Tuesday, July 02, 2013

Neil Garfield pulls wool over foreclosure victim eyes

Sorry, Neil, but most of your foreclosure defense arguments in the below article seem utterly specious.  The courts certainly do not embrace the bulk of them.  Otherwise you'd cite some case law in support of them. Wouldn't you?

The central problem with all those arguments lies in the fact that the borrower signed the note and mortgage, defaulted on the note, and must forfeit the mortgaged realty.  THE COURT HAS A CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO ORDER THE FORECLOSURE AND SALE of the collateral.

The central problem with all the lawyers to whom you directed your screed lies in the fact that they only defend foreclosures so as to bilk their clients for as long as they keep them in the  house.  They know the client will lose the house to foreclosure, but only after WASTING $10,000 to $50,000 on legal fees for the privilege.

Virtually NONE of those lawyers bother examining the mortgage and related documents for evidence of tortious conduct, contract breaches, or legal errors by the original lender or its agents.  Nor did the borrowers do that.  Such a service from a truly competent professional examiner would only cost them $2500.  And then the borrower could notify the lender of the causes of action and demand a settlement.  The borrower DOES NOT NEED A LAWYER FOR THAT, Neil.  The lender will ALWAYS cave in with a good deal for the borrower because the lender knows the court and jury will barbecue them with treble damages for the fraud and some ungodly amount of punitive damages, plus legal fees, if the borrower hires a lawyer and takes the matter to court.

It's terribly hard to find lawyers who will take such cases.  They'd rather defend foreclosures for which NO PERMANENT DEFENSE EXISTS.  They'd rather bilk their clients to keep them in the house for a few more months while the lawyer files cookie-cutter pleadings (like the one on your site) that are doomed to fail, but do drag out the foreclosure process.  Maybe, Neil, you could use the influence of your bully pulpit to encourage more attorneys to start getting mortgage examinations done, and then settle or sue on the basis of the causes of action found.  That would certainly be better than the legal practice nearly all foreclosure defense attorneys engage in now, wouldn't it?

Bob Hurt

On 7/2/2013 4:00 PM, Livinglies's Weblog wrote:

No comments: