Let's call it Cheryl's Law

[tailfins]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/21/taking-liberties-unclear-foreclosure-process-kicks-colorado-woman-out-home/

They call this "Natalie's Bill"
http://childrenshospital.org/about/Site1394/mainpageS1394P182.html

They have "Megan's Law", "Adam's Law", etc., etc., etc.

What is this desire to name bills after individuals? It just seems weird.

[ConHog]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/21/taking-liberties-unclear-foreclosure-process-kicks-colorado-woman-out-home/

They call this "Natalie's Bill"
http://childrenshospital.org/about/Site1394/mainpageS1394P182.html

They have "Megan's Law", "Adam's Law", etc., etc., etc.

What is this desire to name bills after individuals? It just seems weird.

Better to name them after some victim that we would like to prevent future versions of than naming them after stupid politicians who create them just to soak up attention IMO

[DragonStryk72]

I have a question about this whole process: Why are the banks allowed to sell a contractual agreement of mine without my being involved in it? That's seems pretty part and parcel to contract law. I mean, it's like with publishing, where you have to cut a deal for each form the media takes, or if the media changes companies. I'm not saying that the banks shouldn't be able to sell mortgages and such, but in this instance, we're talking about peoples' lives and families that are pretty much being traded back and forth.

[DragonStryk72]

Better to name them after some victim that we would like to prevent future versions of than naming them after stupid politicians who create them just to soak up attention IMO

But it's still just as disingenuous. The whole idea of naming it after victims is to make it "argument-proof", because you're an asshole if you vote against the legislation.

[Thunderknuckles]

But it's still just as disingenuous. The whole idea of naming it after victims is to make it "argument-proof", because you're an asshole if you vote against the legislation.
There's some truth to that.

[ConHog]

But it's still just as disingenuous. The whole idea of naming it after victims is to make it "argument-proof", because you're an asshole if you vote against the legislation.

Well, Congress as a whole is disingenuous , so that fits right in.

[ConHog]

I have a question about this whole process: Why are the banks allowed to sell a contractual agreement of mine without my being involved in it? That's seems pretty part and parcel to contract law. I mean, it's like with publishing, where you have to cut a deal for each form the media takes, or if the media changes companies. I'm not saying that the banks shouldn't be able to sell mortgages and such, but in this instance, we're talking about peoples' lives and families that are pretty much being traded back and forth.

Kind of reeks of old Las Vegas where a bookie would sell your marker off and pretty soon some leg breaker owns you . LOL

[fj1200]

I have a question about this whole process: Why are the banks allowed to sell a contractual agreement of mine without my being involved in it? That's seems pretty part and parcel to contract law. I mean, it's like with publishing, where you have to cut a deal for each form the media takes, or if the media changes companies. I'm not saying that the banks shouldn't be able to sell mortgages and such, but in this instance, we're talking about peoples' lives and families that are pretty much being traded back and forth.

Well, it's probably fully disclosed and pretty much expected but the terms of the contract do not change when it changes hands. The only thing being traded is the ownership of your cash flow, your "life" has nothing to do with it.

As far as the media goes, isn't it in the author's best interest to have control over their story as it moves between forms of media?

[logroller]

But it's still just as disingenuous. The whole idea of naming it after victims is to make it "argument-proof", because you're an asshole if you vote against the legislation.

That's politics. The disingenuous part are the riders IMO.


Well, it's probably fully disclosed and pretty much expected but the terms of the contract do not change when it changes hands. The only thing being traded is the ownership of your cash flow, your "life" has nothing to do with it.

As far as the media goes, isn't it in the author's best interest to have control over their story as it moves between forms of media?

Unless somewhere in the 200 page contract it says terms are amendable. It was so hard to find a mortgage lender that would promise to keep local service on my mortgage; I didn't bother with actually holds the papers. And FWIW, who I call when I have problem and the ability to go see an actual person if need be, does affect my "life."

