Because I post on several real estate related boards, I've been getting some inquiries from reporters asking if I know anybody who is facing Problem X. This could include mystery fees from mortgage companies or foreclosure or whatever.
The M.O. is pretty clear. Write the story. Then look for a face and quotes.
Oh, and Tanta, while you're reporting on the reporters, perhaps you'd care to peruse this story, which appears to be a Xerox of a press release proclaiming the astounding and joyful success of HopeNOW:
HOPE NOW: Mortgage Workouts Top One Million
By Paul Jackson March 3, 2008
Approximately 1,035,000 homeowners have received some form of loan workout since July 2007, according to the most recent data released by HOPE NOW Monday morning. Workouts included 758,000 repayment plans initiated and 278,000 loan modifications, the group said.
So it's true that if you don't pay your mortgage you will end up in foreclosure? With all of this securitization, lost notes, and servicer incompetence I thought everyone got a free pass.
Okay, having screwed up my courage and read the article and the remainder of the post, I concur that we are both old farts.
Heck, I joined a fitness club the other day and actually read the contract before I signed it, which surprised the young manager. I even asked a question. And I agree that this is what yo absolutely do with any contract. Read it and iron it out. And then keep a copy of both the original and final versions.
But this is a world in which the media caters to those who are caught in their own contractual screwups and institutions (seemingly) routinely ignore their own obligations to customers.
So why are you surprised at the article in the first place? This is why I ignore the NYT and have since I turned 32.
Approximately 1,035,000 homeowners have received some form of loan workout since July 2007, according to the most recent data released by HOPE NOW Monday morning. Workouts included 758,000 repayment plans initiated and 278,000 loan modifications, the group said.
Not only that, but there might even really be a decent story to be written about forbearance agreements.
I mean, I'm not willing to jump on the "you signed it so shut up" bandwagon. People do sign stuff they don't read, or that they don't understand.
GM had an opportunity to educate people about what these agreements say and why you should have them looked over by a lawyer, and where you can find a lawyer if you're broke.
Okay, the story was disjointed and poorly written, but sooooo topical.
Yet look at what GM accomplished.
There is no meaning or clarity in the world and she faithfully replicates that environment. Things happen without any reason. We don't know why. Time is not linear. Effects occur without cause.
How better to express this conundrum that to put Sisyphus, as it were, on its head in a quote from the protagonist himself, Mark Wellman:
It feels like you got knocked down in a hole and youre handcuffed and you work your way up to the top and there is someone there to kick you back down, he said.
Reporters are NOT LAWYERS.
They always mess up stories involving any sort of legal action whatsoever.
Criminal, civil, contract, "teh Conistution," you name it.
You might think that the Times has a lawyer on staff, one that could have at least explained to the hapless reporter that the court was simply enforcing a settlement agreement that the Wellmans had already agreed to.
But where is the junp-on-the-band-wagon "mortgage trouble" fun in that?
Incidentally, I don't go to the Times for medical advice, either. Doctors, lawyers, Indian Chiefs-- good friends to have.
And thanks for calling out the ADD-addled writing that The Times finds fashionable nowadays.
Steelhead, journalistic standards at The Times haven't declined lately. They fell apart in the 1990s with the publication of pseudoscandals like Whitewater and may have actually improved since the Jayson Blair/Judith Miller exposures. What has fallen apart increasingly is style standards. As Tanta says, Morgenson tells the story out of order. This makes it almost impossible to tell what's going on.
Three Torches, I'm not a lawyer either. But there is the implication in the story that the onerous fees may be the result of fraud. It's my understanding that if fraud were proven-- or even reasonably suspected--the forbearance agreement would not stand.
That's a big if, but it gives me a reason to suspend judgment until I know more about the facts.
I'm overcome by the idea that a bank is not allowed to collect legal fees and fees for hazard insurance. No one is alleging that the borrowers were paying at the time, so of course the lienholder did place insurance. Maybe the real allegation is that the fees for that insurance were improperly high, but we don't get that explanation in the article.
Yes, Tanta, this is excruciatingly bad reporting. I'm trying to control the urge to copy language from standard mortgages and notes to send to GM. You know, all that stuff about the legal fees and the insurance.
If you file bankruptcy five times, the entity owning your mortgage is going to be racking up legal bills!
Anyway, if the bank's "improper" charges are approximately $40,000, and the current balance is around $345,000, not paying on the house is racking up the interest and insurance money very quickly. I have the sneaking suspicion that these folks would have been better off going through foreclosure a while ago and walking away with some money.
Of course, they haven't paid in over three years, so I suppose they are getting quite a bit of free rent.
By the time I reached the end of this story I felt sorry for the bank, not the borrower.
As a bankruptcy lawyer, I'm often called by borrowers (in my practice corporations) who are in default. Typically, they're hoping for some "silver bullet" to give them leverage with the lender. Nine out of ten times, there's nothing wrong with the documentation, and their only real alternatives are to turn over the keys to the lender, drag it out while the lender forecloses/enforces the debt, or make the economic case to the lender that both parties would be better off with the lender eating some part of the debt (or turning it into some other set of rights, like equity or subordinated debt). Often the borrowers become obsessed with the "drag it out" option and confuse the tactic of forcing the lender to jump through every hoop with having an actual legal defense. The folks in this story fit the latter profile to a T.
I guess it's the American way to "die hard," but I don't see any point or benefit to what these people are doing (other than that they've been able to hang out in the house for 11 years...). It seems like a simple equation: they owe more than they can afford to pay. As Mr. Dylan said, the man "wants 11 dollar bills, you only got 10."
Uncle Festus - I don't think making bankruptcy lawyers feel sorry for the bank was what GM had in mind. It is an accomplishment of sorts, but not what she had in mind.
Sportsfan - that is a beautiful summary. GM did indeed transport us to the alternate NY Times universe Things happen without any reason. We don't know why. Time is not linear. Effects occur without cause. I started guffawing.
Shnaps writes: A weak article indeed. Wretched never does bother to cite a single specific 'onerous', 'dubious' or 'questionable' charge. If I wanted to read an article about 'mystery charges' and 'fee gouging', I'd prefer something about Ticketmaster.
There are more concrete examples of 'dubious' and 'questionable' charges in my latest Bank of America statement.
Often the borrowers become obsessed with the "drag it out" option and confuse the tactic of forcing the lender to jump through every hoop with having an actual legal defense.
Yes, and what really pisses me off is that there's a bunch of so-called consumer "advocates" out there encouraging borrowers to do this. All it means is that the borrowers end up owing waaay more at the end of the case than they did at the beginning.
This borrower either got five different BK judges telling him "nice try," or one BK judge telling him that five times, or some combination thereof, since 1996. When do you just give up?
