Posted on 03/08/2005 2:54:18 PM PST by Torie
It doesn't look terribly disasterous, but I'm glad I did my chapter 7 1 1/2 years ago now and didn't have to deal with this.
No. Mortages are secured debt and typically non recourse to the individual in any event. The lender can look solely to the property for repayment. There are exceptions, but they are of little practical significance for homeowners.
Isn't the note you signed along with your mortgage a personal obligation?
There are a thicket of laws at least in California and I suspect in most places, that make it unlikely that the mortgage lender will go after you personally. In California, a purchase money loan is non recourse for any owner occupied single family or up to four family apartment. And for other loans, to go after the borrower personally, you have to do a judicial foreclosure rather than a trustees sale, and then if the loan is not paid off, have a fair value hearing to determine the amount of the deficiency, which may be different than the amount owed if the sale price at the foreclosure sale was not "fair." The net result is that for home loans, it is very rare for a lender to go after the borrower personally. They look solely to the property for repayment.
The objective of the bill is to make a means test to force people OUT of ch 7 and into Ch 13.
Essentially people will not be able to restart their lives in six months, they will be forced into ch 13 and a minimum three YEARS of payments.
It is turning the Art III bankruptcy courts in collection agencies.
Debt is incurred voluntarily. Peonage and serfdom were not. Another dumbass Krugman column.
DITTO! Never needed a credit card, don't ever want one!
I've seen too many people fall into THAT trap.
"Borrowing irresponsibly"? Uhh, I'm sorry, did something change when I wasn't looking and make the granting of credit automatic? It still takes two to tango, and the credit card companies - which gleefully pocketed billions of dollars in total late fees after the mail disruptions caused by 9/11 and anthrax - are in no position to complain about "irresponsibility." Pot, meet kettle.
First off, in many cases that's simply not true.
Second off, are the banks FORCED to issue credit cards? No? Then they need to shut up and clean their own houses.
I thought, "Some alleged conservatives will smugly say 'it's the bankruptees' own fault; they should be made to suffer.'" I was right. That is the kind of attitude which hands elections to liberals and populists. Justice - a virtue conservatives are supposed to support - demands that we not jerk our knees, and look beyond the face of the situation.
Good. Then maybe a house will become affordable on 30% of a single salary again.
Ok, I found it, it is in Article 1, Section 8 here is the relevant quote:
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
Odd, that it should be paired with naturalization. And I admit, all this plain language does is make any bankruptcy law federal, as opposed to having different versions in different states.
So, it is not, insofar as I know, in the Bill of Rights, but still I think it is a useful thing. It is hard for me to see this change in the law as anything more than a bone thrown to big dogs who hardly need one. I doubt it will affect business bankruptcies at all, and I don't think we really live in a nation of dead beats; and most of all I doubt the usurious interest rates will be decreased.
But one thing I am sure of, Bush won't veto it. Will Bush veto anything in the 8 years he will most likely (God willing) serve?
I am being a compassionate conservative when I tell you that you are dead wrong. It is your kind of attitude that breeds tyranny. According to you people aren't responsible for their own actions. They need someone to take care of them, like the government. To hades with that thinking. And no, properly explained it won't lead to mob-rule (populism) or socialism.
Bzzt! Sorry, wrong. They need someone to guarantee honesty and justice.
Why do you think the credit card companies need this "bailout"? Because of their own doings! That's right - go ahead, RKV, and promote corporate irresponsibility on the one hand, and preach personal financial responsibility on the other. Makes a lot of sense.
And no, properly explained it won't lead to mob-rule (populism) or socialism.
I wouldn't expect the Republicans to be able to pull off that "proper" explanation in a thousand years, especially with the biased media. They're not called the Stupid Party for nothing.
Actually it just says that you need to read the exemption statutes VERY carefully when deciding how to sock away your money.
In FL for example, NEVER pull a second mortgage for a line of credit. DO put you monies in 401k's, IRAs, and Retirement anuities which are UNTOUCHABLE by any bankruptcy.
It just means the means test will be gamed in order to do whatever you want anyways.
Well, that's true-but it wasn't centuries ago, it was forty years ago, and all the years before, that usury was illegal and "credit" cards didn't exist.
That was for a reason. The reason is that people have great difficulty with numbers, especially big ones, and will sell their children into peonage to get stuff like big screen TVs.
I am totally with you all who say, "pay your debts", but remember for most of the history of the Republic this particular type of debt contract was illegal, and for good reason.
I completely disagree.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.