Judge KOs 525G mortgage to slap bank

Ford SportTrac Forum

Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Joined
Sep 16, 2001
Messages
8,448
Reaction score
3
Location
Roseville/Sacramento, CA
YES!!!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Long Island couple is home free after an outraged judge gave them an amazing Thanksgiving present -- canceling their debt to ruthless bankers trying to toss them out on the street.



Suffolk Judge Jeffrey Spinner wiped out $525,000 in mortgage payments demanded by a California bank, blasting its "harsh, repugnant, shocking and repulsive" acts.



The bombshell decision leaves Diane Yano-Horoski and her husband, Greg Horoski, owing absolutely no money on their ranch house in East Patchogue.



Spinner pulled no punches as he smacked down the bankers at OneWest -- who took an $814.2 million federal bailout but have a record of coldbloodedly foreclosing on any homeowner owing money.



"The bank was so intransigent that he [the judge] decided to punish them," Greg Horoski, 55, said about Spinner's scathing ruling last Thursday against OneWest and its IndyMac mortgage division.





It erased up to $291,000 in principal and $235,000 in interest and penalties.



The Horoskis -- who had been paying only interest on their mortgage -- had no equity in the home.



Horoski, who had begged the bankers to let him restructure the loan, said, "I think the judge felt it was almost a personal vendetta." Dealing with the bank, he said, was "like dealing with organized crime."



OneWest said, "We respectfully disagree with the lower court's unprecedented ruling and we expect that it will be overturned on appeal."



It claimed it "has been extremely active in working with consumers on home loan modifications through the Obama administration's Home Affordable Modification Program and other loan modification initiatives."



The bank is owned by a private equity group that purchased the failed IndyMac bank.



Yano-Horoski, a college professor of English and cognitive reason, and Horoski, who sells collectible dolls online, bought their 3,400-square-foot, one-level house 15 years ago for less than $200,000.



Yano-Horoski, a college professor of English and cognitive reason, and Horoski, who sells collectible dolls online, bought their 3,400-square-foot, one-level house 15 years ago for less than $200,000.



In 2004, court records show, they refinanced, paying off their original mortgage with part of a $292,500 sub-prime loan from Deutsche Bank. They used what was left for health care and for his business.



The loan carried an initial adjustable interest rate of 10.375 percent, which soared to 12.375 percent.



It eventually ended up being either owned or serviced by IndyMac, and the bank sued the couple in July 2005 when they began having trouble making payments because of Horoski's health problems.



After a foreclosure was approved last January, Yano-Haroski successfully asked for a court settlement conference.



Spinner excoriated OneWest for repeatedly refusing to work out a deal, for misleading him about the dollar amounts at stake in the case, and for its treatment of the couple over months of hearings.



OneWest's conduct was "inequitable, unconscionable, vexatious and opprobrious," Spinner wrote.



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



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

 
The way this reads to me is that:



- a couple buy a home for less than $200k some 15 years ago (1994?)



- they pay a mortage on the house for 10 years, then in 2004 take out a second mortgage, paying off their original in the process, and the new mortgage is for $292,500.



- At that time of the 2004 refii I can only assume that the house probably did appraise for at least the $292,500 of the new home loan (especially knowing what I know about home appreciation from the mid '90s to the mid 00s, and home values on Long Island.)



So, these guys rolled the dice, probably expecting their house value to keep going up. Their house value went down over the past few years and during all that time they paid no principle on the loan...that I am pretty certain they understood.



They rolled the dice and lost. Now with their ARM kicking in I suspect they can't make the payments. They no doubt didn't plan on this "worst case" happening....but it did...and it was always a possibility.



I don't see why this is a lawsuit and why the plaintiffs won the case.



They seem greedy and irresponsible to me.



TJR
 
TJR,



Did you read this last sentence?



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



FYI - We recently had our mortgage restructured to over $800 lower beginning Jan. 1st. We got a letter in the mail saying the the original mortgage company in being sued for predatory lending. Our home loan was purchased by Countrywide which has been bought out by B of A, and is now BofA Home Loans. We went through NACA (Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America).
 
Can see this ruling being reversed through appeal. A judge can make the ruling, but it won't stick.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Heres an idea...don't finance if you can't pay it.



Why is it good that the guy that GAVE THEM MONEY will not get it back? They KNEW the terms of the loan and if they didn't, too bad.
 
