Tennessee-"I ain't scared," replied Rep. Gary Moore

Foreclosure bill fight rages » Knoxville News Sentinel

Login |Manage Account |Mobile | E-Edition | Contact Us | Site Map | Subscribe

Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH

Knoxville News Sentinel
NewsTodayLocalYourNewsStateTrafficWeatherObituariesDatabasesPoliticsColumnistsSmoky MountainsArchivesDeals
Sports
Business
Opinion
Entertainment
Lifestyles
Media
Jobs
Homes
Cars
Classified
Foreclosure bill fight rages
Publishing info in newspapers costly, bankers group says

By Tom Humphrey
Posted May 8, 2011 at midnight
EmailDiscussShare »PrintAAA
NASHVILLE - Legislation to cut back on the number and length of home foreclosure legal notices now required in Tennessee is being pushed by bankers who stand to save money if the bill passes and opposed by newspapers that stand to lose money.

While that is clear, the two sides - both aided by a contingent of lobbyists - clashed sharply over whether the proposed change would benefit financially strapped homeowners and the general public as the bill advanced in the House last week.

As drafted and introduced at the behest of the Tennessee Bankers Association, HB1920 would require that just one notice of a pending foreclosure be published in a newspaper based in the county where the property is located.

Current law requires three notices. That has been the case for more than 125 years in Tennessee, according to Steve Baker, a Nashville foreclosure attorney who testified before committee in support of sticking with the "tried and true" three-time publication rule.

The bill was amended in committee last week to set the number of required notices at two, a move that sponsor Rep. Jimmy Matlock, R-Lenoir City, characterized as "compromising with ourselves."

The bill would also shrink the size of the published notice. Current practice is to publish a full legal description of the property in question, including "metes and bounds" that list measurements, survey markers and landmarks.

That is not really required by current law, according to Baker, who noted that the law says a "brief description" is allowed. But lawyers and title companies are unwilling to break with the tradition and perhaps risk a lawsuit. The bill, as introduced, would specify that only a short description be printed.

Rep. Jon Lundberg, R-Bristol, said the legal notices under current law amount to "government-mandated subsidies of newspapers," which receive more advertising revenue with more frequent publication and longer descriptions. He also said legislators hesitant to approve the bill are "scared of newspapers."

"I ain't scared," replied Rep. Gary Moore, D-Joelton, responding to Lundberg's remarks during a House Judiciary Committee hearing.

Indeed, others say that, politically speaking, legislators may have more to fear from the bankers who collectively gave more than $200,000 to state political candidates last year, according to a review of records by The Tennessean. That includes $184,750 donated by the Tennessee Bankers Association political action committee to candidates for the Legislature.

The TBA has three registered lobbyists at the Legislature and other banks retain 13 lobbyists. The Tennessee Press Association, the lead organization opposing the bill, has six lobbyists - but two have recused themselves from involvement with the bill because they also represent a bank.

Both legislators sponsoring the bill have ties to banks. Matlock served on a bank board of directors until four years ago, he said. Matlock also lists bank holdings on a financial statement filed with the state, though he said all but "less than $1,000 worth" has been sold since he left the BB&T bank board.

Matlock, who said he does not plan to seek re-election in 2012, complained of newspaper ads opposing legislation to reduce legal notices that featured "a nasty old pile of tires" in a landfill.

Matlock, who operates a tire business, said the ads appeared to target him personally. Frank Gibson of the Tennessee Open Government Coalition said the ad was actually put together in Pennsylvania more than a year ago and that no targeting of Matlock was involved.

Sen. Jack Johnson, R-College Grove, who is Senate sponsor of the bill, has worked for Pinnacle National Bank. The current president of the TBA, House Democratic Leader Craig Fitzhugh of Ripley, is a co-sponsor of the bill.

Legislators who oppose the bill say they have constituent interests at heart, not newspapers.

Rep. Jeremy Faison, R-Cosby, said many people - especially "old timers" and people living in rural areas - read their newspapers from front to back and rely on notices to learn about neighbors, relatives and friends facing foreclosure.

Sometimes that can save a home from foreclosure, say critics of the bill. Rep. Joe Armstrong, D-Knoxville, said a friend was recently approached by a person who expressed regret for a pending foreclosure.

As it turned out, it was the son of Armstrong's friend - "junior not senior," the lawmaker said - who faced foreclosure and was "too embarrassed" to tell his father. Once the father learned of the situation, he stepped in to financially help his son, Armstrong said.

"Banks have tried to make newspaper revenue the issue, but it's much deeper than that," Gibson said. "Newspapers, like banks, provide a service. Both charge fees for those services. Publication of these notices benefits the consumer.

"It is not something for newspapers to negotiate away, and it should not be a way for the government to give banks another bailout," Gibson said.

Amy Smith, a lobbyist for the bankers association, said homeowners themselves would be little affected by the law change since they must receive notices by certified mail of pending foreclosures. She said the notices are rarely read by the general public and the information in them is readily available on the Internet.

The ads are thus an unnecessary expense, often the costliest part of foreclosure proceedings and running up to $3,000. Under the law, the homeowner is legally responsible for the costs of foreclosure, she said, and thus the bill would benefit homeowners by reducing the expense.

Eric Barnes, publisher of the Memphis Daily News, said a review of 50,000 notices showed the average cost as $212 each, or $636 for three publications.

Baker, the Nashville attorney, said that, as a practical matter, banks wind up paying the ad costs in all but "one in a hundred" cases simply because the homeowner has no money or is in bankruptcy.

And Henry Hildebrand, a bankruptcy trustee in Middle Tennessee, told legislators that he has seen "hundreds" of cases over the past 20 years of legally defective foreclosure moves by banks that were never detected until they reached U.S. Bankruptcy Court. He opposed the bill for reducing one of the few safeguards now benefiting homeowners in Tennessee.

"Tennessee already has one of easiest foreclosure processes in the country for banks," said Mary Mancini, executive director of Tennessee Citizen Action, a consumer advocacy group. "To remove a notice or two in the newspaper, which is still the only source of information from the outside world for some people, is a very bad idea."

Tennessee is one of just five states that do not have judicial oversight of foreclosure proceedings, and Baker said that, along with other details of current law, already makes Tennessee "the simplest, easiest and least expensive state in the nation" for bankers to foreclose on homeowners behind in their payments.

Most states require four to six published notices before foreclosure, said Marcille Durham, a lobbyist for TPA, and if Tennessee drops to two notices, it would tie West Virginia for the state having the lowest notice requirements nationwide.

The bill is scheduled for a hearing Tuesday in the Senate Judiciary Committee and for a House floor vote on Thursday.

Tom Humphrey may be reached at 615-242-7782.

© 2011, Knoxville News Sentinel Co.
Want to use this article? Click here for options!

© 2011 Knoxville News Sentinel. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

EmailDiscussShare »Print


Related Topics
Joe Armstrong

Also in Political NewsMore
ET lawmakers vote in favor of resolution on Libya
John Edwards charged with fund misuse
Giuliani, Palin steal some of Romney's thunder in N.H.
Comments » 100Hide
Comments of 100
Newer Comments
May 8, 2011
1:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
fourumtroll writes:
Sure lets give the banks a break after all none of this was their fault.

May 8, 2011
7:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
nattybumpo writes:
Does anybody, anywhere, ever, ever read the complete description in the notices.........I doubt it! Requiring these complete descriptions is asinine.

Perhaps a law requiring newspapers to run the notices for free would be just as logical as requiring the banks to pay to publish them. Remember, the way it is now, we the banks' customers pay for them.