Maybe the real allegation is that the fees for that insurance were improperly high
That's where I thought the article was going, since a) everyone pretty much accepts that attorney fees are high but b)most people don't realize forced-placed insurance is expensive until they actually see the charge. I swear, everyone who has ever been forced-placed calls in to bitch about how expensive it is. I can't tell you how many times I have had to explain this - something along the lines of: "no shit, Sherlock - insurance is priced according to risk - and insuring you is an extremely risky proposition. Had you kept the collateral insured yourself, we wouldn't be having this conversation."
BTW, If Mr.Wellman shows up to comment in this thread, I'll poop my pants.
MOM, thank you for the kind compliment and thank you also for your many well reasoned comments on topics I'm trying to understand by reading this blog.
Nicely written Tanta. As I always state, do your own research as every writer (sorry but this includes Tanta and CR) have their opinions and biases. You have to assume that everything that you read may not cover all the facts. Reminds me of writing papers and twisting the facts to support one view and then the other view. As for myself, I keep photocopies of everything with handwritten notes and signatures where I have as for a clarification and recieved a verbal response.
I was calling BS because it seemed like cheerleading by a group with a cause. (Wasnt this Bush's deal)
One million work outs / mods in six months seems like an awfully lot If they only worked mon-fri thats over 3,800 a day. Especially if these were sold off or securitized. 277k of these million had the contracts altered.
Maybe my BS call was presumptive but a million seems very very high...
I don't have anything relevent to say about this post in particular, but I do have an opinion about the length-of-Tanta's-posts dispute over the weekend:
I know almost nothing about finances so I need the careful, step by step explanations Tanta regularly provides. In fact I often skip shorter posts on the blog to read the long ones, especially the ones with lots of original content (as opposed to extended quotations) because I often have no idea how a particular fact or news story fits into the larger pattern.
I have found that almost anything can be interesting when examined in appropriate detail. I will continue to seek out Tanta's longer posts and I expect to enjoy them when i do.
Perhaps the real reason is that everyone else likes Faulkneresque conventions of narrative dislocation and evocative allusion rather than declarative sentences and Aristotelian unity.
Tanta, you may have missed your calling as a literary critic.
Shnaps, I swear, everyone who has ever been forced-placed calls in to bitch about how expensive it is. I can't tell you how many times I have had to explain this - something along the lines of: "no shit, Sherlock - insurance is priced according to risk - and insuring you is an extremely risky proposition. Had you kept the collateral insured yourself, we wouldn't be having this conversation."
Why sir, surely you don't mean to suggest that borrowers not paying their mortgages might abandon the home, gut it, or fail to maintain it. That they might do something like look at a roof leak and ignore it, since they know they are going to be out the door anyway, thus turning a $500 repair into a $13,000 repair. How can you make such a dastardly allegation when we all know that these folks are the saintly victims exploited by robber baron banks! There could not possibly be any enhanced risk for which insurance companies would charge extra.
Indeed, in this very article we have GM supplied proof that such folks do stay in their homes longer than the average mortgage-paying homeowner! Eleven years, in fact! Just call it pride of non-ownership!
How many borrows will have their principle reduced
and then still face foreclosure ? The bank would then have an even greater loss. It just postpones
the bottom. The sooner we get to the bottom the
quicker we can start moving back up.
The M.O. is pretty clear. Write the story. Then look for a face and quotes.
That's fairly accurate. Most reporters don't "write the story" before they get the face and quotes, but they know what the story is going to be about before they get the face and quotes.
Let me give you an example. I'm writing an article about dealing with the mortgage servicer's loss mitigation department. Based on what I've been reading and hearing, I've decided that it's less frustrating and more efficient for the borrower to talk to someone at a nonprofit housing counseling agency, either local or through Hope Now, rather than trying to get hold of someone at the lender's loss-mit department.
I've talked briefly (because they don't want to talk) with a couple of servicers, and I've talked with nonprofit housing counselors. I think one can make a good case that the servicers have outsourced their loss-mit intake to nonprofits, so the nonprofits are the place to go. Now I'm looking for "real people" -- delinquent borrowers who used housing counselors as a liaison with the loss-mit department -- to interview.
A big majority of reporters would tackle the story this way. I welcome suggestions for doing it another way.
What Morgenson did is little different. She really does seem to have written her story, and damn any inconvenient facts that get in the way. The telling evidence of that: She writes about "onerous" fees, and implies that the fees precipitated the foreclosure, but she never enumerates any of these fees, and she glosses over the fact that the Wellmans "paid their mortgage until 2004" Does that mean they haven't paid since? Morgenson doesn't say.
I'm wondering about the pro bono part. Obviously I'm not a lawyer, and it's easy to cast doubts after the verdict, but the decisions of the courts seem to have been fairly obvious before hand. So what were they thinking was going to happen? If you're going to do pro bono work, shouldn't there be a decent chance of success? Or was this a negotiating strategy? Or in other words, wouldn't the kindest thing to do be to tell them to seek other avenues?
I actually happened to read that article first, before I came to CR today. I had a vague feeling of "Hmm, this guy doesn't seem to deserve sympathy, the story line doesn't seem to match the facts mentioned about him". In fact, I even had a feeling "I wouldn't want to be bidding on that house, this guy may do something crazy to the winner".
Finding Tanta's post after reading the original article is a nice treat!
Funny you mention this weekend's dustup. I was going to write a snark about figuring out how to profit from yet another excellent Tanta post. Instead, Tanta, thanks.
yes your directives about always reading contracts you sign and if it says you had a lawyer, you'd better have gotten a lawyer...all good advice.
But after reading the case another caveat comes to mind...if you get a lawyer get a good one...their "free" legal advice they garnered looks to be worth about all they paid for it.
especially the rulings regarding the motion for summary judgment and findings of fact sections...this appears to be straight forward legal reasoning.
the Defendants-Appellants (mark wellman and spouse) appear to have had bush league legal representation. No?
insurance is priced according to risk - and insuring you is an extremely risky proposition
Never considered it from that stand point. I just assumed if I didn't do the shopping, they were going to go with the most convenient option possible,..usually the most expensive.
Oh, Lyndal just sent me a copy of the second-to-last dismissal of the second-to-last BK filing of these folks (I think that's the chronology). It turns out that at least one judge had the same response sportsfan had:
There is no question that the Debtors have failed to make payments in accordance with their most recent Chapter 13 plan since May 2004 and that this dismissed case is the Debtors third failed attempt at
Chapter 13 (or fourth, if their first Chapter 13 case that converted to Chapter 7 is counted). . . the Debtors continue to persist in their belief that a Chapter 13 plan is fluid concept, readily altered to meet their changing needs and their unilateral opinion of the value of any creditors claim. The Debtors fail to recognize that a Chapter 13 plan is a contract with their creditors that assures those creditors a steady stream of reliable payments, and that once confirmed, the plan may be modified only with court approval.
