Frightening. This is one cold-hearted son of a bitch.

[Career Prole]

If you've ever been bankrupt, or lived on the edge of bankrupt (paycheck to paycheck just-survivin') this should make you angry, because you're the intended collateral damage in this particular scheme. I stress "intended" because they know some of you will be ruined, they don't care, and they don't f&*king care who knows it. :grr:

Lacker: Innovation Driving Credit Boom

WASHINGTON - A wave of innovation in consumer credit markets has driven a surge in credit availability for the average consumer, but that rapid growth has also seen an increase in "bad outcomes," according to Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond President Jeffrey Lacker.

Still, that increase in credit problems does not mean supervisors should restrict certain lending practices, Lacker said Thursday.

In the text of a speech given in Norfolk, Va., Lacker said "the expansion of retail credit has brought an increase in what one might call 'bad outcomes' — households that face high debt burdens, have trouble meeting payment commitments, and perhaps even default and resort to bankruptcy."

<snip>

...new, more advanced pricing models have allowed banks to extend nontraditional mortgage products to new borrowers, including those with lower creditworthiness, he said.

But with those changes comes more risk, Lacker said, while noting that innovation is an "inherently risky activity."

These bastards are predators, plain and simple.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

1. In one word,

predatory.

Wouldn't Jesus throw these fuckers out of the Temple?

Ah, you just have to love an administration that claims to be directed by God, and then see this kind of horror show, don't you?

[Deja Q]

42. Wrong word.

See my other post.

It makes "predatory" seem benign by comparison.

[al bupp]

2. Borrower beware

Not that I disagree your point.

[MercutioATC]

3. How is it predation? The borrower makes the decision.

Mortgage companies offer choices. Some of them may be bad choices for the consumer, but the consumer does have the choice to refuse the offer.

I believe this is a personal responsibility issue. One bears the responsibility for the contracts one signs. If you don't like the terms, don't sign. It's silly to blame the mortgage companies...they're just making offers.

[JuniperLea]

5. Yes, however

This appears to be an attempt to squeeze the last drop of blood out of people before they are forced into bankruptcy.

[Career Prole]

8. Exactly. n/t

[MercutioATC]

9. It's called marketing.

It's no different than the gum and candy stands at the grocery checkout. If I wanted gum and candy, I could have found it in one of the aisles. Putting it at the checkout is the grocery store's attempt at getting every penny they can out of me. They're hoping I'll make an impulsive decision and buy some. Does that make the grocery store "bad"? No, because I have the right (and the responsibility) to make decisions that are in my own best interest. If I don't want (or can't afford) the candy, I'm free not to purchase it.

By extention, if somebody can't afford a mortgage, they're free to not sign a mortgage contract.

[Career Prole]

13. Pretty poor analogy. Do you really think anyone would spend

their last penny on candy? The temptation to do so for the roof over your family might be stronger, no? :eyes:

[MercutioATC]

23. Maybe, but the principle is the same.

If you can't afford it, don't buy it.

[Career Prole]

25. I hope karma never catches up to you, my friend.

Peace.

[MercutioATC]

33. I hope it does...I've done quite a bit of good in my life.

If you remove the emotional component, it's a simple equation. If income is less than living expenses, something has to go. It's not a happy thing, but it's the way it is.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MercutioATC]

67. ??? You have an issue with somebody stating that they do good things?

I'm agnostic. Do you have to subscribe to a religion to evaluate your actions? Sorry, I wasn't aware of that rule.


Since you took such issue with "If income is less than living expenses, something has to go." maybe you could show me what's so "pompous" in that statement. It's simple math. If your expenses exceed your income, something has to go. I didn't suggest that anybody "live under bridges"...just that people who can't afford houses shouldn't sign mortgages.

That aside, how are people living under bridges and starving to death the responsibility of lending companies? Isn't that more of a social services issue?

[Jed Dilligan]

71. Not really an issue

It's just an arrogant thing to say. If you were really devoted to doing good, you wouldn't be making this claim, you would only think about how to do better.

And maybe you ought to read "The Grapes of Wrath" sometime--just a suggestion.

[MercutioATC]

72. I had karma wished upon me (in a less-than-complimentary manner)

I was simply stating that I wasn't afraid of karma, as I feel I'm on the "plus" side so far...

...and I never claimed to be solely "devoted to doing good", I just try to do little things to make a difference.


Why the "Grapes of Wrath" recommendation? I'm not telling the poor to go screw themselves, I'm suggesting that 1) people whose expenses exceed their incomes have to make sacrifices and 2) not having the ability to pay a mortgage isn't the fault of a mortgage lender. I thought at least the first of these statements was a generally-recognized fact.

[Jed Dilligan]

73. It is not an "acknowledged fact"

When the sacrifice is life or shelter, it is too great a sacrifice just to keep some people rich.

[MercutioATC]

74. Wait, you're saying it's not a fact that expenses > income = bad thing?

All I stated is that when expenses exceed income, something has to go.

You're actually disputing this?

[Jed Dilligan]

81. I think when people are starving

they have every right to eat the rich, who made them so.

[MercutioATC]

82. I was speaking in more rational terms.

Does your "starving people should eat the rich" position have any bearing on the conversation at hand (whether non-conventional loans are, at least at times, "predatory")?

[Jed Dilligan]

83. It is absolutely relevant.

When the "need" of corporations to eternally increase their profits starts depriving people of basic needs like housing, the corporate wealth should be confiscated--by violence if necessary.

Anytime an obviously privileged person makes the argument that impoverished people should've planned better, I see red...

[MercutioATC]

102. I didn't reference planning...just reality.

If somebody doesn't have the income to buy something, they simply can't afford it...much as they might like to have it.

That's not the fault of a lender who offers said person the opportunity to buy the item under certain terms. The responsibility lies with the prospective borrower to know what their finances will and will not support.

Lenders aren't depriving these people of housing...low incomes are. If you want to address the problem, addressing low incomes might be a better avenue.

[Career Prole]

110. Less-than-complimentary? Not so.

I simply offered my wish that you're never poor, because I'm sure you would be at a loss how to act towards yourself.
I hope not with self-loathing for being irresponsible enough to have a run of bad luck like a lot of us other schmoes. :)

[MercutioATC]

118. Ah, then I completely misunderstood.

I interpreted it as a veiled criticism of my views...

;)

[Career Prole]

121. No. You are absolutely welcome to your views!

There are no cookie-cutter Democrats. We're more like drop biscuits. :)

[sendero]

While I agree with you in principle..

... there is more to the story than that. Just like seat belt laws, some regulations are there to protect more than the individual.

The credit standards for home loans has been watered down to the point where almost anyone can qualify. Great you say, more people can buy homes! But wait, what happens when foreclosures go up because lots of people get in over their heads? It's not just their disaster, it's everyone's. Prices are driven down, markets go soft, people who played the game correctly are penalized when they go to sell their home.

The "libertarian" ideas of every man for himself sound just ducky. In practice, they are stupid beyond belief.

[MercutioATC]

37. Interesting angle...

Stop "predatory" loan practices not because they harm the the individual consumer but because they harm the entire economy.

There's some merit there, but I still believe it's the consumer's responsibility to make the decision.

[Career Prole]

7. Have you ever been up against it?

Have you? How about up against it with mouths to feed?
How about up against it, with mouths to feed, and your job outsourced, and someone takes sick?
Predation looks like your last chance then.
And that nice man from Di-Tech is there with his "innovative" plan knowing he'll likely be putting you on the street, but what the hell...that's personal responsibility for ya.

Nah. Something tells me you've never been up against it.

[MercutioATC]

10. No, I haven't.

My personal experiences don't change the arguement, though.

For the sake of arguement, let's assume the person in question already has a mortgage that they used to be able to afford but lost their job and can't afford it any more. The nice man from Di-Tech calls and offers them a refinance that's not in their best financial interest. They have two choices:

1) Say "no".

2) Say "yes".

Either way, they still can't afford their current mortgage and will end up in forclosure. What's the sense in blaming Di-Tech for making them an offer? They're always free to refuse.

[Career Prole]

12. I sold the house.

It was heart-breaking, but I sold it and got out from under. Lost about a grand and a half on the deal instead of everything. Took my bankruptcy and moved on.

When it happened, there was no Di-Tech and bankruptcy was nothing like it is now.

If there had been a Di-Tech, they would have been there with their siren song of an easy out which they knew was likely to fail.

I may have listened and lost everything. I lucked out because I went broke early in the game.

It's happening to other people right now and it's going to be happening with much greater frequency as the housing bubble collapses, and the safety net I had is gone.

Those zero-down and interest-only loans aren't meant as "innovations" for people of means as Lacker seems to be suggesting.

