Judge KOs 525G mortgage to slap bank

[Les]

I am willing to bet we do not know all of the facts and that is why a Judge voted in favor of the innocent ones.

Innocent, not paying your debt is innocent? How would you like it if someone owed you money, didn't pay, took you to court for trying to collect the debt, and some judge decided they don't owe you the money? Are they innocent also?

 

[Tom Schindler]

How would you like it if someone owed you money, didn't pay, took you to court for trying to collect the debt, and some judge decided they don't owe you the money?

You do not know all the details.





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen,



We know what was reported in the story.



People want to blame the lenders for their own greed and stupidity.



I'd rather people be responsible for their own actions. The lenders simply did what they were legally allowed, and by changes in lending laws also obligated to do.



TJR

 

[Tom Schindler]

The lenders simply did what they were legally allowed, and by changes in lending laws also obligated to do.

Absolutly. It is legal to drink alcohol. Just because it is legal does not give me the green light to drink myself to death. I take that risk by drinking just like those loan sharks took the risk by giving out loans that were nothing more than a scam.





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen said

...those loan sharks took the risk by giving out loans that were nothing more than a scam.

The loans were not a scam. Sub-prime loans were legal thanks to our STUPID government and their tampering with our financial system.



You say it was all a scam, but I think you misunderstand what the definition of scam is.



Just to be clear, here is the definition:

scam: a fraudulent or deceptive act or operation <an insurance scam>

So, I really don't think sub-prime loans were in any way fraudulent, or deceptive. Maybe they were "ill-advised" for many...but, hey, that's where the personal responsibility comes back into the equation.



TJR

 

[Tom Schindler]

So, I really don't think sub-prime loans were in any way fraudulent, or deceptive.

I do. There is nothing you can say that will change my mind, likewise there is nothing I can say to change your mind.



They were deceptive. Plain and simple. High risk loans give a higher rate of return. They are also subject to higher risk. The loan sharks lost that gamble.



If you invest your money into a high risk fund and lose out, welcome to life.





Tom

 

[Johnny O]

Except that the bank already got a lot of (our) money. There have already been cases won over credit card companies where the judge said "You've already collected enough money and enough is enough."

 

[Les]

If you invest your money into a high risk fund and lose out, welcome to life.

And if your borrow money you can't afford to pay back, welcome to life.

They were deceptive. Plain and simple.

The loans were not deceptive, the requirements were completely spelled out in the contract.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Les,



Give it up. It seems that many here including the judge in this case are ruling by emotion not the facts at hand.



Caymen is a prime (n pun) example. No facts, no ability to back up his opinion, just an emotional contempt forlenders that seem to have play by the rules and sympathy for a "victim" that made their own bed.



It's funny how the story about this case doesn't ever describe any specific wrong-doing. Seems like the judge wanted to make an example and did so...not withstanding any actual laws being broken.



Caymen keeps saying that the "loan sharks lost that risk".... They only lost in this case due to a seemingly vindicitive judge with an axe to grind. They were not obligated to refinance and help this couple out. It would have been a "nice" thing to do, but probably not a responsible business choice to make.



TJR

 

[Tom Schindler]

FWIW, I have prime credit...in case you think I have a sub-prime loan on my house.



I worked for a company that operated like this...



If it seems wrong, though it is legal is still wrong"



Imagine that, a company operating with a conscience.



Seriously, given a choice... I owe you 20 bucks plus 10 bucks interence. I pay you 10 bucks back and then I can no longer pay you the 20. I beg you to make me a deal. You say no. We go to court and I am free of having to pay you the 20 bucks. Should you have made me a deal to get another 15 out of me?



Hell yes! I am all about fairness, but sometimes the risk is not worth the reward.



I pray to God that the higher courts uphold the lower courts decision.





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen,



Your examples are amusing, but might I simply remind you of a phrase that most learn in kindergarten:



"A deal is a deal."



If you don't like the terms, don't make the deal.



Blame the democrats, greed and Bill Clinton if you must. They all led to passing the laws that allowed people to buy and refinance homes for essentially at or more than they were worth and with no payments on the principle for years.

 

[Bill Barber]

caymen, you cannot even spell INTEREST, and have no clue about what you speak, as usual.

 

[Rodger Tellefson]

No one preyed or lured people into the bank and forced them to make bad decisions, they went very willingly.

Bull crap!!! YES THEY WERE. I know for fact that some very good friends of mine (he a school principal & she a lisenced marriage counselor) were lured, and the old bait and switch game was played on them. Just because it has not happened to you, or you seem to be wiser that most, doesn't mean it cannot happen to you or other good people. I will agree that both sides are at fault, but I give over 50% of the fault to the mortgage establishment. I saw an investivative report where, I believe it was World Savings (no longer in existance), the employees where told by management to go ahead and close mortgages when they knew that the borrower could not qualify and were told that they could qualify. Please do your homework. Thank You.

