Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus Miller
If Seb thinks the foreclosure process includes a lot of meaningless requirements, he should lobby the PA legislature to change the law. Because, as we all know, it is unduly burdensome to require that a lender actually own a loan and be entitled to enforce the remedies available thereunder before attempting to exercise those remedies. And asking (even if sua sponte) the Lender to provide proof of their good title to the mortgage and the note secured thereby is just another example of consumer protection run amok. His position on this is odd given a PM conversation Seb and I had previously.
That said, the national media attention is wholly overblown. There is a widespread problem, but it is (really, truly) merely procedural in the vast, vast majority of cases, and the real upshot is that a lot of mid-sized firms in each of the 50 states are going to get work cleaning up mortgage files and updating foreclosure forms libraries for the big banks.
|
I don't have a problem with getting the procedure correct. My problem is that this is being couched as a consumer protection issue when it is not, and as of this weekend, not one wrongly foreclosed* borrower has been identified.
*By this I mean a borrower's whose property was not in default.
