Skip to comments.Judge Rules Against Bank In Mortgage Modification Suit
Posted on 02/10/2011 9:20:07 AM PST by Kartographer
A recent ruling by a California appeals court clears the way for fraud charges against a lender that promised a loan modification but then foreclosed on the borrower.
The ruling throws into question the legality of hundreds of thousands of foreclosures.
Not only was the ruling a frontal assault on the empty promises made by servicers and banks, the case highlighted some despicable tactics often employed to force foreclosures.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.forbes.com ...
Judge ignores all contract law, including statute of frauds, to find a way to keep the market from operating. Must be a rat.
Anyone still surprised?
Perhaps some of the Freepers who were trying to claim there was no housing bubble back in 2007 will now tell us this is fake?
How dare this judge, thinking he has a right to impugn and sully the good reputation of the mortgage industry with accusations like “despicable tactics”...
The promise of a loan modification does not mean the modification is necessarily beneficial to the buyer.
True but what do you call a promise of a loan modification followed by a quick foreclosure action?
At a time when many borrowers responding to impending foreclosure by trashing the property, I would call it wisdom.
In the mortgage industry, it’s called “dual-tracking”.
Ostensibly helping the homeowner with one hand, while simultaneously pursuing foreclosure with the other.
“Judge ignores all contract law, including statute of frauds, to find a way to keep the market from operating. Must be a rat.”
I am not sure about contract law in this situation. It seems that both parties were looking for advantage. The gullible home owner was duped by the bank. The bank’s tactics were clearly underhanded although I am not sure if the practices were illegal. She was trying to gain leverage by filing Chapter 13. It is easy to take her side because she is an individual against a large corporation. I see this case as a battle between the note holder and home occupier.
None of us can be really sure without reviewing the documents and facts , but I am pretty sure of one thing. If the home buyer had made his payments as agreed there would not have been a foreclosure.
“None of us can be really sure without reviewing the documents and facts , but I am pretty sure of one thing. If the home buyer had made his payments as agreed there would not have been a foreclosure.”
I agree so my sympathy does not go with the home occupier. I am not sure about the morality of Chapter 13 to avoid foreclosure. One could argue that Chapter 13 provides incentive by home occupiers to stiff the note holders.
Yeah cause we know the banks always do whats moral and right.
Banks are not trying to get into Heaven. There is no such thing as moral in their world and right means what a court allows them to do.
She got screwed, of that there is no question.
“Banks are not trying to get into Heaven.”
Banks are run by people.
” There is no such thing as moral in their world and right means what a court allows them to do. “
There most certainly is morality in business. To think otherwise demonstrates a black heart.
The banks bought and paid for the laws which allowed them to destroy our economy. The same economy which now impacts so many people.
Question for discussion:
In the first decade of the twenty first century, which group did more damage to the United States?
A. Al Qaeda
B. The investment banking industry
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.