Those are designed to screw poorer folks out of their last dime. There's no other reason for them, and going after desperate people and offering false hope is predation in my book.

Desperate people don't think about things the same way you (and I, now) do, even though they may have been chock-full of "personal responsibility" before their world caved in.

[MercutioATC]

26. These people are being voluntarily screwed by companies like Di-Tech.

It's the customer's responsibility to know what they can handle, financially. There are safeguards against practices like bait-and-switch. We're not talking about companies breaking the law to screw the little guy, we're talking about people voluntarily entering into agreements that aren't in their best interest.

[Career Prole]

29. Nowadays you get credit-checked when applying for a job.

Are the money-lenders no longer checking credit ratings? Be serious.
If a customer can't afford the damned loan it shouldn't be offered and in the past, it wasn't. What the hell changed, hmmm?

[MercutioATC]

35. Here's how I view it:

Person #1 doesn't have enough money to do what they want to do.

person #2 has money and offers to loan person #1 some money on certain terms.

Person #1 then has the option to accept or reject the offer.



How is person #2 "guilty"? They have something that somebody else wants and they name their "price". The buyer has the choice whether to buy the service or not.

If I'm selling a car that you want, don't I have the right to ask $1M for it if I wish? If you can't afford to spend $1M for that car, isn't it your responsibility to decline the offer?

[Nye Bevan]

100. I would say yes

but some might say that you belong in jail for price-gouging ;-)

The thing about predatory lending regulations is that they would not be needed if everyone was intelligent and rational. Most people would know to turn down an offer of a loan at 30% interest that they had no hope of repaying, and the libertarian in me says to let anyone offer any kind of loan they like (provided that they are required to fully and clearly disclose the terms) and let people decide for themselves whether or not it is a good deal.

I have seen stories where befuddled senior citizens are tricked into taking out loans with interest rates that are clearly a rip-off, and we do need to protect against this, but this is more a question of protecting elderly people in general, whether it is against rip-off roof repairs or any other kind of con.

[kineneb]

58. guess I am now unemployable

'cause we are in the middle of our Chapter 7 process.

Not that I am looking for a job...in the US of Irony, if I earn more than $238/mo, Hubby looses his Medicaid, because it puts us over the $1437 "need standard" for a couple.

[InkAddict]

21. I have predatory relatives-in-law!

Before Dad passed he outlived his funds that kept him in a very nice assisted living facility. Rather than disturb his care, my out-of-work only child spouse allowed his near-death father to stay on there, but guess what--he just kept ticking racking up a whopping bill that we could not pay while existing solely on my pittance of hourly employment--unemployment ran out! In desperation, my spouse turned to a REPUKE cousin for a loan. This real estate broker cousin, who so LOVED her uncle that she visited him only once that we know and only because his elderly sister wanted to see him, forced my husband in signing a note and self-file the lien on our home for the principal and the on-going interest (she would not accept payments--the whole thing back at one time or "no loan." Our home is nice, but not in the PC part of this racially polarized town, so it would have taken some time to sell it and refinancing was out of the question until we were stable from all our other financial problems due to the unemployment. Well, everytime we get close to being back on top of the bills, we get RIFF'd again. Now that's predatory lending!

Perhaps Dad didn't deserve to live that well because he was basically a simple harmless soul that had worked hard all his life and because he, simply, didn't amass a great fortune or insure himself for the protection of his loved one's should he be the one to go first (he was last and convinced he'd just float off in his sleep). Over the years, we tried to reason with some of these decisions, but it did no good and Dad's lifemap just didn't follow the road he planned and it surely isn't the way we planned either. Who would have thought that mergers, outsourcing, cheap Indians and Chinese, greedy corporate management, i.e. WorldCom, Tyco, Enron, etc... and religious zeolots would turn Americans onto the yellow-brick road of lusty pre-emptive greed, fraud, and murder. This sure isn't Kansas anymore. I hope the house literally falls on my own personal "Wicked Witch of the West." I'd also be glad to get my country back, throw a few in jail, and have a hiatus of peace while pursuing happiness.

I'm pretty well convinced we've been singled out for financial ruination by the "eavesdropping" enemies of the USA. From paddles, to sticks, to toothpicks, to bare hands - we're still trying to make it upstream in this worm-eaten boat of America.

Sorry for this ramble - it's just been raining and storming too long. I remain looking for an olive branch and the sun.

[Harper_is_Bush]

46. 'Xactly! n/t

[Harper_is_Bush]

45. Quit being so self-righteous

If you've borrowed money and you lose your job and someone takes sick then of course, that's a "bad outcome". You can't make the payments, obviously. And you lost your job. And a family member isn't sick. What's not bad about all that?

I asked a question about your original post below just a short time ago, so I won't repeat here.

[marions ghost]

14. a lot of people

don't understand the risks. They aren't business whizzes. They don't understand corporate predation very well and are desperate. It is not a matter of "buyer beware"--they are being targeted. Close to being fraud. There should be some degree of public trust and regulation of sleezy practices. But consumers have been taught that they must bear all responsibility (or sue, which many people can't afford). One mistake in a moment of desperation, and they are screwed.

This speaks to the pathetic level of consumer protection in this country.

[MercutioATC]

40. It's all in plain English...you don't have to be a "business whiz".

The mortgage broker gives you a number that represents the number of dollars you have to give him every month. If that's more than you can afford you say "no".

How is this complicated?

[marions ghost]

54. OK look

I'm not going to get into a big debate with you about this because you and I are too far apart on this scale to ever come to any point of agreement. You're not going to talk me into looking at it your way and vice versa. I do understand how re. the present business community you could have no sense of morality as regards this growing problem. Oh let em eat cake, pull up by their bootstraps & all that. This kind of thinking is not uncommon, even around business schools. Look at this practice as a whole though--how it damages and further compromises people who have no business borrowing. It's basically a debate between letting business predators run amok and consumer protection.

1. Have you noticed that under the recent revision of the bankruptcy laws, that the last resort, the only realistic alternative to complete personal disaster has now been removed?

2. Generally speaking the RESPONSIBILITY of money lending is shared with the lender. The lender does the calculations and refuses the loan. This is kinder than hooking the vulnerable into something they cannot afford, at great profit to the lenders. Probably why Jesus threw the money lenders out of the temple.

3. The Government has relaxed lending standards so much that it is now complicit in setting up a system of exploitation allowing banks and lenders to scam people all they want.

----------------

Obviously the corporate powers that are the government now have NO interest in consumer protection. The conservatives ever since Reagan have made this a bad word. Do the states care? the Feds?...nah. I can tell that you cannot imagine ever being in a position of need, being in a position where your finances were not secure. For whatever reason that it happens, accept that there are many people in this extreme stressful situation. Good people, honest people, responsible people. Not only are there working people with no health insurance, but working people who don't know where their next bag of groceries is coming from. There is this imaginary image of the type of deadbeat a person would have to be to be borrowing money, it's kind of a typical Republican perspective. Without reeling off the stories, I can tell you that the sterotype does not fit, in the majority of cases. Surely you KNOW how hard up people are under Bushco?

Conditions like these lead to a 'Lord of the Flies,' Social Darwinist kind of world. As one of the "haves" you can afford to feel superior to the "have-nots." But others DON'T like living in this kind of world. We want responsible government, consumer protection, fair lending practices, and help for those who wind up destitute in this cruel society. It's a question of morality, of investment in community, of keeping the worst business practices out of the marketplace. By this I mean The Marketplace as commerce in general. This is a socially supported entity, where people should have a certain sense of trust, naive to be sure these days --but we DESERVE to have that sense of trust in a civilized society.

[MercutioATC]

57. Answer me this:

A person wants to buy a $40k house. They have saved $8k as a down payment (20%). They don't, however, have a regular work history and much of the income they DO get is undocumented. They will have no problem making the mortgage payment (hell, it's less than their rent). Should they be able to get a mortgage? If so, should the lender be permitted to charge a higher interest rate to compensate for the higher risk of lending to somebody with undocumented (and therefore, unverifiable) income?

[marions ghost]

68. LOL

I write about the problem of lack of business ethics and controls in a lending industry that has made record profits on the backs of people in desperate financial situations esp during the current administration.

So you come back with this individual "problem" that is totally irrelevant to the question of consumer protection in cases where it is obvious to the lender that the debt will increase (beyond ability to pay at some point)...ie. a bad loan prospect, where to proceed would be predatory.

See, we're not even on the same page whatsover. I'm an advocate for the vulnerable consumer and you're an advocate for those who would capitalize on their financial decline, ie. predators.

You addressed none of my points. Bye.

[MercutioATC]

69. I agree...we'll never see eye to eye on this.

Ah well, they say variety is the spice of life...

