Posted on 10/08/2010 1:21:45 AM PDT by paudio
President Barack Obama plans to veto a bill whose opponents say would make it harder for homeowners to stop foreclosures.
The move marks the Obama administration's most direct intervention so far into a growing debacle tied to how banks foreclose on homes, and the first effective veto of Mr. Obama's presidency. The veto could make it more difficult for banks to complete paperwork and speed the foreclosure process, and could give homeowners more time to rework loans.
Several of the country's largest banks, including Bank of America Corp., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and Ally Bank, have moved in recent weeks to halt thousands of foreclosures in 23 states amid revelations that the banking industry had used "robo-signers," people who sign hundreds of documents a day without reviewing their contents.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Thank you.
Robosigning violated the notary laws, so this bill had nothing really to do with that. This bill allowed paperwork LEGALLY NOTARIZED (lawfully notarized) in one state to be used in courts in another state.
Obama vetoes because he hates business and wants his lefist buddies and voters to be able to stay in their homes they aren’t paying for for another month. Without this law, they can force the big banks to parcel out their foreclosure paperwork to all 50 states, so that they can sign the paperwork in the presense of a notary in the state they have to file in.
But even if this bill was signed, it wouldn’t make illegal notary papers legal. You’d still have to go back and get the signatures done in front of a notary (unless of course there is a state where it is actually LEGAL to get a notary signature without a phsyical presence — anybody know of such a state)?
Then why are you defending the fraud and other crimes these large banks have committed?
How is that fraud any different than someone who fails to repay a credit card?
Not to mention, the turmoil it will cause in the market that will f*** you over with a further decline in already diminished real estate value.
The main thing is - how do you solve this? It does nobody any good to give a bunch of deadbeats free houses, but it also doesn’t do any good to circumvent the law here.
A “going forward” solution is easier than fixing the existing problem. In other words, setting rules for transactions that happen from now on, vs. those already done.
From the article
” It would have required state and federal courts to accept documents of many different kinds that are notarized by people or computers in other states. The House passed the bill in April by “voice vote” and the Senate passed it unanimously Sept. 27.”
How does this not endorse robosigning?
And he is probably voting Democrat, and that’s why Obama is vetoing this bill, because it makes it harder for out-of-state banks to do business.
In the long term, this bill will pass, or big banks will start charging more money for out-of-state loans to cover their increased costs of getting things notarized in each and every state.
This bill passed the Senate by UNANIMOUS CONSENT. To believe this was a horrible thing, you have to believe that every conservative senator was on board with doing the wrong thing, while Obama did the right thing.
Isn’t that too much of a stretch? I think so.
‘This bill allowed paperwork LEGALLY NOTARIZED (lawfully notarized) in one state to be used in courts in another state.”
Expanding federal powers is not a conservative cause.
It would eliminate the value of notarized documents since its virtually impossible to know whether the documents are notarized properly if it wasn’t done in your state.
I’m not defending banking fraud. I’m saying the deadbeats and the Marxists are using isolated instances of fraud and forgery to attack the entire concept of private capital.
Let me translate Obama’s message:
“All lenders are rapacious Henry Potters and you really deserve housing as a right - just like medical care.”
You might want to look into your own situation just to be on the safe side. The thing that some don’t understand is that if the people you are making payments to don’t have the original loan papers then they may not be able to deliver your title to you when you make your last payment. There is a process to resolve such situations by going through a “Master in Equity” but you don’t want to have to do that.
Half of the eight acres I live on was originally bought on a “land purchase contract” whereby I made payments to the owner of the property and when the final payment was made his duty was to deliver a clear title to me. He delivered the title but when I did a title search I learned that there was an old note that had been paid off but never discharged at the clerk of court’s office. A private detective had to find the man who was a thousand miles away and he agreed to sign papers releasing the debt which he said had been paid to him years ago but he didn’t know he was supposed to sign a release and no one had asked him to. All he asked was that the detective swear to tell no one where or how he had found the man. I don’t know who he was hiding from.
The point of this story is that had the man not been found we would have had to go through the master in equity process to clear the title and that apparently is where a lot of mortgage payers are going to find themselves when their mortgage is paid off. Be sure that the people who are accepting your monthly payment are in a position to deliver a clear title.
If I had one of these mortgages that no one can find the papers for I would immediately cease making payments to the mortgage company and get legal advice, I would not continue to make payments to someone who cannot foreclose because neither can they deliver my title when the debt is paid.