I agree, they knew what they were getting into. Don't put yourself into situation you can't handle if the worst happens. And these are two college professors?! come on.....
 
It would be really kewl if the ruling did stick to send a message to the bank mafia.



Sorry Roger, I don't have a problem with the bank mafia. They are only trying to collect what is due them. These people made an agreement and violated the requirements. I have no sympathy for these people and bad decisions by others should not cost me or anyone else money. These are two people trying to not pay what they owe. If they hadn't made poor decisions, they would't be in this mess. They are a couple of idiots...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hey guys, If the lender was truly not willing to renegotiate the terms of the loan so they could continue to receive payments from the borrower, then the bank should be held liable. I mean if no alternatives were given to the couple, foreclosure would net the bank a percentage of the loan value at sale(most likely)and the bank loses. The couple must have tried to continue to make "good faith" payments with the blessing of the bank. So who is wrong here? This could set a dangerous precedent in banking, that if enough loans are "wiped out" by the courts, we could be back where we were when the mortgage market collapsed the first time. I agree, when entering into a binding contract, you must be able to meet the terms and suffer the penalties if you don't. There may be more to this story than we have been told, so for right now, the couple is way ahead of the game. Enjoy it while it lasts. :unsure:
 
I saw this headline on the NY Post as I was exiting a convenience store last night. I thought it was a joke, till I stopped and read the article. Then I was outraged. :angry:



These borrowers are speculators, pure and simple. They didn't over-borrow to realize the American dream of becoming a homeowner. They took a very high loan-to-value ratio, interest-only loan on a 3400 sq foot house, to in large part to finance the wife's "online collectibles sales" business. He's a college professor, he can't read? They gambled, and lost - pure and simple. This ruling should be reversed. How does this judge think he is empowered to do anything about the principal owed on this loan? Fees and penalties, yes, Principal? No.

Predatory lending is a convenient boogey man for folks who definitely knew what they were getting into to blame for their current situations. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but in a high % of these situations, the borrowers were capable of understanding the accurate disclosure statements that accompanied their loans. They rolled the dice.



BobC - you seem to be on both sides of the issue, but I have to ask you about this statement: "If the lender was truly not willing to renegotiate the terms of the loan so they could continue to receive payments from the borrower, then the bank should be held liable".

If there is no language in the loan agreement that these people signed guaranteeing them the right to renegotiate the terms, under what law is the bank under obligated to do that? The bank can't raise rates outside of what is stipulated in the loan agreement, just like these folks should not be allowed to do anything but payback the loan under the exact terms in the loan agreement.



This judge is playing Loan Ranger, riding in and "righting wrongs" as he perceives them. No legal ground to stand on, and if this is allowed to stand, look out. Who do you think will bail out the banks after a big wave of liberal judges eradicating the obligations of deadbeats to pay mortgages? We already know the answer. At least in the first wave, the lenders got something

(the ome thru foreclosure), in this case, they're being told they have no right to the money they lent, not just interest or fees, but the principal. That's lunacy, and if you think credit got tight when this bubble burst, you ain't seen nothing compared to what adopting this practice will bring on. This is nothing more complex than Robin Hood, the transfer of an asset (the house by way of the principal on the loan) from its owner to someone else, based on some sense of "fairness".

You will not want to live in a country where the government is empowered to do that, although there are already many, many examples of our government doing just that.



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



So what? That's irrelevant. Is that a sad, emotionally charged situation? Without a doubt. Does that fact have anything to do with the legalities and obligations of both the borrower and the lender? Absolutely not. No bank employee has the right to simply forgive a loan, it was not their money they lent, it belongs to the shareholders.

Waaaaa.....daddy (government), the big bad bankers won't let me play with their toys! MAKE THEM!

Use of the word "kewl" in a discussion about the basics of fiscal responsibility and our national economy does the opposite of legitimizing the authors opinion. In this instance, it is a clear and accurate indicator of the legitimacy of that opinion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Because banks are unwilling to renegotiate the loan is why the banks got that bail-out money.



We can place blame anywhere we want. Fact is, if you have someone renting a property you own and they can not make the rent and you can never find someone to pay you rent what they are paying you, then make a deal with them.



Sub-prime loans have been given to people that should have been given prime loans.



Many of those that recieved those sub-prime loans were tricked into getting them.