:)

[Nye Bevan]

97. Yes

Many years ago I had a hard time getting a mortgage because of a less than regular income history along with the size of the loan I wanted. I was confident that I would be able to make the payments, and I finally found a lender who would give me the mortgage (at a higher interest rate than the standard rate). It took some sacrifices, but I was able to make all of the payments on time.

I never thought of the lender as "predatory". They were not "preying" on me, I was lucky to find a mortgage lender who would take a slightly higher risk so that I could buy an apartment. If some law had prevented them from making the loan I would have been stuck renting. And if it had turned out that I couldn't afford the loan after all, I would not have blamed the lender.

[EC]

16. Most of the time the terms aren't final until after the

apprasial, meaning the borrower is already in additional debt of $200 - $500. for the apprasial alone, which is more than some can bare. So they pretty much have to sign...or cough up the money...

[MercutioATC]

44. That's called an appraisal fee.

It's charged whether the deal goes through or not. You have to option of paying it when it's done or deferring the fee until the deal goes through (by adding it to the loan amount).

There's nothing dishonest or cooercive about it. In fact, the ability to roll it into the mortgage is a nice perk for many...but that's all it is, a perk. Whether the deal happens or not, the fee must still be paid.

[EC]

76. That's the point I'm making...

When I was working commission and the boss found ways to keep prolonging paying me, my bills piled up and my credit score went down...had to refi my house to pay off bills and catch up, anyway, I couldn't afford the appraisal fee without rolling it into the loan, which at the final presentation wasn't anything like it started out - so I refused the loan and had to add another 350 to the pile of bills I was already behind on...it was preditory in my view since the offer before the appraisal was completely different than the last offer...

[MercutioATC]

78. It's an upfront fee that you're ALLOWED to roll into the loan.

It's not "predatory" to charge a fee for an appraisal. The appraiser has a right to be paid. If the deal doesn't go through (for whatever reason) you're still responsible for paying him.

What's predatory about this?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

77. But it's also not moral to take advantage of another's stupidity or

naivete.

So many people are so besotted by television and celebrity gossip magazines and pro sports, and no one has told them that they should be otherwise. No wonder they believe that they can actually get something for nothing. In addition, the way the finance companies seek every possible way to entrap and squeeze every penny out of borrowers (raising interest rates, raising credit limits, etc.)

[MercutioATC]

80. So there should be an IQ test to qualify for a mortgage?

Look, unless you've been declared mentally incompetent, you're responsible for your own decisions. I'd be in favor of funding for consumer education. I'd be in favor of a requirement that lenders provide customers with a government or customer-advocacy group booklet explaining the process. I don't, however, view a company that's operating within the law as "predatory" because some people are ignorant.

Maybe that should be another qualification:

1) If you can't afford a house, don't buy one.

2) If you're abysmally stupid, don't sign contracts.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

84. In your ideal world, maybe so

But the overwhelming message of advertising and pop culture is borrow-borrow-borrow, and not everyone is as all-fired superior and all-knowing as you evidently are.

Besides, I repeat, the victim's ignorance is not considered a mitigating circumstance when a crime is committed. If a con man swindles a naive person out of his or her money, that con man is still considered a criminal under the law.

[MercutioATC]

101. Yes, and that con man is breaking the law.

Selling services at exorbitant prices isn't a con unless a law is broken.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

105. But ETHICALLY and MORALLY, as opposed to legally, the

"Don't take advantage of ignorant or naive people" principle still applies.

In fact, if so many of our legislative leaders weren't beholden to the credit card companies and major banks for their campaign contributions. many of these predatory practices WOULD be illegal.

There was a time when charging over 15% interest was considered usury and was illegal.

[MercutioATC]

106. Ethics and morals are relative...that's why we have laws.

Your definition of ethics and morals may disser from mine...but we're both restricted by the same laws.

That aside, wouldn't a lender be guilty of discrimination if they looked at somebody, made the decision that they were too ignorant to loan money to, and refused the loan on that basis? You're creating a no-win situation.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

108. No, they should be restricted from doing nasty, sneaky, money-grubbing

things to ANYBODY. Period. That would solve the problem.

[MercutioATC]

109. And exactly how would you legislate that?

Again, your "nasty, sneaky, money-grubbing things" are somebody else's legitimate business practices.

Where do you want the line drawn and how would you legislate it?

Not so easy, is it?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

119. Bring back the usury laws, for instance

Require companies to state the length of time it would take to pay off debts of various sizes at the minimum payment level, and to state it in print the same size as the rest of the publicity blurb. (THAT'S a real eye opener! If consumers realize that their debt may outlast the useful life of the purchase, they may think twice.)

(I now pay cash for everything except in emergencies, such as the brakes on my car going bad.)

Limit the amount of interest companies can charge to a certain number over the prime rate. Credit card interest rates shot up during the stagflation of the late 1970s-early 1980s and never came back down to pre-stagflation levels.

The widespread predatory lending that we're seeing now is not an eternal verity of American society. It started during the Reagan administration.

The problem is that the greedheads, with their contempt for the consumer, have taken over the business world, and almost everyone who majored in business after about 1980 has been infected with that attitude.

[MercutioATC]

122. Usury laws already DO exist.

I'd support increased consumer education and, perhaps, requiring lenders to provide each prospective borrower with a standardized booklet (written by an advocy group or the government) that would educate the borrower.

[bigbrother05]

94. There is a risk in every transaction,

the difference comes is when the rules are changed/bent knowing that jeopardy is clearly evident.

My analogy would be serving drinks in a bar. Most folks do just fine, might even get tipsy, but hey, their adults, they have to face the consequences. Now the law can make the bar liable if they serve someone who's obviously had too much and could be a risk to others. Consider the liability in cases where on a dare (or any other stupid reason) someone consumes large quantities of liquor quickly and die of poisoning. Also, do we need to go into serving alcoholics in any scenario?

My point is, playing the personal responsibility card does not mean that there aren't people and businesses out there that would do anything to put extra money in their own pockets no matter who gets hurt. We have regulations and banking laws designed to protect the industry and consumers. The folks that brought us the S&L fiasco are at it again, big time.

[Scout]

96. and when a new bank buys out the old one,

and just changes the rules mid-stream, just too bad for the consumer, eh?

[napi21]

4. Yes, but the pendulum has swung too far this time.

I well remember when it was almost impossible to get a Master Card or VISA, and although we had perfect credit, when we bought our first house, it took 5 weeks of meetings and a friendly call from my husbands boss to the S&L before they decided they were going to lend us a whopping $12,000 for 25 years. Our Company had to sign for a credit card for our auditors so they could travel because the banks just wouldn't issue a credit card to a relatively new college grad...even though he had a decent paying job.

The financial world has never been logical or fair.

[Initech]

6. This is why I think the marketing / advertising industry is the devil

It's because of crap like this. You can get a credit card thanks to the hundreds of thousands of ads they air every day. Then you spend a lot of money on stupid shit you dont need. Then you get so far in debt that you have to declare bankruptcy and now you cant even do that, thank you very much you corporate fuckwads known as the GOP Congress.

[MercutioATC]

11. And who's responsibility is that?

"Then you spend a lot of money on stupid shit you dont need."

That's somebody else's fault??

[stepnw1f]

15. Yes... blame the Victims

and never give a spec of accountability to those that know better. You should sell crack... there are plenty of people willing to give up everything else in their lives for a fix. Then you can absolve yourself and blame them from buying it from you. See? No guilt... isn't that convienient?

Prey on the desperate, then blame them.... sick.

[MercutioATC]

30. Selling crack is against the law. Offering mortgages isn't.

Are you saying that businesses should only be able to offer goods and services that are entirely good for their customers? That's not their responsibility.

Their are plenty of laws against deceptive practices (bait-and-switch, etc.). There are plenty of product safety laws. What you're suggesting is a law to protect people from making unwise decisions.

Is that what you really want??

[NorthernSpy]

17. that "personal responsibility" thing cuts both ways, friend...

Anyone who lends money knowingly takes a risk. And if those who lend money insist upon devising predatory, usurious, society-harming schemes, then it's perfectly okay with me if they get stuck with a moutain of bad debt and no way to collect any of it. I call that just desserts.

We do not owe it to these manipulators and bloodsuckers -- who live by exploiting the ignorance of ordinary people -- to have our court system act as their enforcers. I say, start tossing their actions out of court, and just let the lenders go broke. Let them get caught in the trap they set for the weak, the stupid, and the desperate. How else are these predators going to learn to be more responsible?

[MercutioATC]

31. The courts' responsibility is to enforce the contract.

Why not attack the problem it its real source, the consumers who sign contracts that aren't in their best interests?

