapter 5 of Publication 334.

  • The cancellation is intended as a gift.

  • The debt is qualified principal residence indebtedness, discussed next. 

 

Qualified principal residence indebtedness (QPRI).   This is debt secured by your principal residence that you took out to buy, build, or substantially improve your principal residence. QPRI cannot be more than the cost of your principal residence plus improvements.

 

  You must reduce the basis of your principal residence by the amount excluded from gross income. To claim the exclusion, you must file Form 982, Reduction of Tax Attributes Due to Discharge of Indebtedness (and Section 1082 Basis Adjustment), with your tax return.

 

Principal residence.   Your principal residence is the home where you ordinarily live most of the time. You can have only one principal residence at any one time. 

 

Amount eligible for exclusion.   The maximum amount you can treat as QPRI is $2 million ($1 million if married filing separately). You cannot exclude debt canceled because of services performed for the lender or on account of any other factor not directly related to a decline in the value of your residence or to your financial condition.

 

Limitation.   If only part of a loan is QPRI, the exclusion applies only to the extent the canceled amount is more than the amount of the loan immediately before the cancellation that is not QPRI.

 


Example. 

Your principal residence is secured by a debt of $1 million, of which $800,000 is QPRI. Your residence is sold for $700,000 and $300,000 of debt is canceled. Only $100,000 of the canceled debt may be excluded from income (the $300,000 that was discharged minus the $200,000 of nonqualified debt).

 "

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 19:22 | 5943821 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

Plenty of wiggle room...  and I think you're going to find a scenario where tax return prepares fire away under vagueness and let the IRS tell them otherwise.  It seems like the only people who stand a chance of not qualifying are strategic defaulters...  How many people either haven't had an impairment to financial condition or a house that decreased in value?

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 20:47 | 5943893 ThroxxOfVron
ThroxxOfVron's picture

I'd like to see some numbers.  Exactly how many taxpayers have actually taken advantage of this exception?

Just because it is listed in some regulation somewhere does not mean it is automatically being processed by the bureaucracy.

 

There is a big difference between going bankrupt and walking away debt free and not going bankrupt and walking away with a million dollar home free and clear.

A lot is going to depend on the loans.  Firsts, seconds and/or lines of credit?  Was the loan to appraised value more than 100% ?

The issue of whether the house was merely purchased or has serially refi'd with cash outs is/will also be an issue.

The depression and housing crisis have effected everyone to some extent.

I'd klike to think that there will come a point where these bailouts stop and prudent responsible people are given some fucking respect.

Anger is not just growing with the government and the banks.  Some of Us are getting mightily -evily- pissed off at our neighbors who are taking advantage of the situation to the very best of their ability.   There are going to be social costs to this episode the longer it is dragged out and the more people are bailed out or handed out...

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 20:59 | 5944079 ThroxxOfVron
ThroxxOfVron's picture

"It seems like the only people who stand a chance of not qualifying are strategic defaulters...  "

It could be argued that everyone who defaults is in fact a strategic defaulter to some extent if they own absolutely anything else -including a goddamned Roth IRA or a structured annuity which was not liquidated to pay...

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 23:33 | 5944446 willwork4food
willwork4food's picture

Nonsense.  The 1099 may come, but it may also get thrown in the trash. 

Got to disagree with you on this Macho. Not the present legality issues, but the upcoming state, municipalities frothing at the mouth with the IRS new mandate behind them. It is a perfect FEMA camp/ renter controlled envirnment.

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 23:51 | 5944475 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

You don't need to be worried about FEMA camps...  you need to worry about the guy that promises loan forgiveness, to tackle the banks, a chicken in every pot, to fix things... 

Tue, 03/31/2015 - 02:33 | 5944658 ThroxxOfVron
ThroxxOfVron's picture

"You don't need to be worried about FEMA camps...  you need to worry about the guy that promises loan forgiveness, to tackle the banks, a chicken in every pot, to fix things...  "

Agreed.  Mr. Strong(wo)man is due to start 'campaigning' for 2016 right about now...

Tue, 03/31/2015 - 09:01 | 5945016 Government need...
Government needs you to pay taxes's picture

Very nice work, Throxx and Machoman.  Comment threads like this make me feel less ignorant.  FWIW, I dont think .gov will sic the IRS on these squatters/soon-to-be homeowners.  .Gov wants this behind them, and the last thing they want is a downdraft in RE prices.

Tue, 03/31/2015 - 15:53 | 5945450 ThroxxOfVron
ThroxxOfVron's picture

" .Gov wants this behind them, and the last thing they want is a downdraft in RE prices. "

IMHO, this is just as likely to destroy the housing market.

WHY pay for a home when squatting is eventually rewarded by the govenment?

WHY would the Investors -let alone banks-  provide loans witout significant downpayments, which many people can not/do not have, if the government is likely to step in at the next sign of a price crash/bubble burst or spike in unemployment and annul these contracts to give the homes away for political points?

WHY would the responsible bill paying portion of the citizenry sit back and watch the cycle of crime and reward for crime be committed without responding at some point.

This bullshit cannot go on forever.  

..And it won't.

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 18:27 | 5943656 g speed
g speed's picture

but the guy in the house never got the money--the builder did--or the seller did--- the guy in the house gets to deduct when he pays-- cause he is paying not recieving----you are wrong on this--

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 18:39 | 5943690 El Vaquero
El Vaquero's picture

Yet banks still issue 1099s on debt they know isn't going to get repaid and the IRS still comes after people. 

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 18:56 | 5943727 ThroxxOfVron
ThroxxOfVron's picture

"but the guy in the house never got the money--the builder did--or the seller did--- the guy in the house gets to deduct when he pays-- cause he is paying not recieving----you are wrong on this-- "

 

It is CREDIT that was exchanged for property.  This is a credit/debt based monetary system.

 

Say someone 'spends' $50,000 with a credit card.  They never take cash out.  They only 'buy' stuff.

Then, whatever the reason, they don't pay the Card Company. 

When the Card Company goes to the IRS to write the 'debt' off they generate a 1099 to the Debtor/Card Holder for the amount they want to write down.  Thus the 'loss' on the balance sheet of the Credit Card Company is transformed into 'income' on the balance sheet of the Debtor/Card Holder.  

I don't know if regulation mandates taht the debt can only be written off by issuance of a 1099 to the Debtor.  This might be a component of the process of liquidation of debt at the corporate accounting taxation level.  I assume that this is the case as this how the process appears to function in practice...

The IRS adds this 1099 amount directly into the earned income amount on the ledger.  It is all there and no taxes have been taken out at the Federal or State or Local levels.  No FICA has been credited since this amount is in the form of 1099.  

The whole amount is taxable at all levels at the rate of the bracket the earned income and this 1099 addition together puts the total adjusted gross into.

 

I expect that eventually the scuttled loans will be taxed thusly.  Some level -if not all levels- of government that can claim this as taxable income will demand their portion.  

This is why I believe that at some point it will be the IRS/Treasury that will unwind this mess.

After all, the US Treasury, the US Treasury backstopped GSEs and TBTF, and the Fed itself which hold trillions of dollars of these mortgages and which are eventually going to have to unwind or re-organize this mess somehow since they basically own it.

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 19:33 | 5943853 10mm
10mm's picture

As Henry Hill said in GoodFellas" Now Take Me To Jail".

Tue, 03/31/2015 - 12:56 | 5945693 laomei
laomei's picture

1099 is meaningless if you have any brains.  You get to calculate all liabilities and assets and claim insolvency, which negates all taxes on it.  It's REALLY EASY, and if you are paying taxes based on it, you are just dumb.

Tue, 03/31/2015 - 09:10 | 5945036 Cult of PersonALity
Cult of PersonALity's picture

Still working on the wording (payoff)

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 15:22 | 5943014 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

The core of our problems comes down to a lack of moral conscience. When we justify our lies, our abrogations, simply because it is in our interest to (and everyone else is doing it), we have lost our way. We see it from the bottom to the very top.

If it is a moral world we seek, we will have to start with ourselves, which in this world can come at a very high price. I take simultaneous honor and stupidity with the thought that I have never defaulted on a loan or failed to meet a financial commitment. This is what I see as our downfall. The simple thought that to live up to one's commitments is the ultimate losing strategy.