Case No. 03-51439
Southern District of Ohio
Eastern Division at Colombus
Opinion and Order Denying Motion for Stay Pending Appeal
October 4, 2005
you know another thought comes to mind about how to ease the crisis.
home "owners" who are upside down and on the ropes don't need to have principal forgiven...don't need interest rates reduced...don't need to have ARMs converted to fixed rates...
they just need cheap legal representation and a stubbornness to remain in residence and in turn get free or reduced housing for several, or more years!!
their problems solved...or postponed...but the banks and securities people...not so much.
just assumed if I didn't do the shopping, they were going to go with the most convenient option possible,..usually the most expensive.
Well, it's true they don't comparison shop force-place carriers for you. Most have a contract with one or more carriers who will offer force-place coverage, and that's what you get.
But it's mostly expensive to insure a deliquent borrower for the same reason these folks pay higher interest rates on their loans. Think of it as "subprime insurance."
It is not a convenient service for people who just don't want to mess with getting their own insurance and think the lender will do it for them.
looking at the mess finding i have less and less sympathy for many if not all the players involved, from wall street to main street.
unfortunately if "WE" (ie gov, taxpayer and banks etc) don't all give a little (or a lot) it's looking more and more like the system gets busted up and we all suffer.
some suffer more than others, but nearly all take a hit one way or another, (unless you live on a self sufficient island somewhere)
And why stop paying in 2004 because you have questions about something you signed separately in 2003? Isn't standard practice to continue to pay while contesting? At least in escrow? Or,... should I let the dead horse lie in peace.
Again, my point is about how anyone like GM could take a look at the facts of this case and conclude that the most probable explanation is that Nat City caused it all by padding fees and that it has fuck-all to do with missing assignments.
That is powerful evidence of not just bias on the reporter's part but some kind of mania.
She has mentioned that Porter study in four separate articles in the last several months, by my count, and she's apparently still unable to stop flogging it, even when she runs into a situation in which judge after judge found that the borrowers are bankruptcy abusers.
Which makes me want to say, by the way, that the anti-cram-down contingent has some proving of its case to do in regards to people "getting deals" from BK judges. This particular case indicates to me that BK judges are a whole lot harder to fool than some people claim they are.
"the Debtors continue to persist in their belief that a Chapter 13 plan is fluid concept, readily altered to meet their changing needs and their unilateral opinion of the value of any creditors claim. The Debtors fail to recognize that a Chapter 13 plan is a contract with their creditors that assures those creditors a steady stream of reliable payments, and that once confirmed, the plan may be modified only with court approval."
"What was the body of work upon which GM obtained her job at the grey lady?"
Gretchen worked at Forbes for a decade at least. She then became the spokesperson for Steve Forbes' presidential campaign (which shows an appalling lack of taste/foresight in my view, if only for Steve's stand on "family values" - which is curious considering his Dad's tastes).
I still think she's got a great nose for stories - perhaps one of the best in journalism. She just makes so many damn mistakes/assumes she knows the narrative. This may be why so many people find her work frustrating - there's nothing worse than a gifted student frittering away their talents through laziness.
[If you really aren't sure that the other party to the agreement owns your loan, don't sign it.]
That's easy for you to say.
If you're head's on a chopping block, I'd like to see you do the same. ALL of these agreements are signed under duress.
[Best possible thing you can do: see a lawyer.]
Really? Like, who? The most aggressive lawyers are the Legal Aid types, however most borrowers "make too much money" to qualify. And... due to the high caseloads, these guys aren't as sharp as they used to be.
And, the attorneys who specialize are nearly all working for the lenders.
Say you find someone who's actually qualified to represent you... how can you afford their fees? If you're in FC, there's not a lot of room in the budget for a GOOD lawyer.
Based on this and a number of other stories, there aren't enough pro bono attorneys available... and those who are may not be that sharp.
The idea that all you have to do is call an attorney is most interesting to me, in that many, many Chapter 13 participants are shocked to learn how much they own on their mortgages... even those who've made it to discharge. Those calls to the attorney are seldom returned, and answers are almost never supplied.
So I guess if the paid attorneys don't return phone calls, then perhaps it does make sense to go pro bono.
the Debtors continue to persist in their belief that a Chapter 13 plan is fluid concept, readily altered to meet their changing needs and their unilateral opinion of the value of any creditors claim. The Debtors fail to recognize that a Chapter 13 plan is a contract with their creditors that assures those creditors a steady stream of reliable payments, and that once confirmed, the plan may be modified only with court approval.
Maybe GM thought the Faulknerian style appropriate because this is exactly the way a Faulkerian character would think?
If you're head's on a chopping block, I'd like to see you do the same. ALL of these agreements are signed under duress.
Only YOU know, really and truly, what your own financial situation is.
Look, I understand it's a bad time. But you could let the lender foreclose. You are trying to keep your house by getting the lender to offer you concessions. At this point, if you can't afford an RE attorney to review the document for you, I question whether you should be trying to keep the house.
You could, after all, talk to an attorney long before you're a day away from the courthouse steps. I'm not trying to blame the victim; I'm trying to suggest to people that they get realistic sooner rather than later.
But really, I ask you what you expect someone like NC to do. They can offer the forbearance, which among other things involves the borrower waiving a lot of rights and defenses, and require that the borrower be represented by counsel before signing it, or they can let the borrower sign it without a lawyer. You know what would happen in the latter case.
Or, they could offer these forbearances without making the borrower stipulate to the foreclosure process. What good would that do? That would stretch the thing out for years, as the borrower defaults on the plan over and over again and FC process has to restart over and over again.
So the only thing for NC to do is either require counsel, or just proceed directly with FC. You would prefer that?
As it happens, the article indicates that NC had worked things out with these borrowers several times in the past, and it never stuck. Furthermore, these borrowers apparently had equity, so going all the way to FC would have cost NC practically nothing (there would have been enough proceeds from liquidation to pay them off without loss, even with fees in there).
It is unfortunate that folks like the Wellmans lead lenders like NC to write such legalistic agreements, that require lawyers to decipher, but what's the alternative?
And don't get me started on people who buy homes in the first place without either understanding the terms of their mortgage or paying someone to read it and explain it to them. If you do that, you are taking a risk. Taking a risk is neither illegal nor immoral, and in many cases it's well worth taking. BUT IT IS A RISK. Admit it and get on with your life.
[At this point, if you can't afford an RE attorney to review the document for you, I question whether you should be trying to keep the house. ]
Wait a minute.
Around here, you get three payments behind, your house is on the courthouse steps 30 days later.
