"Someone defending a foreclosure action can raise defenses that are baseless, but are obstacles for the foreclosing lender," he says, calling the system "an unfair burden" for lenders.My breath hitched a little, but then
"It's almost like clockwork. You know you're going to get another three-inch stack of documents every month or so, and you have to take the time to read through it," Mr. Summers says. "That is a burden on the courts, a burden on lawyers to decipher it, and it has enough meat in it that it's not all void."This is the part of the story where I had to discreetly dab at the corner of one eye with a handkerchief.
Section 4.3.1.5 - Reloaning: Once per annum, lendee shall automatically be issued a new loan for the amount outstanding of the current loan. The current loan shall be repaid with funds from the new loan and considered settled for all purposes; the new loan shall be serviced at terms identical to the initial loan with the exception of the new principal amount. As the new loan consists fully of principal, the amount of total interest (pursuant to the "interest cap" clause of federal law) shall be $0.posted by 0xFCAF at 1:55 PM on December 30, 2010 [1 favorite]
The legal rate, it is to be observed, though it ought to be somewhat above, ought not to be much above the lowest market rate. If the legal rate of interest in Great Britain, for example, was fixed so high as eight or ten per cent, the greater part of the money which was to be lent would be lent to prodigals and projectors [(scam artists)], who alone would be willing to give this high interest. Sober people, who will give for the use of money no more than a part of what they are likely to make by the use of it, would not venture into the competition. A great part of the capital of the country would thus be kept out of the hands which were most likely to make a profitable and advantageous use of it, and thrown into those which were most likely to waste and destroy it. Where the legal rate of interest, on the contrary, is fixed but a very little above the lowest market rate, sober people are universally preferred, as borrowers, to prodigals and projectors. The person who lends money gets nearly as much interest from the former as he dares to take from the latter, and his money is much safer in the hands of the one set of people than in those of the other. A great part of the capital of the country is thus thrown into the hands in which it is most likely to be employed with advantage.Some things are common knowledge to all religions for a reason. Usury being one of those things. There's a great talk by Elizabeth Warren where she explains that there were three periods of usury laws in world history: one started with Hammurabi's Code in the 15th Century BC and ended in 1980. The second part lasted from 1980 until 2010. The new Consumer Protection Agency marks the start of the third.
Astro Zombie: The issue with being able to collect 4.8 in perpetuity is that, given enough time, somebody could end up paying 200 or 300 percent on their original debt.You've never bought a house, have you? A typical 30-year mortgage means you're paying about 2x the original amount lent. This happens all the time, since you are borrowing a large sum for many years. As someone posted in response to you above, capping such a limit would just lead to paper tricks like forced relending of the remaining principle to pay of the previous debt and start a new one- which is kind of what a home loan is already.
unnecessary paper chase which has been an unproductive and unnecessary use of judicial resources.That smackdown was from a judge, after she presented what the original article calls
strongly worded and colorfulbriefs that
presented dozens of reasons why Ms. Campbell thought the bank didn't have the right to her house: Paul Campbell's signature was forged on the original mortgage, she said, and the original sellers never received money from the bank. At other times, she said the mortgage was never properly conveyed between banks and federal agencies, and she demanded paperwork that they were unable to immediately produce.posted by Joe in Australia at 11:29 PM on December 30, 2010
Attorneys' fees and court costs from previous cases hadn't been paid, or the amounts were wrong, she argued. One brief said that "Defendant Campbell specifically denies the existence of anydebt.What rules against defendants? Clue me in here.
I'm talking about the specialised dockets that were created in some states specifically to deal with foreclosures, as described in this article.
Here's the thing--we do not think of the concept of "efficient breach" as something that individuals are morally allowed to do--which is wrong, because corporations do it all the time.
This woman is not engaging in efficient breach. Efficient breach is necessarily efficient: it is a net benefit to all parties after all claims are settled. Her behavior is profoundly inefficient, and wasteful. She's just gaming the system.
« Older For all the faults of the poorhouse, the system it... | Snowflakes under an electron m... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