No one should be able to dictate our morality, but apparently they do. We continually settle to the lowest common denominator and then scream about how corrupt the world has become. If we want to live in a better world we will first have to be better people. Live by your commitments...and then learn from them, rather to to do it again and again because that is what "winners" do.

Our government is destroying the moral life through its use of LAW, through its endless manipulations that hinge on inane technicalities while discarding anything that would represent common sense.

For anyone to claim that a lender has no recourse on their loan due to some technicality, when they KNOW full well that they agreed to repay this loan, they have lowered themselves to the bottomless pit that those we claim to hate reside. This is not a solution, it is self destruction.

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 15:41 | 5943101 pods
pods's picture

That all sounds fine and dandy but morality has no business in a contract.  The terms of the contract dictate the actions under the laws that govern the contract. 

The "lender" severed their recourse by their actions.  They pooled mortagages and sliced them up and sold them. Even saw them putting mortages into multiple MBS.  They created a system (MERS) that allowed this to go on, and make it very profitable for them, while at the same time making it impossible for the borrower to ever receive a clean title if challenged.

When it all falls down the "borrower" (I use that loosely as the borrower creates the funds for a mortgage) is asked to abide by their terms?

The borrower is still saddled with this debt, the only thing that happens is the loan turns to an unsecured loan.  

So, in short, fuck them.

pods

 

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 16:03 | 5943222 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

Your morality is your willingness to live by the "intent" of that contract as you understood it when you signed. We all fall prey to the technicalities of the law and its contracts, but if we refuse to even live up to our commitment, then what good are we? People bought homes and signed contracts to pay for them. What in the hell makes you feel that that simple commitment is not valid simply because a lawyer can figure a way around it. Honesty and trust are our only value system and when that is obscured by infinite legal wranglings like the meaning of "is", we have no future. We already live in a world where truth means little compared to the legal might that money can bring, and when you suggest all is fair in this, it makes me see the worst possible outcome for humanity.

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 16:18 | 5943268 pods
pods's picture

Can the lender prove that by MY paying off the note that the title can be properly signed over to me at the end of the loan?

What if some other predatory capitalist figures out they can sue for title?

How am I going to sell a property with a clouded title?

How is it that the little guy is the one that has to live by "morals" in legal contracts where the big players play by the rules of what is better (and not even following the legal ways of those)?

By your definition going bankrupt is a sin.

The worst possible outcome for humanity?  I would say the banks ability to create credit is a bit more encompassing that this.

Houses that have been "financialized" by a predatory industry REQUIRING a loan to buy something (like cars, and even educations now) due to their ability to allow us to create credit in our names.

Banks fucked two sets of people (borrowers and investors) and pay a fee to keep going, while the little people are left to clean up.

Fuck the banks.

pods

 

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 16:28 | 5943314 Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

The little guys are the dupes that want government. They deserve to be screwed over every second of their lives.

Those who know that government is nothing more than a wealth transfer scheme and therefore reject it are the only real victims.

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 19:00 | 5943763 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

@PODS, you're wrong regarding morality of the matter.  The issue is that both sides are culpable, thus the solution must harm both.  The only fair thing that I can see is to let the banks fail and the borrowers along with them.  Force the lenders to bring the homes to market and let the highest bidder win.  If the loan was made in a no recourse state, then tough shit for the lenders; if the loan was made in a recourse state, then the lenders can throw good money after bad chasing the turnips.

Moral hazard looks differently when the schlubs are doing it, but it's still moral hazard.  It's something that society should never incentivize nor condone.

As far as title is concerned, we know who the record title holder is...  the dipshit who's busy scratching his ass on the couch in the home right now.  The only question is whether there is any valid lien on the property...  The chain of title isn't at issue, it's the chain of a cloud on the title that's at issue.

Bringing it back to the article, the solution is different for different classes of borrowers.  For those folks who've been flipping the bird to the lender and are outside the statute of limtations period for a suit, then they get the house free and clear.  For those claims that aren't time barred, tell the banks that there will be no bailout, no dipping at the discount window, and it's time to put on big boy pants and mitigate your losses.  File declaratory judgment actions to precede a foreclosure suit, seeking to determine the real holder.  Once the court makes a determination, then have the holder file a foreclosure/breach of contract suit against the turnip.  Alternatively, add the entire chain of lenders/assigns as parties to the foreclosure/breach of contract suit.  Worst case scenerio, you're an unsecured judgment creditor of a turnip...  but that's your call on the front end, do your fucking homework.   

Tue, 03/31/2015 - 07:03 | 5944815 Squid-puppets a...
Squid-puppets a-go-go's picture

@oldwood

What is the comparative complexity of a mortgage document signed circs 2005 compared to , say, 1970 ? These things are deliberately so fucking complex that not even lawyers- if you go to the expense of hiring one to finetooth comb it - can say what the real rights and obligations are. The  banks thrive on this complexity, and they know that the people are in a TRAP. You still pay rent when you are too old to work, you die in misery and squalor. So peoples fear of that drives them to try and buy a home. even at high risk. The banks dont have the risk - they know the taxpayer dollar has their back - so where's the incentive for them to stick to prudent lending standards?

Then you have a system that supresses their wages, inflation eats at their ability to repay their mortgage - and then when the kicker hits - the sleeper loans that ramp in interest rates by an extra 5% after a certain timeframe. read http://4closurefraud.org/  . all sorts of theivery going on. 

At the end of the day, the banking system regards the equity of the people as their orchard to harvest, and they dont give a fuck about laws or due process - so why should the people. Anyone who toughs it out and puts up with the stress of the process is entitled to a free home. 

 

Tue, 03/31/2015 - 08:05 | 5944885 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

There is no doubt that it is all a trap. We have been studying our weaknesses since the beginning of time, so there should be no surprises here, but like every bubble that pops, we never see it coming. There is no doubt that there is tons of manipulation and deceit going on but it is not one sided. We are NOT a bunch of idyllic sheep grazing in the pasture completely unaware of the wolves lurking in the shadows.

We know.

But we choose to ignore the risks, simply because we want to. Because it is easier and more convenient to go along to get what we want and ignore the risks.

We know.

But we pay our taxes and WANT to believe that our government is there to protect us...but they are not. They are there to manage us...and we play along...its easier than looking over our shoulder and constantly expecting the worse. As one who lives that way, I cannot say it is comfortable or easy. But I understand EXACTLY why we are here now.

Wed, 04/01/2015 - 03:10 | 5947709 Squid-puppets a...
Squid-puppets a-go-go's picture

completely true. we take the smooth road to crisis rather than the steep, rocky road to independence

Tue, 03/31/2015 - 10:27 | 5945237 pods
pods's picture

There is blame all the way around in many cases. The banks, when things blew up, found relief in the FED buying MBSs to prevent the fraud from being found out when the MBS blew up.

Moral hazard does go both ways.  One of the big problems is that large institutinos are amoral and the individual is (supposed to be) moral.  

But the little guy is not walking away unscathed if they go the route of failure to pay.  There is credit impairment, job problems (credit score is used in employment screening) and a myriad of other difficulties that are tough to quantify.  Like a phone ringing constantly, as well as court.  And the little guy is still on the hook for the loan, the property has just been lost as collateral.

If we are trying to use morality, well then bankruptcy certainly needs to be addressed, maybe even limited liability.

How can one guy be burdened with debt and struggle to keep up with fees, interest, and penalties and another walk away with a bankruptcy and be free and clear in 7 years?

Who is moral?  If the first guy is moral, then it can be said that non-dischargeable debt is moral and even forced indentured servitude is as well.  I mean, they signed the note, right?  

The system itself is immoral.  Letting one class of people create credit out of thin air and lend that to another with attached interest.  Sure interest should be a part of lending, but that is to protect the time value of money lent, as well as protect against default.  How the hell can this be applied to credit that is whipped up at the signature of a promissory note?

pods 

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 16:25 | 5943292 Four chan
Four chan's picture

what is moral about the federal reserve printing the debt notes it enslaves us with out of thin air?

you have a moral obligation to act immorally against an immoral foe, out to destroy your savings,

steal your assets, and doom your offspring to indentured servitude to its franchisees the banks.

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 16:42 | 5943356 Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

While I agree that the lenders are responsible, the government is to blame.

As for the squatters, no way in hell should the property be theirs unless they pay for it. They are fucking squatters - a euphemism for thief.

