Comments on: Long Island Judge Wipes Out Homeowner Debt. Victory for Consumers? Or Is It?

By: Dave

Dave — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 20:32:37 +0000

True, the banks write the debt off and we end up paying for the losses through tax dollars.

By: ZuuZuu

ZuuZuu — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 05:20:02 +0000

Haha. Right on Gary.
Why is it banks and corporations are allowed to have hardships, but people are not?
When I was buying a house, the bank and the broker and the lawyers all tried to rush me and discourage me from reading the paperwork. I was led to believe it was “formality.” I insisted on reading it anyway, to discover it was all full of mistakes, blanks, and outright lies. When I said I would not sign, I was told it was not negotiable and I had no right to back out because my realtor, Keller-Williams, did not put a contingency stating I had a right to refuse the loan terms if I did not agree (I never bought a house and would not have known I needed that. In fact, I never felt I had made any kind of committment, never having seen the terms of the loan or even been formally told I was going to be granted the loan.)
I still refused to sign. They threatened to sue me, but did not. They sent papers which appeared official with a “copy” stamped on it in red and a bogus court number. This is how the professionals behave?

By: DemosL

DemosL — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 03:59:49 +0000

I read a lengthy exchange of threads the other day on a different REI site that said short sales probably aren’t necessary to prevent foreclosures. This one real estate consutlant is saying that because mortgages get sold so many times, all you have to do in Federal court is ask for the loan servicer to show the note. Of course they can’t prove they have the original note – they can’t find it.

I though it was very interesting argument. Although the borrower entered into a contract (the mortgage) and couldn’t prove they paid it in full, they’re able to stop repaying their obligation because of sloppy paperwork and record keeping, on the part of the lenders.

By: Gary

Gary — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 22:07:19 +0000

One article, one author, four follow up comments. All five are sympathetic to the bank’s
plight. 10.3 % unemployment, an economy on life support, de-regulation on steroids,
gambling in the form of collateralized debt obligations. But they are exorcised over a homeowner “who claims” that medical problems cause their financial hardship..hmm…?
Shame on those greedy, and irresponsible home owners that took the money and ran. Shame
on those people that took advantage of the those poor financial institutions, like AIG. How
dare any those commie do gooders talk of regulating those poor banks, like Goldman Sachs. I say hell no. We should continue to allow the market to determine every single aspect of our existence. We should continue to socialize the risk inherent in capitalism, and privatize the rewards. We must protect the banks. The banks know best. The banks are smarter than us. If people haven’t heard of universal default, it’s because they are just retarded. Usury is a dirty word that has thankfully been cleansed from our vocabulary. I love the banks, I love the hedge funds. This country is strong because of banks not people. That’s why I think we must continue to discourage any talk of protecting the consumers from so-called greedy banks. If a person is too stupid to know the intricacies of their credit card agreement, two inches of mortgage documents , that is their own fault. we need to move in a direction were everything is monetized. All police force, fire department, education, and the air we breath should all be privatized. It’s just not right, there should be no tax at all.

We should forget about electing people and just agree to allow the banks to run our country and our lives. Think of how much more better off we’d be if we’d elected Goldman Sachs as our commander in chief. This would definitely be a better option for the banks because they would not have to waste anymore money, picking our politicians.

By: Gilbert Badillo

Gilbert Badillo — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:00:32 +0000

I know from expeirence that Indymac is one of the worst banks to work with when trying to get a modification. But like you say in your blog this will be turned over in appeal. I am pretty sure that the borrower knew that his loan could adjust….I bet you anything he was sold on the idea that his property would continue to rise and he could refinance into better terms. Back in 2002-2005 we would call loans like this bandaid loans. Then We would put them into a 30 year fixed 6 to 12 months later.

By: Linda C.

Linda C. — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:05:14 +0000

All lenders are evil, didn’t you know that? Oh, and don’t forget the evil landlords, credit card companies, and anyone else that you owe money to!

By: Justin Pierce

Justin Pierce — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:34:42 +0000

Amen, Brother.

There is a massive witch hunt going on in this country to decide who is responsible for the housing bubble. No one wants to put any blame on the people who bought the houses that drove up prices that outpriced many potential buyers who are now paying to bail out the people who drove prices beyond their reach.

Borrowers don’t deserve all of the blame but they do have a fair share.

Before you start to celebrate this decision, victorious consumer, just be aware that if a lender cannot collect from one person they’ll get their money from others. Citi bank and Chase just doubled my interest rate on my credit card. I pay my bills, I have money in the bank. I canceled the cards. They’re forgiving so much debt right now that they have to get money somewhere. It is clear that they are in servival mode. They don’t care if I pay off the balances and cancel the card, they just need that cash.