[NorthernSpy]

39. No.

Why the hell should society enforce contracts that harm us? Just so a small number of people can continue to exploit us at no risk to themselves? Why should we help a few rich sociopaths ruin our people and our society? They should just count themselves lucky that we aren't giving them what they really deserve.

A number of states have laws that make gambling debts uncollectible. We should do that to usurers, too.

Usury is a profoundly antisocial activity. It's evil. Evil is worse than weakness, stupidity, or lack of "personal responsibility". Evil should not be aided or rewarded. Evil should be exposed, thwarted, and punished whenever possible.

[MercutioATC]

49. ...except this isn't usury.

Usury is legally defined on a state-by-state basis. You're absolutely right in that the courts shouldn't enforce contracts that are illegal, but that's not what we're talking about. These contracts simply aren't usurious.

[NorthernSpy]

50. if it's calculated to trick, devour and ruin, it's usury...

... whether our corrupt government currently acknowledges it or not.

You're absolutely right in that the courts shouldn't enforce contracts that are illegal, but that's not what we're talking about

Yeah, that wasn't what I was talking about. I pointed out that a number of states refuse to enforce the collection of gambling debts. The gambling debts don't have to be from illegal gambling.

[MercutioATC]

51. That's why we have legal definitions.

Without them, everybody tends to make up their own meanings.


Show me a state (except states that allow legalized gambling in certain locations) where ANY gambling is legal. Live in Ohio and bet on the Superbowl? It's illegal. The law isn't enforced, but it's still illegal gambling. In cases where courts have declined to enforce gambling debts, it's been because the debt wasn't legal.

[stepnw1f]

36. I Take Responsibility for Myself

and I do believe most do the same. But this... regarding the article? This should not be tolerated, but then again our economy is already sliding down a very slippery slope, where corps get away with murder.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

18. For The Most Part, I'm With Ya.

Undoubtedly some use credit as their absolute last line of defense from living on park bench and I'm not going to blame them. But, having that said, many are just simply flat out irresponsible with credit and when it finally catches up to them they have bankruptcy to potentially look forward to. But I agree, I don't blame the credit card companies for that either. Spend what you can afford, and pay it off in full each month. It can really be that simple.

[KoKo]

19. You don't feel those Credit Card Companies that send me 5 Cards every

Month are culpable in this Credit Scam? I'm not only getting five or more cards I'm getting free dinners at great restaurants by Financial Managers who will "wind and dine" me for free if I listen to some shill about how I should invest with them.

Hey...if I took advantage of all that I'm offered I'd have FEE CONDO VACATIONS from all over the world ..(just for listening to a presentation) and FREE CREDIT...for whatever my heart desired from Credit Card, Phone Card, and Home Equity with checks so that I will sign up and use my "equity" for Car, Clothing, Food, Vacation and whatever I could possibly want (Casino's/Sex/Graft/Greed/Indulgence) for the rest of my life!

Just CHARGE IT...just INVEST WITH "US" and you will be SO HAPPY!

:shrug: AMAZING CASINO....:D

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

20. How Many Of Them Did You End Up Signing Up With Koko?

[NorthernSpy]

34. that's some morality you've got: punish the stupid, coddle the evil...

I don't like people who exploit ignorance. I don't like clever people who set out to trick and ruin those who are naive enough to believe what they are told. Intelligence magnifies sins; it certainly doesn't excuse them.

People who get into trouble with credit cards are weak, naive, or desperate. People who devise ways to convince others to do self-destructive things are evil. I, for one, am not at all confused as to which is worse.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

38. Oh Stop The Melodramatic Grandstanding. I Stated Clearly That

I'm not talking about people who have no alternative.

I'm talking about the ones that think a credit card means they don't have to be responsible with their money, and that are reckless with their credit.

No, I'm not going to have sympathy for people who do that. They're adults. They should know how to be responsible with money. Now, I will have sympathy for those so desperate they'll use whatever means possible to get by. But there are a whole lot of people in debt that did so of their own doing, by simply being irresponsible.

Hey, know what? I could go to atlantic city any time I want and just believe in my heart I'll come out a winner. And when I lose big due to being reckless and irresponsible, I won't expect sympathy for that either.

[NorthernSpy]

47. yup -- punish stupidity, reward evil...

Believe it or not, to exploit weakness and stupidity is to engage in something far worse than the weakness or the stupidity.

It's evil to persuade the ignorant to harm themselves. People who do that are predators. They are sociopaths. They know what they are doing, and they know what the consequences will be for the people they ensnare and for the society in general -- and they do it anyway. They don't care how much they harm this country and its people. They just want to clamp on and suck as much blood as they can, for as long as they can, until we collectively wise up and put an end to all that.

[MercutioATC]

52. No, just hold people responsible for their actions.

I don't see a problem with that.

[KoKo]

55. I don't sign up because I only need one card...but the temptation for

those living on the edge would be very hard to resist. Some have sent me checks to use for my "home equity" that would give me "50,000" in credit on a card if I just fill out a form. They know exactly what I paid for my house and the "asset value."

I shouldn't complain...NSA Spying see's me as a great credit risk...that's why they keep offering me all these cards and free dinners to get me to invest. :D

[Rex]

126. Good for you for not taking advantage of the system.

Now if corporations would just follow your example and show some restraint.

[Career Prole]

22. "many are just simply flat out irresponsible with credit"

True, but it's equally irresponsible to offer someone "irresponsible with credit" another loan which is exactly what this is about.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

24. And Triply Irresponsible For That Person To Take It. n/t

[Career Prole]

27. I hope karma is kind to you as well.

Peace.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KoKo]

60. Really?.....do you have Spouse, kids...lost your job ...have school loans

been downsized mergered whatever? Seems you and "OPERATION MIND CRIME" spend all your days here on DU.. Do you both have night jobs? When do you sleep?

It's incredible stamina you have that you could exhaust so much energy fighting for the Dems here night and day every day...all the time and never have to work. :shrug:

What's your secret? Inquiring Minds would like to know. Guess the rest of us are just "slackers" who can't understand how to use "credit."

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Career Prole]

92. Were you replying to me?

:shrug:

[NorthernSpy]

28. oh, so only borrowers need to have "personal responsibility"?

Typical. Whoever has the least power in any interaction always seems to walk off with the lion's share of the blame when things go wrong. But of course, that's how the usurers and their apologists like it:

But, having that said, many are just simply flat out irresponsible with credit and when it finally catches up to them they have bankruptcy to potentially look forward to. But I agree, I don't blame the credit card companies for that either.

I do.

Do people behave stupidly with credit? Absolutely.

And guess what: the lenders wouldn't have it any other way.

I've never had a credit card. Those credit card applications I get in the mail get confettied and send back in the return envelope. I like making the bastards pay the return postage while knowing that they'll never get a goddamn thing out me.

But if everyone did as I do, the usurers would have to find some other line of work. They want people to be stupid about credit. It's one of the things they count on. If you really want them to hate you, pay off your balance in full, on time, every month: they make less profit when they can't charge you as much interest.

The other thing the lenders count on is that our courts will act as their enforcers. You see, much as they bark at the little people for their various sins against "personal responsibility", the lenders are pretty eager to avoid having to exercise any "personal responsibility" of their own. As it stands now, lenders have no incentive to avoid devising lending schemes calculated to ruin borrowers lives. But that's how it'll be for as long as lenders can expect the gummint to help them get them wring interest out of the very people the lenders should never have solicited to borrow on such dreadful terms in the first place. Yup, that's how it'll be for as long as people like you are willing to make excuses for usurers.

[MercutioATC]

53. Again, it's not usury.

Having an opinion does not permit you to redefine legal concepts at whim.

[KoKo]

61. Back in the 1970's the Mafia used to take 20-25%.

One doesn't hear very much about "Organized Crime" because it now occupies the White House with our P-Resident and Crew and Abramoff and Gus and the Gambling Boats and the Casinos in Mississippi and the rest of the Gulf that are running strong again...even while Katrina victims are homeless or live in box like trailors.

Hey, Hey....Last I heard Congress lifted the ceiling on what Credit Card Companies could charge...It was up to 28% for some last I checked.

:D. It's all just those folks who can't handle their "finances" though. Slackers and Welfare Queens. :-)'s

[MercutioATC]

63. What are you trying to say???

I can't make any sense of your last post (or how it relates to randomly redifining words).

[Lydia Leftcoast]

120. But it's still true that the credit card companies HATE it when you

pay off your bills right away. :shrug:

I never got so many credit card offers as when I was in financial difficulty.

[MercutioATC]

123. True...they make less money that way.

ANY lender would feel the same. Pay off your mortgage or car early...the lender loses interest earnings. That's why some loans have prepayment penalties.