Tue, 03/31/2015 - 07:07 | 5944825 Squid-puppets a...
Squid-puppets a-go-go's picture

listen to their stories. Many of them were entrapped, beseiged and harassed. I dont think a single one of them would tell you they got it for free. They been through hell. Very few of them cynically started out rubbing their hands with cynical glee looking for a free ride.

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 17:55 | 5943572 Creepy A. Cracker
Creepy A. Cracker's picture

What if one's home loan is from their local credit union funded by your neighbors and/or fellow employees?  Is it then OK to steal from the neighbors and fellow employees by defaulting on the loan?  The credit union is kind of like a bank but they aren't.  Does that make the neighbors evil enough to steal from?

There is a difference between the Fed and organizations/people who loan money.

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 18:37 | 5943677 ThroxxOfVron
ThroxxOfVron's picture

"What if one's home loan is from their local credit union funded by your neighbors and/or fellow employees?  Is it then OK to steal from the neighbors and fellow employees by defaulting on the loan?  The credit union is kind of like a bank but they aren't.  Does that make the neighbors evil enough to steal from?

There is a difference between the Fed and organizations/people who loan money. "

 

Indeed.  Few want to discuss the repurcussions of either side of this fraud where parties acting in good faith are concerned.  

The banksters did not loan everything out of thin air, there is a significant cohort of actual capital impairment to consider.

The people that are paying their mortgages are at also at a horrendous competitive advantage to their neighbors who are not.

IF two people have with commensurate mortgages and other liabilities/costs are competing as small businesses in the same niche, and one is -for whatever reason- provided mortgage and home owner's insurance and property tax forebearance by their lender/servicer for 5 or 6 YEARS -and the other IS NOT: It is easy to see which business owner can lower their costs and steal practically all of their mortgage and bill and tax paying competitor's business...

This whole process is actually ruining productive citizens and small businesses by allowing their impaired competitors incredibly lengthy stays of due liquidation...

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 18:53 | 5943734 Creepy A. Cracker
Creepy A. Cracker's picture

Excellent answer.  Many other aspects can be covered as well.

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 19:14 | 5943802 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

The same argument can be made for nonprofit entities...  something else that should probably be... err...  revised.

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 19:50 | 5943896 ThroxxOfVron
ThroxxOfVron's picture

"The same argument can be made for nonprofit entities... "

 

Agreed..

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 20:38 | 5944022 847328_3527
847328_3527's picture

There are some other costs of failure to pay your mortgage, declare bankruptcy or some other voluntary impairment of your credit and that is your ability to qualify for a job at many places. Even doctor and lawyer offices do detailed credit and criminal checks [and don't forget Uncle Sam] and believe me, if you have "bad credit" or a low FICO score you have a snowball in hell chance of being hired since they do not want their files and/or reputation to be harmed by someone they see as a risk.

My cousin pulled one of these "just walk away" thingies a few years ago and despite his stellar performance in univeristy and with his former job, he had an extremely difficult time landing a new job this time because of his poor credit. They told him, "you're too risky."

 

These are some things to consider in one's planning a future.

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 20:56 | 5944071 ThroxxOfVron
ThroxxOfVron's picture

"My cousin pulled one of these "just walk away" thingies a few years ago and despite his stellar performance in univeristy and with his former job, he had an extremely difficult time landing a new job this time because of his poor credit. They told him, "you're too risky." "

 

Seizing a $1M -or even $2M home/property- which once free and clear is conceivably sellable or transferable via inheritance or structured trust, etc.- is how many years of making the median wage in the US?  Once clear the property is 100% unencumbered and viable for a nice multi-hundred thousand dollar cash-out re-fi from the securititiation mills, er, I mean banks?

Walking with $1M or more value in property may be worth it.

..Especially if one is making nothing or is about to retire and also collect Social Security as so very many Boomers are...

Tue, 03/31/2015 - 13:05 | 5945716 laomei
laomei's picture

Get property, rent it out for a revenue stream, move overseas and work there instead.  If you have stellar performance in uni and good experience, getting a good job overseas is easy, no one outside of the US gives a fuck about US debts or credit scores.  He could literally just sell the damn thing, max out every line of credit he can find and leave the country.  Hell, he could even flat out buy a new passport and retire somewhere decently nice.  Fuck the US.

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 19:16 | 5943813 steelhead23
steelhead23's picture

To whom do you address your last remark?  The banks?  No, they sold the mortgage as soon as possible.  The MBS noteholder?  Maybe, but really, they don't deserve it.  Yes, demand for high-yield, low-risk (?!!) returns drove the demand for high-yield MBS which drove Angelo Mozilo and others to sell mortgages to deadbeats.  The big banks then aggregated those mortgages into MBS and lied like crazy (or hid the truth) to sell them to those greedy high-yield bond buyers.  And to the extent this excrement was still on the bank's books, they too took it in the shorts - but Don Geithner and Don Bernanke conspired to put their losses on you and I Pods.  Seems to me that the folks getting screwed here are the least culpable - the MBS purchasers.  It is Mozilo and Fuld and company who should be in the slam - bunking with Bubba.  I'd be right there with you Pods if this hurt fell on the real culprits, but it won't.

Tue, 03/31/2015 - 10:37 | 5945262 pods
pods's picture

Well the government fucked the MBS buyers due to settling with the banks on the whole thing.  Then the FED bought them to avoid them blowing up.

The banks drove home prices up to sky high levels with NINJA loans because they were dicing them up and selling them as fast as they could, laws be damned. The banks were, and always are, right in the middle of the great fucking. They get the monopoly on credit creation, you pay for it, then they sell the stink before it blows and collect "service fees" until it does.

They got backstopped by the FED and treasury and moved along.

But the story is, as always, dividing the people against themselves.  

What is this, like 50k homes that were claimed?  At a million apiece that is $50 billion. Nevermind what was paid already.  TARP was 800 billion.  The FEDs balance sheet grew by trillions.

My numbers are probably high by a factor of 5 or so too, and didnt take into account any money already paid (which all goes to interest anyways).

pods

Tue, 03/31/2015 - 09:07 | 5945031 Government need...
Government needs you to pay taxes's picture

Morality is the core of the contract, what makes the contract binding.  Without morality, the contract is a waste of time.  A man once told me: "A scoundrel will find a way to cheat you, regardless of the contract you sign with him.  A moral business partner will eliminate the need for a contract."  2 businesses (with partners) and zero contracts later, I've experienced these words as great wisdom.

Tue, 03/31/2015 - 10:16 | 5945206 pods
pods's picture

Law is what makes the contract binding, specifically a means of recourse for non-performance of the terms of the contract.

Morality has nothing to do with it.

pods

Tue, 03/31/2015 - 12:08 | 5945521 Son of Loki
Son of Loki's picture

True, but I know many lawyers who say if the other party does not want to fulfill the contract, they will find some excuse to breach the contract no matter how strong the language. Of course, the stronger the language, the better your chance in court of getting a full remedy but it's a pain in the ass and a long process esp if they are a big corp with many lawyers.

 

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 16:50 | 5943384 MASTER OF UNIVERSE
MASTER OF UNIVERSE's picture

The middle class, and working class serfs, have not seen any appreciable gains in disposable income in over 40 years, and you want US to grow a conscience in light of the Banksters that have no conscience? All the gains went to the 0.01 % who dumped their losses in 2008 off onto the poorest of Americans en masse, bankrupted main street entirely across the whole of the United States of America, and you want us to stay on the side of morality?

NOTE: Banksters count on the poor being morally upstanding while they riffle through our meager, paltry, non-gains of income. Step down off your high horse and realize that these dudes are immoral.

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 20:18 | 5943960 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

So what you are saying is that home purchasers who voluntarily borrowed money under promise to repay should have no (zero) culpability.

I don't care if I earn $2/hr, that is no reason to borrow large amounts of money for discretionary spending an then fail to take responsibility for it.

Every thief on earth feels justified in their actions.....every damned one.

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 20:43 | 5944034 10mm
10mm's picture

I feel your general point overall has merit Oldwood. However, after fraudulent behavior on all levels in Houseing Industry, they sowed what THEY reaped. 

