Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Foreclosure Bill Is Blocked (Obama Plans His First Significant Veto...)
WSJ ^ | 9/8/10 | DAMIAN PALETTA

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 ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Business/Economy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: foreclosure; foreclosures; mortgagefraud; veto
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-157 last
To: listenhillary

Oh yes. This is a real mess, and it’s the bank’s own fault. We could well need some horrible bank bailout bill to fix it, when all is said and done. Because at the moment, it looks like in some cases, a homeowner will not be able to get clear title to their own house, nor would any holder of a note be allowed to collect on that note, because there is no valid paper trail (valid in the sense of being properly filed with the correct local authorities).

In some cases, people really don’t have any idea what the paper trail is. In MOST of the cases, ownership is clear, just not properly documented. I think we’ll have to take action to “make legal” those cases where a clear transaction timeline exists that simply wasn’t properly documented; that would leave us with mostly good titles, and then we could deal with those cases where the chain of ownership has really been lost.

I’m fortunate that my original bank still holds my mortgage. I’m working on a refinance now, and I would be falling into this trap if my bank had sold the mortgage. And this bill’s veto may then have cost me a low interest rate or the money I am expecting to get out of the new mortgage.


141 posted on 10/08/2010 7:48:19 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: abb

you have to pay the CURRENT owner of the note.

Banks of sold promissory notes are just servicing agents. For eample Bank of America bought the rights to SERVICE mortages a short while back.

You have no provable chain of custody/title since the note was exectued, if the note even exists.

make no mistake, these are not accidents or a few isolated incidents.


142 posted on 10/08/2010 8:12:50 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

never had such a problem.

even with apostiles on usa notaries overseas.

the problem here is because person A signs a document in one state and “person B” notarizes in another state at the same time.

This is BS to protect mers’ robo signer.


143 posted on 10/08/2010 8:18:23 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
make no mistake, these are not accidents or a few isolated incidents.

Prove it. There is no evidence that the "giant banks" engaged in some sort of conspiracy to intentionally lose/destroy/alter documentation of mortgages and deeds of ownership.

But in this case the tinfoil hat crowd, Obama and the media have gotten together and are trying to sell that very idea.

144 posted on 10/08/2010 8:24:28 AM PDT by abb ("What ISN'T in the news is often more important than what IS." Ed Biersmith, 1942 -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

that is an excellent point.


145 posted on 10/08/2010 8:34:49 AM PDT by ChurtleDawg (voting only encourages them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

I don’t think he will veto it. I think he’ll set it aside until people aren’t paying attention. Then he’ll sign it.


146 posted on 10/08/2010 8:56:00 AM PDT by ponygirl (TEA people: First we take out the RINOS. Then we finish off the Socialists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
the problem here is because person A signs a document in one state and “person B” notarizes in another state at the same time.

I didn't see the legislation authorizing such an act, nor do I see how a notary could legally attest to the validity of a signature that they did not witness.

147 posted on 10/08/2010 9:13:06 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: snowsislander

You like it? But with the pocket veto, Obama isalso asserting a right to veto bills in a way Congress can’t override. When the GOP gets in, and takes both houses, Obama will be able to veto every bill.

How do you like dem apples?


148 posted on 10/08/2010 9:16:35 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
virtually every congressperson believes that it would be terrible for a state to refuse to recognize the legally, lawfully notarized paperwork from another state. That’s why they passed the law unanimously

We have certainly learned in the last few years that every time a law shoots through Congress at Ex-Lax speed, it's generally not good news for Americans.

So the question is why, after over a century of satisfactory performance by the Notaries Public concept all across the USA, is there suddenly an emergency need to pass this particular bill???

(footnote - I am not a notary, my username notwithstanding. Google "Notary Sojac" for info)

149 posted on 10/08/2010 9:58:33 AM PDT by Notary Sojac ("Goldman Sachs" is to "US economy" as "lamprey" is to "lake trout")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac

Apparently, the clerks of the court in the mid 2000s noticed a rise in frivolous complaints in state courts about signatures not being notarized within the state. They felt that a law making a notary in one state good for all states would be useful. From what I’ve read, most of the time in our history a notarized signature from another state has been accepted in courts, and this new law would just make it required so you wouldn’t have your court case tripped up when it gets moved from one state to another for example.