May 8, 2011
7:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
bpaone#1397085 writes:
Wow. The newspaper's doing a pretty good job of trying to manipulate opinion this morning, I see. Pity there are still people that fall for that sort of base nonsense, but it is what it is.

There's a reason why this newspaper is pulling out all this manipulative drivel. The only loser with this bill (and with its companion bill, that allows the publishing of such notices online and allows the industry to forego print ads altogether) is the newspaper industry.

Mortgage banks would no longer have to waste time and resources on printing extraneous ads that few people (if anyone at all) read anymore.

Mortgagees (the ones that care about their homes, anyway - a fair amount, possibly a majority, of foreclosures come about because the mortgagee no longer sufficiently cares about honoring their word and contract) are largely unaffected because they're getting certified notices anyway. (Provided the mortgagee isn't actively trying to duck service - which happens a lot.)

But the newspaper?

Yeah, they're gonna lose their shirts. But not unless they can pull enough readers' puppet strings...

May 8, 2011
7:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
bpaone#1397085 writes:
in response to nattybumpo:

Does anybody, anywhere, ever, ever read the complete description in the notices.........I doubt it! Requiring these complete descriptions is asinine.

Perhaps a law requiring newspapers to run the notices for free would be just as logical as requiring the banks to pay to publish them. Remember, the way it is now, we the banks' customers pay for them.

And that's true regardless of whether or not you're a mortgagee. Sucks, huh?

But that's okay. Ol' McElHearst is very much appreciative, and hopes you understand when those fees gouge just a little more to pay for his lobbyists. ;-)

May 8, 2011
7:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
Fordtough10 writes:
Lmbo-What a joke....

May 8, 2011
7:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
matthew#208648 writes:
"many people - especially "old timers" and people living in rural areas - read their newspapers from front to back and rely on notices to learn about neighbors, relatives and friends facing foreclosure."

Why should a homeowner/bank pay to have it in print so that neighbors, relatives, and friends can see you are getting foreclosed on? Come on, that's one of the best reasons they have to be against this bill? A foreclosure is between the homeowner and the bank. It's not 1894 anymore where communication is slow and hard.

May 8, 2011
8 a.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
mainchannel writes:
in response to fourumtroll:

Sure lets give the banks a break after all none of this was their fault.

Yea not the idiots that signed the papers.

May 8, 2011
8:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
dkta writes:
Republican Creed, screw the working people every way you can, and as quick as you can.

May 8, 2011
8:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
pragmatist writes:
in response to nattybumpo:

Does anybody, anywhere, ever, ever read the complete description in the notices.........I doubt it! Requiring these complete descriptions is asinine.

Perhaps a law requiring newspapers to run the notices for free would be just as logical as requiring the banks to pay to publish them. Remember, the way it is now, we the banks' customers pay for them.

Perhaps you should reread this article. The law does not currently require full metes and bounds descriptions in the legal ad. And yes, there are indeed some people, particularly those interested in the legal notices in the first place, that do read the entire text of the notice, for what it is worth. There is substantial information contained in those foreclosure ads.

If you are really concerned about what the bank's good customers have to pay for then I implore you to call your banking institution's board of directors on Monday. After the house gets foreclosed upon, the other customers of the bank get to pay for the property taxes, lawn maintenence, deferred maintenance, catastrophe insurance, vandalism, acts of God, LEGAL FEES, decline in market value, and Realtor's commission associated with the disposition of the home. Why a bank would want to take action to actually increase their inventory of foreclosed homes is beyond me.

Sometimes homeowners get rescued from their looming foreclosure by a professional engaged in that business as a result of a second or third legal notice. Anyone who thinks that is not the case is simply ignorant of the real world environment of foreclosures. The real loser will be the homeowners facing foreclosure.

As far as anyone's criticism of KNS goes, KNS only became heavily involved in advertising foreclosure notices about two years ago. Prior to that, the Knoxville Journal had the corner on the market for that line of advertising.

May 8, 2011
8:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
bpaone#1397085 writes:
in response to pragmatist:

Perhaps you should reread this article. The law does not currently require full metes and bounds descriptions in the legal ad. And yes, there are indeed some people, particularly those interested in the legal notices in the first place, that do read the entire text of the notice, for what it is worth. There is substantial information contained in those foreclosure ads.

If you are really concerned about what the bank's good customers have to pay for then I implore you to call your banking institution's board of directors on Monday. After the house gets foreclosed upon, the other customers of the bank get to pay for the property taxes, lawn maintenence, deferred maintenance, catastrophe insurance, vandalism, acts of God, LEGAL FEES, decline in market value, and Realtor's commission associated with the disposition of the home. Why a bank would want to take action to actually increase their inventory of foreclosed homes is beyond me.

Sometimes homeowners get rescued from their looming foreclosure by a professional engaged in that business as a result of a second or third legal notice. Anyone who thinks that is not the case is simply ignorant of the real world environment of foreclosures. The real loser will be the homeowners facing foreclosure.

As far as anyone's criticism of KNS goes, KNS only became heavily involved in advertising foreclosure notices about two years ago. Prior to that, the Knoxville Journal had the corner on the market for that line of advertising.

In order:

* And, if YOU would re-read the article, you'd see that very few lawyers and title companies in this town like to break with local tradition in such matters - which is to print the so-called "long form" legal description.

Actually, let me help you out with that. From the article:

***
"The bill would also shrink the size of the published notice. Current practice is to publish a full legal description of the property in question, including "metes and bounds" that list measurements, survey markers and landmarks.

That is not really required by current law, according to Baker, who noted that the law says a "brief description" is allowed. But lawyers and title companies are unwilling to break with the tradition and perhaps risk a lawsuit. The bill, as introduced, would specify that only a short description be printed."
***

And frankly, the people interested in reading such nonsense probably need something better to do with their lives. (Or, alternatively, are trying to make a fast buck on a foreclosure sale, which is another discussion altogether.)

* Yep. Foreclosure's expensive. It's also a necessary part of the mortgage process, much like printing lengthy legal notices in archaic newspapers currently is.

Wouldn't it be nice to reduce some of those costs that these deadbeat mortgagees are incurring for everyone else?

* Tell me - why do you think the majority of foreclosures in this country happen? You seem to be under the impression that the majority of mortgagees in foreclosure are completely blameless.

They are, in fact, the primary reason. Out of all the foreclosures I've ever worked, only ONE mortgagee turned out to be completely blameless. All of the rest failed themselves, and that's how they ended up in foreclosure.

Like you aptly stated before - the bank's not interested in the house. They want the money that was promised to them so that the mortgagee could have the privilege of homeownership.

And finally:

* Thanks for the history lesson, I suppose. Doesn't really change the reality of the situation, though, does it?

I imagine if the Shed TRULY cared about mortgagees... they'd print these ads at a sharply reduced cost. Even free.

So, forgive me if I'm a bit suspicious of the motives of a business heavily lobbying against something that actively harms their interests, yet only giving said interests a passing mention at best in their impassioned rebuttal.

May 8, 2011
8:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
bpaone#1397085 writes:
in response to Tilley:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Hmm.

I wonder how you feel, then, about forcing mortgagees to "do what they should be doing" in regard to paying back the money they were given upon contract for repayment?

May 8, 2011
8:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
bpaone#1397085 writes:
in response to mainchannel:

Yea not the idiots that signed the papers.

Oh, HELL no, dude! The deadbeat mortgagee is ALWAYS blameless! Didn't you know? They can't be BOTHERED to read their contract.

