RSS
 


Only Fair: If Bankers Get Attorneys Fees, Why not Homeowners who win? Mandelman Hits The Nail on the Head, as We’ve Come to Expect.

17 Jul

Oh really? Only fair… Bankers’ Association whining over the idea of having to pay attorney’s fees when they LOSE in court. Really? no, really…

BANKERS: Count on them to be petty and offensive, every single time.

from Mandelman Matters by Mandelman

Okay bankers… I wanted to go to bed, really I did.  And I was about to, really I was.  You brought this one to yourselves, but then again, I’ve come to understand that you just can’t help it, can you?

Are you ready for this?

A bill in New York that says that whenever a mortgage on residential property allows lenders to recover attorney’s fees in a foreclosure proceeding, the mortgage must also allow the borrower the same right if a foreclosure is unsuccessful.  Got that?  If the bank is allowed to get attorney’s fees in a foreclosure proceeding, then homeowners must also be able to get their attorney’s fees paid if they win the day.

There’s a phrase to describe that sort of legislative proposal… what is it… oh, that’s right… ONLY FAIR.

So, guess who’s totally against it?  And I mean like lobbying against it, big time.  It’s an easy one, right?  I know, I don’t know why I bother asking… consider it rhetorical.

The Bankers Association… the bankers themselves… and the best part is why they’re against it.  They say that it’s “unnecessary and would create uncertainty in the foreclosure process”.

Unnecessary?  For whom?  I think you’re unnecessary, you banker-piece-of-crap.  And as to creating the “uncertainty in the foreclosure process,” I can only say… oh, shut up.

What kind of people are bankers?  Am I the only person who wants to beat a banker with a stick… publicly?  Or attend the public stoning of one.  I’m actually starting to have fantasies that, if nothing else, I get to share a room with one at the nursing home one day, so I can unplug him… or maybe just put a pillow over his face and count to 11,502.

The bill, A1239/S2614, which was proposed by Assemblyman Rory I. Lancman, D-Queens, has already passed both houses of the Legislature, but has not yet been forwarded to Governor Paterson for signature, so the banking lobbyists are doing whatever they can to look like asshats and oppose it.  The sponsors call it the Access to Justice in Lending Act.

See, this is what I mean when I say these people are not normal, there’s something defective about them.  If you’re the parent of a banker, please write to me and tell me what you did to create a person that would oppose something like this.  Didn’t you teach them to play fair when they were young?  You dropped them on their heads a bunch of times, didn’t you?  Shot heroin for breakfast during all three trimesters?  Tell me, and I’ll start being nice to them, I swear.

The association’s objections were prepared by Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, which lobbies in Albany for the industry association… and how did I know there’d be a “Dicker” in there?  Lucky guess.

The bill is important at a time like this, because it would clearly encourage more lawyers to represent homeowners in foreclosure actions “because attorneys can be confident, if successful, that they will be paid for their work.”  And, as more than one person has pointed out, with foreclosures going nowhere but up, attorneys specializing in foreclosure work are needed more than ever before.  A whole lot more, actually.

The Bankers Association, however, makes the inane argument that the most common defenses by borrowers in foreclosure actions involve TILA (Truth in Lending Act), and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and that because both already provide for payment of attorney’s fees to the winners, there’s no reason to pass a bill that does the same thing when TILA or Fair Debt are not in play.  Don’t try to understand that argument or your likely to accidentally bite your tongue off.

But that’s not all… additionally the Bankers Association actually said that the bill raises constitutional questions.  Oh right, it must be the little known Anti-Fairness Clause that no one ever talks about.

Apparently, Article 1, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution states: “No state shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts.”  The bankers are actually arguing that the bill would create such an impairment, and I’m just not going to respond to that stupid assertion without being able to swear.

Sorry, since I’m not going to say what I want to say… what would be appropriate here… I’m not enjoying this anymore, so I’m going to bed.

Oh, wait a minute… French… I can swear in French, right?  Oh, hell yes I can…

Hey bankers… Casse-toi!


Add star

LikeShareShare with noteEmail
 

Tags: , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.