 

[Les]

Blame the democrats, greed and Bill Clinton if you must. They all led to passing the laws that allowed people to buy and refinance homes for essentially at or more than they were worth and with no payments on the principle for years.

No question, this is where it started.

Bull crap!!! YES THEY WERE. I know for fact that some very good friends of mine (he a school principal & she a lisenced marriage counselor) were lured, and the old bait and switch game was played on them.

Educated people, making an uneducated decision. Geez people, how difficult can it be to determine how much house how you can afford. Add up the numbers, and if you can't, hire an attorney that specializes in real estate. Blaming someone else for your poor decisions is now the American way.

I pray to God that the higher courts uphold the lower courts decision.

If they do then get out your checkbook because we will, and are, paying for all these idiots.

 

[Tom Schindler]

caymen, you cannot even spell INTEREST, and have no clue about what you speak, as usual.

You do not even know that the begining of a sentence starts with a capital letter. Of course, you know what you are talking about.



Bill, you truly are a piece of work.





Tom

 

[Roger Batts]

When we bought our house, we were one of those couples that had to get sub-prime, adjustable rate mortgage. Before the grace period ended and the adjustable rates started, we went to AmeriQuest to refinance our loan. We specifically asked for a fixed rate loan and were told we were getting just that. They changed us to an adjustable rate after we closed, and they added an early refi penalty. We raised a big stink with them about it and we were part of the class action suit that was filed against them. We finally were able to get out from under those adjustable rate loans and get a fixed rate.



So, I don't have any sympathy for this lender for getting slapped by the judge.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Roger,



You have a couple of examples of percieved wrong-doing so you assume all lenders are corrupt.



Might I ask, on you refii, did you pay an attorney to look over the contracts? Did you read the contracts at closing and keep copies? I aks because if you signed contracts that said one thing, and they did another than that's a simple problem to fix and a slamIdunk for a lawyer.



TJR

 

[Rodger Tellefson]

TJR,



Again: 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.

There is NO perceived wrong doing here. Two courts ordered them to stop foreclosure on the 89-yr.-old woman. Yet they continue to do so. Also, the mortgage company the we originally went through when we refinanced in '07 is being sued by the state of California for preditory lending. You can talk about educated people all you want, but the bottom line is most all people to not read the fine print, and I heard on PBS that even if you do read the fine print you still need a lawyer to tell you what it means. So, do not give me any more CRAP about it being the borrowers fault entirely. The mortgage companies / banks know that they have the upper hand - period. I can not believe that some of you guys just do not get it.



My theory is that if the govt. at all levels would go after the mortgage companies to stop the foreclosures, and focus on jobs for people instead of bailing out Wall Street; we would have a more stable economy because our state and local govts. get a significant amount of their money from income and property taxes. When businesses fail because people do not have the money to buy, then there is also a loss of revenue for state and local governments.



Most of all of what I have said above could have been pervented by lending companies playing fair. But, as I heard in an interview of a Federal Congressman, the lending industry has very powerful lobbyists; so we can put a significant amount of blame on our Federal at many different levels, and not just republicans or democrats whom are both to blame.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Rodger,



I already answered that above. I don't see how the case with the 89 year old woman has any bearing on the story. The only reason to mention it is to add emotion to the case, to portray the lender in question as ruthless.



Business is business. If they were within their RIGHTS to foreclose on the 89 year old lady, then so be it. If they were challenging the court orders that instructed them to stop the foreclosure, then the foreclosure could continue while on appeal.



I never said anything was the borrower's fault entirely.



But lenders run a business. Businesses run on contracts and fine print. If you don't read it, or don't understand it, then pay a lawyer to protect you. If you choose to do none of the above, then, yes, it is all on the borrower.



Lending companies typically play fair. The RULES of the FAIR GAME are defined by regulations, which were again, passed by our legistlatures, championed by Bill Clinton and other Dems in the early 90s.



TJR

 

[Paul McDevitt]

"Sub-prime loans were legal thanks to our STUPID government and their tampering with our financial system."



And that began in the Clinton era, with feel-good legislation whereby the government incented lenders to make mortgages to people who were bad risks. To offset the risk, higher rates were instituted.

No one forces anyone to sign a paper. There are thieves everywhere, and if you sign a paper based on the other party in a business transaction's description of what it says, vs your own, or a third party's interpretation of what it says, reality will teach you a lesson.



Roger - have you found, or has the original lender cited, the language in your original that allowed them to put this process into motion: "we were told we were getting (a fixed rate loan). They changed us to an adjustable rate after we closed, and they added an early refi penalty."



If they made those changes without the right to do so in the original contract, they acted criminally. If those rights were granted to them in the original contract, they acted legally. Unethically? Maybe, but legal and ethical are 2 different things.