Or stick to the agreed-upon repayment schedule contained therein.

Or stick to an altered repayment schedule that the bank offers once they failed miserably in adhering to the contract's repayment schedule.

Or even return phone calls.

But, by gum, they sure as hell deserve that free home they've got for a while, don't they.

You know what I've always liked about you? Your distaste for society's general lack of personal responsibility. It's good to see.

May 8, 2011
8:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
nattybumpo writes:
pragmatist wrote:
"If you are really concerned about what the bank's good customers have to pay for then I implore you to call your banking institution's board of directors on Monday. After the house gets foreclosed upon, the other customers of the bank get to pay for the property taxes, lawn maintenence, deferred maintenance, catastrophe insurance, vandalism, acts of God, LEGAL FEES, decline in market value, and Realtor's commission associated with the disposition of the home. Why a bank would want to take action to actually increase their inventory of foreclosed homes is beyond me."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Do you think maybe all these things you listed are the reasons that banks generally foreclose as a last resort. Banks I'm familiar with don't want to be in the real estate business. Most often, foreclosures are a losing proposition for them. Banks are in business to make money, not for public service.

May 8, 2011
8:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
KennyPowers1 writes:
in response to bpaone#1397085:

In order:

* And, if YOU would re-read the article, you'd see that very few lawyers and title companies in this town like to break with local tradition in such matters - which is to print the so-called "long form" legal description.

Actually, let me help you out with that. From the article:

***
"The bill would also shrink the size of the published notice. Current practice is to publish a full legal description of the property in question, including "metes and bounds" that list measurements, survey markers and landmarks.

That is not really required by current law, according to Baker, who noted that the law says a "brief description" is allowed. But lawyers and title companies are unwilling to break with the tradition and perhaps risk a lawsuit. The bill, as introduced, would specify that only a short description be printed."
***

And frankly, the people interested in reading such nonsense probably need something better to do with their lives. (Or, alternatively, are trying to make a fast buck on a foreclosure sale, which is another discussion altogether.)

* Yep. Foreclosure's expensive. It's also a necessary part of the mortgage process, much like printing lengthy legal notices in archaic newspapers currently is.

Wouldn't it be nice to reduce some of those costs that these deadbeat mortgagees are incurring for everyone else?

* Tell me - why do you think the majority of foreclosures in this country happen? You seem to be under the impression that the majority of mortgagees in foreclosure are completely blameless.

They are, in fact, the primary reason. Out of all the foreclosures I've ever worked, only ONE mortgagee turned out to be completely blameless. All of the rest failed themselves, and that's how they ended up in foreclosure.

Like you aptly stated before - the bank's not interested in the house. They want the money that was promised to them so that the mortgagee could have the privilege of homeownership.

And finally:

* Thanks for the history lesson, I suppose. Doesn't really change the reality of the situation, though, does it?

I imagine if the Shed TRULY cared about mortgagees... they'd print these ads at a sharply reduced cost. Even free.

So, forgive me if I'm a bit suspicious of the motives of a business heavily lobbying against something that actively harms their interests, yet only giving said interests a passing mention at best in their impassioned rebuttal.

I do like your last point. Why not publish the notice for free? Many of the writers on this story want the banks to give up on the mortgages and let the "victim" off the hook (live there free).

What say you Marxists? Make the paper publish 10 notices for free!

May 8, 2011
9:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
Kasey writes:
There is more than enough blame to go around for this mess. Realtors and banks played with the numbers to get people qualified for loans they could not really afford, and people were more than willing to stretch themselves to the limits in the good times without ever giving consideration to what they would do in the bad times.

As they always do, Republicans look out for the businesses and to h*ll with the people who put them in office.

May 8, 2011
9:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
bpaone#1397085 writes:
in response to Kasey:

There is more than enough blame to go around for this mess. Realtors and banks played with the numbers to get people qualified for loans they could not really afford, and people were more than willing to stretch themselves to the limits in the good times without ever giving consideration to what they would do in the bad times.

As they always do, Republicans look out for the businesses and to h*ll with the people who put them in office.

...but that IS who put them in office - businesses and other hard-working individuals that, frankly, are beyond sick and tired of handing out free rides to everybody.

Oh, and it takes two to tango as far as "liar loans" are concerned. They usually involve someone who either is or claims to be self-employed, and then submits fraudulent documents to support their lies on their application.

So, same question posed to the first Dem, but to you - how do you feel about forcing deadbeat mortgagees to fulfill their obligation?

May 8, 2011
9:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
nattybumpo writes:
L3 wrote:
"As they always do, Republicans look out for the businesses and to h*ll with the people who put them in office."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The people who put them in office are hard working people who pay their bills and keep the country running. And yes, many, many Democrats fit in this category.

This is exactly who they should be "looking out" for!

May 8, 2011
9:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
bpaone#1397085 writes:
in response to Tilley:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

In order:

* No, most people facing foreclosure do everything they can to fight it off. (Except, of course, paying the mortgage on time...) And Lord knows they've got options. TONS of options. Some options, I'd argue, they shouldn't even have. But that's another conversation.

* Given that I've four years' direct experience in handling foreclosures, yes, I've heard such things being parroted by people largely ignorant of the process.

Unfortunately, I have yet to see the scenario you describe as being the "norm". In the majority of cases, it's a lack of personal responsibility on the part of the mortgagee that lands 'em in foreclosure.

Which, I have to admit, has to be a large amount of personal irresponsibility, since it takes quite some time for foreclosure proceedings to even be initiated.

But silly me, being so rude as to answer your questions before you've even taken the time to try and answer mine. I'll ask again:

What do you think about being more forceful against deadbeat mortgagees in regard to making them pay what they contractually agreed to repay to secure the loan that got 'em the house in the first place, hmm?

May 8, 2011
9:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
willowbark#1394272 writes:
nattybumpo writes:

"The people who put them in office are hard working people who pay their bills and keep the country running. And yes, many, many Democrats fit in this category."
~~~~~~~~~~~~

Thanks for the acknowledgement. It feels good to win your approval.

May 8, 2011
10:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
jhmcnair#206345 writes:
in response to mainchannel:

Yea not the idiots that signed the papers.

Part of the question _is_ who signed the papers. Banks hired people at minimum wage to sign as "Bank Vice Presidents" all day long. If I hired people to fraudulently sign mortgage papers I think we know what would happen.

http://www.commercenewstoday.com/arch...

Don't let the politicians and the bankers hide their shenanigans from the light of day!

May 8, 2011
10:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
bokun59#294646 writes:
in response to bpaone#1397085:

In order:

* No, most people facing foreclosure do everything they can to fight it off. (Except, of course, paying the mortgage on time...) And Lord knows they've got options. TONS of options. Some options, I'd argue, they shouldn't even have. But that's another conversation.

* Given that I've four years' direct experience in handling foreclosures, yes, I've heard such things being parroted by people largely ignorant of the process.

Unfortunately, I have yet to see the scenario you describe as being the "norm". In the majority of cases, it's a lack of personal responsibility on the part of the mortgagee that lands 'em in foreclosure.

Which, I have to admit, has to be a large amount of personal irresponsibility, since it takes quite some time for foreclosure proceedings to even be initiated.

But silly me, being so rude as to answer your questions before you've even taken the time to try and answer mine. I'll ask again:

What do you think about being more forceful against deadbeat mortgagees in regard to making them pay what they contractually agreed to repay to secure the loan that got 'em the house in the first place, hmm?

Do you not understand what a contract is? It is an agreement delineating rights and responsibilities for all those involved. In a financial agreement, there is always risk on both sides; risk that either party may not fulfill his/her side of the bargain. When that happens, there are remedies. One of the remedies for the bank is foreclosure.

It has nothing to do with morality. Businesses make decisions every day to go under and walk away: why do you think incorporation was invented and is so widely used today? Hint: to protect the individual from his/her debts vis-a-vis businesses s/he owns. People walk away from their debts every day. In fact, it would make little sense to continue to pay a mortgage when you have no chance of recouping your money as your house has depressed in value. Any business person would tell you to cut your losses.

On a side note, almost every single mortgage is America today has been re-packaged into a security and passed around more often that you can imagine. There is virtually nil chance that said mortgage transfer was done properly and the true owner of a mortgage is just about impossible to decipher. The banks ignored hundreds of years of prior rules (dating back to medieval England) and created their own little transfer world. It failed. They ignored the law.

May 8, 2011
10:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
bpaone#1397085 writes:
in response to Tilley:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

In order:

* That's how you showed me you wanted me to treat you - by doing the same. I'm only doing unto you what you do unto others... isn't that what we're supposed to do?

I'd love to have this conversation on a more mature and academic level. Whenever you're ready.

* I haven't been in the mortgage game since '09. I build/fix/destroy computers now. But hey, feel free to assume whatever you like about whomever you wish. One day, you might actually be right.

* You act as if foreclosure is a NEW thing. I hate to be the one to break it to you, but... well, it's not. Foreclosure's been happening almost as long as lending has been.

And yes, in the majority of cases, foreclosure happens as the DIRECT result of personal irresponsibility on the part of the mortgagee. Hence the term "deadbeats".

I'm sorry if that description isn't warm and fuzzy enough for you. (Actually, don't let me lie to you like that - I think it's f*&^ing hilarious.)

* Like I said - whenever you're ready. Cite your facts, show your figures, make an actual argument instead of this mewling garbage, and we can do this.

It's all on you.

And finally:

* I'm a dude. Today ain't my day. It belongs to mothers. Who are, y'know, female.

Sheesh.

May 8, 2011
10:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
bpaone#1397085 writes:
in response to bokun59#294646:

Do you not understand what a contract is? It is an agreement delineating rights and responsibilities for all those involved. In a financial agreement, there is always risk on both sides; risk that either party may not fulfill his/her side of the bargain. When that happens, there are remedies. One of the remedies for the bank is foreclosure.

It has nothing to do with morality. Businesses make decisions every day to go under and walk away: why do you think incorporation was invented and is so widely used today? Hint: to protect the individual from his/her debts vis-a-vis businesses s/he owns. People walk away from their debts every day. In fact, it would make little sense to continue to pay a mortgage when you have no chance of recouping your money as your house has depressed in value. Any business person would tell you to cut your losses.

On a side note, almost every single mortgage is America today has been re-packaged into a security and passed around more often that you can imagine. There is virtually nil chance that said mortgage transfer was done properly and the true owner of a mortgage is just about impossible to decipher. The banks ignored hundreds of years of prior rules (dating back to medieval England) and created their own little transfer world. It failed. They ignored the law.

In order:

* Yeah, I understand what a contract is. Which part of a typical mortgage contract would you like to discuss?

* Ah, but then it's a breach of contract on the part of the mortgagee - which is not only unethical and immoral, but not permitted under US law.

(Forgive me for glossing over the conspiracy stuff. I like a good conspiracy theory, but the ones involving the concept of incorporation are REALLY boring. No offense. It's not you; it's the theories.)

And finally:

* That's great. Your point?

Oh, and tell the rest of the KnoxViews crowd I said "hi". Seems like y'all are kinda butthurt about this today, judging from the looks of y'all's little clubhouse website...

May 8, 2011
10:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
mightycujo writes:
in response to Tilley:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Seems the Tea Party is AGAINST govt funded mandates, bailouts, and is for adherence to the constitution. I realize some consider that "fringe".

The reason we're in all these messes (and have been) is not because of one party or one president.

This is a ridiculous bill on it's face. Just like the USSC giving corporations the same rights as people.

A law needs to be passed that forbids ANY business, no matter the size,to contribute to ANY politician or party. This makes the politicians beholden to the people and not the corporations.

Until that happens you will have crapola like this coming from DC and most states.

We have the best politicians money can buy.

Demand better. It's your govt and you really are the boss. If you weren't they wouldn't try so hard to get your vote and we wouldn't have elections.

We need people that will care about the will of the people and not their own self interests

May 8, 2011
10:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
nattybumpo writes:
Bokun wrote:
"In fact, it would make little sense to continue to pay a mortgage when you have no chance of recouping your money as your house has depressed in value. Any business person would tell you to cut your losses."

There are so many things wrong with this statement that it would be near impossible to answer on the forum. His statement speaks volumes about some of the great failures in our society.

I'll only say that, no responsible "business person", or for that matter, no responsible person would advocate "cutting your losses" by refusing to meet your obligations and pay your debt.

This is the "Deadbeats" creed!

May 8, 2011
10:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
bpaone#1397085 writes:
in response to jhmcnair#206345:

Part of the question _is_ who signed the papers. Banks hired people at minimum wage to sign as "Bank Vice Presidents" all day long. If I hired people to fraudulently sign mortgage papers I think we know what would happen.

http://www.commercenewstoday.com/arch...

Don't let the politicians and the bankers hide their shenanigans from the light of day!

Actually, I'll agree with you on this much. DocX and companies like it are bad news for ANY sector of the finance industry because of their aggressive tactics.

(I'd say "illegal", but to my knowledge charges are still pending.)

If a bank failed to perform its due diligence by failing to secure every document required before funding a loan, then they likely deserve to be shafted if they can be. Thankfully, garbage like DocX is fairly rare in mainstream lending. (And with good reason - creating documents well after the date of a loan is unethical and illegal.)

May 8, 2011
10:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
wilsonandsons writes:
PLEASE: Mortgagee means the lender. Mortgagor is the borrower.Let's keep or terms straight

May 8, 2011
10:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
bpaone#1397085 writes:
in response to Tillly:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Aww, how ADORABLE! Baby's First Snark! (Does this mean that McNutt got the idea patented?!)

That was pretty good for a first attempt. Kinda left you wide-the-hell open for rebuttal, but since it's quite obviously your first time I'll be nice about it. :-)

Best of luck with your next attempts! You've got a lot of work to do, but there's loads of potential in you.

Well, loads of SOMETHING, but definitely loads of it. All the best! ;-)

May 8, 2011
10:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
bpaone#1397085 writes:
in response to wilsonandsons:

PLEASE: Mortgagee means the lender. Mortgagor is the borrower.Let's keep or terms straight

You're right! Got my terms transposed and just kept running with it - thanks for the correction!

(It's "keep OUR terms straight", by the by.)

May 8, 2011
10:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
Im4you writes:
"Tennessee is one of just five states that do not have judicial oversight of foreclosure proceedings, and Baker said that, along with other details of current law, already makes Tennessee "the simplest, easiest and least expensive state in the nation" for bankers to foreclose on homeowners behind in their payments."
Once again Tennessee is in the top five states against they citizens. We also are leaders in poor education, poor health care, obesity, poverty, smoking, etc. Thank you legislators for watching over those poor banks and newspapers while sticking it to your constituents.

May 8, 2011
11:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
bpaone#1397085 writes:
in response to pauljcb#205846:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Let me get this straight - you're against something just because a group of people you don't like are for it?

May 8, 2011
11:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
bokun59#294646 writes:
in response to bpaone#1397085:

In order:

* Yeah, I understand what a contract is. Which part of a typical mortgage contract would you like to discuss?

* Ah, but then it's a breach of contract on the part of the mortgagee - which is not only unethical and immoral, but not permitted under US law.

(Forgive me for glossing over the conspiracy stuff. I like a good conspiracy theory, but the ones involving the concept of incorporation are REALLY boring. No offense. It's not you; it's the theories.)

And finally:

* That's great. Your point?

Oh, and tell the rest of the KnoxViews crowd I said "hi". Seems like y'all are kinda butthurt about this today, judging from the looks of y'all's little clubhouse website...

There is no law anywhere in the United States that prohibits one from defaulting on a mortgage. Mortgagors do it all the time. Really, you are in the mortgage business? There is no conspiracy theory regarding incorporation. It was created to shield people.

My point, to be clear: there is no moral issue involved in not paying your mortgage. It is a simple business decision.

May 8, 2011
11:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
bpaone#1397085 writes:
in response to Tillly:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Must be jealous you didn't catch it first. I wouldn't be, if I were you. What with all the effort and brainpower you put into your first trolling attempt... I mean, really, with both brain cells blazing like that, how COULD you catch something like that?

But it's okay. We can pretend you're the one that pointed out the mistake, if you like. Whatever helps ya feel better about yourself. :-)

But seriously: I don't mind the "attack the messenger" routine if it's the best you can do (and it clearly is). But if you could get with the KV crowd and get a few pointers before trying it again, that would be GREAT.

Thanks bunches!

May 8, 2011
11:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
bpaone#1397085 writes:
in response to bokun59#294646:

There is no law anywhere in the United States that prohibits one from defaulting on a mortgage. Mortgagors do it all the time. Really, you are in the mortgage business? There is no conspiracy theory regarding incorporation. It was created to shield people.

My point, to be clear: there is no moral issue involved in not paying your mortgage. It is a simple business decision.

In order:

* Really? Then I guess there would be no repercussions for defaulting. Like the hit to one's credit report, or being responsible for the deficiency balance (except in some BK cases), and all the time these cases spend in courts across the nation? Just practice for the judges and lawyers, I guess.

Oh, you meant CRIMINAL prohibition. Sorry, didn't realize you were trying to shape the parameters of the argument to fit your proof. (FYI: It's supposed to be the other way around - the proof is supposed to fit the argument.)

* And that "simple business decision" comes with well-deserved consequences for breach of contract. Mostly civil-side consequences, true, but consequences regardless.

So, while your point is now clear and duly noted, your point is also moot in regard to the topic being discussed.

(I'd also argue there are strong moral implications in regard to adhering to one's word of honor, as represented in this case by a signed contract promising to repay a certain debt a certain way on a certain schedule, but that, too, would also be moot.)

May 8, 2011
11:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
bokun59#294646 writes:
in response to nattybumpo:

Bokun wrote:
"In fact, it would make little sense to continue to pay a mortgage when you have no chance of recouping your money as your house has depressed in value. Any business person would tell you to cut your losses."

There are so many things wrong with this statement that it would be near impossible to answer on the forum. His statement speaks volumes about some of the great failures in our society.

I'll only say that, no responsible "business person", or for that matter, no responsible person would advocate "cutting your losses" by refusing to meet your obligations and pay your debt.

This is the "Deadbeats" creed!

I guess the people in commercial real estate are comprised of a vast amount of deadbeats:

Instead of easing up this year, however, lenders can expect the terrain to get even rockier as the volume of nonperforming commercial, construction and land loans jumps to $165 billion in 2010, up from $135.7 billion in 2009, according to new projections from Foresight Analytics.
That’s the highest volume of bad loans in 18 years, says Matthew Anderson, a partner with the Oakland, Calif.-based research firm. “It’s a historic high.” From Investors.

If you Google: "defaults on business real estate loans" you will get over 40 million hits. You clearly are not a business person. Or how about this: Still, there's no mistaking the unfinished high-rises and empty lots dotting the North Texas landscape.
Last fall, BBVA Compass took ownership of the complex from San Diego-based Fairfield, one of the nation's biggest apartment developers, which filed for bankruptcy in December.

Other lenders have foreclosed on properties, including the Mosaic apartments in downtown Dallas, after failing to reach new loan terms with the owners. In 2007, Dallas-based Hamilton Properties turned a formerly vacant high-rise into the 440-unit Mosaic apartments – with rent as high as $7,000 a month and amenities including a pool, gym, cafe and restaurant.

In May, Prudential Commercial Property Holding Co. foreclosed on the building's $48.5 million loan balance. In a February interview when the Mosaic was posted for foreclosure, he blamed a change in loan terms, an oversupply of downtown luxury residences and a lack of demand.

The company, which also developed the Aloft hotel, Davis Building lofts and DP&L Flats, all in downtown, made interest-only payments for the first three years of Mosaic's mortgage, but last year payments increased to the tune of $80,000 more a month, he said. Smack in the middle of Craig Ranch in McKinney sits a half-empty, $52 million apartment and retail complex called Times Square. It's the first and only commercial foreclosure for the 2,200-acre development, which includes homes, shops, offices, a golf course and a hospital. Developer David Craig didn't own or develop Times Square, but he's had to answer questions about the health of Craig Ranch.

"I wouldn't be honest if I said it didn't impact us. It is a trophy property right in the heart of our community," said Craig, who began the development 10 years ago. "The general public thinks Craig Ranch is the owner. Residents have asked me, 'Is Craig Ranch going to be all right?' " Yes, he says, Craig Ranch, which carries no debt on its land, is fine. Bank of America sold the Times Square property last week.

"It's just not something I want to talk about," said Steve Everbach, one of the original owners of Times Square. "We were a small firm. The firm has closed and we've moved on." From TREPP.

Natty, enjoy your ignorance.

May 8, 2011
11:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
thedude writes:
If the newspapers want three notices and the banks want one why not split the difference and have two? That way everyone gets a little bit of what they want and is better off than if the other side got their way completely.

May 8, 2011
noon
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
bokun59#294646 writes:
in response to bpaone#1397085:

In order:

* Really? Then I guess there would be no repercussions for defaulting. Like the hit to one's credit report, or being responsible for the deficiency balance (except in some BK cases), and all the time these cases spend in courts across the nation? Just practice for the judges and lawyers, I guess.

