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.
Also, lech, I did’nt read the link but might it be more an issue of “who actually own’s the mortgate?” than keeping the owner in their house. Maybe these technicalities are just being exploited and celebrated by tenant groups, no?
***Bid half off peak comps***
“ENY: Really? How many contracts have you written?”
None. I’m not a lawyer. I HIRE GOOD lawyers.
If their contract stinks, too bad. I’m not impressed. Also, you need to calm down before you blow a fuse.
“I don’t see a risk on the part of banks that has to be passed on to future buyers via closing costs”
How about interest rates?
“When mortgage closing costs are five times what they are now, and fewer people are eligible for mortgages, we can blame this dipshit in a robe.”
My credit rating is 850+ so I’ll always be eligible; the real issue no one wants to talk about is the people who knew they couldn’t afford their homes. Abusing stupid people is politically incorrect however. you’re supposed to feel sorry for them.
Lechacal – I don’t think this judge’s decision can make lending standards any tighter or more expensive. The papertrails to nowhere came with the territory of the cheap/easy mortgage spigot. Since all that is history for another century, the airtight standards of today have completely annhilated that ambiguity in ownership. I don’t see a risk on the part of banks that has to be passed on to future buyers via closing costs. Is this something that has happened in the past? It seems that this problem is unprecedented and would automatically be solved with the near extinction of hot potato MBS’s.
***Bid half off peak comps***
antidope – too late, already did. In a super pissy mood today and this is a subject I feel pretty strongly about (could you tell?). A volatile combination.
Bye!
Pls don’t break your promise.
ENY: Really? How many contracts have you written? If you think you are capable of sitting down and writing an error-free contract, I can only respond that either:
1. you have never in your life attempted to do so, or
2. no one competent checked your work.
Mortgage papers will have errors. Multi-billion dollar merger agreements drafted by the best legal minds in the city have errors. All the time, in fact. And good judges don’t impose hyper-technical requirements in pursuit of a transparent social agenda. They determine the intent of the parties and give them the benefit of their bargain.
If you don’t pay back the money, they get your house. Period. If you stopped paying, pack up your shit and get out.
“IT’S THE BANK’S MONEY.”
Correct. And, if the bank isn’t careful enough with its own money to compose a valid contract that accurately represents its rights and responsibilities, then that contract should not be upheld in a court of law. It’s really pretty simple.