[fj1200]

Unless somewhere in the 200 page contract it says terms are amendable. It was so hard to find a mortgage lender that would promise to keep local service on my mortgage; I didn't bother with actually holds the papers. And FWIW, who I call when I have problem and the ability to go see an actual person if need be, does affect my "life."

Contractually not so much but I understand the sentiment.

[ConHog]

Contractually not so much but I understand the sentiment.

I just don't see how they can just sell a contract without the approval of the other party. Imagine coming home to your wife one day and saying "I've sold your marriage contract to another man, he assures me he will provide you the same level of marriage as you've had up until now" :lol:

[fj1200]

I just don't see how they can just sell a contract without the approval of the other party. Imagine coming home to your wife one day and saying "I've sold your marriage contract to another man, he assures me he will provide you the same level of marriage as you've had up until now" :lol:

I would imagine it's in the contract. There may be a separation between owning and servicing the document in there too.

[ConHog]

I would imagine it's in the contract. There may be a separation between owning and servicing the document in there too.

Oh, I imagine it's in there somewhere to, but as you no doubt know , a contract that contains illegal clauses in it is invalid. In fact, I THINK that is the exact tactic that some of these foreclosure lawyers are taking when they fight foreclosures " you honor , the contract was invalid, therefor my client isn't in arrears in payments because in fact the money was given to purchase the house without a legal repayment plan in place, they just didn't know who to pay or how much"

[fj1200]

Oh, I imagine it's in there somewhere to, but as you no doubt know , a contract that contains illegal clauses in it is invalid. In fact, I THINK that is the exact tactic that some of these foreclosure lawyers are taking when they fight foreclosures " you honor , the contract was invalid, therefor my client isn't in arrears in payments because in fact the money was given to purchase the house without a legal repayment plan in place, they just didn't know who to pay or how much"

That's not an illegal clause. Lawyers will try ANY tactic, my wife knows, but that doesn't make them any less frivolous. One of the recent big news tactics was the wet ink rule which required the original document be produced, see produce the note, but I think that has been dismissed as an option.

[ConHog]

That's not an illegal clause. Lawyers will try ANY tactic, my wife knows, but that doesn't make them any less frivolous. One of the recent big news tactics was the wet ink rule which required the original document be produced, see produce the note, but I think that has been dismissed as an option.

I'm not sure I disagree that it isn't illegal, but I DO think it should be. But that kind of clause IS being challenged in courts more and more.

Read this article to, pretty interesting.

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/crime_and_courts/foreclosed-homeowners-challenge-banks-to-prove-they-still-hold-their/article_98e90670-64d3-11e1-b12d-001871e3ce6c.html

Some pretty fishy going ons.

[fj1200]

I'm not sure I disagree that it isn't illegal, but I DO think it should be. But that kind of clause IS being challenged in courts more and more.

Read this article to, pretty interesting.

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/crime_and_courts/foreclosed-homeowners-challenge-banks-to-prove-they-still-hold-their/article_98e90670-64d3-11e1-b12d-001871e3ce6c.html

Some pretty fishy going ons.

No one is claiming perfection but ask this guy how many payments he has actually made over the past four years.


"The negative perception seems to be 'You're trying to get a free house,'" said Tom Wuensch of Onalaska, who has staved off foreclosure for four years by challenging the efforts by a series of lenders to seize his home. "Really what this is about is, we shouldn't be letting banks take free houses. We bailed them out once already."

[ConHog]

No one is claiming perfection but ask this guy how many payments he has actually made over the past four years.

If you're saying that asshole should be paying something as he challenges the foreclosure , you'll get no argument from me. That doesn't negate the fact thought that lots of banks are being busted for bad and or illegal business practices.

But if your point is people should have to pay SOMETHING in the way of a payment while they are fighting foreclosure, especially in cases that drag on for years, I agree. And actually I'm almost certain that the law here in Arkansas is that you have to show the courts that you are putting the full payment amount in an escrow account while fighting the foreclosure. I'll have to check that to be sure.

