Judge Wipes Out Couple's £370K Mortgage

[Timm]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1230867/Couples-370-000-mortgage-wiped-judge-angry-banks-repulsive-behaviour.html

A New York couple got an early Christmas present when an angry judge wiped out their £370,000 mortgage. Judge Jeffrey Spinner cancelled the $525,000 debt after slamming their California bank for their 'harsh, repugnant, shocking and repulsive' behaviour in trying to foreclose on them.

Now Diane Yano-Horoski and husband Greg owe no money on their smart home on Long Island, New York. The judge took the unusual action against the OneWest bank, who themselves received an $814.2m bailout from the US government. Spinner's ruling eliminated $291,000 owed in principal and a further $235,000 owed in interest and penalties. The couple had been paying just the interest owed on the mortgage for the 3,400sq-ft home they bought for $200,000 15 years ago. But they refinanced their mortgage in 2004, and the loan ending up being owned by Indy-Mac, the mortgage division of OneWest. The bank sued the couple in 2005 when they began to struggle making their monthly payments. '"The bank was so intransigent that he (Spinner) decided to punish them, said 55-year-old Greg Horoski. 'I think the judge felt it was almost a personal vendetta. It was like dealing with organized crime.' When the couple's foreclosure was approved last January, the couple asked for a court settlement conference.

The judge was heavily critical of OneWest for refusing to make a deal with the couple, for its treatment of them and for allegedly misleading him over the dollar amounts involved.

In a scathing written judgment, Judge Spinner branded the bank's conduct as 'Inequitable, unconscionable, vexatious and opprobrious.' He wrote that he cancelled the debt so the bank 'must be appropriately sanctioned so as to deter it from imposing further mortifying abuse against the couple.' In a statement OneWest said: 'We respectfully disagree with the lower court's unprecedented ruling and we expect that it will be overturned on appeal.'

"The judge was heavily critical of OneWest for refusing to make a deal with the couple, for its treatment of them and for allegedly misleading him over the dollar amounts involved."

Perhaps the bank was unable to prove to the judge that any dollars had ever been loaned.

© Injin.

[Dubai]

opprobrious:

opprobrious |əˈprōbrēəs|

adjective

(of language) expressing opprobrium.

• disgraceful; shameful : their opprobrious conduct.

DERIVATIVES

opprobriously adverb

ORIGIN late Middle English : from late Latin opprobriosus, from opprobrium (see opprobrium ).

Just in case you wondered......

Good man. The appeal will probably overrule... can't have big biz being dictated to by customers now, can we?

[Lone_Twin]

'"The bank was so intransigent that he (Spinner) decided to punish them, said 55-year-old Greg Horoski. 'I think the judge felt it was almost a personal vendetta. It was like dealing with organized crime.'

Shhhh nobody tell Injin.

[Ruffneck]

this sets a precedent

US court system clogged up by people trying to wipe their mortgages clean?

[Bloo Loo]

this sets a precedent

US court system clogged up by people trying to wipe their mortgages clean?

makes no odds...the loan will still be given a mark to model value.

[Jie Bie]

this sets a precedent

US court system clogged up by people trying to wipe their mortgages clean?

Just like with the bank charges case, it'll be appealed until a judge gives the "right" verdict.

[Jie Bie]

this sets a precedent

US court system clogged up by people trying to wipe their mortgages clean?

Just like with the bank charges case, it'll be appealed until a judge gives the "right" verdict.

[Moley]

Just like with the bank charges case, it'll be appealed until a judge gives the "right" verdict.

Exactly. Justice only seems to exist in this world for those with the deepest pockets.

[the end is a bit nigher]

If I were them I would sell it prior to appeal as you can't just wipe out people's debt like that. It should rightly be overturned.

[Ah-so]

Can't see how this would survive an appeal - and appeal they surely must, as this would create a dangerous precedent. Wiping out the loan appears disproportionate to the bank's actions.

[nickincash]

They borrowed money from the bank and the bank wanted them to pay it back?

That's outrageous.

[housepricecrash]

If I were them I would sell it prior to appeal as you can't just wipe out people's debt like that. It should rightly be overturned.

if overturned on appeal, the couple will still owe the bank the amout they borrowed.

only difference is the bank will no longer be a secured creditor.

[lurker07]

They borrowed money from the bank and the bank wanted them to pay it back?

That's outrageous.

<injin mode>

if the bank can prove there was any money in the first place

</injin mode>

[Moley]

"and a further $235,000 owed in interest and penalties."

I'd love to know how they arrived at this figure.

[Guest UK Debt Slave]

They borrowed money from the bank and the bank wanted them to pay it back?

That's outrageous.

The bank didn't lend them anything. It just pretended to.

