Judge cancels $525,000 mortgage.

Discussion in 'Wall St. News' started by spinn, Nov 25, 2009.

  1. spinn


  2. If that is the real transcript - the judge looked like an idiot!!! At points the defendant is referred to as "plaintiff" - in speaking about daughter and husband.

  3. Eventually the tax payers will pay the house for the couple.
  4. just a test case.

    by this time next year, 75% of all mortgages will be forgiven.

    its SantaBama time.
  5. spinn


    at least the judge showed some heart...unlike most.......he should of thrown that "lawyer" in jail
  6. he should've modified the mortgage contract...not cancelled it. this judge clearly formed a biased opinion that favored deliquent homeowners that were incapable of taking the time to read their own mortgage contract over a lending institution. this judge is a fucking fool. this case will be overturned by the higher courts, that is, unless it eventually makes it to Sotomayor's desk.
  7. MattF


    This comes on the recent heels of Judge Long in the Mass. Land Court also invalidating a couple of old foreclosures because the "holders" of the note couldn't produce such...but also possibly tying up foreclosures in Massachusetts in general.


    it's still pretty simple in the end: prove what you have/are trying to foreclose upon, which more often then not you can't because of the constant passing of the paper...

    IndyMac/OneWest/whatever you want to call them can't keep track of shit these days anyway...
  8. spinn


    maybe...but...did you see this "The Plaintiff also summarily rejected an offer by both Plaintiff's husband and
    daughter to voluntarily obligate themselves for payment upon the full indebtedness.


    I had my identity stolen and the ruthlessnesss of banks is amazing. One credit card reported me late simply because I cancelled the card, setting back my credit recovery almost a year.

    Good luck defending the banks though, I hope this holds on appeal.
  9. MattF


    This was the tag in the NYPost article:

    "The bank is involved in a similar case in California, where it's trying to foreclose on an 89-year-old woman, despite two court orders telling it to stop."