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 22:19 | 5944299 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

Yes, plenty of fraud to go around, but i will not excuse those not taking responsibility for their choices on either side of the equation. When we abandon our morals because we have been wronged, we lose twice. I'm am not suggesting that we should not defend ourselves from fraudulent actions but to my knowledge most people have not failed to meet their obligations because they were defrauded, but simply because they failed to pay their mortgage payments. Once foreclosure starts we all find ourselves victim of a corrupt legal system which is a whole nother problem. If people are denied title to their property due to fraudulent banking, then we should bust their ass anyway we can. But simply not paying for what you bought is not defendable. It happens to the best of people for completely understandable reasons, but that doesn't eliminate their responsibility. And the reality of it is that many people who were "losing" their homes had less equity in them than many renters, using inflated appraisals and cash back at closing, they had less than zero equity...knowingly.

Tue, 03/31/2015 - 06:48 | 5944801 Farqued Up
Farqued Up's picture

19 TRILLION and counting and the time lag may be EXPONENTIAL.

NOT PARABOLIC, a parabola is formed when sawing through a vertical cylinder at an angle. Everyone but the Wall Streeters can visualize it.

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 12:13 | 5942172 813kml
813kml's picture

The good news is that these homeowners can now get a reverse mortgage from The Fonz and really live the good life.

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 13:25 | 5942501 Ruffmuff
Ruffmuff's picture

I thought all mortgages ran in reverse of a good life.

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 14:35 | 5942791 max2205
max2205's picture

This shit is still going on?  God.

And my mother in law dies with an upside down value and gets 1099'd

Fuck off Fed 

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 14:51 | 5942883 Never One Roach
Never One Roach's picture

Not only do these people get a 'free' house, but they also get a free lifetime membership in the FSA -- 

 

AND THAT"S NOT ALL!

 

 -- free FSA tote bag, free FSA ID card and a free 10% discount on everything they never pay for!

 

 

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 16:38 | 5943338 Son of Loki
Son of Loki's picture

Do I get my choice of colors for the tote bag? If they throw in a free Batman towel, then I'm in!

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 13:36 | 5942547 Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill's picture

Just how are they going to pay the tax bill when the 1099's go out.

It will be the IRS as lienholder not the banks.Out of thre frying pan...

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 14:16 | 5942715 JRobby
JRobby's picture

Pretty much.

It takes them over 20 years to write off your case. After the initial asset seizure, 20 years of interviews, reviews of expenditures, harassment, etc.

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 14:45 | 5942772 813kml
813kml's picture

Not a concern, in today's world the scope of financial planning is limited to five minutes in the future.

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 17:09 | 5943453 ThroxxOfVron
ThroxxOfVron's picture

"these homeowners can now get a reverse mortgage "

I doubt it.   Not without Title.

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 12:34 | 5942232 JLee2027
JLee2027's picture

When the game is rigged, there's no such thing as a deadbeat.

 

Super answer.

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 14:22 | 5942744 SERReal1
SERReal1's picture

I was thinking the same thing.

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 15:33 | 5943060 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

A deadbeat is anyone who fails to live up to their promises and commitment. A person of character learns from these mistakes and strives to never find themselves in this position again.

So please explain to me how people actually profiting from living in their homes without payment (something that few of us could ever do) is doing anything but perpetuating the same stupidity? We bash these bankers for jumping back into sub prime loans, and we know why, because they escaped the carnage from their last fuckup. Those who do not learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them. People borrowed money to buy homes, homes they really couldn't afford. Banks made it easy and should suffer the consequences of that stupidity, but the buyer is just a guilty and just as stupid and greedy. Anyone who has read any history KNOWS where excessive debt leads..right where we are now. A world where debts cannot be repaid, where default is the norm and where commitments become as meaningless as the value of a paper dollar. Living in a world where commitments mean nothing will become very mean indeed.

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 16:33 | 5943330 Omen IV
Omen IV's picture

the banks committed systemic fraud  with all participating in the integration chain which means a RICO criminal violation - The DOJ subjectively decides not to prosecute "individuals" despite the overwhelming evidence - See Bill Black countless analysis - recently CitiMortgage

This woman should be lauded as a Capitalist - she converted unpaid mortgage payments to lawyer fees to protect her asset - That is called Capitalism

Private Equity guys do a LBO  - say for a $1 billion with 10% equity the rest borrowed  - the default on the bonds - use the free cash flow of the target buyout to fund the lawyers - and then buy the bonds back for 15 to 30 cents on the dollar - all planned since they knew the company in a downturn couldnt handle the pressure in the beginning before they sold the bonds - and they get the company for a NET of 40 cents on the dollar - how about that?

the Lady is doing the same thing - whats the problem - the fact is you are too stupid to do what she did and dont have the balls more importantly -

she is a fucking first class capitalist!!!!!

she has a duty and responsibility to fuck the system just like the PE guys - get with the program

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 20:23 | 5943982 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

They committed fraud by enabling people to buy homes they could not afford? Not all that different than outlawing guns for our own protection. You should run for office.

Capitalism has NOTHING to do with debt. Capitalism is the free exchange of goods and services and is absolutely dependent on morals and transparency. That's why it is failing.

Fraud should be punished as well as deadbeats. There is moral hazard on all sides here and we should ignore none of them.

Tue, 03/31/2015 - 08:56 | 5945002 Omen IV
Omen IV's picture

"Capitalism has nothing to do with debt"    Capitalism is grounded by debt top to bottom - where have you been for 300 years?

the fraud had nothing to do with enabling people to buy homes they couldnt afford - if that was all that went on the game would have been over within a short period of time and small portfolio - fact is the "actual" fraud was the misrepresentation of the quality of the loans when "sold" in syndication  - nothing else - the people had nothing to do with it - the loan could have been to a dog or cat it made no difference

she did the right thing - she fucked the system - get over your moralizing - the system isnt failing that is where it is supposed to be - wake up!!!

 

 

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 20:01 | 5943917 Flagit
Flagit's picture

You cannot even begin to defend the banks, regardless of the actions of homeowners.

Last year I was speaking to the bank, attempting to purchase an old school to possibly turn into apartments. The gymnasium was built later in the schools life and was in immaculate condition. As we were sitting in the office looking at possibilities, the loan officer looked at her papers and exclaimed "Ohh! These ARM loans are pretty popular!"

I almost jumped up and began to staple her to death. That's when her makeup, hair, and clothing melted away, Raiders Of The Lost Ark style, and I could see her for what she was. Fangs, claws, and deep red evil eyes. A bloodthirsty succubus. 

I once saw a guy that had a sign hung on his trash can. It only said one word. Morals.

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 20:27 | 5943991 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

We shouldn't be defending banks or deadbeats. we al understand moral behavior and yes there are many shades of grey in it, but we KNOW what fraud and lying is, whether it is done by JPM or Joe Blow. We should spend far less time taking sides defending either side and condemn all of them for their actions, for what they do harms all of us.

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 21:47 | 5944167 Flagit
Flagit's picture

I think I met you once. I was headed into the local truck stop restaurant early one morning and stopped to buy the weekend edition of USA Today. I could see an old man fishing change out of his pocket to the side of me waiting for me to close the paper vendor so he could purchase one too. I decided to be "neighborly" and held the machine door open so he could grab it, and not have to pay for his paper. He took the door from me and promptly closed it saying "I'll let someone else be a thief...for .50 cents."

I was taken aback and made to feel smaller by that statement. It was a harmless enough crime. Just a paper, only .50 cents. Is that really a big enough deal to start waving a flag over? For some people, yes.

I have thought about that statement, for probably longer than I should have. I no longer purchase the USA Today, but if I did, I would not be holding the door open for the next guy. If you want to give a paper away, at least have the decency to OWN it. Leave yours for someone, since it's already paid for.

 

With that, I am still in the camp of someone not paying their mortgage to a corrupt banking institution. They stole, on a massive scale. I have a friend that owns a small bar and grill. There were at least 3 regulars that he knew of that stopped paying on their house. For three years they ate and drank in his bar, until they had to move and start paying living expenses again. In that instance, the deadbeats were facilitating a form of wealth transfer not unlike food-stamps/SNAP does for Wal-Mart, just on a much smaller scale. The banks get screwed, and small business gets a boost.

I'll close this by saying that I feel theft is bad, but certain types of theft should be given some leeway. Sometimes, the only way to fight fire, is with fire.

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 22:49 | 5944354 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

It is the moral hazard that concerns me but admittedly that ship has pretty much sailed and is only barely visible in the distant horizon. People who find it easy to abandon their morals because it is condoned by society is nothing new and we know how it ends. The fact that we will allow these liars and thieves to make us into one as well is the real tragedy.

A compassionate society has always tried to recognize that some crimes, especially those who seek to directly feed their families should be considered with leniency, and I'm not a big one for law and order. I feel that our actions, each of us individually, is the real indicator of who we are as a society. Not what our government forces us to do, but how we behave with choice. If we fail, we get what we have now. We are losing the right to self govern given we are choosing to act without honor or trust. Every excuse our government needs to treat us as sheep, and it is no accident that those at the top are setting the moral compass for us as they would love nothing more than for us to be corralled, desperately clinging to any authority that offers some order, some sense of safety from the thieves, thieves that they have enabled. We failed in the first part by willingly borrowing money all while knowing this is the first step for everyone willing to put themselves into servitude. Our escape is to reject debt, reject the subcontracting of our security to those we surrender our liberty to. We ay people to carry guns and then find ourselves shocked that they would turn them against us simply because others are willing to pay the more. We fail in the second part by willingly defaulting on our commitments, not because we have no choice but because we see financial opportunity in it or simply see no moral downside.

I do not see myself as morally superior. If I found myself in that circumstance, with everything else that has happened, I might think in the same ways. The answer for me is to avoid having to make those choices. Not putting myself in the circumstances where I must choose abandoning my values to survive. We are all human and we all want to believe that we would make the tough choices but in reality we are weak. History has shown us that we almost always make bad choices. The key is to recognize that because we are weak, that we avoid those circumstances where our weakness will destroy us....like staying away from stripper bars. Bankers, like virtually every other entity trying to sell us something, is always appealing to our weaknesses. You work hard...you deserve nice things....don't wait to enjoy life before it's too late.

Tue, 03/31/2015 - 02:51 | 5944670 El Vaquero
El Vaquero's picture

It doesn't matter if you try not to put yourself in a position to not get hammered. 

 

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/federal_jury_says_law_firm_must_p...

 

The case is a lot more complex than what is listed there, but the basics are, a debt collection law firm gets a default judgment against Lucinda Yazzie, the skip tracer is an idiot and finds another Lucinda  Yazzie in the same area (If you know Farmington, NM, you understand that Lucinda is kind of like Jennifer and Yazzie is kind of like Smith in terms of names.  Lots and lots of Navajos,) and swapped the social security numbers in the law firm's files.  Then, they garnished the wrong Yazzie's wages, not once, but twice.  After she finally got an attorney, there was a hearing on the matter where both Yazzies showed up, and the law firm never appeared.  Then they monkey hammered Farrell and Seldin in court.  I've dealt with Farrell and Seldin directly, and they are shyster scum.  Older people remember a much more local world, where you could look somebody in the eye when you made a deal, and you knew that if you screwed them over, you knew their kids that you were screwing over too.  That's not how it works anymore.  Everything is global and for the raping and the taking.  The locals who do the hatchet work now believe that everybody who they are suing is scum.  They do not care about facts, they do not care about ethics and they do not care that the system itself is fraudulent and it is they who are scum.

 

If you go up to my post up above where I name some lawyers' names, there was James Grubel.  I've watched him in a courtroom, and he comes off as a mild mannered harmless guy, but he's a fucking viper.  I watched him shred a woman in her 60s who flat out didn't understand the legal system.  Sure, she took on the debt, but she presented her sob story about how she tried to do the right thing and Capitol One was the only company who refused to work with her, and she got fucked.  Hard.  I do think she tried to do the right thing, but what was the rest of her life like?  I have my opinions on that based on what I observed, but no evidence.  But she was obviously over extended, which if you take the so called "fair view," is the fault of both the lender and the debtor.  The laws are written such that it is the creditor who has the advantage. Judges are supposed to rule based on facts and law, and facts and law said that this woman was to get hosed.  The judge looked genuinely disgusted with herself over this.  But the law is clear, use of the card constitutes acceptance of the terms.  And even when you have a case where the creditor doesn't have the advantage on paper, they have the advantage because they know the system.  The entire system is fraudulent.   The dollar is fraudulent. 

 

You may have all sorts of opinions about that woman that don't match mine.  But look at the Yazzie case, and understand, if you want them going after her hard for not paying her bills, they'll come after you hard when they merely think you're not paying your bills.  They do not give a shit if you owe them or not, they only care if they can make you owe them, and that's only one small facet of the system.  The system is fraudulent.  It deserves a good fucking.  The problem is, fucking the system is fucking everybody.  But the system is corrupt through and through. 

Tue, 03/31/2015 - 08:51 | 5944988 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

I think its pretty obvious that the real issue is our legal system, our government, which I have always contended is the root of our real corruption. Fraud and corruption at this level can only exist through the enablement by government. While i will not condone fraudulent behavior by anyone, there is no doubt that the lenders have been pretty much been given a pass. we should have contempt for any fraud, but especially that which has been enabled by greed and indifference.

Tue, 03/31/2015 - 09:01 | 5945015 Omen IV
Omen IV's picture

you dumb fuck - stealing is one of the tools in the process of execution of unfettered capitalism - the DOJ wont prosecute - what does that tell you - free markets to fuck the stupid is the game  - grow up!!!

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 13:12 | 5942432 Divine Wind
Divine Wind's picture

 

 

Yes, there is.

Regardless of what the other guy is doing, it is still called theft.

The loss of a moral compass in this country will be at the core of our downfall.

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 13:28 | 5942520 Creepy Lurker
Creepy Lurker's picture

What do you mean, "will be?"

The downfall happened quite some time ago, this is the swirl at the bottom of the bowl. Unfortunately, the best way to survive in a corrupt society is to be corrupt yourself. I can't bring myself to denigrate people for surviving, not at this point.

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 13:39 | 5942562 Handful of Dust
Handful of Dust's picture

"Free" means you and I and millons of innocent taxpayers take it up the butt for them.

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 14:21 | 5942739 JRobby
JRobby's picture

Like we will for swap exposure losses?

A good analysis would be the $$ value of expected "taxpayers taking it up the butt" on mortgage guarantees vs. swap exposure losses.

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 15:44 | 5943118 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

There are lots of people surviving without corruption, but it is good to tell yourself that corruption is acceptable as it does make things easier.

Tue, 03/31/2015 - 09:03 | 5945022 Omen IV
Omen IV's picture

fucking the stupid is part of socialism darwinism - dumb fuck - get with the program

Tue, 03/31/2015 - 09:25 | 5945067 Government need...
Government needs you to pay taxes's picture

Fucking the stupid does not HAVE to be part of anyone's worldview.  If everyone wants to eat pie, a decision gets made: eat someone's else's pie, or make more pie.  Social Darwinistas would select the weak or sick and eat their pie first (option 1).  Option 2 would be to co-operate with the willing to make more pie.  Option 2 always exists, although I've seen plently of option 1.  Sometimes, option 1ers cooperate and develop groups like the mafia or .gov.  .Gov is the best example I can think of in terms of option 1.  Eating someone's else's pie.  Those fucktards are bold enough to extol the virtues of option 1, by focusing on the 50% of the pie they didn't eat and how much good it is doing now that it's been redistributed to (insert .gov gimmiedat group here).

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 14:15 | 5942558 Felix da Kat
Felix da Kat's picture

Spot-on DW. Secularism has brought widespread acceptance of amoral behavior. The new ethos in America is to be the criminal before one is a victim... aka... Eff thy neighbor befor he eff's you. The goal of developing moral fortitude has been strtipped out of our culture by the parasitical, liberal fascists (the PLF party) that have weaseled their way into the controlling power. Expect continued devolvement until collectively, we've reached the moral compass of a jackal. At that point we will be a totally divided, anarchist state, making it very easy for a more powerful state (Chine, possibly Russia, etc...) to over-run our then struggling Federal Government. I cannot imagine just how messy the whole thing is going to be.

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 15:21 | 5943004 nailgunnin4you
nailgunnin4you's picture

Spot-on DW. Secularism has brought widespread acceptance of amoral behavior.

 

Yeah! And tell them kids to pull their trousers up too!!

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 15:45 | 5943125 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

Every action has a reaction and every behavior and act, a cost. The bill is coming due.

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 17:43 | 5943552 nailgunnin4you
nailgunnin4you's picture

ok gramps

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 14:18 | 5942723 JRobby
JRobby's picture

But who is the thief?