YOu should actually read the bill. It’s like 200 words long. It says that a lawfully notarized paper in one state must be accepted as lawfully notarized in any state or federal court.
The purpose is to prevent frivolous claims against paperwork by litigants arguing that the paperwork has to be notarized in the state where the court resides.
It only effects the mortgage foreclosue issue in the sense that the large banks operate across state lines and have been using notaries in their corporate state; I can’t find evidence that those notaries have different rules, but I suppose that is possible, nobody has written about that.
But to the degree this is a “mortgage foreclosure bailout”, it is only extremely INDIRECTLY, not an intended result of the bill.
And this effects a lot more than just banks. EVERY litigant has to worry about having to get all court documents notarized in the state where the court is located now.
OK. Having said all that, I could argue that state’s rights should include the right to make their own rules about notary for their state courts, and to require all litigants in their courts to use notaries in their state. But does anybody believe Obama is making a “state’s rights” argument? And do we really want the litigants who court-shop to also be able to drive up the costs of litigation by forcing their targets to do all their paperwork in the state of their choosing?
there are no isolated incidents.
ALL notes which have been sold in the wall street bundles are part of the fraud.
Sweeet!
Socialism is grand for some.
Can I get someone to pay my mortgage payment???
I don’t believe that.
‘I’m not defending banking fraud. I’m saying the deadbeats and the Marxists are using isolated instances of fraud and forgery to attack the entire concept of private capital”
Tens of thousands of cases is not isolated and not all people are deadbeats. In case you haven’t noticed the official unemployment rate is at 9.6% and the real unemployment rate is around 18%. Most of those people are out of work because of the actions of the govt and big banks/financial firms.
While folks are out of work the bankers who made these decisions get away with their fraud and set up shop somewhere else.
I sincerely hope a bunch of you bakers end up in jail for your crimes.
that makes no sense, the law already allows for cross state notary recognition.
This was a bad bill.
Obama vetoed this because nobody paid him bribe money.
It was much simpler than that. The bill, H.R.3808, did nothing more than make notarized paperwork in one state valid for use in courts in other states:
To require any Federal or State court to recognize any notarization made by a notary public licensed by a State other than the State where the court is located when such notarization occurs in or affects interstate commerce. Yes, this includes endorsements on foreclosure notices, but only if the notarizations were lawful. One of the major problems is that some banks were auto-signing the foreclosure notices, and then sending them to a notary for signature. Notary is supposed to be done in the presense of the signee, so this was an "unlawful" notary, and isn't effected by the bill (unless some state allows such notary).
Private capital is being attacked no matter which way we go.
From the article -
written by Rep. Robert Aderholt (R., Ala.), moved through Congress without attracting much attention and appears aimed at a much broader target than the foreclosure process. It would have required state and federal courts to accept documents of many different kinds that are notarized by people or computers in other states.
As a personal anecdote, my mother in law is currently paying off $11,000 of credit card debt that was due to identity theft. She got a summary judgment against her because she did nothing to fight it.
I, on the other hand, was harassed for a larger amount by a bunch of lawyer trying to BS me into thinking they worked for Bank of America [they didn't, they were debt collectors]. Now, I have never even applied for a card from Bank of America, much less owed them the thousands of dollars they claimed.
Their 'evidence' that came with the court summons was a notarized statement from another state saying 'they'd seen the records' and I owed them money. Thank goodness I knew enough about the law to tell them in the reply to produce the contract.
They couldn't, so I was in the clear.
The banks decided to make it 'easier' by going digital, and that's grand, but deciding OUR rights could be sacrificed so they could have their lives made simpler is NOT.
----------
A person of good conscience pays their debts, but a person being thrown out of their home by someone who can't even legally prove they own it is wrong, and IMHO, a failure to uphold even the most basic standards of evidence.
And I think debtors prison should be reprised.
Now we're even...
I don’t see how allowing lawful notary from one state to be used in courts in another state helps with the problems of the MERS system, which is that they have lost track of who owns what. You can’t get a lawful notary for a paper you don’t actually have in your possession.
“The purpose is to prevent frivolous claims against paperwork by litigants arguing that the paperwork has to be notarized in the state where the court resides.”
The court generally resides in the same state as the property.
It would be terrible for the laws of that state to apply in these cases. /s
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.