[marions ghost]

75. Exactly

"...lenders have no incentive to avoid devising lending schemes calculated to ruin borrowers lives."

[MercutioATC]

79. They're calculated to maximize profits...not ruin people's lives.

A lender couldn't care less if your life is ruined, as long as they get paid. As far as I'm concerned, there's nothing wrong with that.

You're in the "business" of getting financing for a house. They're in the business of making money by lending it to other people and charging interest. At what point were they supposed to be looking out for your interests and why is it a problem that they're not?


One more time for those in the cheap seats:

Lenders are not your friends. They're not in the business of making your life happy. They're not philanthropists handing out money. They're companies who are in the business of maximizing profit (as most businesses are). If you don't like their product, just say no.

[Career Prole]

87. Tell it to Bernanke...

...who is http://news.yahoo.com/s/ft/20060518/bs_ft/fto051820061845238739;_ylt=AlmzV.TWcHaWkNlNmcfPqTGyBhIF;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--">exhibiting more sense about it than some here.

[Scout]

99. my dad is a credit deadbeat

If you really want them to hate you, pay off your balance in full, on time, every month: they make less profit when they can't charge you as much interest.
that kind of credit deadbeat ... he uses his cards, gets the free perks and bonuses and frequent flyer miles, then pays the card(s) off every month. He has a virtually perfect credit rating. They hate him!

[MercutioATC]

32. I understand that many people are in dire circumstances.

They own a house, lose their jobs, and find themselves unable to make mortgage payments.


It's not a mortgage company's responsibility to fix that problem. The mortgage company isn't even the problem, it's the lack of income. Regardless of what a mortgage company does, people in this situation still are faced with the same problem...they don't have sufficient income to pay for their houses.

It's unfortunate, but if blame is going to be placed, place it on either the employer who fired them or the people for trying to live outside of their means. That sounds cold, but it's a fact.

[KoKo]

62. Absolutely. ....We are the Masters of our Fate...the Captains of Our Ship

and if we fall our crash on the rocks let's just "jack ourselves up" by our "bootstraps."

Man...I don't want No Help from Anybody. I chose my life and I'll lie in the shit I made out of it.

GASP! That sounds like the Chimp to me!!!!!

[MercutioATC]

64. Not always, but we ARE always responsible for our actions.

There are avenues to pursue for help. Lending institutions aren't (and shouldn't be) one of them...and they're not to blame for that.

[Jose Diablo]

91. I do so enjoy your posts

Curious though. You seem to work in air traffic control. Did you get your job as a result of Reagan busting PATCO?

Is your job secure, working for the Federal government. It is very easy to speak of personal responsibility having achieved the security of a secure job.

Again, to understand you and your political position better, are you a scab?

[MercutioATC]

103. A scab? Hardly.

Reagan fired the PATCO controllers in 1981, when I was 13 years old. I started in 1991.

Yes, my job is secure, although the FAA is cutting our pay $10-$20k in about 2 weeks and I won't see another raise for 5 years (regardless of what inflation does). Luckily, I'll be O.K. Many other controllers will have to do more than a little belt-tightening.

It's your belief that my opinion is somehow less valid because I have a job that allows me to pay my bills? Rather than attack the messenger, why not attack the message? How is signing a contract that you can't fulfill not a personal responsibility issue?

[Jose Diablo]

114. Depends on the definition of a valid contract

If one party in the contract is using unethical and illegal means to convince the other party in contract it's a good deal, then the contract may not worth the paper it's printed on. That could be termed more than just 'puffery' in disclosure of the terms. It could be termed intent to defraud, this is grounds for voiding any contract. Especially if the terms changed after the money was borrowed. Am I the only one to have noticed CC raised rates after the new bankruptcy law was passed. Now why should that have happened?

To change the conditions under which contracts are enforced by using illegal pay-offs to get legislation passed, some would call this grounds for voiding all the contracts. As well as jail times for both the legislature and the corporate money bags subverting law with illegal 'campaign' money. There does exist laws that clearly define what is a bribe and what is a contribution. Only drawback, who will enforce the laws?

And what does the 'new' law mean? It means that a debt that was unsecured by real property, thus having a higher interest rate due to higher risk of default, effectively has been converted to secured debt, but yet the lower risk is not reflected in the 'new' interest rates. Would this be grounds for declaring a contract void? Reasonable men could think so.

As for cutting your pay $10-$20K, that must be some paycheck you pull down. So lets not put forth how overworked and how much you really are part of the working stiff society and deserve whatever it is that you make. You have as much in common with the working stiffs as Bu$h does. I am sure, that if co-workers really did need you for support, where you would stand. Too bad that the time to make a stand happened before you came on the scene. I can tell exactly where you would have stood. I've seen people like you make a thousand speeches using same kinds of excuses. Just like the people that hired you asked a set of questions that guaranteed where you would stand is exactly where your employer wants you to stand. We know each other, Mr. Personal Responsibility.

Go watch a radar screen and get some ulcers, you bore me.

[MercutioATC]

117. You're certainly entitled to your opinion.

While exploring why you seem unable to state it without making uninformed personal attacks might be amusing, I agree with you. We're not going to influence each other one whit and we both understand each other's positions.

There's really no point continuing this dialog.

[Occulus]

89. Doesn't it?

I gather from all the ignored posts that you're dealing with someone who has no clue- at all- what it's like to live with debt.

I'm paying down a CC right now, a debt I've had for more than ten years. It got out of control only after life events caused everything to crash down around my ears- and this was in the '90s 'boom'. By the time my income rose to the point I could realistically pay it off, the debt had also risen to the point that doing so would take years.

This is because I was not making enough even to live- pay rent and bills and so forth- without putting other necessities on my CC. I didn't even have a car when all this started, and for some time after I was driving a truck I had bought for $1. It was only when the car my parents donated to me died that I took on the debt of a 'new' (used) vehicle.

Still the debt hangs around my neck, although I did manage to lock in a payment rate prior to the benkruptcy bill being passed. As that was a prior agreement, the CC company cannot alter the payment level. Nevertheless, paying iot off has been an arduous trial and I will not be holding a credit card again, ever.

the poster you're responding to, from the responses, seems to be thick as a box of rocks on this issue. Very very definitely a person who appears from what people are saying to him/her that has a vested stake in how CC companies operate.

Pity I would see such ignorance on this board. Unsurprising that it's coming from someone named 'ignored'.

[Deja Q]

41. The devolution of the American ape is beyond words.

Not ape. barracuda.

These fuckers offshore everything and then pull these types of stunts.

There is only one word, indeed:

Evil.

Christ would not approve.

[Harper_is_Bush]

43. What are you objecting to or calling "cold-hearted" or "frightening"?

They're in the business of lending, and so of course there will be "bad outcomes". And thus it follows that if the number of people getting loans increases, the number of bad outcomes will increase.

People need to borrow money, you can't escape it.

[Career Prole]

88. Lending money to people who can't realistically pay it back

is what I find objectionable.

[Harper_is_Bush]

125. Before they lost their job, they could pay it back.

You're railing against something you don't seem to understand.

You're assuming that it is apparent when loan is given that the outcome will be bad. It is a poor assumption, since the bad outcomes described include a loss of a job.

[hfojvt]

48. I am unsure of this

If retailers are offering credit and banks are offering non-traditional mortgage products, I still think many of those borrowers might be better off. A home equity loan (if that is what they mean by non-trad) can save a household from either credit card interest, title loans or payday loans. Some borrowers with bad credit scores are probably glad that the bank or a store takes a chance on them.

[laureloak]

66. Yes, but aren't we responsible for our own actions?

I don't get it.

[Cleita]

85. It's time for everyone to try to get by without credit cards.

This is another way to break the back of the working class. I only use my cards anymore for emergencies and pay them off as quickly as possible. You may have to do without some comforts you are used to but it isn't worth losing everything to these predators.

[Career Prole]

86. Fed chief tells banks to be vigilant on home loans

What?! Don't tell me Bernanke isn't on board with the "personal responsibility" meme!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ft/20060518/bs_ft/fto051820061845238739;_ylt=AlmzV.TWcHaWkNlNmcfPqTGyBhIF;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--">Fed chief tells banks to be vigilant on home loans

Thu May 18, 6:35 PM ET

Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, on Thursday called on banks to exercise extra vigilance in their mortgage lending, while expressing confidence that the US housing market was cooling in an "orderly and moderate fashion".

Mr Bernanke said lenders needed to be careful when providing "non-traditional" mortgages such as interest-only loans and option adjustable-rate mortgages, which accounted for 30-40 per cent of approvals last year.

He said the Fed expected to release guidelines for non-traditional mortgage lending in due course. This guidance could result in a tightening of bank lending procedures that would further cool the housing market.

