Hey, there! Log in / Register
$318 million for Massachusetts victims of unlawful foreclosures; state to seek additional money
By adamg on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 5:10pm
Settlement with large national banks; Attorney General Martha Coakley said she will continue to purse a separate lawsuit against lenders.
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
I hope this money goes to the right place
To people who were tricked by the banks and not to those who simply couldnt figure out how much they could afford.
Aren't those pretty much one and the same?
Why do you have to turn over all off your financial records to the bank, a supposed expert on money, if they are going to gladly hand you a loan you should have somehow known you can't afford?
Isn't it the bank's whole job to figure out what you can afford and decide whether they are going to give you what you asked for or not...because you can or can't afford it?
Your question has an underlying assumption that somehow a bank gave someone a loan that they had zero ability to pay back...and somehow that's not the bank's fault.
No they aren't one in the same.
It is my job to figure out how much I can afford to pay for something. I don't buy things I can't afford, and I don't expect you to help me out if I can't pay my bills if I make poor decisions.
Bankers who profit from shady deals should pay, and people that are mislead should be helped to an extent. I just think that whomever is in charge of giving this money out investigates those people who made stupid business decisions and those who were tricked or scammed.
So yea, I think the banks should be fined, but the money shouldn't go to those who made crappy decisions.
Thats not the issues here.
The issue is the banks currently doing something illegal, like not being able to produce documentation that they own these properties. Or mass robo-filing foreclosure papers without going through the right channels and procedures first. Auditing has found huge irregularities and problems, and that's why they're getting their asses sued here. because what they're currently doing is highly illegal.
This has nothing to do with the original mortgages, or who's at fault there.
With that said, it just goes to show you how messed up Capitalism can be. The bankers put their institutions in long term insolvency to turn quick quarterly profits, and shareholders went along because hey, there's no such thing as the future in modern capitalism. That used to be illegal, but those pesky regulations were gutted, and new regulation on new types of securities escaped new regulations; they were never drafted after millions spent on lobbying to look the other way.
People have a moral responsibility for taking out loans they can't repay*, but ultimately the lender has a financial and contractual responsibility to protect both the short and long term interest of the companies shareholders, AND stay within the bounds of the law. In some places, that hasn't been the case in executive management for decades.
*further I'd argue morality aside, people have no obligation to treat homeownership bought on credit as anything but an investment and business venture. Like corporations, when it goes south there's no morality in walking away from a bad loss and filing for bankruptcy. Business funded with credit fail, and bankruptcy is the solution. The same is true of home ownership, and historically the banks were smart enough to vet their investments the same as business ventures.
Bankruptcy and default is just good, smart business, and Banks actually prey on people that hold the moral views on this situation. They will and don't look at it as a moral issue.
Don't get me started ...
I had legal control of my father's estate, but US Bank's mortgage folks refused to acknowledge it. They also refused to talk to my lawyer, named in the court papers.
Get this: we were working to PAY OFF the mortgage! AVOID foreclosure.
They are still sending correspondence to my father, at his address. Even though they know full damn well that he died a year ago.
Incompetent doesn't begin to describe this - they were getting their money! They couldn't handle that!
I bring this up every time some liberturd starts raving about "efficient corporations"and "inefficient government": I got a check on a complex tax return in 30 days. I filed one set of papers for his pension and every state agency sent things to my attention and the estate after that. Government was highly efficient and organized! Meanwhile, corporations like AT&T bounced me around for TWO HOURS before they got me somebody who could tell me where to send the death certificate. I guess he was their first ever customer to die.
Efficiency my ass!
efficiency
is only a byproduct of competition. And it is not absolute. Take away competition and efficiency gives way to sort term profitability at all costs. Why worry about your customers and service when they have no where else to go?
Case in point the banks. You might never set foot into a Bank of America, but find yourself in their debt when they buy your debt. You have no choice in the matter mostly.
And yes, Trusts, trustees, and powers of attorney were set up to legally provide answers to incomplete wills and issues of identity without having to get the courts involved.
Most Banks though will no accept these documents, even as they are legally required to do so. Mention a lawyer or try to get one involved and they will break off ANY communication. For the most part, most have policies to totally ignore these lawful transfer of ownership requests.
Service and dealing with dead customers estates is not the job of their legal department and they'll ignore it until you drag their as to court. They got their legal teams busy finding ways to bring in money.
But you don't buy homes these days
The BANK buys the house these days. You are just promising to reimburse the bank for having bought you a house as well as a little extra for their trouble. If you show the bank what you can afford to give them back at a certain amount per month and they agree to it, then who are you to tell them what they should agree to? If you agree to something like a ballooning payment that you can't afford in 5 years, then that's their fault for making the deal with you. That's the whole reason why they can get away with requesting so much of your private financial information up front.