Oh, you meant CRIMINAL prohibition. Sorry, didn't realize you were trying to shape the parameters of the argument to fit your proof. (FYI: It's supposed to be the other way around - the proof is supposed to fit the argument.)

* And that "simple business decision" comes with well-deserved consequences for breach of contract. Mostly civil-side consequences, true, but consequences regardless.

So, while your point is now clear and duly noted, your point is also moot in regard to the topic being discussed.

(I'd also argue there are strong moral implications in regard to adhering to one's word of honor, as represented in this case by a signed contract promising to repay a certain debt a certain way on a certain schedule, but that, too, would also be moot.)

I don't think you understand what is meant by 'contract law'. There is no civil law in the US saying you cannot default on a contract. What there are are laws regarding how to deal with breaches of contract. Generally, the terms of a contract will adhere to each party UNLESS those terms are in conflict with other laws or are unconscionable. For a more general example, look up the Uniform Commercial Code. It will give you some idea about how contract law is handled in the US.

I never said there would be no repercussions; I merely stated that there are no criminal sanctions; nor are there even any civil law sanctions. Credit reporting agencies are private entities.

If morality was a concern as to debt, incorporation would never have been created. What is good for the business world is good for the consumer. When Kaybee Toys went under, do you think its creditors got paid? Was anyone personally responsible for its debt? No.

I cannot see how one can argue that business are morally free not to repay debts but human beings are not.

May 8, 2011
12:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
BeagleGirl writes:
in response to fourumtroll:

Sure lets give the banks a break after all none of this was their fault.

Actually that cost is passed onto the homeowners. Our house went into foreclosure last year and they tacked on over $15,000 in legal fees that are now added into our total owed.

May 8, 2011
12:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
bpaone#1397085 writes:
in response to bokun59#294646:

I don't think you understand what is meant by 'contract law'. There is no civil law in the US saying you cannot default on a contract. What there are are laws regarding how to deal with breaches of contract. Generally, the terms of a contract will adhere to each party UNLESS those terms are in conflict with other laws or are unconscionable. For a more general example, look up the Uniform Commercial Code. It will give you some idea about how contract law is handled in the US.

I never said there would be no repercussions; I merely stated that there are no criminal sanctions; nor are there even any civil law sanctions. Credit reporting agencies are private entities.

If morality was a concern as to debt, incorporation would never have been created. What is good for the business world is good for the consumer. When Kaybee Toys went under, do you think its creditors got paid? Was anyone personally responsible for its debt? No.

I cannot see how one can argue that business are morally free not to repay debts but human beings are not.

In order:

* I'm well aware of what you're trying to say. I just don't understand what, if any, bearing it has on the conversation itself.

We both agree there are no laws stating "thou shalt not default", but that there are serious negative consequences for so doing.

Moving on? Moving on.

* See previous.

* That's great. Your point is...?

* No one said they weren't, cupcake. But if you can point to an instance where I or anyone DID say that, then feel free to take 'em to task as you should.

As far as I'm concerned, debt owed is debt owed - regardless of who or what owes what to whom. What do you think?

May 8, 2011
12:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
bpaone#1397085 writes:
in response to BeagleGirl:

Actually that cost is passed onto the homeowners. Our house went into foreclosure last year and they tacked on over $15,000 in legal fees that are now added into our total owed.

Ouch - that sucks. So what happened? (And have you considered bankruptcy? If you make anything close to what I make, that extra $15k obviously isn't going to help you.)

May 8, 2011
12:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
bpaone#1397085 writes:
in response to thedude:

If the newspapers want three notices and the banks want one why not split the difference and have two? That way everyone gets a little bit of what they want and is better off than if the other side got their way completely.

Sounds fair. Post both online on a central website, reduce costs even further?

May 8, 2011
12:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
elijahreece writes:
Some attentive Representative or Senator aught to turn this controversey on its head, offer an amendment, and institute a policy of judicial review for foreclosures in Tennessee.

All foreclosures should require a signature of a Chancery Court judge to become final.

May 8, 2011
12:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
elijahreece writes:
in response to mainchannel:

Yea not the idiots that signed the papers.

Were not they the idiots that wrote the papers?

May 8, 2011
12:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
bpaone#1397085 writes:
in response to elijahreece:

Were not they the idiots that wrote the papers?

If you're referring to the lending institution, then yeah, they wrote 'em.

Then the mortgagor read 'em and signed 'em.

What's your point? (And speaking of, I completely agree with you RE: judicial review of such transactions in TN. Especially in TN.)

May 8, 2011
12:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
bpaone#1397085 writes:
in response to Tilley:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Counter with dedicated terminals in courthouses for those few that don't have any kind of internet access whatsoever, for whatever reason they have. (Since, apparently, the access terminals at the library aren't good enough for either you or Bell Cow Maddy... provided, of course, the two of you are different entities.)

Your move. :-)

May 8, 2011
12:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
1boogieman writes:
Glad to see the banks are putting their bailout money to good use. Should have let them fail and see how they would perform on their mortgages without government dough.

May 8, 2011
12:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
nattybumpo writes:
in response to bokun59#294646:

I guess the people in commercial real estate are comprised of a vast amount of deadbeats:

Instead of easing up this year, however, lenders can expect the terrain to get even rockier as the volume of nonperforming commercial, construction and land loans jumps to $165 billion in 2010, up from $135.7 billion in 2009, according to new projections from Foresight Analytics.
That’s the highest volume of bad loans in 18 years, says Matthew Anderson, a partner with the Oakland, Calif.-based research firm. “It’s a historic high.” From Investors.

If you Google: "defaults on business real estate loans" you will get over 40 million hits. You clearly are not a business person. Or how about this: Still, there's no mistaking the unfinished high-rises and empty lots dotting the North Texas landscape.
Last fall, BBVA Compass took ownership of the complex from San Diego-based Fairfield, one of the nation's biggest apartment developers, which filed for bankruptcy in December.

Other lenders have foreclosed on properties, including the Mosaic apartments in downtown Dallas, after failing to reach new loan terms with the owners. In 2007, Dallas-based Hamilton Properties turned a formerly vacant high-rise into the 440-unit Mosaic apartments – with rent as high as $7,000 a month and amenities including a pool, gym, cafe and restaurant.

In May, Prudential Commercial Property Holding Co. foreclosed on the building's $48.5 million loan balance. In a February interview when the Mosaic was posted for foreclosure, he blamed a change in loan terms, an oversupply of downtown luxury residences and a lack of demand.

The company, which also developed the Aloft hotel, Davis Building lofts and DP&L Flats, all in downtown, made interest-only payments for the first three years of Mosaic's mortgage, but last year payments increased to the tune of $80,000 more a month, he said. Smack in the middle of Craig Ranch in McKinney sits a half-empty, $52 million apartment and retail complex called Times Square. It's the first and only commercial foreclosure for the 2,200-acre development, which includes homes, shops, offices, a golf course and a hospital. Developer David Craig didn't own or develop Times Square, but he's had to answer questions about the health of Craig Ranch.

"I wouldn't be honest if I said it didn't impact us. It is a trophy property right in the heart of our community," said Craig, who began the development 10 years ago. "The general public thinks Craig Ranch is the owner. Residents have asked me, 'Is Craig Ranch going to be all right?' " Yes, he says, Craig Ranch, which carries no debt on its land, is fine. Bank of America sold the Times Square property last week.

"It's just not something I want to talk about," said Steve Everbach, one of the original owners of Times Square. "We were a small firm. The firm has closed and we've moved on." From TREPP.

Natty, enjoy your ignorance.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Good Lord, I hope you're not a school teacher or one of my creditors!