"We do have some concerns about the non-traditional mortgage lending," he told a conference hosted by the Chicago Federal Reserve yesterday. "We are not saying that you shouldn't make those loans; we are saying you need to make them the right way."

What happened to "maximizing profits"?
:sarcasm:

[Career Prole]

93. Chirp...chirp...chirp....

I guess the profit-grabbers weren't expecting bush's boy Ben bernanke to advise prudence over profits?

[nolabels]

90. I took on a 90 days same as cash deal a couple of months ago

The morons had the wrong city on the address with the correct zip and I never got my bill to pay.

Five weeks after the purchase they were turning me in to a collection agency, trying to zing me with 49% interest rate and late fees. It was still two weeks before I got a bill with an account # that I could pay the bill off with. They finally figured out it was there eff up and brought the balance back down to the original purchase price. If there isn't sharks in the water than they sure got me fooled

[MadHound]

95. While I agree that this is predatory, there's a simple solution

First, no matter how well off you are, rich or poor, don't have a credit card. Cash, check or debit card, pay as you go.

Second, if you're buying a house, don't buy more of a house than you can afford. It has long been a truism that you should spend no more than 25% of your income on your mortage. And whatever you do, don't fall for the trap of ARMs or other "innovative" mortages, they are nothing more than elaborate con's to get either more money or your house or both. And always, when you're buying a house, put down at least five percent for a down payment, preferably ten percent.

Following these two rules will keep you out of a lot of financial troubles.

[stevietheman]

98. I advise anyone to get off the "credit grid" as soon as possible...

not only because the economy is about to tank, but because high debt equals slavery.

[EminenceFront]

104. I agree with those here who say if you can't afford the payment...

... then don't sign on the dotted line. An agreement between the two parties must be upheld.

[Career Prole]

107. And as Fed chief Bernanke said just yesterday...

Fed chief tells banks to be vigilant on home loans

"We do have some concerns about the non-traditional mortgage lending," he told a conference hosted by the Chicago Federal Reserve yesterday. "We are not saying that you shouldn't make those loans; we are saying you need to make them the right way."

The US central bank put forward proposed new guidelines in December and is discussing industry feedback with other US housing regulators.

The Fed wants to make sure that banks are underwriting non-traditional loans correctly and that their customers understand the risk that payments on such mortgages could jump under certain circumstances.

Fed officials believe this is particularly important because banks are now marketing non-traditional loans to lower-income homebuyers.

Mr Bernanke's comments echo remarks by his predecessor Alan Greenspan, who told Congress last year: "The apparent froth in the housing markets may have spilled over into mortgage markets."

If a consumer rights issue has gotten bad enough to concern a bushbot, it damned sure ought to concern a Democrat.

[rumpel]

111. Mortgages are securitized and sold again and again. Servicing transfers

to companies like Litton & other such companies, who have business models including:

Additionally, though not an originator, the company established a business relationship in August 2005 with two Dallas-based firms for portfolio retention efforts. Litton provides these firms with a list of borrowers who contacted the company about payoff information, who, in turn, contact the customer in an attempt to refinance the loan. If successful, Litton has the first right of purchase. In the second phase of the initiative, Litton will directly contact the borrower based on current credit information to actively solicit the account for a refinance.
http://www2.standardandpoors.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=sp/sp_article/ArticleTemplate&c=sp_article&cid=1143850904292&s=&ig=&b=2&dct=30

Summary of Allegations Against Litton
The complaint alleges that Litton has engaged in a scheme by which it fails to accurately service its borrowers’ loans, including misapplying or failing to apply payments made. Litton refuses to correct these mistakes and uses the borrowers’ alleged default as a basis for charging the borrowers late fees and other unwarranted fees, and for threatening or attempting foreclosure. Litton also charges unwarranted fees for hazard insurance on property that is properly insured.
The components of this alleged scheme include the uniform and common tactics of :
misapplying or failing to credit payments received in a timely fashion;
charging unwarranted fees;
failing to provide customers with timely or clear information about the timing and amount of payments owed;
prematurely referring accounts to collections and threatening or attempting foreclosure, regardless of legal and/or contractual grace periods; and
charging customers premiums for hazard insurance on property that is already insured.
http://www.lieffcabraser.com/loan-servicing.htm

widespread actual complaints:
http://www.ripoffreport.com/results.asp?q1=ALL&q4=&q6=&q3=&q2=&q7=&searchtype=0&submit2=Search!&q5=Litton+Loan&Search=Search

http://www.complaints.com/directory/2005/february/25/36.htm

[Career Prole]

112. Oh man, that sucks!

:grr:

[rumpel]

113. These are companies that exist to make the big companies like

Countrywide & banks, make their bottomline look good, by taking off their non AA rated loans off their books.

Then they engage in selling of the "portofolios" of loans. Meanwhile they act as the foreclosure arm of all the originating lenders. Often engaging in the illegal taking of properties.

and this practice is being condoned by our government, because the consumer is "presumed guilty" and is in fact treated like a criminal.

Isn't that why we had to change the bankruptcy laws, to protect the finance industry?

It makes your blood boil.

[rumpel]

115. To all, who think the consumer has control over his/her own finances:

This is just one of many, Happy Reading:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ANDREA WRIGHT : CIVIL ACTION
:
v. :
:
LITTON LOAN SERVICING LP : NO. 05-02611-JF
ADJUDICATION
Fullam, Sr. J. April 4, 2006
This is an action by a homeowner against a mortgage servicing company for alleged violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974, 12 U.S.C. § 2605, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 41 Pa. Stat. §§ 101-605, and the
Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 73 Pa. Stat. § 201 et seq. There is remarkably little disagreement as to the underlying facts, which can be summarized
as follows:
On November 10, 1998, plaintiff re-financed her home, and executed a mortgage to Sunset Mortgage Company in the amount of $33,600. The initial rate of interest was 13.875% per annum, but it was an adjustable rate mortgage which permitted
adjustments to the interest rate at six-month intervals, based upon a specified index. The documents provided that the interest rate could never be less than 13.875%, and could be increased to as much as 20.375%. The monthly payments were stated to be $343.74 per month. Shortly after the mortgage was executed,

Sunset assigned it to Ocwen Federal Bank, F.S.B., on November 13, 1998.
Unable to keep up her mortgage payments, plaintiff
sought protection under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code, on February 16, 2000. (E.D. Pa. Bankr. Court, 00-12022) Promptly thereafter, on June 13, 2000, plaintiff filed suit in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas to rescind the mortgage, alleging a vast array of statutory violations on the part of the mortgagee. That suit was settled on December 18, 2000, when the
parties executed, and the Bankruptcy Court approved, a settlement agreement.
Under the terms of the settlement, the parties executed a modification of the original mortgage, which included the following provisions: (1) the principal amount of the mortgage was stated to be $25,894; (2) the rate of interest was fixed at
8%; (3) the mortgage was to be amortized at the rate of $190.66 per month for a 30-year period; and (4) Ocwen paid plaintiff's counsel fees.
All went well for a couple of years, but, on April 29, 2002, the servicing of the mortgage was transferred to the defendant, Litton Loan Servicing, LP, on behalf of the then-owner
of the mortgage, Wells Fargo Bank of Minnesota, acting as trustee for a group of investors. Apparently, Ocwen was not made aware of the fact that the original mortgage had been modified. For
the next 29 months, from April 29, 2002 through September 2004, the defendant did not adjust its records to reflect the modification of the mortgage, and as a result continued to demand
monthly payments ranging from $343 to $666 or more. During that period, plaintiff received numerous letters, account statements and telephone calls from the defendant seeking to enforce the mortgage according to its original terms.
On May 21, 2002, plaintiff's counsel faxed a letter to the defendant pointing out the terms of the loan modification, and enclosing another copy of the modification agreement, and requesting the defendant to correct the account records.
Although those documents were received on or about May 21, 2002, the defendant did not correct its records until mid-September 2004. On October 25, 2002, defendant mailed an “adjustable rate
mortgage loan adjustment notice” which claimed that the principal balance of the mortgage was $33,126.86, payable (with interest at 11.875%) at the rate of $343.74 per month. Similar letters were mailed by defendant to plaintiff on April 30, 2003, October 24, 2003, and April 26, 2004 – all specifying that the mortgage bore an adjustable interest rate as specified in the original note, instead of the fixed 8% rate called for by the 2000 modification.
Similar monthly billing statements were sent on April 14, 2004, May 24, 2004, June 14, 2004, July 15, 2004, August 13, 2004 and September 15, 2004.