150 posted on 10/08/2010 10:18:17 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: justlurking
The Obama administration said they were using the pocket veto.
But, there's a problem: Congress is still in session. The Senate has not adjourned -- and will not adjourn. They are staying in session throughout the October recess to prevent Obama from making recess appointments.
In other words, the gutless wonder's refusal to explicitly veto the bill is not Constitutional.

Oustanding! I forgot about that. Didn't this same issue occur during the last administration?

Is there any clarification as to when congress stands adjourned?
151 posted on 10/08/2010 12:16:30 PM PDT by Kegger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: bvw
You like it? But with the pocket veto, Obama isalso asserting a right to veto bills in a way Congress can’t override. When the GOP gets in, and takes both houses, Obama will be able to veto every bill.

How do you like dem apples?

The pocket veto can only be used near the end of a session. I very much doubt that the GOP will wait so late to submit bills to be signed. Of course, if the GOP does procrastinate, then such hypothetical, tardy bills might well have a pocket veto applied.

Also, if the Kenyan Clown does veto any bills in the usual manner, we still won't have the clout needed in both houses to override.

152 posted on 10/08/2010 1:38:02 PM PDT by snowsislander (In this election year, please ask your candidates if they support repeal of the 1968 GCA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

“It is a mistake to think that foreclosure or short sale or simply walking away from a house ruins your credit. It may or may not.”

Right now that is true. In a couple of years it won’t be. The environment after Freddie and Fannie have their long overdue date with demise will be vastly different. Once banks are putting their own money on the line, good luck on geting a mortgage if you have anything but impeccable credit and a big downpayment.


153 posted on 10/08/2010 3:16:49 PM PDT by RKBA Democrat (Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics, and victors study demographics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: snowsislander

Okay, let’s see what happens. Bo sense arguing over a hypothetical when reality is rushing in.


154 posted on 10/08/2010 3:21:16 PM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: paudio

For later.

Lots of fraud by the banks and the buyers. Little real trust.


155 posted on 10/08/2010 5:32:48 PM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: listenhillary

Find later


156 posted on 10/08/2010 8:50:16 PM PDT by Darnright (There can never be a complete confidence in a power which is excessive. - Tacitus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

I think vetoing the bill will protect the people who are illegally, fraudulently, irresponsibly being foreclosed on. People who had been in their homes for years and were deceived and pushed into some terrible loans...the ones that were meant to fail, that investors bet on failing, and they were looking to get some equity out of their homes for remodeling or because there was a pregnancy, or for whatever reason...and loan officers were making it look so easy...you can refinance again in a couple of years, etc...and some loan officers were just as greedy as the banks by giving these loans out and telling people that their credit was bad and this was the only loan they could get..there are thousands of these kind of loans that have been foreclosed on without sometimes ever having missed a payment. These are the people that need protection. In non-judicial states people can be foreclosed on with never seeing a judge and never knowing that the servicing forecloser had no right to foreclose. The main trick that these servicing companies used to foreclose was offering the homeowner a payment plan prior to modificantion..charging them fees for those plans, then denying them and then giving them more chances...and more fees(even though they followed the plan to the t...they were always denied. )They would always say...for a 3 month plan..don’t pay the first month..skip one payment...and then they would report them to the credit bureau as late...Some got 5 or 6 payment plans..and their credit was ruined so they couldn’t even go out and refinance with another company. Same companies would put some in foreclosure while they were in a payment plan. Some never followed the foreclosure laws of respective states. No advertising. No foreclosure registered in cty records. Not giving the proper notice. And their foreclosure was based on the fees that accrued during the pretense that they were going to get a modification. There are thousands of these people. no judge in the world is going to let someone who really hasn’t made their payments for months and months get away with a produce the note strategy. First of all..they wouldn’t have the 500. to file an injunctive relief, a motion to dismiss, a restraining order...or any money to hire a lawyer...so please stop thinking that anyone is getting a free ride here..there may be a few crooks...but don’t think punishing a few crooks and passing this bill wouldn’t harm the thousands who are being screwed over by probably foreign investors who don’t give a shit about americans losing their homes.


157 posted on 11/20/2010 9:39:02 PM PST by cozzete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-157 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson