Judge Blasts Bank's Foreclosure Conduct and Cancels Mortgage

[JoshuaTree]

Originally Posted by Homeslice

... whatever..

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/VEXATIOUS
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/opprobrious
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/salubrious

[Smittie61984]

Originally Posted by Avatard

As usual, reading comprehension fail.

Hey Einstein did you read this part???

The judge observed that a modification of the mortgage would have assured the IndyMac "a regular income stream, albeit with a reduced rate of interest and without sustaining a loss of several hundred thousand dollars."

Reduced rate of interest which means a loss of money for the bank. Perhaps if the bank assumed they would give out a loan with a smaller percentage rate they wouldn't have given the loan in the first place. She agreed to a percentage and should have paid it. If she can't then it should be up to the bank (and not some snooty judge) on wether they want to accept less money.

I don't see the "Win-Win" there. If you loaned a buddy $100 and they said they were only going to give you $90 back, then you'd be pissed off as hell.

[karl_1052]

Originally Posted by Smittie61984

Hey Einstein did you read this part???


Reduced rate of interest which means a loss of money for the bank. Perhaps if the bank assumed they would give out a loan with a smaller percentage rate they wouldn't have given the loan in the first place. She agreed to a percentage and should have paid it. If she can't then it should be up to the bank (and not some snooty judge) on wether they want to accept less money.

I don't see the "Win-Win" there. If you loaned a buddy $100 and they said they were only going to give you $90 back, then you'd be pissed off as hell.

$90 is better than none.
The bank could take a reduced rate for a longer term which would equal the same money, but allow the homeowner to continue to make payments.

If you lost your job(I know, not possible in this booming economy), would you not try to make arragements with the bank to keep your house?
(No, you sound like an internet tough guy, who will turn into Chuck Norris and roundhouse kick money into existence to pay your mortgage)

What about the part where the bank tacked $200,000 onto the loan? What are your comments about that part?

[tached1000rr]

Originally Posted by Smittie61984

Hey Einstein did you read this part???


Reduced rate of interest which means a loss of money for the bank. Perhaps if the bank assumed they would give out a loan with a smaller percentage rate they wouldn't have given the loan in the first place. She agreed to a percentage and should have paid it. If she can't then it should be up to the bank (and not some snooty judge) on wether they want to accept less money.

I don't see the "Win-Win" there. If you loaned a buddy $100 and they said they were only going to give you $90 back, then you'd be pissed off as hell.

The bank would have made their money from interest even at a reduced interest rate, anything above 0% has to yield money for the bank, hmnn I borrow 200,000 and over 30 yrs my payout to the mortage co. ends up being 325,000, at whatever interest had been established, the bank essentially had 125,000 in that scenario cushioned so even if they reduce the interest a point or few, they are still gonna get their money in the end and then some.

[Smittie61984]

Originally Posted by karl_1052

$90 is better than none.
The bank could take a reduced rate for a longer term which would equal the same money, but allow the homeowner to continue to make payments.

What about the part where the bank tacked $200,000 onto the loan? What are your comments about that part?

Still, if you were expecting $100 (let's say this week and not $110 a year from now) then you'd still be upset. Then on top of that because she couldn't make her payments (wether spending too much money on Starbucks or loosing her job which is not hte banks concern) the bank has to take a hit of anything or wait for the money they were promised?

As for the $200,000, I have no clue what that's for or from.

My main concern is that the judge upholds the terms of the original contract and not rewrite them so he looks good. Not saying what the bank is doing is right, but if it's within the bounds of the contract she signed then they should be able to do it without punishment. If what they are doing violates her contract that they both signed then I want the judge to punish them then.

[Apoc]

Originally Posted by Smittie61984

I don't see the "Win-Win" there. If you loaned a buddy $100 and they said they were only going to give you $90 back, then you'd be pissed off as hell.

No, if I loaned a buddy 100, and he said he could only pay back 90, i'd probably ask him to keep it as he probably needs that 90 dollars more than the guy who could afford to lend it, seeing he couldnt pay back the full bill. Ive got a few friends that I would GIVE 100$ in a heartbeat if they needed it. I know others whom I wouldnt piss in their mouth if they were dying of thirst.

Its far and away not the same situation. Nice try. Fail. Dont compare law, banking and global economics to a loan between friends.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by Apoc

No, if I loaned a buddy 100, and he said he could only pay back 90, i'd probably ask him to keep it as he probably needs that 90 dollars more than the guy who could afford to lend it, seeing he couldnt pay back the full bill. Ive got a few friends that I would GIVE 100$ in a heartbeat if they needed it. I know others whom I wouldnt piss in their mouth if they were dying of thirst.

Its far and away not the same situation. Nice try. Fail. Dont compare law, banking and global economics to a loan between friends.

Certainly not a fair comparison. After all, a friend doesn't take you to court and try to convince the judge that he loaned you $200.00, when it was really $100.00.

[Apoc]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

Certainly not a fair comparison. After all, a friend doesn't take you to court and try to convince the judge that he loaned you $200.00, when it was really $100.00.

not in Canada anyway.

[karl_1052]

Originally Posted by Smittie61984

Still, if you were expecting $100 (let's say this week and not $110 a year from now) then you'd still be upset. Then on top of that because she couldn't make her payments (wether spending too much money on Starbucks or loosing her job which is not hte banks concern) the bank has to take a hit of anything or wait for the money they were promised?

As for the $200,000, I have no clue what that's for or from.

My main concern is that the judge upholds the terms of the original contract and not rewrite them so he looks good. Not saying what the bank is doing is right, but if it's within the bounds of the contract she signed then they should be able to do it without punishment. If what they are doing violates her contract that they both signed then I want the judge to punish them then.

I agree that contracts should be honoured, but due to unforseen circumstances, the people wanted to work with the bank to get a mutually beneficial outcome. The bank was not interested. Why? I don't know. If they foreclose on houses, they lose more money. Houses in the area are worth less, there are less buyers, and the bank has to dump the home.

I don't know what it is like in the states, but here, I can renegotiate my mortgage any time I want. I will pay a penalty($10-20K), but that is much better than losing my home, and the bank wins(keep my mortgage, plus get a penalty from me).

[goof2]

Originally Posted by karl_1052

What about the part where the bank tacked $200,000 onto the loan? What are your comments about that part?

I suspect the difference was due to the small number being the amount the bank loaned them and the larger number being the total repayment amount if the borrowers had followed their repayment schedule.

Ultimately what this comes down to is the lender and the borrower signed a contract. The borrower is no longer able to fulfill their requirements under the contract. If the lender is willing to change the terms of the contract to accommodate the borrower that is great, but the lender is completely within their rights to hold the borrower to the original terms. What would be most beneficial to the lender is irrelevant. They can choose to do whatever they want within the law no matter what this shithead judge says. Cases like this are why the appellate courts exist.