U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-31-2009, 10:01 PM
 
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
5,517 posts, read 5,106,780 times
Reputation: 4323

Advertisements

Quote:
The judge, Arthur M. Schack, 64, fashions himself a judicial Don Quixote, tilting at the phalanxes of bankers, foreclosure facilitators and lawyers who file motions by the bale. While national debate focuses on bank bailouts and federal aid for homeowners that has been slow in coming, the hard reckonings of the foreclosure crisis are being made in courts like his, and Justice Schack’s sympathies are clear.

He has tossed out 46 of the 102 foreclosure motions that have come before him in the last two years. And his often scathing decisions, peppered with allusions to the Croesus-like wealth of bank presidents, have attracted the respectful attention of judges and lawyers from Florida to Ohio to California. At recent judicial conferences in Chicago and Arizona, several panelists praised his rulings as a possible national model.

Quote:
The judge burrowed into property record databases. He found banks without clear title, and a giant foreclosure law firm, Steven J. Baum, representing two sides in a dispute. He noted that Wells Fargo’s chief executive, John G. Stumpf, made more than $11 million in 2007 while the company’s total returns fell 12 percent.

“Maybe,” he advised the bank, “counsel should wonder, like the court, if Mr. Stumpf was unjustly enriched at the expense of W.F.’s stockholders.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/ny...ewanted=1&_r=1
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-31-2009, 10:55 PM
 
48,516 posts, read 83,688,108 times
Reputation: 18036
In the end hye will just be overruled when the banks appeal. In the end he may be filed against in judical complaint if he ignores the law.He is especailly stupid makingthose typoe remarks that can be used aginst him in a complaint.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-01-2009, 04:33 AM
 
Location: North Beach, MD on the Chesapeake
33,835 posts, read 41,902,030 times
Reputation: 43207
Good, another judge that doesn't follow the law. Just what we need (sarcasm button ON).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-01-2009, 07:34 AM
 
12,870 posts, read 13,113,011 times
Reputation: 4453
gotta say that this sounds remarkably like the statement where a "court of appeals is where policy is made"......
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-01-2009, 07:39 AM
 
22,769 posts, read 26,132,273 times
Reputation: 14556
Quote:
Originally Posted by North Beach Person View Post
Good, another judge that doesn't follow the law. Just what we need (sarcasm button ON).
I read the article earlier this morning. I didn't see any facts indicating that the judge doesn't follow the law.

How does he not follow the law?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-01-2009, 08:49 AM
 
28,430 posts, read 70,779,494 times
Reputation: 18364
While it is generally not considered to be the role /responsibility of the judge to further either side of a case (such as investigating the validity of a lender's claim in such a way that the borrower benefits...) so long as the judge does this research in a fair and impartial way it is not unethical nor "contrary to the law"...

Personally I have no problem with a judge putting the lender's feet to the fire, and I would hope that when real bum borrowers come into his court this judge does not listen to their sob stories and stick it to them too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-01-2009, 08:56 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
7,090 posts, read 10,738,849 times
Reputation: 4107
Of course, you can't foreclose on a property that you can't prove you own. It's common sense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-02-2009, 05:41 PM
 
Location: The Woods
16,936 posts, read 22,206,840 times
Reputation: 9020
Quote:
Originally Posted by North Beach Person View Post
Good, another judge that doesn't follow the law. Just what we need (sarcasm button ON).
I don't see that being the case. Many mortgages are not so clear now and banks don't actually own the property in foreclosure (therefore no foreclosure). That's the fault of banks themselves. And frankly, I hope they lose plenty. They've been given too much of our tax money anyways.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-02-2009, 05:58 PM
 
12,870 posts, read 13,113,011 times
Reputation: 4453
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader View Post
I don't see that being the case. Many mortgages are not so clear now and banks don't actually own the property in foreclosure (therefore no foreclosure). That's the fault of banks themselves. And frankly, I hope they lose plenty. They've been given too much of our tax money anyways.
i agree that the bad banks shouldn't have been bailed out, but doesn't a judge ruling independently to reject foreclosures just subvert the whole point of the bailout? isn't that causing more destruction, leading to more potential failure?

if we ignore contracts, we will have anarchy at some point. people will just write their own contracts in their mind and refuse to honor them if it doesn't turn out the way they wanted. we are already having people walk away from originally agreed upon obligations at every level, credit card debt, housing debt, family obligations, child support debt, etc.

when will personal responsibility come back into favor????
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-02-2009, 06:34 PM
 
69,372 posts, read 55,357,998 times
Reputation: 9358
Quote:
Originally Posted by rubber_factory View Post
I read the article earlier this morning. I didn't see any facts indicating that the judge doesn't follow the law.

How does he not follow the law?
A judge is not allowed to use evidence not entered into the case by either party. In the story it claims the judge did his own research and it seems would have decided the case before the forclosure process even begun. If the defendant does not bring it up, the judge can not use information unknown to the defendant to rule, even if to the defedants benefit..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:34 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top