“The Blaseys kept the house”
I don’t see that in the snippet of the record posted here. What I see is that after a legal fight, the two sides came to an agreement. It might have been:
1. The plaintiffs knew they weren’t going to prevail, so they came to terms, and the Blaseys kept the house on terms mostly favorable to them;
2. The defendants knew they weren’t going to successfully defend, so they came to terms, on terms less than favorable to them.
Having seen a few of these up close with folks I know, I’d be inclined toward 2.
Traditionally in Maryland, lenders had a big club. Maryland has an anti-deficiency law. If the bank gets your house in foreclosure, or if you give them a deed in lieu of foreclosure, and the bank resells it for less than the outstanding amount of the mortgage, outstanding interest, fines, and penalties, the bank can sue you for the deficiency, as long as the deficiency isn’t caused by an action of the lender that “shocks the conscience of the court.” So, if you owe $80K on a house with a potential market value of $90K or $100K, but the bank manages to foreclose, if the bank sells it for $60K, you’re going to owe the bank $20K. If they sell it for $1, the court’s conscience will be shocked. But the lender has wide latitude.
In the recent crisis (2008 -), banks played hardball with folks, especially those trying to walk away from an upside down property. In periods before that, when a bank tried to foreclose, if you fought it, the bank might threaten to come after you for the deficiency after they won the foreclosure... unless you surrendered, and agreed to the terms the bank wanted. Then they would agree to forego chasing you for the outstanding debt, which would be represented by an agreed-upon dismissal with prejudice.
Maryland Judiciary Case Search shows the case. On 08/08/96 UMLIC-EIGHT CORP, the lender, filed a request for foreclosure of the Blaseys' property at 17 Masters Court, Potomac.
On 08/13/96 Judge Michael D. Mason granted that request. According to the Montgomery County Land Records, on December 17, 1996, the Blaseys refinanced the property with Chevy Chase Bank. On 01/27/97 Judge Martha Kavanaugh signed UMLIC's motion to dismiss the foreclosure.
So the Blaseys refinanced the property, paid the foreclosing lender, and a foreclosure never occurred. Judge Kavanaugh's only involvement was to sign the dismissal of the foreclosure action, which would hardly create any animosity towards her or Brett by the Blaseys. It is also important to understand that foreclosures in Maryland are largely administrative. They are not adversarial proceedings in which a judge ultimately picks a side.
I am not trying to defend this c**t, but people are approaching the connection in the foreclosure case as if it's some important find. It is not. It means nothing. There are many far better ways to attack her than this.
68 posted on 9/17/2018 6:35:26 AM by KevinB
The women ‘felt’ Kavanaugh wanted to take off her clothing.
KAVANAUGH DID NOT TAKE OFF HER CLOTHING.
The woman ‘felt’ Kavanaugh wanted to rape her.
KAVANAUGH DID NOT RAPE HER.
The woman ‘felt’ Kavanaugh wanted to hurt her.
KAVANAUGH DID NOT HURT HER.
Many women have sons, husbands, and brothers, grandsons... and they are NOT going to want people they love held to subjective standards that primarily exist within the mind of a woman ... and are NOT backed up by facts.
What if men who raped women used this defense?
A rapists says he ‘felt’ the woman was coming on to him because of the way she smiled.
The rapist ‘felt’ she ‘wanted it’ because she didn’t push him away fast enough.
The rapist ‘felt’ it was OK because all women say ‘no’.
NO ONE WOULD BUY THE RAPISTS BS... AND IT SHOULD BE THE SAME WITH THE WOMAN ACCUSING KAVANAUGH. What matters is ‘what happened’ not what she was ‘feeling’...
ACTIONS MATTER... INTERNAL ‘FEELINGS’ might or might not have anything to do with the reality of what happened.