May 8, 2011
12:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
hallsguy writes:
in response to elijahreece:

Some attentive Representative or Senator aught to turn this controversey on its head, offer an amendment, and institute a policy of judicial review for foreclosures in Tennessee.

All foreclosures should require a signature of a Chancery Court judge to become final.

The lawyers would love that. But they would have to work.

May 8, 2011
12:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
nattybumpo writes:
in response to Tilley:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'd say, that if they haven't made a mortgage payment in months or years, they already know and are darn sure they are in default and face the possibility of foreclosure.

If they wait to see it in the paper, they're clueless and beyond help anyway.

May 8, 2011
12:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
elijahreece writes:
in response to bpaone#1397085:

If you're referring to the lending institution, then yeah, they wrote 'em.

Then the mortgagor read 'em and signed 'em.

What's your point? (And speaking of, I completely agree with you RE: judicial review of such transactions in TN. Especially in TN.)

It was a pointless reply to a pointless comment :)

Whom did banks buy, I wonder, to dispose of judicial review in the 5 states that do not have it?

That would be an interesting history study . . .

Comments of 100
Newer Comments
Share your thoughts
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.

Username * Don't have an account? Sign up for a new account


Password * Can't remember? Reset your password


Comment




Comments can be shared on Facebook and Yahoo!. Add both options by connecting your profiles.


Most Popular
Viewed Commented Emailed
Citizen's Voice: Teachers unions behind woeful schools
Published 6/3/2011 at 11:32 p.m. 101 comments
Addict linked to Baumgartner lived at felon's, lawyer says
Published 6/3/2011 at 11:22 p.m. 12 comments
Party mom Leslie Janous back from cactus country, behind Knox bars
Published 6/3/2011 at 2:26 p.m. 64 comments
Party mom embezzler to appear in Knox court Monday
Published 6/3/2011 at 11:16 p.m. 24 comments
City officials want info on Beck Cultural Exchange Center's finances
Published 6/2/2011 at 11:36 p.m. 80 comments
Photo Galleries

Hike of the Month - Middl… Mugshots from Grainger Count… International Biscuit Festival 2011
Weather
Currently 36-Hour Your Photos

Currently
92°
A Few Clouds
Wind: W 5mph
Today
93°
66°
More Weather »
Video Tours
Home Clips Rental Clips Job Clips

Powered By Digital Media Communications
Business Directory
Search Browse
Business: e.g. salon

Location: e.g. Knoxville, TN



Powered by Local.com

Features
1
2
PreviousNext

Ask The Experts
Salon Visage
Ask us a question.


Ask The Experts
Imbrey & Associates
Ask us a question.


Bored already?
Find fun summer activities for kids around Knoxville


10 years of Bonnaroo
A timeline recapping the music, sweat and mud


iPad App
Start reading the News Sentinel E-Edition on your iPad today!


Summer camps
Knoxmoms.com has the full list of summer camps!


On Facebook
Like the KNS? Consider liking us on Facebook

Useful Links:Find Knoxville jobs. Jobs at the Knoxville News SentinelArchivesPhoto reprintsKnoxville visitor's guideSubscriber Services About Us | Contact usOn the Web:Today's A1Lottery resultsKnoxville databasesObituariesRSSOnline Exclusives:CrosswordSudokuBlogsText alertsMarket Square Web camTV guideAdvertising help:Place an adSearch display adsAdvertising onlineAdvertising in printSpecial Features:KnoxMomsNewspapers in EducationPet of the WeekFrom the Handlebarsboocoo auctionsLocal Business ProfilesOther products:Home Market Now magazineAuto Seller magazineKnoxville magazineCouponsBusiness Directory: See directory links
Business Directory
Business: e.g. salon

Location: e.g. Knoxville, TN



Powered by Local.com
Scripps Interactive Newspapers Group
2011 The E.W. Scripps Co.
More news from our local partners »Privacy Policy | User Agreement | About Our Ads






bokun59#294646 writes:
in response to nattybumpo:

Bokun wrote:
"In fact, it would make little sense to continue to pay a mortgage when you have no chance of recouping your money as your house has depressed in value. Any business person would tell you to cut your losses."

There are so many things wrong with this statement that it would be near impossible to answer on the forum. His statement speaks volumes about some of the great failures in our society.

I'll only say that, no responsible "business person", or for that matter, no responsible person would advocate "cutting your losses" by refusing to meet your obligations and pay your debt.

This is the "Deadbeats" creed!

I guess the people in commercial real estate are comprised of a vast amount of deadbeats:

Instead of easing up this year, however, lenders can expect the terrain to get even rockier as the volume of nonperforming commercial, construction and land loans jumps to $165 billion in 2010, up from $135.7 billion in 2009, according to new projections from Foresight Analytics.
That’s the highest volume of bad loans in 18 years, says Matthew Anderson, a partner with the Oakland, Calif.-based research firm. “It’s a historic high.” From Investors.

If you Google: "defaults on business real estate loans" you will get over 40 million hits. You clearly are not a business person. Or how about this: Still, there's no mistaking the unfinished high-rises and empty lots dotting the North Texas landscape.
Last fall, BBVA Compass took ownership of the complex from San Diego-based Fairfield, one of the nation's biggest apartment developers, which filed for bankruptcy in December.

Other lenders have foreclosed on properties, including the Mosaic apartments in downtown Dallas, after failing to reach new loan terms with the owners. In 2007, Dallas-based Hamilton Properties turned a formerly vacant high-rise into the 440-unit Mosaic apartments – with rent as high as $7,000 a month and amenities including a pool, gym, cafe and restaurant.

In May, Prudential Commercial Property Holding Co. foreclosed on the building's $48.5 million loan balance. In a February interview when the Mosaic was posted for foreclosure, he blamed a change in loan terms, an oversupply of downtown luxury residences and a lack of demand.

The company, which also developed the Aloft hotel, Davis Building lofts and DP&L Flats, all in downtown, made interest-only payments for the first three years of Mosaic's mortgage, but last year payments increased to the tune of $80,000 more a month, he said. Smack in the middle of Craig Ranch in McKinney sits a half-empty, $52 million apartment and retail complex called Times Square. It's the first and only commercial foreclosure for the 2,200-acre development, which includes homes, shops, offices, a golf course and a hospital. Developer David Craig didn't own or develop Times Square, but he's had to answer questions about the health of Craig Ranch.

"I wouldn't be honest if I said it didn't impact us. It is a trophy property right in the heart of our community," said Craig, who began the development 10 years ago. "The general public thinks Craig Ranch is the owner. Residents have asked me, 'Is Craig Ranch going to be all right?' " Yes, he says, Craig Ranch, which carries no debt on its land, is fine. Bank of America sold the Times Square property last week.

"It's just not something I want to talk about," said Steve Everbach, one of the original owners of Times Square. "We were a small firm. The firm has closed and we've moved on." From TREPP.

Natty, enjoy your ignorance.

May 8, 2011
11:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
thedude writes:
If the newspapers want three notices and the banks want one why not split the difference and have two? That way everyone gets a little bit of what they want and is better off than if the other side got their way completely.

May 8, 2011
noon
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
bokun59#294646 writes:
in response to bpaone#1397085:

In order:

* Really? Then I guess there would be no repercussions for defaulting. Like the hit to one's credit report, or being responsible for the deficiency balance (except in some BK cases), and all the time these cases spend in courts across the nation? Just practice for the judges and lawyers, I guess.

Oh, you meant CRIMINAL prohibition. Sorry, didn't realize you were trying to shape the parameters of the argument to fit your proof. (FYI: It's supposed to be the other way around - the proof is supposed to fit the argument.)

* And that "simple business decision" comes with well-deserved consequences for breach of contract. Mostly civil-side consequences, true, but consequences regardless.

So, while your point is now clear and duly noted, your point is also moot in regard to the topic being discussed.

(I'd also argue there are strong moral implications in regard to adhering to one's word of honor, as represented in this case by a signed contract promising to repay a certain debt a certain way on a certain schedule, but that, too, would also be moot.)

I don't think you understand what is meant by 'contract law'. There is no civil law in the US saying you cannot default on a contract. What there are are laws regarding how to deal with breaches of contract. Generally, the terms of a contract will adhere to each party UNLESS those terms are in conflict with other laws or are unconscionable. For a more general example, look up the Uniform Commercial Code. It will give you some idea about how contract law is handled in the US.

I never said there would be no repercussions; I merely stated that there are no criminal sanctions; nor are there even any civil law sanctions. Credit reporting agencies are private entities.