Let these cases keep building. Let these judges slap it to these banks, investers, and scam artists. Pretty soon, the housing crisis will no longer be a crisis because they will start to make right.





Tom



p.s. don't say read the fine print. Fine print is written so nobody but the writer knows what it means.
 
Some good points...



Sub-prime loans have been given to people that should have been given prime loans.



Most of those people would not have qualified for prime loans.



Many of those that recieved those sub-prime loans were tricked into getting them.



Many of these people were greedy, and many made very bad decisions, but they only "tricked" themselves.



Let these cases keep building. Let these judges slap it to these banks, investers, and scam artists. Pretty soon, the housing crisis will no longer be a crisis because they will start to make right.



Many of the investors and scam artists (mortgage brokers) are now out of business. You can't, and won't, collect from them. The banks are left holding the notes, and granted, they were involved they were following federally mandated guidelines that "every American should be able to own a home".



p.s. don't say read the fine print. Fine print is written so nobody but the writer knows what it means.



And this is why you hire an attorney to read the fine print. If you don't understand what contract says, you should't be signing. Small print or not, you are responsible.



Because banks are unwilling to renegotiate the loan is why the banks got that bail-out money
.



Have to agree, banks have kept their loan departments closed for many legitimate types of loans, such as those that can afford housing, or commercial loans. But renegotiating on a home loan, when the home is valued below the loan amount, makes no sense.



We are not discussing a couple with a stay at home wife, a husband that got laid off, have previously paid their bills, and are now trying to keep a home they purchased years ago. This is about a couple that decided to gamble on the future with their home, and lost, and now wants sympathy for their poor decision. You want to sanction the bank for bad behavior, outside of the law, I have no problem with that, but forgiving the loan only adds to the problem and most likely be successfully appealed.





 
Last edited by a moderator:
The bank will just pass the costs on to the customers.



This is stupid. The problem is the idiots who keep borrowing money. The bank is just doing what banks do.



Personal responsibility, common sense, and honesty are all dead in the USA.



Our society is screwed. :(
 
Sorry Roger, I don't have a problem with the bank mafia.



Well, I do have a problem with mortgage companies that deliberately preyed on and lured people that were NOT speculating but just wanted a home of their own. Their customers in order to make a ton of money, not just a reasonable profit. I live in central California which is the epicenter of the forclosures. The bank involved in the NY case is based out of CA., took bailout money and is not passing it down to the people that it is supposed to help. When a bank forcloses the DO NOT loose money, they get mortgage insurance money on top of being able to sell your house out from under you. :angry::angry::angry:



I am so very thankful that we were able to get ouir mortgage restructured!!!
 
Roger,



Well, I do have a problem with mortgage companies that deliberately preyed on and lured people that were NOT speculating but just wanted a home of their own. Their customers in order to make a ton of money, not just a reasonable profit.



Mortgage companies, or more specifically, mortgage brokers, were considerabley at fault. The bottom line is, you can blame banks all you want, but the root of the problem still goes to the individuals that signed the contract and the lack of regulation from the federal government. No one preyed or lured people into the bank and forced them to make bad decisions, they went very willingly.



I am so very thankful that we were able to get ouir mortgage restructured!!!



Glad to see someone is benefiting from the current low rates. Good for you...



 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rodger,



I'm not sure what the foreclosure of the 89 year old woman has to do with the case presented.



Seems to me this story is a lot about chest beating and trying to portray the lender as evil and the mortgage holders as duped. But I don't get any of that by simply reading the "facts" of the story.



TJR
 
Let's stick to the facts folks:



- These people refinanced and took on MORE debt, enjoying that their home had risen in value.



- They took on a new ARM loan that started as interest only, speculating that the good times would last until the adjustment period...they DID NOT.



- Many financial institutions received bailout money, but that's moot. It has no bearing on whether or not a lender like this one SHOULD, or SHOULD NOT work with a mortgage holder in crisis to refinance on terms that are more appealing to the homeowner.



- The homeowners and the property may now both be a mortgage risk, and the lendor unable and unwilling to renegotiate the terms because it would just delay the inevitable.



- Lastly, sub-prime wasn't invented and perputrated by some shady lenders. Our government with new laws created the vehicles that allow sub-prime loans. The lenders just provided the loans that were legal based on new laws.



These people did this to themselves.



TJR
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top