In Forclosure, Oregon Consumer Law Center, Working Class Issues on February 9, 2012 at 9:09 am
The imminent settlement between the 5 largest U.S.Banks and State Attorneys General will make it more important than ever for homeowners in distress to be represented by competent counsel.
A big part of the reason that the banks are signing onto this settlement, is that it will leverage the credibility of the Obama Administration and State Attorneys Generals to further their efforts to convince homeowners to sit on their legal rights related to legitimate claims they may have over lending and foreclosure practices.
Participating Banks are betting on the fact new modification promises may entice homeowners to walk away from real actionable claims against lenders, servicers and their vendors.
The settlement itself amounts to little more than moving around the deck chairs on the Titanic. The math simply doesn’t work. The principal reductions promised will either be spread like peanut butter over millions of mortgages, too small to advantage either the homeowner (or the lender) in any significant way, or at the proposed dollar allocation announced today, will only benefit a fraction of the homeowners facing foreclosure.
The proposed $2000 payment to families wrongly foreclosed upon is exactly the minimum that a husband and wife would be entitled to under a Fair Debt Collections Practice Claim. Those of us who represent homeowners know that there are state consumer protection claims and tort claims available that could provide wrongly displaced homeowners will tens of thousand of dollars more.
The silver lining in the settlement is that it does not in any way limit homeowner defenses or counterclaims in the foreclosure process. It is more important than ever for homeowners to be represented by competent lawyers. For more information about representation in foreclosure in Ohio click here.
In labor, Uncategorized, Working Class Issues on March 3, 2011 at 7:49 am
It is proof SB 5, the Ohio Legislature’s effort to gut collective bargaining for public employees is only about attacking pubic employee unions who those legislators view as a political enemy is that the conservative legislators promoting this effort are missing a chance to focus on the real problem with the cost of government in Ohio. These “alleged” conservatives are ignoring the much bigger problem:
The problem in Ohio isn’t that pubic employees are overpaid for the hard and important work that they do. The problem is that we have too many local government entities in Ohio and hence too many public employees.
As a Liberty School Board Member, I was horrified to watch as two public school districts, Girard and Liberty operated with no cooperative cost sharing whatsoever existed side by side in the same 5 by 5 mile square. Citizens who live down the street from the new Girard High School actually live in the Liberty School District. Separate police, fire, road and rescue services are duplicated in the same jurisdiction.
As Attorney General, I was amazed at the inefficiency and waste that the existence of more than 1000 police departments and 88 Sheriff’s Offices caused for real tax dollars that should have been devoted to fighting crime
If Ohio’s leaders were truly serious about the reform of the laws surrounding public employee collective bargaining they would not be focusing on limiting collective bargaining rights but instead focusing on creating processes tools and financial incentives that empower school districts, county governments and local governments with collective bargaining agreements to consolidate services or merge.
In Forclosure, Uncategorized on February 5, 2011 at 9:51 am
Building on the landmark Wells Fargo v. Jordan Decision, Ohio’s 8th District Court of Appeals (Cuyahoga County) ruled this week that an affidavit alleging that a foreclosure plaintiff held the note prior to filing of a complaint for foreclosure is not sufficient evidence to support a foreclosure judgment.
In Deutche Bank v. Triplett, the court of appeals held:
“… Deutsche Bank’s affidavit of ownership, sworn out more than a year after the
foreclosure complaint was filed, is insufficient to vest the bank with standing
to file and maintain the action. Thus, if Deutsche Bank had offered no
evidence that it owned the note and mortgage when the complaint was filed,
it would not be entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Jordan, ¶¶ 22-23.
For More Information on Foreclosure Defense contact: Law Offices Of Marc Dann Co. LPA .