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 15:49 | 5943145 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

Someone who seeks to profit from another's loss. There are lots of them...of all stripes. It has become our theme. To earn is stupid when you can profit without it. It is delusional to think only those holding the gun are thieves when so many are lined up to profit from the gunman's aim.

Tue, 03/31/2015 - 02:30 | 5944585 Tall Tom
Tall Tom's picture

Is buying Gold back of spot a theft in your eyes?

 

If both the buyer and the seller make an agreement on price, regardless if the seller has lost, then how is that a theft?

 

I think that profitting from another's loss, upon fraudulent pretenses, is that which qualifies as a theft.

 

Thus the banks, the home loan originators, were stealing from the home buyers as they actually advertised that prices were going to da moon and that if you did not buy them now, then you did not stand a chance. They created an atmosphere of urgency through the media propaganda.

 

Furthermore they originated the Liar Loans and were not prudent in qualifying the borrowers.

 

That is the root cause of the immorality.

 

The bankers were interested in short term profits and sold upon a fraudulent pretense using media manipulation.

 

The immorality of home buyers was based upon personal greed and fraud as to dishonestly reporting income..

 

There is an old saying that still rings true. One cannot con an honest man.

 

Both parties were complicit in the immorality.

 

The Banks avoided the Moral Hazard due to lawmakers' decisions.

 

The home buyers were not afforded the same protection from experiencing the Moral Hazard and suffered immensly under the burden thereof as a result.

 

Thus the greatest theft happened right under our noses with Government support.

 

So do tell me...Who deserves to get fucked now?

 

The Banks must fail in order that justice may be served.

Tue, 03/31/2015 - 08:18 | 5944907 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

The banks deserve a full fucking, but not in the way you prescribe. It is our government, or legal system, that is to blame ultimately. An immoral reaction to an immoral action is understandable, but does not improve our circumstances beyond immediate satisfaction. Maybe that's enough, but I doubt it. We didn't end up here because of our strict adherence to high moral principles.

Tue, 03/31/2015 - 09:08 | 5945033 Omen IV
Omen IV's picture

MORON - YOU SAID: "An immoral reaction to an immoral action is understandable, but "does not improve our circumstances" beyond immediate satisfaction. "

 

sure it does -  improve our species -  the faster - the dumb and stupid are eliminated (like you) the faster civilization will advance - get with the program! 

 

 

Tue, 03/31/2015 - 01:47 | 5944623 Hugh_Jorgan
Hugh_Jorgan's picture

If you take out a loan, you pay your bill. If you don't want to pay, don't take out a loan. THe system may be rigged but 2 wrongs don't make a right. People with your attitude are making a very bad situation even worse.

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 11:52 | 5942089 Gert_B_Frobe
Gert_B_Frobe's picture

To Hell with an Obama phone, I got me an Obama house.

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 11:57 | 5942114 Creepy A. Cracker
Creepy A. Cracker's picture

When do the "free" ObamaConcubines become part of the deal?

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 14:22 | 5942750 Fukushima Fricassee
Fukushima Fricassee's picture

No thanks, they all have dicks like his wife.

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 14:23 | 5942751 JRobby
JRobby's picture

Wednesday

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 13:27 | 5942509 froze25
froze25's picture

Its not really an Obama house, in their greed and haste the Banks decided to ignore real estate law and use the Mers system to make huge profits in the secondary loan market through securitization.  They are the ones who are providing the avenue to a "free" home via their need to ignore banking / real-estate law in the past and now they have to pay up or rather lose the collateral they thought they had.  They have also been busted so many times now submitting fraudulent docs into court that the Judges are scrutinizing every piece of evidence they present if challenged by the defense.

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 13:50 | 5942612 Steaming_Wookie_Doo
Steaming_Wookie_Doo's picture

I'll add the many millions in recording fees that MERS sneaked its way out of with the many transfers.

I can understand your points, however, getting a lawyer who can defend, or a judge to agree to end the MERS chain of fraud is unlikely. I've had MERS on my chain of title (mortgage xfered many times), but in a non-judicial state (CA) no chance this would be ruled on, no matter how delicious that scenario is. It would, by its nature taint some 60-80% of mortgages. Even if it's been illegal, it is literally too big to fail in the TPBs estimation. Plus, I imagine the TPB already use it as a fabulous mechanism to launder/gain illegal funds anyway.

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 14:00 | 5942639 froze25
froze25's picture

Works in NY.  But that is a judicial state.  In NY this is the case that works very well for defense. http://www.scribd.com/doc/98674369/Bank-of-NY-v-Silverberg  "Motion to dismiss for lack of standing" is golden for forclusure defense.

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 12:15 | 5942178 dufferin
dufferin's picture

There is no Loan... It's just an exchange of promissory note. 
No monney, or should I say currency, has ever been "Loaned"... exchange only...

so yes the repay of capital interest ans else is fraud. Period.

All the rest is noise and bullshit.  

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 12:26 | 5942205 Usurious
Usurious's picture

Mako?............

from 2010

Thu, 10/07/2010 - 22:46 | 634299 Mako

''No, the real fun begins when the average American realizes the truth.  What is the truth, you were never given a loan and the banks can't show a loss or damage from the non-existent loan. 

You guys have only scratched the surface.''

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/karl-denninger-explains-foreclosure-gat...

 

this was the first comment thread that I read on ZH....I promptly 'shit myself out of the Matrix'

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 13:15 | 5942449 ThroxxOfVron
ThroxxOfVron's picture

"Mako

 

''No, the real fun begins when the average American realizes the truth.  What is the truth, you were never given a loan and the banks can't show a loss or damage from the non-existent loan. 

You guys have only scratched the surface.''

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/karl-denninger-explains-foreclosure-gat... "

 

I wrote a great deal about the foreclosure crisis on Denninger's forum during that period.   I don't know who else agitated so strongly for Karl to initiate the sub-forum on Foreclosure on TF...

It's pretty sad that some people are not only going to not be punished for their crimes but are going to be rewarded for being criminals all over again.   

There are upstanding fool citizens here and there that paid for what they bought/borrowed and they will be the victims.  Their morality is their burden and retards their advancement in the economy of crime.  Some of us that paid our bills, our mortgages, and played by the so-called rules are gonna carry very ugly grudges against the banks and the government and our corrupt but well rewarded for being corrupt neighbors for the rest of our lives.

I don't see the US as a civilized society any more.

Take what you can get.  Leave nothing behind.  Every man for themself.  Damn the future.

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 16:18 | 5942545 roccman
roccman's picture

Any more? That is laughable...

I don't see the US as a civilized society any more.

Take what you can get.  Leave nothing behind.  Every man for themself.  Damn the future.

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 14:12 | 5942695 DontGive
DontGive's picture

Yes, I see now. So you saying the US was civilized at one point, right about the time they gave the King the finger, and corralled some natives?

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 15:13 | 5942968 ThroxxOfVron
ThroxxOfVron's picture

"Yes, I see now. So you saying the US was civilized at one point, right about the time they gave the King the finger, and corralled some natives? "

 

There was a time when I believed that there was in fact a significant portion of the american citizenry that had some kind of moral basis for their interactions and that this was in effect the bedrock upon which the society and economy were built and required to function.

I no longer believe that any of this is true at all.

America is nothing more than a wilderness of predators and scavengers and herd beasts.

One must learn to live with this fact at the forefront of their consciousness and it must influence all decisions and activity.

 

"Welcome to the Jungle."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1tj2zJ2Wvg

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 14:34 | 5942787 JRobby
JRobby's picture

"Some of us that paid our bills, our mortgages, and played by the so-called rules are gonna carry very ugly grudges against the banks and the government"

Of course you will. That is the start of change that now must happen.

"I don't see the US as a civilized society any more"

It isn't that is why your statement about grudges has to be the start of something that must happen to move this country forward again.

The US has devolved into a scam / ripoff business plan with zero ethics. The level of celebrity worship, mindless consumption and lack of any moral compass will result in a backlash soon. There is lawlessness at all levels now.

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 21:12 | 5943011 ThroxxOfVron
ThroxxOfVron's picture

At some point it is likely that the IRS is going to treat the face value of the upaid loan as INCOME.

ALL in one year.  -Meaning that the entire 'income tax' owed on the upaid portion of the loan will have to be paid immediately or the amount will be processed as a tax delinquency and piled high with interest and penaties.  

Even more interesting will be whether or not this retroactive income tax on 'income' from the proceeds of the unpaid mortgage will include interest payments unpaid up to the date of the IRS action or even encompasing the entire loan term and at the rate that the loan was created with...

Maybe the year will even be deemed retroactive to the year of origination of the loan...

Then will come the bank account seizures and paycheck garnishments, etc...

This is far from over.

 

...In the mean time the prudent are being screwed by these people and the government.

How do you compete against competitors that don't have to pay housing expenses?  -People who not only effectively have no mortgage since they aren't paying it; but, no property taxes because their lender/servicer is paying those costs directly in order to keep the municipality from stepping in and acting to recover by forcing auction or through other action, and in many cases even insurance so that there is eventually something to recover in the case of property damages.

You can't really: so a lot of productive and prudent and moral people are being crushed by not only .GOV corruption and incompetences, by the rampant criminality; but, also by the deadbeats who are their neighbors and competitors.  The deadbeats may have legal rights afforded via the contracts but this doens't change the fact that they are presntly being very heavily subsidized versus their neighbors and competitors who actually pay bills and taxes out of cash flow or savings..

Those that have been paying their mortgages and tax bills have a legitimate grievance against those that have not and who have been undercutting their wages and stealing their clients, etc. all while being propped and subsidized in the present tense by the actions and inaction of the corrupt government and a broken legal system.

No doubt this legitimate grievance encompases the meddling politicians and the banks; but, the deadbeats are taking full advantage of this situation which they undeniably had a prominent role in creating.  

Tue, 03/31/2015 - 09:36 | 5945092 Government need...
Government needs you to pay taxes's picture

I see similar trends, but I refuse to take the road to perdition.  Channel your skill and energy into small businesses.  These will attract talented partners and steady customers.  Make the pie bigger, and share the pie you make.  There are plently of people who will appreciate what you do, and you'll be better prepared for any future.

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 13:37 | 5942553 froze25
froze25's picture

You are totally correct, I educated an Attorney that is a childhood friend to this knowledge and he totally ran with it.  Has 8 wins in court fighting foreclosure and zero losses.  With a case that is on appeal from one of the banks because he was awarded attorneys fees in one of the cases that he won in NY.  The appeal isn't on whether or not to throw out the foreclosure ruling but is in regards to whether or not the Bank is responsible for paying for the home owners attorneys fees for the defense if that go through in my buddies favor that is a game changer.  It would make attorneys take cases with no money upfront.

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 13:45 | 5942586 Dr. Richard Head
Dr. Richard Head's picture

Would love to tlak to that attorney and promptly put him on retainer for a case as such.  tikipalm at gmail dot com.

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 14:15 | 5942714 froze25
froze25's picture

cgorman at westermanllp dot com

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 18:36 | 5943681 jerry_theking_lawler
jerry_theking_lawler's picture

Fucking lawyers and bankers....the ruin of this country. 

 

I pay my mortgage. I go to work everyday. Why? So you asscunts and try to rip each other and me off. Eat shit and die.

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 20:30 | 5943998 Flagit
Flagit's picture

Post his email. I am sure it will be polular!

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 13:38 | 5942555 PTR
PTR's picture

Good archive scrape, U.

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 12:22 | 5942193 WhyWait
WhyWait's picture

Sheepdog, it's easy to be righteous about the homeowners if you've never been in their shoes.

The reality is the banks have created this mess, have screwed their borrowers over big time and driven them crazy with their greed and DELIBERATE INCOMPETENCE.

Moreover, every single mortgage and foreclosure process now in the hands of a major bank that I have looked at has been handled in an illegal way.  EVERY SINGLE ONE!

The titles to probably half the real property in American has now been hopelessly clouded or trashed by those psychopatic criminals, and most probably CANNOT BE FIXED EXCEPT BY A JUDGE WITH THE POWER TO CUT THE KNOT AND AWARD A TITLE TO SOMEONE!

The battle will be over whether in the end judges will award the title to the criminals who deliberately destroyed it or to the homeower who in many cases has already paid what the house was really worth anyway! 

Folks are looking at alternatives to just giving the house to the owner, that don't involve letting the banksters off the hook, such as a court agreement to make a reasonable payment into a community trust fund, or taking houses by emminent domain from the bank and selling them back at current market value. Most people want to do the right thing if they can.

But let's cut this Deadbeat garbage, OK?  That puts you running flank for the Banksters!

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 12:35 | 5942234 chunga
chunga's picture

A lot of dumbells still blame the "Community Reinvestment Act" that "forced" banks to make loans. The theory is that feel-good politicians wanted to "help minorites" get loans and banks would do it because they were afraid they's get sued.

Banks don't care about getting sued, they own the courts. It is quite literally judicial pandemonijum. And politicians caring about people, trying to help them? Ha Ha!

This money was looking for people because of the default insurance that Tyler just wrote about 1/2 hour ago. You can't steal money from people who don't have any so just give it to them, steal it all back later plus interest, then blame it on them. Get bailed out!

You want some hypocricy? Here's Henry Paulson, Mr. SHitty deal himself....

http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/hp856.aspx

“And let me emphasize, any homeowner who can afford his mortgage payment but chooses to walk away from an underwater property is simply a speculator – and one who is not honoring his obligations.”

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 14:44 | 5942845 El Vaquero
El Vaquero's picture

The courts in my vicinity don't like the banks.  A few of the judges look for any little reason they can to dismiss their cases.  The law firm in my case always asked for a new judge when they got the judge that I had, but they were late in asking for a new judge in my case.  She did NOT like them. 

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 15:39 | 5943020 chunga
chunga's picture

Wow, I think that's pretty rare.

I hear a lot of talk about the tax-payers. If anybody was serious about that, both the courts and the irs would go after the big nut that almost never gets talked about.

If every Jane and John Doe had an understanding of how New York Law affects the Securitized New York Common-Law REMIC Trusts in re: Notes and Mortgages I think they would stop paying en masse.

All assignments and conveyances of the Notes and Mortgages were required by *law* to take place within 90-days of the start-up date of the Pool.  If that did not occur (and there are mountains of evidence to prove that they never did) it is game over and it is legally dead. Bury it. Given the very first opportunity to break the law, the bankers did and it cannot be undone.

In many case alleged lenders and their agents of malcontent know they can never demonstrate a valid enforceable right to foreclose. It cannot ever be "assigned" back in to that 90 day period because it is simply impossible without triggering massive negative tax consequences.

This proves further that the bankers and the govt are birds of the same feather. Neither the courts nor the IRS have ever, ever heard of (or choose to completely ignore) IRS Rules 806 A-G. Those are the rules that govern these REMIC's.

That, my friends, is tax evasion on an institutional scale and it never gets enforced. However, if you're alleged to owe one penny and you're not a TBTF bank, dead or alive you'll get a 1099.


Mon, 03/30/2015 - 16:09 | 5943238 El Vaquero
El Vaquero's picture

The court system does not keep track out of how many cases a plaintif files or how many cases a particular law firm handles, but I have compiled that data for 2011 for my state.  This doesn't get into magistrate courts or municipal courts, but here is the breakdown for the district courts in my state alone for the entire year of 2011:

There were 35,858 civil cases in 2011, 14,400 were for "Debt and Money Due."  8438 were foreclosures.  That means that 63% of the cases are filed by lenders/junk debt buyers at a minimum, becuase there are over 3,000 breach of contract cases, which may or may not be over debt.  For a comparison, there were 236 quiet title actions.  The law firm that came after me had 4 attorneys licensed in the state, but 3 who actually lived here, and they filed what I believe to be 8,840, but that is based on attorney names, and some of the attorneys were hopping around from law firm to law firm. 

 

Of all cases, a vast majority were were "filed" by a mere 47 attorneys. Keep in mind that this is just individual attorneys filing cases on behalf of clients, but here is where I start naming names:

 

Seldin, Barry A "filed" 6621 cases in 2011, which is funny, because he lives in Colorado.