In addition to various telephone complaints, plaintiff wrote to the defendant on August 10, 2004, disputing the accuracy of their records and requesting that the appropriate adjustments
be made. Defendant acknowledged receipt of the plaintiff's request on August 18, 2004 and, on September 3 and September 16, 2004, defendant wrote to plaintiff asserting that the records had
been updated to reflect the changes made in 2000. The September 16 letter stated that plaintiff's monthly payment was in fact $190.66, and that the next payment would be due on October 1, 2004. Nevertheless, defendant then wrote plaintiff a letter dated September 22, 2004, asserting that there was a deficit in her escrow account in the amount of $5,285.17, and stating that,
as of November 1, 2004, her monthly mortgage payment would increase to $455.80.
Actually, the correct amount of the escrow account
deficit (assuming the accuracy of all of the insurance and tax payments claimed to have been made by the defendant) should have been $4,328.94, rather than the $5,285.17 claimed. This problem was exacerbated when, in the September monthly statement which specified that $190.66 would be due on October 1, defendant also
asserted (for the first time) that plaintiff owed “other fees due” in the sum of $40,927.12.
On January 5, 2005, defendant sent to plaintiff two different written notices: one demanded that she immediately pay three months of overdue monthly payments, totaling $2,127.96; the
other notice advised that defendant intended to accelerate the mortgage so that the entire principal would be due immediately, and included a threat of foreclosure.

On January 13, 2005, plaintiff's counsel wrote to the defendant, again disputing the amounts claimed by defendant, and seeking an explanation. Remarkably, defendant did not reply to that letter directly. Instead, defendant wrote to plaintiff in person, stating that her lawyer was not authorized to represent her, hence they were corresponding directly with her. The letter
included a totally incomprehensible purported explanation of the discrepancies, and stated that the monthly payment had been adjusted to $669.96 as of October 1, 2004. Defendant did not even send a copy of that letter to plaintiff's counsel.
On February 4, 2005, defendant sent plaintiff a notice of default, specifying that the amount needed to cure the default was $2,029.47. A week later, on February 11, 2005, defendant sent plaintiff a monthly statement to the effect that, as of March 1, 2005, her delinquency was $2,696.43.
Defendant later sent plaintiff a notice to the effect that, as of May 14, 2005, the amount necessary to reinstate the mortgage would be $47,103.60. Included in this sum were the
“previous service expenses” of $40,575.12 (still not explained), a BPO fee of $400, and an “escrow shortage” of $4,281.44.

Finally, on June 22, 2005, defendant commenced an
action in mortgage foreclosure in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. The foreclosure complaint stated that the interest
rate on the mortgage was adjustable and might increase, and that, among other things, plaintiff owed an escrow overdraft in the amount of $5,313.14. In the meantime, plaintiff had filed this action, on June 7, 2005.
In addition to the foregoing chronology, I find the following facts:
Plaintiff believed that she was required to pay the real estate taxes on her residence and, for the most part, did so. However, her tax bills were not always paid on a current basis. She was unaware of the assignment of responsibility for
paying insurance premiums. Apparently, she did not maintain insurance on the property. Thus, throughout the entire period in question, it is probable that there was a deficit in some amount,
in the escrow fund. The evidence does not establish, however, the correct amount of any escrow deficit, or the actual basis for any of the various amounts claimed by defendant at various times.

The evidence does make clear that plaintiff was never given adequate, complete, and understandable explanations for defendant's claims. The defendant has requested that I find as a fact that, during the period when plaintiff was in Chapter 13 bankruptcy,

Ocwen did not seek relief from the bankruptcy stay, and did not take any action to collect its debt. Although the relevance of this finding is not immediately apparent, I am happy to include
it among my factual findings. Defendant has also requested that I find that the “monthly mortgage statements dated 9/15/04 and 12/15/04 and letters advising of adjustments in the interest rate
were automatically generated.” I also adopt that finding, since it appears that defendant's operations were indeed computerized.
In fact, defendant's sole witness at trial, whose job title is
“litigation processor” could provide no information other than what was reflected in computer printouts. Unfortunately, these
computerized records were of extremely dubious probative value:
most of the entries were redacted on grounds of “attorney-client privilege,” and the remaining entries were, for the most part, not self-explanatory. Finally, I find that the plaintiff has suffered a great deal of emotional distress, anxiety, fear of losing her home, loss of sleep, and frustration as a result of the defendant's
conduct, since at least May of 2002.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The defendant Litton is a servicer of a federallyrelated mortgage loan within the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), 12 U.S.C. § 2605.

The May 21, 2002 letter to the defendant was a
“qualified written request” within the meaning of 12 U.S.C.
§ 2605(e)(1)(B), and the defendant failed to make appropriate corrections within 60 days, and failed to notify plaintiff of any corrections, in violation of 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e)(2).
Each of plaintiff's and her attorney's later written requests for information about her account and for correction of the mistakes therein constituted a “qualified written request,”
within the meaning of RESPA. Defendant's contention that a communication is not a “qualified written request” unless it contains the number of the account is incorrect. The statute only requires that the inquiry be sufficient to identify the account. Adequate information was supplied. Defendant exhibited a pattern or practice of noncompliance with the servicing provisions of RESPA, in view of
the numerous violations established by the evidence. Plaintiff is entitled to recover for “actual damages” plus statutory
damages of $1,000. 12 U.S.C. § 2605(f)(1).
I conclude that “actual damages” includes damages for non-economic losses, such as pain, suffering and emotional distress. In my view, the weight of authority, and the better view, supports that interpretation of the statute. I adopt the
reasoning of Ploog v. HomeSide Lending, Inc., 209 F. Supp.2d 863 (N.D. Ill. 2002), Johnstone v. Bank of America, N.A., 173 F.

Supp.2d 809 (N.D. Ill. 2001), and Rawlings v. Dovenmuehle Mortg., Inc., 64 F. Supp.2d 1156 (M.D. Al. 1999). The only decision to the contrary, Katz v. Dime Sav. Bank, F.S.B., 992 F. Supp. 250 (W.D.N.Y. 1997), was a pro se case, and appears to have been decided primarily under state contract law.
I conclude that a fair and reasonable amount to be
awarded plaintiff for non-pecuniary damages is $25,000. Although a more generous award would perhaps be justified, this defendant
was not the sole cause of plaintiff's suffering.
The defendant also violated the Pennsylvania statute, Act 6 of 1974, 41 Pa. Stat. §§ 101-604, in ways which do not duplicate the federal violations. Defendant provided inaccurate
information as to the amount required to cure the alleged default, as required by § 403, and demanded amounts not properly due, under § 404 (including, at least, the $400 “BPO” fee, the
$70 inspection fee, and $319.18 in late charges which were the responsibility of the defendant for having failed to implement the loan modification). Under the statute, plaintiff is entitled to treble damages, totaling $2,367.54.
I conclude that plaintiff is not entitled to damages under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 73 Pa. Stat. § 201 et seq., since that would
represent a duplication of recoveries. Plaintiff is entitled to equitable relief, requiring the defendant to correct its records.

Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”),
15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., plaintiff is entitled to recover statutory damages in the amount of $100 for each of the 20 written communications which constituted a separate violation of
the statute (four rate adjustment letters dated October 25, 2002, April 30, 2003, October 24, 2003 and April 26, 2004; six monthly
statements mailed in 2004; and ten letters and notices (Exhibits 11-13, 15-17, 19-22)). The total damages under this statute amount to $2,000.
In my view, the undisputed facts would warrant an award of punitive damages, if authorized by statute. Inflating plaintiff's account by including the $40,575.12 for “other expenses” was particularly egregious. The only attempted
explanation of this item is that it represents attorney's fees incurred by the Ocwen firm in the lawsuit which was settled in 2000 – obviously not the responsibility of the plaintiff. I conclude, however, that punitive damages are not authorized by any of the pertinent statutes. But plaintiff is entitled to recover her attorney's fees.
The damages to which plaintiff is entitled are: $1,000 under FDCPA, $2,000 for the 20 violations of the Pennsylvania Debt Collections statute, $1,000 under RESPA, $2,367.54 under the
Pennsylvania Act 6 of 1974, for a total of statutory damages in the amount of $6,367.54, plus $25,000 for emotional distress and related non-pecuniary losses, for a total damage award of
$31,367.54. In addition, plaintiff is entitled to recover attorney's fees, in an amount to be determined.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ANDREA WRIGHT : CIVIL ACTION
:
v. :
:
LITTON LOAN SERVICING LP : NO. 05-02611-JF
ORDER
AND NOW, this 4th day of April 2006, IT IS ORDERED:
1. JUDGMENT is ENTERED in favor of the plaintiff,
Andrea Wright, and against the defendant, Litton Loan Servicing,
LP in the sum of $31,367.54.
2. Plaintiff may submit an application for counsel
fees within 10 days, and defendant may respond within 5 days thereafter. 3. Defendant shall, within 30 days, provide plaintiff and her counsel with an accurate statement of her mortgage
account, which reflects the 2000 modification agreement as of January 2001, which does not include any late charges or any
other fee or charge of any kind, except for the agreed reduced principal, interest from January 2001, and actual payments of real estate taxes and insurance made by the defendant since
January 2001, less all amounts paid by plaintiff from January 1, 2001 to date.
BY THE COURT:

http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/ripoff185244.htm

[Blue_Tires]

116. ttt !!