If you've had a legitimate hardship, it's a wee bit difficult to pony up the $$$ for "up-front funds" just to get the lender to agree to work with you... much less hire counsel.
Assuming you could even find competent counsel. I don't think we have that in this story, because the borrowers should have been advised to bankroll any mortgage payments not made... that MIGHT have gotten them to a meeting of the minds in spite of all the shenanigans.
And, as heard at the most recent MBA conference, many servicers are on the hunt for as many dollars on the front end as they can squeeze out of the borrowers.
Unless they'll take pocket lint as payment, the ability to hire counsel would disqualify nearly everyone. And, this story does illustrate just how difficult it can be to find a lawyer who knows what he's doing.
In any case, this story doesn't represent typical circumstances any more than the exec in FL or the SS couple in NYC who bought a 1/2 mil condo with a NINA.
However, a story about a typical situation would be tedious, and it wouldn't sell a lot of papers, nor would it be discussed like this one. So in the end, the author did what really mattered.
Well, robert, I don't know what you want me to do. Tell people to sign any agreement put in front of them, even if it contains waivers of rights, indemnifications, and other legal terms that they don't understand? Is that what you tell people to do?
If you feel like signing a workout agreement is your only good choice, and you think it is worthwhile to do that even if you cannot afford a lawyer, then you can do it. Nothing stops you.
It's just not going to be possible for you to find some accountant or lawyer a year later who says you were taken advantage of, if in fact you signed an agreement that says "I am represented by counsel" and you weren't.
I didn't suggest this story represents anything "typical." But Morgenson implies that fee-gouging is pretty widespread, if not "typical."
That demands us to ask what borrowers should do. I can't think of anything for them to do except examine the contracts and the fees before signing. What's your suggestion?
The Wellmans live in a judicial foreclosure state. That means that they were being sued by Nat City. They signed an agreement to settle the suit. You think I should suggest that you just skip getting yourself a lawyer if you are sued?
Bad things happen to people. I'm not cold-hearted. If you are unable to afford counsel, then there it is. But what do you want the lender to do for you in that case? The lender cannot represent you; the lender cannot give you legal counsel; it isn't allowed for plaintiff's counsel to represent defendant. Nobody on the internet or in the newspaper can represent you in court.
Are you making an argument for better legal aid to strapped homeowners? You get no particular beef from me about that. But if you are telling people not to waste money on a lawyer, you are giving terrible advice.
Tanta never ceases to amaze me. how does she type so well with her wrinkled reptilian snout? nodoby knows.
Well, I believe MoM said dinosaurs, and since the modern representatives of Dinosauria are Aves; let's say pecking it out with Birds of Paradise beaks.
Birds are categorised as the biological class Aves in Linnaean taxonomy. Phylogenetic taxonomy places Aves in the dinosaur clade Theropoda.[3] Aves and a sister group, the clade Crocodilia, together are the sole living members of the reptile clade Archosauria
[But if you are telling people not to waste money on a lawyer, you are giving terrible advice. ]
What I'm saying is that competent counsel [for BORROWERS] in these matters is scarce and those with legitimate hardship typically don't have the available funds for it.
As a person who greatly enjoys faulkneresque conventions of narrative dislocation and evocative allusion rather than declarative sentences and Aristotelian unity I really enjoyed the reference to "Faulkneresque conventions of narrative dislocation and evocative allusion rather than declarative sentences and Aristotelian unity."
One day after the author of Love and Consequences confessed that she had made up the memoir about her supposed life as a foster child in gang-infested South-Central Los Angeles, the focus turned to her publisher and the news organizations that helped publicize what appeared to be a searing autobiography.
The author's agent is the daughter of the former editor of the book section, and the NYT had a story on it and a review.
tanta,
NYT's mind scrambling narrative order has been going on for some time. My personal grapevine says they think readers prefer the chaotic non-linear arrngement because it is 'exciting.'
I continue to be amazed by folks who sign contracts and believe that it doesn't apply to them. When I bought a house, I had a question about something on the agreement. I went in and hired a lawyer for a half hour to review it and answer a few questions. I've done that every time I've been in a situation where I need an answer to a legal question. It's not expensive at all and you will at least learn if you need to pony up the bucks for more legal consul.
Most importantly, they claim they found out that they were overcharged on fees when they ran the figures through Quick Books. I don't see any reason why they couldn't have done that PRIOR to signing anything. It's totally bogus and they deserve to lose the place.
Can I short Gretchen Morgenson's future earnings stream? It should be possible.
Tanta never ceases to amaze me. how does she type so well with her wrinkled reptilian snout? nodoby knows.
Because I post on several real estate related boards, I've been getting some inquiries from reporters asking if I know anybody who is facing Problem X. This could include mystery fees from mortgage companies or foreclosure or whatever.
The M.O. is pretty clear. Write the story. Then look for a face and quotes.
Oh, and Tanta, while you're reporting on the reporters, perhaps you'd care to peruse this story, which appears to be a Xerox of a press release proclaiming the astounding and joyful success of HopeNOW:
HOPE NOW: Mortgage Workouts Top One Million
By Paul Jackson March 3, 2008
Approximately 1,035,000 homeowners have received some form of loan workout since July 2007, according to the most recent data released by HOPE NOW Monday morning. Workouts included 758,000 repayment plans initiated and 278,000 loan modifications, the group said.
HOPE NOW: Mortgage Workouts Top One Million : HousingWire || financial news for the mortgage market
So it's true that if you don't pay your mortgage you will end up in foreclosure? With all of this securitization, lost notes, and servicer incompetence I thought everyone got a free pass.
The M.O. is pretty clear. Write the story. Then look for a face and quotes.
And if the face and quotes don't match your story, then leave a bunch of stuff out.
Nodoby should be suggesting there is something 'questionable' about force-placed hazard insurance.
What's with all the Ha8ers piling on NCC the last coupla days?
What's with all the Ha8ers piling on NCC the last coupla days?
Because piling on CFC is sooo last week.
Faulkneresque? Aristotlean Unity?
Exceptionally high octane coffee and a writer's manual.
Wow. The scary part is that what you write with these bigggggg words actually makes sense.
And now that I've prayed for courage, I'll go back and finish the rest of the article.
Looks like Ben's firing up the helicopter:
Bernanke Urges Banks to Forgive Portion of Mortgages
Bernanke Urges Banks to Forgive Portion of Mortgages (Update6) - Bloomberg.com
Perdition writes:
Looks like Ben's firing up the helicopter:
Bernanke Urges Banks to Forgive Portion of Mortgages
.............
Free Money!!
Okay, having screwed up my courage and read the article and the remainder of the post, I concur that we are both old farts.
Heck, I joined a fitness club the other day and actually read the contract before I signed it, which surprised the young manager. I even asked a question. And I agree that this is what yo absolutely do with any contract. Read it and iron it out. And then keep a copy of both the original and final versions.
