The 'Judicial Don Quixote' on the Foreclosure Frontlines
This morning the Times ran a profile of Brooklyn State Supreme Court Judge Arthur M. Schack, who “fashions himself a judicial Don Quixote, tilting at the phalanxes of bankers, foreclosure facilitators, and lawyers who file motions by the bale.” Schack is known for tossing out foreclosure motions on technicalities: “Justice Schack, like a handful of…
This morning the Times ran a profile of Brooklyn State Supreme Court Judge Arthur M. Schack, who “fashions himself a judicial Don Quixote, tilting at the phalanxes of bankers, foreclosure facilitators, and lawyers who file motions by the bale.” Schack is known for tossing out foreclosure motions on technicalities: “Justice Schack, like a handful of state and federal judges, has taken a magnifying glass to the mortgage industry. In the gilded haste of the past decade, bankers handed out millions of mortgages—with terms good, bad and exotically ugly—then repackaged those loans for sale to investors from Connecticut to Singapore. Sloppiness reigned. So many papers have been lost, signatures misplaced and documents dated inaccurately that it is often not clear which bank owns the mortgage. Justice Schack’s take is straightforward, and sends a tremor through some bank suites: If a bank cannot prove ownership, it cannot foreclose.” Schack, who is Brooklyn born and bred, began crossing swords with banks over foreclosures in 2007, when they started to spike here. “Banks had given out loans structured to fail,” he says.
A ‘Little Judge’ Who Rejects Foreclosures, Brooklyn Style [NY Times]
Photo by steakpinball.
bxgrl, just thought it was an interesting take.
People, don’t mind ENY, he thinks Eli Manning is a manly football player. Psych!
Well, your resorting to profanity in a harmless blog discussion certainly doesn’t give you the appearance of rationality, lechacal. That said, I thought your opinion was crazy, not you in particular. I don’t know you well enough to determine if you’re really crazy. But based on your posts, I wouldn’t put it past you.
Do you people even get what the Judge is saying?
He’s not saying “Don’t pay your mortgage”. He’s saying ” pay the proper entity”. Simple.
bxgrl – not sure. Just in a wicked pissy mood today, and this is a subject that can get me in a bad mood even when I’m otherwise chirpy.
Does someone else have the energy to respond to lowelisamarie? I feel like I’m arguing with one of my kids.
just to be totally clear, in my 3:41 post i meant to type “this guy isN’T actually ‘taking away’ banks’ securities…” and also, with respect to bias, the judge was pretty careful to avoid suggesting he was biased, but it’s clear where his sympathies lie, in general. “sophisticated” litigants will take any possible thread they can to claim bias, and the rules on recusal can be a little circular, so unfortunately this kind of publicity will make it harder for him to do his work (and, perhaps, create headaches for some appellate judges). on the other hand, a quick web search makes it clear that this judge has been making these kinds of decisions for a while now, and is pretty well known for it. my guess is that, for him, getting the word out is worth denying a few recusal motions and putting up with a few more meritless appeals.
“That taught me that I did not have the argumentative personality necessary for courtroom success.”
I don’t know, MM. You’ve made some good arguments around here 🙂
Its not rocket science. You have NO proof you own the mortgage (re;sloppy, shoddy, unprofessional, unethical, reckless book-keeping) and you still want to step up and take a persons home??? Why should a home owner pay a bank that can’t even prove it owns the loan? Perhaps they don’t.You pay the person with the paperwork. It’s the law. This judge is upholding the LAW. Any bank stepping up to the plate without proper standing should be slapped with a frivilious lawsuit charge. And they had the legal guns to file proper paperwork, they just got greedy.
wow lechacal- what got you in such a bad mood?