[Madrone]

124. I don't get most of you guys.

Personal responsibility and accountability should not be something liberals eschew. Compassion should also be something liberals hold dear. I don't see what is compassionate about not educating and/or enabling people "too "stupid" to know better (your assessment), too greedy to care (mine)" in what it means to sign your name to a contract, or what it means to make unwise financial decisions.

** I am not in any way discussing individuals that have lived responsibly and through no fault of their own have come to find themselves in peril - be it a serious medical condition that buried them in bills, and unexpected death pushing a family into poverty, etc. I am not talking about those thrust into a situation where they had to rely on credit to survive. I know a couple people that had the above happen to them - and there should be some sort of assistance and/or protection for people that find themselves in a desperate situation though NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN.

What I *am* discussing, and what I see happening around me over and over again are the people that feel they are owed anything they want, so whether or not they can afford it they buy it anyway. I don't know what is going on, but we are living in a country of individuals obsessed with their own sense of ENTITLEMENT.

"I WANT it therefore I DESERVE it and I shall HAVE it."

I'm not that old - just 33. My parents sure didn't live like this. Nor their parents before them. Did yours? Do you recall this attitude that permeates society today in days past? I sure don't. What people did then was do without. Sure, Bob may have really *wanted* that brand new 60-inch tv to show off to his buddies on Superbowl Sunday but he knew he all he could afford was the 20-inch. While wistfully imagining what a Superbowl w/ a 60-inch would BE like he'd saunter over to the pallet of 20-inch tvs and grab one for his cart. Because he was responsible. Because he knew that just because he WANTED something it didn't mean he could (or should) HAVE it. And you know what? He was thankful for the 20-inch, because 2 years ago he wouldn't have been able to afford even that. He also knew that if he decided that 60-inch were that important he could always start socking money away, and eventually he WOULD be able to afford it.

It's not like that anymore! Now people feel like if they want it they *deserve* it. And RIGHT NOW. So they rack up their credit cards with things they feel like they *deserve* - then whine about how much debt they have. AND - god forbid something happen like they lose their job they whine because the predatory credit card companies charge so much interest and are threatening to take them to court for a judgment. OR - they don't have to because DU will make a huge collective whine for them.

I have a coworker that is around 28 years old. I have worked with him since I started at my company - so 6 full years. He makes more than I do, and has been working there around 2 years longer than I have. I could write a book on this guy. I'll have to settle for the cliff notes. He has a son, now around 10 years old that lives in another state. (one state over) He hasn't seen his son since he was 6 months old. He can't "afford" to go see him. The woman that has his son is his WIFE. The wife he married at 16. The wife that had a few kids before having his son, and has had a number of kids after. The wife that lives on welfare and new boyfriends. The wife raising his child in a less than stellar environment. He can't get a divorce from this wife because he can't "afford" it. When the wife moved w/ no forwarding address or telephone number a few years ago and he no longer knew where his son was he couldn't be bothered (beyond a minimum of effort) with trying to locate her or his son because he couldn't "afford" it. He only pays $100/month for child support and kinda/sorta resents it because he needs that money for "bills". A number of years ago the state that houses his son sought an increase in child support (he should be paying a LOT more considering what he makes) - he fought it based on "financial hardship" and won.

Every day this coworker whines about how he doesn't have any money. He took out 2 401k and 1 pension loan, and at the same time stopped having money put into his 401k because he couldn't "afford" it. He complains often that his paycheck is too little because too much money is taken out (the loans come out of the paycheck). He bought a HUGE truck because he HAD to have it (used, and 10 miles/gallon) and he ALWAYS wanted a truck - didn't check it out before buying it and it blew it's motor about 30 days later. (some of the aforementioned loans were used for the rebuilt motor he put in himself, and all the other necessities - you know, like aftermarket headlights and tail lights, a lift kit, lighted windshield wipers, and god knows what else.... He also used some of the loan money to pay off his 2 $500 credit cards that had been maxed out since the day he received them, and he only ever made the minimum payments on. 1 week later, those same cards were maxed out again.

A couple of years ago he decided he wanted some new Mazda sports car - he HAD to have it and was going to get his dad to cosign for it. The payments would have *ONLY* been $600/some dollars per month. He could *easily* afford that. :eyes: (remember, I have for 6 YEARS been listening to this guy whine because he had no money - but he can easily afford $600?) His dad was apparently smart enough not to fall for that!

He has to get payday loans because he can't afford to pay some bill or another -- he can't pay anything other than the minimum on his credit cards because he can't afford to -- but he's signed up for: XM radio; expensive cell phone (of which he gets a newer, better one every 6 mos - 1 year as he gets "tired" of his older one when it's not as "cool" anymore)w/extra text messaging and internet; Dish satellite television w/ extra receiver (he lives alone!) AND TIVO service, high speed DSL (umm... he had FREE high speed wireless through our company but it wasn't "FAST ENOUGH" and, as he told me - "he's more willing to pay for luxuries than *I* am"); a $10/month Usenet service; a $10/month spam filtering service; and god knows what else I'm either forgetting or am just plain unaware of. His famous last words if I raise an eyebrow at whatever new monthly thing he's signed himself up for this time? "It's ONLY 20 dollars!" - uhh yeah, and ONLY 20 dollars x 10 = TWO HUNDRED FUCKING DOLLARS. He has told me over and over again that he should be able to have WHATEVER he wants and WHEN he wants it. He has a good job, he works hard, so he DESERVES it. That he can't AFFORD everything he wants isn't his fault. It's our shitty company's fault - as they don't PAY HIM ENOUGH. He ALSO whines about the "predatory credit card companies" and "evil payday loan sharks" - but it doesn't stop him from *positioning himself* to take it up the ass. He also told me once that the only reason he's in the position he's in is because no one will give him any credit. If he could ONLY get a bunch of credit his problems would be solved. :eyes: That time the credit card companies were evil because they WOULDN'T give him more credit - not because they're charging him out the ass for interest and he never gets anywhere making the minimum payments.

Now - if you knew this guy, you'd be feeling sorry for him too. See, he recently developed a lot of expensive and *lifestyle related* health issues that force him to spend a lot on doctor's appointments and medication. I happen to know his situation intimately, because he tells me about it, because I hear him bitching on the phone to the credit card companies and bill collectors, because he shows me the "cool new thing" he just bought or tells me about the new awesome service he just signed up for. I've been watching this for 6 years. Others that also work with us have no clue. If you were to see/meet him you wouldn't either. Instead, you'd feel sorry for him because he's being put into the poor house due to medical bills that occurred through no fault of his own. And because he pays a bunch of child support on a child he can't even see or locate.

This guy is NOT the exception! I could tell you more similar stories - but I don't have all day. I could also tell you about my few friends that live BELOW their means. You know - in case any unforeseen thing ever happens?

I don't want to hear about how it's the fault of *anyone but the consumer* because society is inundated with BUY BUY BUY, or how people aren't responsible for their lifestyles or choices simply because corporations suck - and no one's denying they DO. I do not think it's doing *anyone* any favors to suggest people are just too fucking dumb to understand they're going to lose their ass if they outspend their income level and sign on the dotted line to pay %50 interest on whatever they *must have* today. We are not talking about children and the mentally retarded here. Stop making excuses for people that are irresponsible! I know damned well if someone posted an anecdote on this site about how Jethro Republican decided he *had* to have an H2 but couldn't afford the gas and defaulted on his loan after his kid broke his arm and because they had no insurance the medical bills put him in the poorhouse you guys would rip him a new one on this site - and RIGHTFULLY SO. You'd think that was just hilarious! It would serve him right!

Stop enabling people to be IDIOTS. This attitude is a fine example of us getting the government we "deserve". If people all are as dumb as you are implying without enough common sense to know that being in hock up to your eyeballs so you can have that house you can't afford and the brand new car in the driveway while working a job just slightly better than minimum wage AIN'T A GREAT FUCKING IDEA - expect many more years of neocon rule because obviously we as a nation are too dumb to do anything different. And those few of us that aren't so dumb? By supporting and enabling the stupid we accomplish the same.

For chrissakes.