But this is a world in which the media caters to those who are caught in their own contractual screwups and institutions (seemingly) routinely ignore their own obligations to customers.
So why are you surprised at the article in the first place? This is why I ignore the NYT and have since I turned 32.
Tanta:
The journalistic standards at the NY Times have been deteriorating for years. The paper is fast becoming irrelevant.
But GMs story made me feel a lot more than yours did Tanta...
I was about to go join a movement to help those helpless to the big bad machine....
Now I don't have much to do with my morning.... jeezzz.....
Perdition:
Woo-Hoo!
Maybe I can pay an appraiser to write an artifically low appraisal on my home and get this bad boy written down.
Disneyland here I come.
A weak article indeed. Wretched never does bother to cite a single specific 'onerous', 'dubious' or 'questionable' charge.
If I wanted to read an article about 'mystery charges' and 'fee gouging', I'd prefer something about Ticketmaster.
Approximately 1,035,000 homeowners have received some form of loan workout since July 2007, according to the most recent data released by HOPE NOW Monday morning. Workouts included 758,000 repayment plans initiated and 278,000 loan modifications, the group said.
I call "cough cough" bullshit....
Not only that, but there might even really be a decent story to be written about forbearance agreements.
I mean, I'm not willing to jump on the "you signed it so shut up" bandwagon. People do sign stuff they don't read, or that they don't understand.
GM had an opportunity to educate people about what these agreements say and why you should have them looked over by a lawyer, and where you can find a lawyer if you're broke.
But that's not the story she wants to tell.
I call "cough cough" bullshit....
On what grounds?
Okay, the story was disjointed and poorly written, but sooooo topical.
Yet look at what GM accomplished.
There is no meaning or clarity in the world and she faithfully replicates that environment. Things happen without any reason. We don't know why. Time is not linear. Effects occur without cause.
How better to express this conundrum that to put Sisyphus, as it were, on its head in a quote from the protagonist himself, Mark Wellman:
It feels like you got knocked down in a hole and youre handcuffed and you work your way up to the top and there is someone there to kick you back down, he said.
GM the existentialist.
Thanks, Tanta. Nicely done.
Reporters are NOT LAWYERS.
They always mess up stories involving any sort of legal action whatsoever.
Criminal, civil, contract, "teh Conistution," you name it.
You might think that the Times has a lawyer on staff, one that could have at least explained to the hapless reporter that the court was simply enforcing a settlement agreement that the Wellmans had already agreed to.
But where is the junp-on-the-band-wagon "mortgage trouble" fun in that?
Incidentally, I don't go to the Times for medical advice, either. Doctors, lawyers, Indian Chiefs-- good friends to have.
Thanks for the magic decoding, Tanta.
And thanks for calling out the ADD-addled writing that The Times finds fashionable nowadays.
Steelhead, journalistic standards at The Times haven't declined lately. They fell apart in the 1990s with the publication of pseudoscandals like Whitewater and may have actually improved since the Jayson Blair/Judith Miller exposures. What has fallen apart increasingly is style standards. As Tanta says, Morgenson tells the story out of order. This makes it almost impossible to tell what's going on.
Three Torches, I'm not a lawyer either. But there is the implication in the story that the onerous fees may be the result of fraud. It's my understanding that if fraud were proven-- or even reasonably suspected--the forbearance agreement would not stand.
That's a big if, but it gives me a reason to suspend judgment until I know more about the facts.
Reporters are NOT LAWYERS.
Yeah, but I'm not a lawyer either.
My big speciality is reading written English.
I'm overcome by the idea that a bank is not allowed to collect legal fees and fees for hazard insurance. No one is alleging that the borrowers were paying at the time, so of course the lienholder did place insurance. Maybe the real allegation is that the fees for that insurance were improperly high, but we don't get that explanation in the article.
Yes, Tanta, this is excruciatingly bad reporting. I'm trying to control the urge to copy language from standard mortgages and notes to send to GM. You know, all that stuff about the legal fees and the insurance.
If you file bankruptcy five times, the entity owning your mortgage is going to be racking up legal bills!
Anyway, if the bank's "improper" charges are approximately $40,000, and the current balance is around $345,000, not paying on the house is racking up the interest and insurance money very quickly. I have the sneaking suspicion that these folks would have been better off going through foreclosure a while ago and walking away with some money.
Of course, they haven't paid in over three years, so I suppose they are getting quite a bit of free rent.
By the time I reached the end of this story I felt sorry for the bank, not the borrower.
As a bankruptcy lawyer, I'm often called by borrowers (in my practice corporations) who are in default. Typically, they're hoping for some "silver bullet" to give them leverage with the lender. Nine out of ten times, there's nothing wrong with the documentation, and their only real alternatives are to turn over the keys to the lender, drag it out while the lender forecloses/enforces the debt, or make the economic case to the lender that both parties would be better off with the lender eating some part of the debt (or turning it into some other set of rights, like equity or subordinated debt). Often the borrowers become obsessed with the "drag it out" option and confuse the tactic of forcing the lender to jump through every hoop with having an actual legal defense. The folks in this story fit the latter profile to a T.
I guess it's the American way to "die hard," but I don't see any point or benefit to what these people are doing (other than that they've been able to hang out in the house for 11 years...). It seems like a simple equation: they owe more than they can afford to pay. As Mr. Dylan said, the man "wants 11 dollar bills, you only got 10."
I'm still waiting for NoVa's take... there must be an appropriate psalm that would apply to GM this morning...
Uncle Festus - I don't think making bankruptcy lawyers feel sorry for the bank was what GM had in mind. It is an accomplishment of sorts, but not what she had in mind.
Sportsfan - that is a beautiful summary. GM did indeed transport us to the alternate NY Times universe Things happen without any reason. We don't know why. Time is not linear. Effects occur without cause. I started guffawing.
Not a good day for the Gray Lady's business section. Sorkin's article on Edgar Bronfman was absolutely awful.
Quick synopsis: Bronfman is stupid, but he isn't, but he is - and he's my friend whom I've known for a long time. Actually, he's Icarus.
Shnaps writes: A weak article indeed. Wretched never does bother to cite a single specific 'onerous', 'dubious' or 'questionable' charge. If I wanted to read an article about 'mystery charges' and 'fee gouging', I'd prefer something about Ticketmaster.
There are more concrete examples of 'dubious' and 'questionable' charges in my latest Bank of America statement.
Often the borrowers become obsessed with the "drag it out" option and confuse the tactic of forcing the lender to jump through every hoop with having an actual legal defense.
Yes, and what really pisses me off is that there's a bunch of so-called consumer "advocates" out there encouraging borrowers to do this. All it means is that the borrowers end up owing waaay more at the end of the case than they did at the beginning.