[fj1200]

If you're saying that asshole should be paying something as he challenges the foreclosure , you'll get no argument from me. That doesn't negate the fact thought that lots of banks are being busted for bad and or illegal business practices.

But if your point is people should have to pay SOMETHING in the way of a payment while they are fighting foreclosure, especially in cases that drag on for years, I agree. And actually I'm almost certain that the law here in Arkansas is that you have to show the courts that you are putting the full payment amount in an escrow account while fighting the foreclosure. I'll have to check that to be sure.

Umm, if you're making the payments, why are they in foreclosure? There are plenty of stories about people not making payments and filing multiple bankruptcies to forestall bankruptcy proceedings with zero intent on making payment. Most of the stories IMO aren't about good faith it's doing whatever to not lose the house even when they rightly should.

[ConHog]

Umm, if you're making the payments, why are they in foreclosure? There are plenty of stories about people not making payments and filing multiple bankruptcies to forestall bankruptcy proceedings with zero intent on making payment. Most of the stories IMO aren't about good faith it's doing whatever to not lose the house even when they rightly should.

well, i think that's why the law is the way it is, to prevent people from abusing the system. I haven't found the appropriate law yet, and I may be way off base anyway.

[DragonStryk72]

Well, it's probably fully disclosed and pretty much expected but the terms of the contract do not change when it changes hands. The only thing being traded is the ownership of your cash flow, your "life" has nothing to do with it.

As far as the media goes, isn't it in the author's best interest to have control over their story as it moves between forms of media?

So then, the person in control of where I live has no control of my life, you're saying?

Isn't it in the homeowner's best interest to have control of which banking institution has control of their loan?

[Missileman]

Mortgages are assets. If the institution you got your mortgage from is bought up by a bigger company, ownership of your mortgage is transerred in the sale. If anything, they need to pass legislation mandating notification to the homeowners from the holder selling AND the new holder so homeowners can at least attempt to keep track.

[Mr. P]

Mortgages are assets. If the institution you got your mortgage from is bought up by a bigger company, ownership of your mortgage is transerred in the sale. If anything, they need to pass legislation mandating notification to the homeowners from the holder selling AND the new holder so homeowners can at least attempt to keep track.

I don't know if it's law but I'd guess it is. Maybe part of the truth in lending stuff?

I've owned 3 houses in my life. Two had the mortgage sold more than once, one before I made the FIRST payment :laugh:. I always received notice of the sale including when and where to send my next payment. I never had a problem.

[fj1200]

So then, the person in control of where I live has no control of my life, you're saying?

Isn't it in the homeowner's best interest to have control of which banking institution has control of their loan?

The bank does NOT have control over where you live, YOU have control over meeting the terms of the contract. Who owns the loan has no effect on you making payments.

[ConHog]

The bank does NOT have control over where you live, YOU have control over meeting the terms of the contract. Who owns the loan has no effect on you making payments.

no, but it does effect me having my choice of who I do business with. Maybe the new company has policies that had I known about I wouldn't have borrowed from them at all.

[fj1200]

no, but it does effect me having my choice of who I do business with. Maybe the new company has policies that had I known about I wouldn't have borrowed from them at all.

:shrug: Maybe, but don't be surprised when your mortgage is sold.

[ConHog]

:shrug: Maybe, but don't be surprised when your mortgage is sold.

Oh, I wouldn't be b/c that's current law; I just think the law is wrong on this.

[fj1200]

Oh, I wouldn't be b/c that's current law; I just think the law is wrong on this.

I just think it really makes no difference.

[ConHog]

I just think it really makes no difference.

in the end, you're probably right. BUT there are a lot of stories out there of companies selling mortgages over and over and over again until homeowners don't even know who holds their note. I just don't think that's right.