Sunriser, I think it would be more likely that they offer an immediate rework of the loan in order to foreclose legally at a future date.

They will be forced to roll the paper in order to be un****ed.

Homeowners, however, will be able to demand a nice big fat principal reduction, and get it. Because if not? Well, then you have an unsecured debt. Have fun collecting on it.

If they do how will this affect the fixed income accounts on 401ks?

They have been putting this off for years.

I have been trying to get my GF out of hers for months. Over $100,000

Quote:

Homeowners, however, will be able to demand a nice big fat principal reduction, and get it

Someone is still going to have to eat the difference. The question is who...

Honestly, some of the best news we've heard in a while. This combined with South Carolina challenging the federal currency relative to the national debt gives one hope.

It will take about a week for MERS (or whoever does the paper shuffling now) to come up with a legal process that invalidates this. Throw in a borrower, lender, or seller who lives or is incorporated out of state, and you have an empty piece of legislation.

It sounds like a start BUT, even if passed and signed you still have to get the laws ENFORCED.

This as we have seen over and over is the tough part.

Not to mention that the banks and their cronies elect most of the judges and all of the governors and many of the movers and shakers in the various state chambers.

A very tough road indeed.

I make it 70-30 against it going into law.

I think it is a bit early in the legislative process to start cheering. But a nice piece of legislation nonetheless.

I hate to be a wet blanket but I give this bill a rat's ass chance of being passed. Call me a cynic but a weaker version didn't even make it out of committee in Virginia. Have to admit though it's fun to think about what would happen if a bill like this DID pass. What's sad is when imagining what reality would like if parties followed the law becomes a flight of fantasy.

Otiswild wrote..

@Half: Isn't _every_ "employee" of MERS a Sr. VP?

Phantomace wrote..

As long as they bought their "stamp"... what was it, $25 or some stupid ****?

I would love to buy a "stamp" and get declared a MERS VP. I could probably cancel at least 3 or 4 thousand mortgages before they got me arrested.

Could we get somebody here to declare themselves a "MERS VP" and buy a stamp, or better yet, perhaps we have a poster in the mortgage business who already is a "MERS VP", to also testify before the AZ Congress on behalf of MERS? I know Karl, why don't you buy a stamp? I'll even pick up the tab.

Bigbluffer, aka Bigspender

Quote:

Someone is still going to have to eat the difference. The question is who...

And somebody isn't already eating the difference with the large number of foreclosures???? Namely the taxpayers.

You might end up with some getting principal reductions who would not have otherwise ended up defaulting. OTOH, you'd end up with homeowners being able to stay in their homes versus losing them to foreclosure, resulting in yet larger losses. Some of these non-performing loans are currently being sold for pennies on the dollar anyways to investors who are then in turn profiting by turning them back into performing loans by negotiating principal and interest reductions. There is no reason the lenders/servicers couldn't cut out these investor middle men.

Suppose the bill is passed. I bet the IRS can't wait to get there hooks in homeowners. Your F either way

Deeds! We don't need no stinking deeds!

If they pass this the banks will just wip out the original note say it was not securitized and walk right on out with the house. Angelo and friends have had it both ways for a long time. I think the only notes destroyed were at pre FDIC takeover parties. MERS data base is a skittle ****ting unicorn. If they are not going to look in the trust we wont be able to prove they securitized ****.

I just fix cars. If you tried that with the DMV you would be sorry.

Quote:

maybe the markets are saying

You mean HFT machines can talk too ?!?!?

Forget about the abstract aspects of the law for a minute because the courts are slow the enforce that. At what point does this **** actually implode the system by FORCE, and not mere whim of judges and prosecutors? i.e. at what point does collapse occur because no one can figure out who owns what?

The only thing the proposed legislation lacks is an "or else" proviso against showing up in court with paperwork that is, shall we say, "sloppy."

I want the courts to start saying, "You've brought in bogus 'notarized' paperwork that does not fulfill the minimum requirements listed in the statute. Therefore, you're wasting the court's time and the people's time, and I'm referring your actions to the D.A. as evidence of fraud."

That little reminder in the legislation would throw a big wrench into the whole robo-signing industry and stop a lot of bogus foreclosures before they begin.

Judgesmales;
I think the "or else" is the whole pay for defendants attorney's and damages thing listed in bullet point "D", but that's just my interpretation...

Quote:

Genesis wrote:

"Sorry, won't work. State Property law pre-dates the Federal Government.

Feds lose on this one."

As much as I want this to be true -- doesn't the "Supremacy Clause" of the Constitution create a loophole to override this?

Quote:

"The Supremacy Clause":

Article. VI. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Everything we've seen so far indicates that there is nothing that will stand in the way of the Federal Government when it comes to protecting the banks. They will trash the Constitution, trash accounting law, trash the middle class, trash global stability and potentially starve millions of innocent people worldwide in their effort to protect the oligarchy.

In this scenario, (IANAL -- so please correct me if I misunderstand this) there seems to be a clear constitutional provision to override any pesky state which threatens the stability of the banking infrastructure.

I'm really wanting to get excited about this.... but I'm not seeing it....

Doesn't Article VI give the Feds ultimate authority? Or Gen, are you saying that Article VI doesn't apply to laws that predate the Constitution?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_C....

Federal supremacy applies only when there is conflicts between federal and state laws. However the Constitution limits the federal government to specific powers contained within. Jurisdiction over real property in the 50 states are not included in the specific powers enumerated. Or so the argument goes.

from your wikipedia link wrote..

The text within the Clause, "in pursuance thereof," specifies that any federal law is only the "Supreme Law of the Land" if said law is consistent with the intent of the Constitution as a whole. James Madison made note of this in the Federalist Papers by articulating that if any Federal Law could be deemed "Supreme" then why are there specific delegated powers, why are there Ninth and Tenth amendments? Because federal laws, in order to be "supreme laws of the land," must be in pursuant of the delegated powers in Article 1, Section 8, not mere arbitrary whims of the Congress.(bold and underline added)

Already checked out the federal supremacy angle before, that's how I know. I still wouldn't rule out Congress legislating a fix though. History has taught that the Constitution is subject to interpretation which can change over time (a "living document", which isn't inherently "bad" anymore than 200 year old doctrine is inherently "good", but does leave the door open for abuse).
JMHO.

Great minds think alike.

A reading of the 9th and 10th Amendments should clarify who has authority to make which laws.

This actually maybe important. He has always said let bubbles run wild and clean up later. I've always thought that was an insane idea. Maybe he's beginning to come to the same conclusion and is warning the bulls not to get anymore out of control than they already are. At least I hope so.

BAD NEWS: Someone much smarter than me, just told me the practical effect of this law may be small. Here's why:

The only "teeth" in the law is for the banks to have to pay attorney's fees if they screw people out of their homes, and get caught. It gives destitute former homeowners access to attorney's (probably on a contingency fee basis), to sue the crooked banks, and win. (since assignments are NOT correct)

I thought banks would be scared of paying attorney's fees, but guess what? The BANKS WON'T HAVE TO PAY ATTORNEY FEES - THE "INVESTORS" WILL BE CHARGED!

So maybe the banks, as usual, just won't give a s*** since if a homeowner sues, wins, and collects attorney fees, they will just keep all their bailout bucks but charge the final mbs holder (sucker) for the attorney fees - not much of a deterrant!

All servicer fees and expenses are deducted first. You're right HB - they'll just pass it through to the investors.

Well, they'll try. But the certificate holders can come after the banks for this one, and probably will. They'll win too because bad faith is enough in most cases to nail them.