This borrower either got five different BK judges telling him "nice try," or one BK judge telling him that five times, or some combination thereof, since 1996. When do you just give up?
Maybe the real allegation is that the fees for that insurance were improperly high
That's where I thought the article was going, since a) everyone pretty much accepts that attorney fees are high but b)most people don't realize forced-placed insurance is expensive until they actually see the charge. I swear, everyone who has ever been forced-placed calls in to bitch about how expensive it is. I can't tell you how many times I have had to explain this - something along the lines of: "no shit, Sherlock - insurance is priced according to risk - and insuring you is an extremely risky proposition. Had you kept the collateral insured yourself, we wouldn't be having this conversation."
BTW, If Mr.Wellman shows up to comment in this thread, I'll poop my pants.
MOM, thank you for the kind compliment and thank you also for your many well reasoned comments on topics I'm trying to understand by reading this blog.
Nicely written Tanta. As I always state, do your own research as every writer (sorry but this includes Tanta and CR) have their opinions and biases. You have to assume that everything that you read may not cover all the facts. Reminds me of writing papers and twisting the facts to support one view and then the other view. As for myself, I keep photocopies of everything with handwritten notes and signatures where I have as for a clarification and recieved a verbal response.
I was calling BS because it seemed like cheerleading by a group with a cause. (Wasnt this Bush's deal)
One million work outs / mods in six months seems like an awfully lot If they only worked mon-fri thats over 3,800 a day. Especially if these were sold off or securitized. 277k of these million had the contracts altered.
Maybe my BS call was presumptive but a million seems very very high...
I don't have anything relevent to say about this post in particular, but I do have an opinion about the length-of-Tanta's-posts dispute over the weekend:
I know almost nothing about finances so I need the careful, step by step explanations Tanta regularly provides. In fact I often skip shorter posts on the blog to read the long ones, especially the ones with lots of original content (as opposed to extended quotations) because I often have no idea how a particular fact or news story fits into the larger pattern.
I have found that almost anything can be interesting when examined in appropriate detail. I will continue to seek out Tanta's longer posts and I expect to enjoy them when i do.
-- Joh
Perhaps the real reason is that everyone else likes Faulkneresque conventions of narrative dislocation and evocative allusion rather than declarative sentences and Aristotelian unity.
Tanta, you may have missed your calling as a literary critic.
Shnaps, I swear, everyone who has ever been forced-placed calls in to bitch about how expensive it is. I can't tell you how many times I have had to explain this - something along the lines of: "no shit, Sherlock - insurance is priced according to risk - and insuring you is an extremely risky proposition. Had you kept the collateral insured yourself, we wouldn't be having this conversation."
Why sir, surely you don't mean to suggest that borrowers not paying their mortgages might abandon the home, gut it, or fail to maintain it. That they might do something like look at a roof leak and ignore it, since they know they are going to be out the door anyway, thus turning a $500 repair into a $13,000 repair. How can you make such a dastardly allegation when we all know that these folks are the saintly victims exploited by robber baron banks! There could not possibly be any enhanced risk for which insurance companies would charge extra.
Indeed, in this very article we have GM supplied proof that such folks do stay in their homes longer than the average mortgage-paying homeowner! Eleven years, in fact! Just call it pride of non-ownership!
How many borrows will have their principle reduced
and then still face foreclosure ? The bank would then have an even greater loss. It just postpones
the bottom. The sooner we get to the bottom the
quicker we can start moving back up.
The M.O. is pretty clear. Write the story. Then look for a face and quotes.
That's fairly accurate. Most reporters don't "write the story" before they get the face and quotes, but they know what the story is going to be about before they get the face and quotes.
Let me give you an example. I'm writing an article about dealing with the mortgage servicer's loss mitigation department. Based on what I've been reading and hearing, I've decided that it's less frustrating and more efficient for the borrower to talk to someone at a nonprofit housing counseling agency, either local or through Hope Now, rather than trying to get hold of someone at the lender's loss-mit department.
I've talked briefly (because they don't want to talk) with a couple of servicers, and I've talked with nonprofit housing counselors. I think one can make a good case that the servicers have outsourced their loss-mit intake to nonprofits, so the nonprofits are the place to go. Now I'm looking for "real people" -- delinquent borrowers who used housing counselors as a liaison with the loss-mit department -- to interview.
A big majority of reporters would tackle the story this way. I welcome suggestions for doing it another way.
What Morgenson did is little different. She really does seem to have written her story, and damn any inconvenient facts that get in the way. The telling evidence of that: She writes about "onerous" fees, and implies that the fees precipitated the foreclosure, but she never enumerates any of these fees, and she glosses over the fact that the Wellmans "paid their mortgage until 2004" Does that mean they haven't paid since? Morgenson doesn't say.
I'm wondering about the pro bono part. Obviously I'm not a lawyer, and it's easy to cast doubts after the verdict, but the decisions of the courts seem to have been fairly obvious before hand. So what were they thinking was going to happen? If you're going to do pro bono work, shouldn't there be a decent chance of success? Or was this a negotiating strategy? Or in other words, wouldn't the kindest thing to do be to tell them to seek other avenues?
BTW- I still have vivid memories of reading "The Sound and the Fury",...a tale told by an idiot, signifying nothing.
sdtfs,
My first thought was: Their pro bono attorney is a family friend or a cousin. Or maybe they have some dirt on him.
I actually happened to read that article first, before I came to CR today. I had a vague feeling of "Hmm, this guy doesn't seem to deserve sympathy, the story line doesn't seem to match the facts mentioned about him". In fact, I even had a feeling "I wouldn't want to be bidding on that house, this guy may do something crazy to the winner".
Finding Tanta's post after reading the original article is a nice treat!
Grep Agni,
Funny you mention this weekend's dustup. I was going to write a snark about figuring out how to profit from yet another excellent Tanta post. Instead, Tanta, thanks.
Best,
Worst possible thing you can do: read the New York Times.
Can I still do the crossword?
Tanta,
yes your directives about always reading contracts you sign and if it says you had a lawyer, you'd better have gotten a lawyer...all good advice.
But after reading the case another caveat comes to mind...if you get a lawyer get a good one...their "free" legal advice they garnered looks to be worth about all they paid for it.
especially the rulings regarding the motion for summary judgment and findings of fact sections...this appears to be straight forward legal reasoning.
the Defendants-Appellants (mark wellman and spouse) appear to have had bush league legal representation. No?
what say the lawyers in our camp?
insurance is priced according to risk - and insuring you is an extremely risky proposition
Never considered it from that stand point. I just assumed if I didn't do the shopping, they were going to go with the most convenient option possible,..usually the most expensive.