If morality was a concern as to debt, incorporation would never have been created. What is good for the business world is good for the consumer. When Kaybee Toys went under, do you think its creditors got paid? Was anyone personally responsible for its debt? No.

I cannot see how one can argue that business are morally free not to repay debts but human beings are not.

May 8, 2011
12:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
BeagleGirl writes:
in response to fourumtroll:

Sure lets give the banks a break after all none of this was their fault.

Actually that cost is passed onto the homeowners. Our house went into foreclosure last year and they tacked on over $15,000 in legal fees that are now added into our total owed.

May 8, 2011
12:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
bpaone#1397085 writes:
in response to bokun59#294646:

I don't think you understand what is meant by 'contract law'. There is no civil law in the US saying you cannot default on a contract. What there are are laws regarding how to deal with breaches of contract. Generally, the terms of a contract will adhere to each party UNLESS those terms are in conflict with other laws or are unconscionable. For a more general example, look up the Uniform Commercial Code. It will give you some idea about how contract law is handled in the US.

I never said there would be no repercussions; I merely stated that there are no criminal sanctions; nor are there even any civil law sanctions. Credit reporting agencies are private entities.

If morality was a concern as to debt, incorporation would never have been created. What is good for the business world is good for the consumer. When Kaybee Toys went under, do you think its creditors got paid? Was anyone personally responsible for its debt? No.

I cannot see how one can argue that business are morally free not to repay debts but human beings are not.

In order:

* I'm well aware of what you're trying to say. I just don't understand what, if any, bearing it has on the conversation itself.

We both agree there are no laws stating "thou shalt not default", but that there are serious negative consequences for so doing.

Moving on? Moving on.

* See previous.

* That's great. Your point is...?

* No one said they weren't, cupcake. But if you can point to an instance where I or anyone DID say that, then feel free to take 'em to task as you should.

As far as I'm concerned, debt owed is debt owed - regardless of who or what owes what to whom. What do you think?

May 8, 2011
12:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
bpaone#1397085 writes:
in response to BeagleGirl:

Actually that cost is passed onto the homeowners. Our house went into foreclosure last year and they tacked on over $15,000 in legal fees that are now added into our total owed.

Ouch - that sucks. So what happened? (And have you considered bankruptcy? If you make anything close to what I make, that extra $15k obviously isn't going to help you.)

May 8, 2011
12:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
bpaone#1397085 writes:
in response to thedude:

If the newspapers want three notices and the banks want one why not split the difference and have two? That way everyone gets a little bit of what they want and is better off than if the other side got their way completely.

Sounds fair. Post both online on a central website, reduce costs even further?

May 8, 2011
12:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
elijahreece writes:
Some attentive Representative or Senator aught to turn this controversey on its head, offer an amendment, and institute a policy of judicial review for foreclosures in Tennessee.

All foreclosures should require a signature of a Chancery Court judge to become final.

May 8, 2011
12:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
elijahreece writes:
in response to mainchannel:

Yea not the idiots that signed the papers.

Were not they the idiots that wrote the papers?

May 8, 2011
12:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
bpaone#1397085 writes:
in response to elijahreece:

Were not they the idiots that wrote the papers?

If you're referring to the lending institution, then yeah, they wrote 'em.

Then the mortgagor read 'em and signed 'em.

What's your point? (And speaking of, I completely agree with you RE: judicial review of such transactions in TN. Especially in TN.)

May 8, 2011
12:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
bpaone#1397085 writes:
in response to Tilley:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Counter with dedicated terminals in courthouses for those few that don't have any kind of internet access whatsoever, for whatever reason they have. (Since, apparently, the access terminals at the library aren't good enough for either you or Bell Cow Maddy... provided, of course, the two of you are different entities.)

Your move. :-)

May 8, 2011
12:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
1boogieman writes:
Glad to see the banks are putting their bailout money to good use. Should have let them fail and see how they would perform on their mortgages without government dough.

May 8, 2011
12:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
nattybumpo writes:
in response to bokun59#294646:

I guess the people in commercial real estate are comprised of a vast amount of deadbeats:

Instead of easing up this year, however, lenders can expect the terrain to get even rockier as the volume of nonperforming commercial, construction and land loans jumps to $165 billion in 2010, up from $135.7 billion in 2009, according to new projections from Foresight Analytics.
That’s the highest volume of bad loans in 18 years, says Matthew Anderson, a partner with the Oakland, Calif.-based research firm. “It’s a historic high.” From Investors.

If you Google: "defaults on business real estate loans" you will get over 40 million hits. You clearly are not a business person. Or how about this: Still, there's no mistaking the unfinished high-rises and empty lots dotting the North Texas landscape.
Last fall, BBVA Compass took ownership of the complex from San Diego-based Fairfield, one of the nation's biggest apartment developers, which filed for bankruptcy in December.

Other lenders have foreclosed on properties, including the Mosaic apartments in downtown Dallas, after failing to reach new loan terms with the owners. In 2007, Dallas-based Hamilton Properties turned a formerly vacant high-rise into the 440-unit Mosaic apartments – with rent as high as $7,000 a month and amenities including a pool, gym, cafe and restaurant.

In May, Prudential Commercial Property Holding Co. foreclosed on the building's $48.5 million loan balance. In a February interview when the Mosaic was posted for foreclosure, he blamed a change in loan terms, an oversupply of downtown luxury residences and a lack of demand.

The company, which also developed the Aloft hotel, Davis Building lofts and DP&L Flats, all in downtown, made interest-only payments for the first three years of Mosaic's mortgage, but last year payments increased to the tune of $80,000 more a month, he said. Smack in the middle of Craig Ranch in McKinney sits a half-empty, $52 million apartment and retail complex called Times Square. It's the first and only commercial foreclosure for the 2,200-acre development, which includes homes, shops, offices, a golf course and a hospital. Developer David Craig didn't own or develop Times Square, but he's had to answer questions about the health of Craig Ranch.

"I wouldn't be honest if I said it didn't impact us. It is a trophy property right in the heart of our community," said Craig, who began the development 10 years ago. "The general public thinks Craig Ranch is the owner. Residents have asked me, 'Is Craig Ranch going to be all right?' " Yes, he says, Craig Ranch, which carries no debt on its land, is fine. Bank of America sold the Times Square property last week.

"It's just not something I want to talk about," said Steve Everbach, one of the original owners of Times Square. "We were a small firm. The firm has closed and we've moved on." From TREPP.

Natty, enjoy your ignorance.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Good Lord, I hope you're not a school teacher or one of my creditors!

May 8, 2011
12:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
hallsguy writes:
in response to elijahreece:

Some attentive Representative or Senator aught to turn this controversey on its head, offer an amendment, and institute a policy of judicial review for foreclosures in Tennessee.

All foreclosures should require a signature of a Chancery Court judge to become final.

The lawyers would love that. But they would have to work.

May 8, 2011
12:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
nattybumpo writes:
in response to Tilley:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'd say, that if they haven't made a mortgage payment in months or years, they already know and are darn sure they are in default and face the possibility of foreclosure.

If they wait to see it in the paper, they're clueless and beyond help anyway.

May 8, 2011
12:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
elijahreece writes:
in response to bpaone#1397085:

If you're referring to the lending institution, then yeah, they wrote 'em.

Then the mortgagor read 'em and signed 'em.

What's your point? (And speaking of, I completely agree with you RE: judicial review of such transactions in TN. Especially in TN.)

It was a pointless reply to a pointless comment :)

Whom did banks buy, I wonder, to dispose of judicial review in the 5 states that do not have it?

That would be an interesting history study . . .