Oh, Kenneth Kyuhan 3225 cases

Talman, Darren Blane 2623 cases

Elizabeth Mason, 2465 cases

Grubel, James J 1771 cases

Lucero, Steven J 1622 cases

Koul, Keya 1510 cases

Nesbitt, Deborah A 1120 cases

 

Keep in mind that there is some overlap.  For example, Grubel works for Barry Seldon, and both of their names might be on one complaint.  There are a couple of dozen who have over 100 cases with their names on them too.  That's just on the lawyer side of things.  Capital one and all of its subsidiaries account for at least 10% of the cases in NM in 2011.  They are, hands down, the most litigious entity in the state.  The top 30 most litigious entities in the state are either banks or junk debt buyers, though several of them may be subsidiaries of the same bank holding company, e.g. Capitol One Bank, N.A. vs Capitol One's automotive loan subsidiary.  It's really just a small group that does all of the suing in the state, and it is crushing the court system.  A lot of times, the judges cannot do much about it sua sponte, due to how our legal system is set up.  I don't have the default-win-stipulated judgements-lose ratios on hand, but IIRC, something like 70% of people lose in default and a very large chunk of the rest agree to a stipulated judgment.  People flat out don't fight back.  If they never even show up to the courthouse, they are guaranteed a loss. 

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 16:28 | 5943312 chunga
chunga's picture

I wouldn't feel too good if I had a job like that, no matter how much money I got paid. It seems really gross to me.

Petty by me but I hope they all get foreclosed someday, just for being scums.

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 16:35 | 5943334 El Vaquero
El Vaquero's picture

Yeah, well if just one single fucking person had actually checked the records before they sued me, they wouldn't have sued me.  Just one fucking person.  I still don't know what was going on to this day with that shit, but it was completely FUBARed.  Not to mention that I found the blog of the affiant who signed the affidavate that came with the bank.  They had to "make goal," which was producing roughly 30 affidavits per hour.  If they didn't "make goal,"  they weren't allowed to work overtime, didn't get a raise, etc...  She was just a clueless teenager at the time.  Fucking sweat shop. 

 

Seriously, for all of you who are balking at this, thinking that people should pay their debts to the bankers, you have not ever been in their crosshairs.  Combine their indifference with how they treat people, sue people with the fact that they get to CREATE currency, then loan it into existance, then shit on everything, and you have one of the most repugnant, evil systems out there.  Debt surfdom is what it is.  Fuck the  bankers.  I am 100% debt free,

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 16:56 | 5943409 chunga
chunga's picture

Same here EV. My wife and I live out in the middle of nowhere like hermits surrounded by nothing but animals. We're pretty much convinced that nowadays just about everything is fraud and don't want anything from anyone. Especially me 'cuz she's always looking for "bright sides". We laugh our heads  a lot about how Orwell's "double-speak" is real. I should listen to her and uplug internet...reading about fraud all the time makes me even more sour.

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 12:36 | 5942236 Scoobywan
Scoobywan's picture

Oh, and here I thought not paying your mortgage could qualify you as a deadbeat.

Banks = total assholes, but gaming idiots of thier money? Sounds like what most people call capitalism.

People who borrow money and can't pay it back, should probably not borrow money.

I hope thier FICO is trashed, not out of spite, but to save them from themselves in the future.

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 13:43 | 5942579 Handful of Dust
Handful of Dust's picture

you better buy more KY because they are once again handing out zero down mortgages where I live. They combine that 3.5% down requirement into the loan package and hand over the house to you for $500.

 

Sure makes suckers out of people who pay their bills.

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 14:28 | 5942763 SERReal1
SERReal1's picture

It was only a matter of time. The NAR has to keep the myth going that housing is recovering and prices will keep going up at the ridiculous clip they are (at here in Reno, NV) so now is the time to get in. When the price of housing outpaces inflation, as it has been doing since the 1990's, the market is still out of whack.

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 13:55 | 5942631 Blankenstein
Blankenstein's picture

So someone put a gun to the homeowner's head to buy the house they couldn't afford?  Or take the equity out of the house to buy cars, vacations, etc.?  The banks have a majority of the responsibility but everyone from the top down who did something illegal or irresponsible should have to suffer the consequences, with the stiffest penalities (jail, large fines) being for those who committed the biggest crimes and the irresponsible losing their homes to foreclosure.  Without consequences for illegal or irresponsible actions, we are doomed and no one will ever learn.  

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 14:42 | 5942833 JRobby
JRobby's picture

Right, yea I agree. I see where foreclosure should be a jailable offense. At least 180 days but a year is more like it.

For starters, if we scrapped Title 11 and took NOL's and depreciation out of the tax code I think small business growth would just take off.

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 15:41 | 5943104 Blankenstein
Blankenstein's picture

Where did I say foreclosure should be a jailable offense?  I said the stiffest penalties should be for those who committed the biggest crimes.  The top were the banksters who committed fraud and they should have the heaviest fines and jail time.  There were also corrupt underwriters, mortgage bankers and realtards.  And don't forget the accounting scandals (and no doubt fraud) at FANNIE and FREDDIE.  If you were irresponsible and bought more than you could afford or took out too much equity, then you just lose your house in foreclosure and go rent.  Not sure how you interpeted what I said to mean that!?

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 18:13 | 5943621 Blankenstein
Blankenstein's picture

And Eric Holder should be tried for treason for not upholding these laws.  

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 12:45 | 5942265 Burt Gummer
Burt Gummer's picture

Nothing surprises me anymore, those who work hard and play by the rules get fucked. So what is the point of playing by the rules anymore when the thieves, bankers and scammers always come out on top?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBCUCJNWimo

Tue, 03/31/2015 - 09:22 | 5945065 Omen IV
Omen IV's picture

"play by the rules ".......there are no rules - wake up

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 13:42 | 5942576 seek
seek's picture

"As long as you can just hold out long enough, all deadbeats will come out on top in new 'Murka."

Unfortunately true. Savers get fucked, people who are financially responsible end up in tiny houses they can afford, meanwhile sociopaths with liar loans take out 125% HELOCs to cover lavish vacations, and when the bill comes due, they get a free mansion. I"m really starting to hate this fucking system.

I'm not huge Rand fan, but man, she nailed this part of the story.

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 14:46 | 5942856 JRobby
JRobby's picture

"sociopaths with liar loans take out 125% HELOCs to cover lavish vacations, and when the bill comes due, they get a free mansion."

How many people, as a percentage of eligible home buyers do you think did this? How many do you think got a free house out of it?

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 20:40 | 5944028 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

All I know is that I put 25% down on my mortgage and have never missed a payment. Compared to others, does that make me officially stupid? Is being a financial loser simply a matter of luck? Is there any point in living within your means and following financial practices understood and true for centuries? Should we not question our financial decisions and assume if it was meant to be?

Tue, 03/31/2015 - 02:12 | 5944639 chunga
chunga's picture

What would you do if say you lost your job, or got injured or sick and got hit with some unexpected big bills. Then suppose you drained down your savings paying and maybe even tried to sell. I think that has happened to a lot of people and I don't think they're all bums. I've heard plenty of horror stories of people trying to work something out with the servicer who just deliberatly puts them in a worse spot. The whole thing just sucks but chances are the borrower doesn't have default insurance like the lender does, 

That's another murky/sleazy space these outfits operate in. Would it be right to accelerate the loan, get a judgment, then collect default insurance for the balance AND still go after any deficiency followed up with a 1099?

Tue, 03/31/2015 - 08:40 | 5944965 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

I would never suggest that anyone who defaults is a deadbeat. Only those who do so claiming extreme hardship when they had virtually no equity in their property (many actually got cash at closing), and those camping out and attempting to claim ownership when making no payments. I have had plenty of financial back sets, as most everyone has. The thing that reveals our true character is how we react to those circumstances. Anyone can be highly moral as long as they never have to face the devil's offer. The first rule is to recognize we are ALL weak. The second rule is to avoid those circumstances that test us, for we can all fail. The third rule is to stand tough and try to make choices you can live for the rest of you life with (and its not good enough to simply accept that everyone else was doing it too). Unfortunately the progressive message of entitlement, economic justice and equality of outcome are in direct opposition to those rules. When we are owed a perceived quality of life, there is never a reason to assume any responsibility in our failures.

Mon, 03/30/2015 - 14:56 | 5942906 kchrisc
kchrisc's picture

Those that refuse to repay the banksters on fiat-debt that originates from wealth stolen from them, and the rest of the people, are to be celebrated.

The banksters need to repay us.

 

One cannot be a deadbeat to thieves.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!