Oh, Lyndal just sent me a copy of the second-to-last dismissal of the second-to-last BK filing of these folks (I think that's the chronology). It turns out that at least one judge had the same response sportsfan had:
There is no question that the Debtors have failed to make payments in accordance with their most recent Chapter 13 plan since May 2004 and that this dismissed case is the Debtors third failed attempt at
Chapter 13 (or fourth, if their first Chapter 13 case that converted to Chapter 7 is counted). . . the Debtors continue to persist in their belief that a Chapter 13 plan is fluid concept, readily altered to meet their changing needs and their unilateral opinion of the value of any creditors claim. The Debtors fail to recognize that a Chapter 13 plan is a contract with their creditors that assures those creditors a steady stream of reliable payments, and that once confirmed, the plan may be modified only with court approval.
Case No. 03-51439
Southern District of Ohio
Eastern Division at Colombus
Opinion and Order Denying Motion for Stay Pending Appeal
October 4, 2005
you know another thought comes to mind about how to ease the crisis.
home "owners" who are upside down and on the ropes don't need to have principal forgiven...don't need interest rates reduced...don't need to have ARMs converted to fixed rates...
they just need cheap legal representation and a stubbornness to remain in residence and in turn get free or reduced housing for several, or more years!!
their problems solved...or postponed...but the banks and securities people...not so much.
just assumed if I didn't do the shopping, they were going to go with the most convenient option possible,..usually the most expensive.
Well, it's true they don't comparison shop force-place carriers for you. Most have a contract with one or more carriers who will offer force-place coverage, and that's what you get.
But it's mostly expensive to insure a deliquent borrower for the same reason these folks pay higher interest rates on their loans. Think of it as "subprime insurance."
It is not a convenient service for people who just don't want to mess with getting their own insurance and think the lender will do it for them.
What was the body of work upon which GM obtained her job at the grey lady?
I'm just curious.
In my fantasy world, I'm seeing a witty yet energetic Mark Twain combined with a young Ayn Rand, with a sprinkling of Ernie Pyle.
looking at the mess finding i have less and less sympathy for many if not all the players involved, from wall street to main street.
unfortunately if "WE" (ie gov, taxpayer and banks etc) don't all give a little (or a lot) it's looking more and more like the system gets busted up and we all suffer.
some suffer more than others, but nearly all take a hit one way or another, (unless you live on a self sufficient island somewhere)
And why stop paying in 2004 because you have questions about something you signed separately in 2003? Isn't standard practice to continue to pay while contesting? At least in escrow? Or,... should I let the dead horse lie in peace.
Yes, Tanta, that was the correct chronolgy. Per PACER, they filed a 13 in '96 which was converted to a 7 and discharged in '98.
filed a 13 in '98 which was dismissed in '02
filed a 13 in '02 which was dismissed in '02
filed a 13 in '03 which was dismissed in '05 (that is the one you have)
and then filed a 13 in '07 which was dismissed in '07. PACER shows the status on the '07 dismissal as "dismissed for abuse"
Frequent flyers, obviously.
Or,... should I let the dead horse lie in peace.
I hope it's a dead horse, but I doubt it.
Again, my point is about how anyone like GM could take a look at the facts of this case and conclude that the most probable explanation is that Nat City caused it all by padding fees and that it has fuck-all to do with missing assignments.
That is powerful evidence of not just bias on the reporter's part but some kind of mania.
She has mentioned that Porter study in four separate articles in the last several months, by my count, and she's apparently still unable to stop flogging it, even when she runs into a situation in which judge after judge found that the borrowers are bankruptcy abusers.
Which makes me want to say, by the way, that the anti-cram-down contingent has some proving of its case to do in regards to people "getting deals" from BK judges. This particular case indicates to me that BK judges are a whole lot harder to fool than some people claim they are.
Sounds like an annoyed Court.
Gretchen Morgenson's stories: The New Mememto
Gretchen Morgenson's stories: 21 Grams, Part II
...the Debtors continue to persist in their belief that a Chapter 13 plan is (a) fluid concept...
MAXIMUM RESPECK.
Why can't all bk judges be like this d00d?
"What was the body of work upon which GM obtained her job at the grey lady?"
Gretchen worked at Forbes for a decade at least. She then became the spokesperson for Steve Forbes' presidential campaign (which shows an appalling lack of taste/foresight in my view, if only for Steve's stand on "family values" - which is curious considering his Dad's tastes).
I still think she's got a great nose for stories - perhaps one of the best in journalism. She just makes so many damn mistakes/assumes she knows the narrative. This may be why so many people find her work frustrating - there's nothing worse than a gifted student frittering away their talents through laziness.
[If you really aren't sure that the other party to the agreement owns your loan, don't sign it.]
That's easy for you to say.
If you're head's on a chopping block, I'd like to see you do the same. ALL of these agreements are signed under duress.
[Best possible thing you can do: see a lawyer.]
Really? Like, who? The most aggressive lawyers are the Legal Aid types, however most borrowers "make too much money" to qualify. And... due to the high caseloads, these guys aren't as sharp as they used to be.
And, the attorneys who specialize are nearly all working for the lenders.
Say you find someone who's actually qualified to represent you... how can you afford their fees? If you're in FC, there's not a lot of room in the budget for a GOOD lawyer.
Based on this and a number of other stories, there aren't enough pro bono attorneys available... and those who are may not be that sharp.
The idea that all you have to do is call an attorney is most interesting to me, in that many, many Chapter 13 participants are shocked to learn how much they own on their mortgages... even those who've made it to discharge. Those calls to the attorney are seldom returned, and answers are almost never supplied.
So I guess if the paid attorneys don't return phone calls, then perhaps it does make sense to go pro bono.
the Debtors continue to persist in their belief that a Chapter 13 plan is fluid concept, readily altered to meet their changing needs and their unilateral opinion of the value of any creditors claim. The Debtors fail to recognize that a Chapter 13 plan is a contract with their creditors that assures those creditors a steady stream of reliable payments, and that once confirmed, the plan may be modified only with court approval.
Maybe GM thought the Faulknerian style appropriate because this is exactly the way a Faulkerian character would think?
Sounds like Mr Wellman is a serial bankruptcy leech.
I do believe Tanta has just jumped the shark.
If you're head's on a chopping block, I'd like to see you do the same. ALL of these agreements are signed under duress.
Only YOU know, really and truly, what your own financial situation is.
Look, I understand it's a bad time. But you could let the lender foreclose. You are trying to keep your house by getting the lender to offer you concessions. At this point, if you can't afford an RE attorney to review the document for you, I question whether you should be trying to keep the house.
You could, after all, talk to an attorney long before you're a day away from the courthouse steps. I'm not trying to blame the victim; I'm trying to suggest to people that they get realistic sooner rather than later.
