wahooGalt Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 (edited) I saw this news piece this afternoon and felt sick watching the entire thing. http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2009/1...e.erases.news12 I know that I certainly have strong feelings about this subject, just like just about everyone on this forum. But I was wondering if anyone had 1) even heard about this, or 2) heard any additional details about this case. Did the bank do something to warrant this action, or was it actually just a judge deciding that contracts aren't valid when he doesn't want them to be? Blecchh. Edited November 28, 2009 by wahooGalt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 All I could find that might sound unethical on the part of OneWest was that the original adjustable interest rate on the mortgage was 10.375% and it shot up to 12.375% fairly quickly. (source WSJ). But the key word there is adjustable. The lady probably just signed a contract she neglected to read; the bank deserves the money she owes it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freestyle Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 (edited) All I could find that might sound unethical on the part of OneWest was that the original adjustable interest rate on the mortgage was 10.375% and it shot up to 12.375% fairly quickly. (source WSJ). But the key word there is adjustable. The lady probably just signed a contract she neglected to read; the bank deserves the money she owes it. Even assuming the bank was intransigent as far as a restructuring of the loan terms-- What right does a judge have to "punish" them? Did they break any terms? Not as far as I can tell. And what stopped the family for going and getting refinanced by another company? The whole thing doesn't make sense. On the flip side, if I could get my bank to use their "stimulus" funds to pay off my mortgage, I'd take it in a second. I'd consider it a PARTIAL payback to me for all of my taxes the government has TAKEN and WASTED over the years. Edited November 28, 2009 by freestyle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wahooGalt Posted November 28, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 You're absolutely right, Weston. The bank is owed money, and deserves to get it. The daughter says, "I'm happy that...poor business practices won't be condoned." As far as I can see, there were no poor business practices. The couple signed a contract for a loan, they owe the bank the money. End of story. The couple may or may not have had "bad luck" as the daughter says later, but that doesn't change anything. A contract is a contract. I hope that the case is overturned on appeal. That would make me feel much more comfortable with our legal system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 I assume that this will get overturned on appeal. That way, we can see what the facts actually are, and I'm betting that they just found a rogue judge who didn't care about the law and decided to "send a message". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake_Ellison Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 On the flip side, if I could get my bank to use their "stimulus" funds to pay off my mortgage, I'd take it in a second. I'd consider it a PARTIAL payback to me for all of my taxes the government has TAKEN and WASTED over the years. Umm, if the government already wasted the money you payed them, then it's not payback, it's just money taken from some other innocent victim, and given to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freestyle Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 Umm, if the government already wasted the money you payed them, then it's not payback, it's just money taken from some other innocent victim, and given to you. Are you suggesting there is a way to track my specific dollars once the government cashes my check into their treasury? If I take money from you, does your claim to that amount of money disappear as soon as I spend it? More simply: By your apparent definition of "payback", if I loan you money and you spend it, then that loan could never be "paid back". In any event, I will leave playing the innocent victim up to others. Through laws that I find objectionable, the government has taken much more of my money than it rightfully should. If I can retrieve some of that money within the bounds of the law, then I will gladly do so. And that's not even going anywhere near Ragnar Danneskjold's territory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Wolf Posted December 5, 2009 Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 Anti-capitalism: because if your disposable income is more than $100,000, you obviously did something wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skap35 Posted December 5, 2009 Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 This was mentioned on Fox News the other day. My understanding is that the (obviously liberal) judge threw a hissy fit because the bank refused to allow a cram down, so he just erased the entire balance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.