Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Economy
In reply to the discussion: STOCK MARKET WATCH - Friday, 17 February 2012 [View all]Demeter
(85,373 posts)12. New York Creates New Foreclosure Courts to Clear Backlog
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/02/new-york-creates-new-foreclosure-courts-to-clear-backlog.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NakedCapitalism+%28naked+capitalism%29
Given the horrible history of special foreclosure courts in Florida, which as we recounted (see here and here for some past discussions) resulted in a bank-friendly travesty of justice, one has good reason to regard dedicated foreclosure courts with more than a modicum of concern.
The variant that is planned to be implemented in New York appears to be more fair-minded in intent than its Florida cousin. And while it appears unlikely to produce the sort of kangaroo court outcome that occurred there, it is not hard to see that this initiative is likely to fall well short of its objectives....a New York court requirement implemented in October 2010, that required lawyers filing for foreclosures to certify that they had taken reasonable steps to verify the accuracy of the information in the filing. That in turn lowered the bar for sanctioning lawyers who failed bogus information or documents signed by parties with no personal knowledge. That led to a near-halt of new foreclosure actions, which speaks volumes as to the accuracy of prior filings. If the problems were mere paperwork, you might have seen a hiatus as banks implemented new procedures, but this points to far more basic problems with the banks ability to prove they have the right to foreclose on loans they service.
My skepticism relates to the banks intent. The assumption is that they want to foreclose and that the various complaints about foreclosure delays reflect their frustration. But this is like Breer Rabbit complaining about being thrown in the briar patch. Banks make money on attenuated foreclosures. Georgetown law professor Adam Levitin has written about how servicers put borrowers in a fee sweatbox. If nothing else, they continue to earn servicing fees even when a borrower is hopelessly delinquent, as well as late fees, which they finally recoup when the home is sold. So Im not confident the banks are going to enter into these talks with an eye to modifying mortgages. As both Adam Levitin and attorney and securitization expert Tom Adams have said, servicers are not set up to do mods. Its like a new loan underwriting and they dont have the staff or the fee structures for that to make sense.
Nevertheless, there is one area where this effort could make a big difference, and that is in short sales. Ive heard complaints from different states that banks wont even respond to a short sale proposal. In LA, owners have to advertise no short sale, otherwise brokers wont bring buyers to a viewing. This format will make it awfully difficult for a bank to reject a short sale offer that is in line with current market prices. So this new system will probably yield some benefit but I dont expect it to be the remedy that its sponsors hope it will be.
Given the horrible history of special foreclosure courts in Florida, which as we recounted (see here and here for some past discussions) resulted in a bank-friendly travesty of justice, one has good reason to regard dedicated foreclosure courts with more than a modicum of concern.
The variant that is planned to be implemented in New York appears to be more fair-minded in intent than its Florida cousin. And while it appears unlikely to produce the sort of kangaroo court outcome that occurred there, it is not hard to see that this initiative is likely to fall well short of its objectives....a New York court requirement implemented in October 2010, that required lawyers filing for foreclosures to certify that they had taken reasonable steps to verify the accuracy of the information in the filing. That in turn lowered the bar for sanctioning lawyers who failed bogus information or documents signed by parties with no personal knowledge. That led to a near-halt of new foreclosure actions, which speaks volumes as to the accuracy of prior filings. If the problems were mere paperwork, you might have seen a hiatus as banks implemented new procedures, but this points to far more basic problems with the banks ability to prove they have the right to foreclose on loans they service.
My skepticism relates to the banks intent. The assumption is that they want to foreclose and that the various complaints about foreclosure delays reflect their frustration. But this is like Breer Rabbit complaining about being thrown in the briar patch. Banks make money on attenuated foreclosures. Georgetown law professor Adam Levitin has written about how servicers put borrowers in a fee sweatbox. If nothing else, they continue to earn servicing fees even when a borrower is hopelessly delinquent, as well as late fees, which they finally recoup when the home is sold. So Im not confident the banks are going to enter into these talks with an eye to modifying mortgages. As both Adam Levitin and attorney and securitization expert Tom Adams have said, servicers are not set up to do mods. Its like a new loan underwriting and they dont have the staff or the fee structures for that to make sense.
Nevertheless, there is one area where this effort could make a big difference, and that is in short sales. Ive heard complaints from different states that banks wont even respond to a short sale proposal. In LA, owners have to advertise no short sale, otherwise brokers wont bring buyers to a viewing. This format will make it awfully difficult for a bank to reject a short sale offer that is in line with current market prices. So this new system will probably yield some benefit but I dont expect it to be the remedy that its sponsors hope it will be.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
90 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Barry Ritholtz Has the Main Theme Right, But Gets a Few Specifics Wrong About MF Global
Demeter
Feb 2012
#2
The only thing missing from the "let my banker's go" agreement is skittle shitting unicorns!!
westerebus
Feb 2012
#56