But really, I ask you what you expect someone like NC to do. They can offer the forbearance, which among other things involves the borrower waiving a lot of rights and defenses, and require that the borrower be represented by counsel before signing it, or they can let the borrower sign it without a lawyer. You know what would happen in the latter case.
Or, they could offer these forbearances without making the borrower stipulate to the foreclosure process. What good would that do? That would stretch the thing out for years, as the borrower defaults on the plan over and over again and FC process has to restart over and over again.
So the only thing for NC to do is either require counsel, or just proceed directly with FC. You would prefer that?
As it happens, the article indicates that NC had worked things out with these borrowers several times in the past, and it never stuck. Furthermore, these borrowers apparently had equity, so going all the way to FC would have cost NC practically nothing (there would have been enough proceeds from liquidation to pay them off without loss, even with fees in there).
It is unfortunate that folks like the Wellmans lead lenders like NC to write such legalistic agreements, that require lawyers to decipher, but what's the alternative?
And don't get me started on people who buy homes in the first place without either understanding the terms of their mortgage or paying someone to read it and explain it to them. If you do that, you are taking a risk. Taking a risk is neither illegal nor immoral, and in many cases it's well worth taking. BUT IT IS A RISK. Admit it and get on with your life.
I do believe Tanta has just jumped the shark.
I don't think that phrase means what you think it means.
[At this point, if you can't afford an RE attorney to review the document for you, I question whether you should be trying to keep the house. ]
Wait a minute.
Around here, you get three payments behind, your house is on the courthouse steps 30 days later.
If you've had a legitimate hardship, it's a wee bit difficult to pony up the $$$ for "up-front funds" just to get the lender to agree to work with you... much less hire counsel.
Assuming you could even find competent counsel. I don't think we have that in this story, because the borrowers should have been advised to bankroll any mortgage payments not made... that MIGHT have gotten them to a meeting of the minds in spite of all the shenanigans.
And, as heard at the most recent MBA conference, many servicers are on the hunt for as many dollars on the front end as they can squeeze out of the borrowers.
Unless they'll take pocket lint as payment, the ability to hire counsel would disqualify nearly everyone. And, this story does illustrate just how difficult it can be to find a lawyer who knows what he's doing.
In any case, this story doesn't represent typical circumstances any more than the exec in FL or the SS couple in NYC who bought a 1/2 mil condo with a NINA.
However, a story about a typical situation would be tedious, and it wouldn't sell a lot of papers, nor would it be discussed like this one. So in the end, the author did what really mattered.
Well, robert, I don't know what you want me to do. Tell people to sign any agreement put in front of them, even if it contains waivers of rights, indemnifications, and other legal terms that they don't understand? Is that what you tell people to do?
If you feel like signing a workout agreement is your only good choice, and you think it is worthwhile to do that even if you cannot afford a lawyer, then you can do it. Nothing stops you.
It's just not going to be possible for you to find some accountant or lawyer a year later who says you were taken advantage of, if in fact you signed an agreement that says "I am represented by counsel" and you weren't.
I didn't suggest this story represents anything "typical." But Morgenson implies that fee-gouging is pretty widespread, if not "typical."
That demands us to ask what borrowers should do. I can't think of anything for them to do except examine the contracts and the fees before signing. What's your suggestion?
The Wellmans live in a judicial foreclosure state. That means that they were being sued by Nat City. They signed an agreement to settle the suit. You think I should suggest that you just skip getting yourself a lawyer if you are sued?
Bad things happen to people. I'm not cold-hearted. If you are unable to afford counsel, then there it is. But what do you want the lender to do for you in that case? The lender cannot represent you; the lender cannot give you legal counsel; it isn't allowed for plaintiff's counsel to represent defendant. Nobody on the internet or in the newspaper can represent you in court.
Are you making an argument for better legal aid to strapped homeowners? You get no particular beef from me about that. But if you are telling people not to waste money on a lawyer, you are giving terrible advice.
Tanta never ceases to amaze me. how does she type so well with her wrinkled reptilian snout? nodoby knows.
Well, I believe MoM said dinosaurs, and since the modern representatives of Dinosauria are Aves; let's say pecking it out with Birds of Paradise beaks.
Birds are categorised as the biological class Aves in Linnaean taxonomy. Phylogenetic taxonomy places Aves in the dinosaur clade Theropoda.[3] Aves and a sister group, the clade Crocodilia, together are the sole living members of the reptile clade Archosauria
[But if you are telling people not to waste money on a lawyer, you are giving terrible advice. ]
What I'm saying is that competent counsel [for BORROWERS] in these matters is scarce and those with legitimate hardship typically don't have the available funds for it.
Tanta,
That was an absolutely brilliant post -- one in a series of brilliant posts.
Here's hoping over time that your readership continues to grow (and learn), while GM's continues to decline (and rot).
Keep up the great work.
I do believe Tanta has just jumped the shark.
Tanta on water-skiis? i would pay good money to see that.
Jumping the shark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
no idea until just now!! Lmao
Tanta, just out of curiousity, who among financial reporters and publications do you recommend we read?
As a person who greatly enjoys faulkneresque conventions of narrative dislocation and evocative allusion rather than declarative sentences and Aristotelian unity I really enjoyed the reference to "Faulkneresque conventions of narrative dislocation and evocative allusion rather than declarative sentences and Aristotelian unity."
These people have not paid their bills for 12 years but they can get or afford lawyers. Enough.
I have heard the term "Bankruptcy is a license to steal".
I am clueless as to what was in the agreements that the Wellman's signed. But then they apparently they were too.
It was their money and their signature. Their problem.
If reading badly researched stories in the NYT drives you batty, don't read
Lies and Consequences: Tracking the Fallout of (Another) Literary Fraud - NY Times
One day after the author of Love and Consequences confessed that she had made up the memoir about her supposed life as a foster child in gang-infested South-Central Los Angeles, the focus turned to her publisher and the news organizations that helped publicize what appeared to be a searing autobiography.
The author's agent is the daughter of the former editor of the book section, and the NYT had a story on it and a review.
Well done.
tanta,
NYT's mind scrambling narrative order has been going on for some time. My personal grapevine says they think readers prefer the chaotic non-linear arrngement because it is 'exciting.'
I continue to be amazed by folks who sign contracts and believe that it doesn't apply to them. When I bought a house, I had a question about something on the agreement. I went in and hired a lawyer for a half hour to review it and answer a few questions. I've done that every time I've been in a situation where I need an answer to a legal question. It's not expensive at all and you will at least learn if you need to pony up the bucks for more legal consul.
Most importantly, they claim they found out that they were overcharged on fees when they ran the figures through Quick Books. I don't see any reason why they couldn't have done that PRIOR to signing anything. It's totally bogus and they deserve to lose the place.