Robosigning Is Now History - US Announces $26 Billion Foreclosure Settlement (shakedown)

The banks would have been better off not agreeing, and forcing the Feds and the State AGs to prove exactly what homeowners were actually harmed...

I'm not sure that's the whole story. The homeowners who were really screwed... people whose homes were foreclosed when they were in the service, or people whose homes were foreclosed when ownership of the mortgage was unclear, on the basis of forged documents... are now unable to recover. The banks have settled with the government, who gives a dole out. The payout will mostly go to people who don't deserve it; the banks' liability is capped; and the few people who were really shafted might not be able to recover. What happens to the foreclosure mills? Do any of them go to jail?

“I’m not sure that’s the whole story. The homeowners who were really screwed... people whose homes were foreclosed when they were in the service, or people whose homes were foreclosed when ownership of the mortgage was unclear, on the basis of forged documents... are now unable to recover.”

The incidence of foreclosures on members of our military services was not either systemic or widespread (did not happen inapprpriately everywhere, all the time); and it was not always a legal error - banks/mortgage holders not following state/federal regulations regarding mortgages given to active service members, as much as it might have been a “moral” issue - were banks “morally” obliged to adopt special standards related to the mortgages of active duty service men and women, before executing a foreclosure.

As I said in my first post, the evidence for widespread enactment of foreclosures “when ownership of the mortgage was unclear” due to “robosigning” is very weak, and yet “robosigning” is the dominant legal excuse for the shakedown of the banks.

They are using the excuse of the type of errors involved with robosigning, without being able to identify the extent to which that issue and foreclosures intersected, came together (the evidence for which is weak) to extract sums of money from the banks to help all kinds of people simply because they were foreclosed on.

Its a legal scam and a government shakedown, regardless of whatever errors there were in mortgage records due to “robosigning”. Proof of a widespread intersection of “robosigning” and “foreclosures” is in fact NOT in evidence, yet, on the basis of “robosigning” the banks are told to pay money ($26 b) that the government will use for reparations for “foreclosure” problems. Its just as one could expect from the Chicago mafia.

this is a BS settlement.

Fake documents kicked people out of their homes.

Banks were able to ignore and circumvent the law.

and what does the poor homeowner recieve?

2,000 that it.

This settlement is PENUTS.

this is a huge payoff by and to politicians.

Re bank's liability being capped: No it is not. They can still be sued on the same claims in civil court by individuals.

If that is in fact correct, thank you for pointing it out. It changes a lot--the banks can't be sued anymore by the AGs, above and beyond the amount that is being wpecifically extorted in the settlement and being passed around. That makes it an election time bribe, because the money will go to people who don't necessarily deserve it. I'm glad to hear you think that individuals who have been defrauded can still sue for damages; I'm saddened that the government has piled on and named a capped price.

“I’m glad to hear you think that individuals who have been defrauded can still sue for damages; I’m saddened that the government has piled on and named a capped price.”

People who sue, individually, on a claim that their mortgage was foreclosed on and that they were defrauded, will have to prove more than some incidence of mortgage &/or title documentary mistakes were made, even as possibly due to “robosigning”, they will also have to show that without that issue they would not have been foreclosed on anyway. So far, their is very little evidence that there are such individuals.

The only “capping” is with regard to an amount/amounts settling the gubernut’s claims vis-a-vis irregulatories that contravened state and/or federal financial regulations. There is no “capping” relative to additional claims by individuals OR by any states that did not/do not sign on to the settlement agreement. That leaves a lot of room for further shakedowns by the tort lawyers fraternities.

Unfortunately, while our court system does provide for “friendly” “out of court” settlement agreements, it does not, unlike the U.K., require the loser to pay the winner’s legal fees if the case goes to trial. A vast number of suits in this country are settled “out of court”, even after the trial begins, not because the trial concluded the matter of guilt, but because the plaintiff, often the government, is committed to making any trial so costly for the defendent that a “settlement” is simply cheaper.

We get results where the defended is neither found guilty nor admits guilt, but will be tagged in public as guilty simply because of the charges and that they paid something in a settlement. It is not a system of “justice”; it is a system of public financed extortion.

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.