Banks do NOT lend money.

What exists is an unenforceable unilateral contract. What the banks refer

to as ‘your contract with us’ is not a valid bilateral agreement since the four requirements of a lawful, binding contract were not met on the loan ‘application’, namely:

1. Full Disclosure (we are not told that we are creating the credit with our signature);

2. Equal Consideration (they bring nothing to the table, hence they have nothing to lose);

3. Lawful Terms and Conditions (they are based upon fraud); and

4. Signatures of the Parties/ Meeting of the Minds (corporations can’t sign because they have no right, or mind, to contract as they are legal fictions).

Edited November 26, 2009 by UK Debt Slave

[lurker07]

The bank didn't lend them anything. It just pretended to.

Banks do NOT lend money.

What exists is an unenforceable unilateral contract. What the banks refer

to as ‘your contract with us’ is not a valid bilateral agreement since the four requirements of a lawful, binding contract were not met on the loan ‘application’, namely:

1. Full Disclosure (we are not told that we are creating the credit with our signature);

2. Equal Consideration (they bring nothing to the table, hence they have nothing to lose);

3. Lawful Terms and Conditions (they are based upon fraud); and

4. Signatures of the Parties/ Meeting of the Minds (corporations can’t sign because they have no right, or mind, to contract as they are legal fictions).

So how come you post on t'internet? I would imagine you must be a multi-millionaire with all the free money you get from the banks that you don't have to pay back and should be travelling the world.

[Guest UK Debt Slave]

So how come you post on t'internet? I would imagine you must be a multi-millionaire with all the free money you get from the banks that you don't have to pay back and should be travelling the world.

You're missing the point

There is no such thing as money and there is no means to repay debt either.

You cannot repay debt, you can only 'discharge' debt.

How can anyone repay debts when there is no such thing as money?

You spend your life discharging debts with newly created debt. The debt never goes away, it just gets transferred to someone else further down the chain. This is why the monetary system is constantly expanding and it is why the national debt can never be repaid.

I am paid 'money' by my company and I discharge debt with it, my mortgage etc. My company pays me with debt that is created by someone else and someone else borrowed money to loan to them.......and so on.

When you borrow money from a bank, you are never told that you are actually creating that credit with your signature. It's all a gigantic fraud.

The whole system is a fiction but its very difficult to challange peoples' lifetime held belief systems

You might not understand how the 'money' system works. Injin does and everyone on here thinks he is a nutter. Actually, he is closer to the facts than anyone else who posts on this forum.

[Ponzi]

It's like the negligence adverts:

"Taken out a loan by accident?"

Let us absolve you of all responsibility today!"

So just like insurance premiums, we all end up paying more for borrowing cash.

[TheEmperorHasNoClothes]

You're missing the point

There is no such thing as money and there is no means to repay debt either.

You cannot repay debt, you can only 'discharge' debt.

How can anyone repay debts when there is no such thing as money?

You spend your life discharging debts with newly created debt. The debt never goes away, it just gets transferred to someone else further down the chain. This is why the monetary system is constantly expanding and it is why the national debt can never be repaid.

I am paid 'money' by my company and I discharge debt with it, my mortgage etc. My company pays me with debt that is created by someone else and someone else borrowed money to loan to them.......and so on.

When you borrow money from a bank, you are never told that you are actually creating that credit with your signature. It's all a gigantic fraud.

The whole system is a fiction but its very difficult to challange peoples' lifetime held belief systems

You might not understand how the 'money' system works. Injin does and everyone on here thinks he is a nutter. Actually, he is closer to the facts than anyone else who posts on this forum.

I think I understand this concept, but I would like to offer a different view.

The banks are effectively a brokering service for the creation of new money.

Yes they create the money from nothing, and collect interest, but they must also pay interest on the newly created money also.

Banks compete to offer the best interest rates (both on borrowing and savings).

So to get revenge on the system, just borrow at the lowest rate possible and save at the highest rate.

If you borrow at 3% and save at 4% you are costing the banking system money.

There also advantages to this money creation, the alternative would allow rich people to hoard cash and control the money supply. This system means that

even Bill Gates can have no hope of controlling the money supply. And any individual bank has no control either.

It's a shi*te system but what is a better alternative?

Gold? I don't think so. Fiat currency? Localised currencies?

I think the current system has a number of advantages that are easy to take for granted.

[monks]

Just reading it in The Times now - seems he used the money for healthcare (excuse for the Court) and FUNDING AN ONLINE BUSINESS SELLING DOLLS. He gambled and lost - let the bank take the house !

His wife was an English professor. She may not have been good at Maths, but she surely must have understood the smallprint on the mortgage application.

[Guest UK Debt Slave]

I think I understand this concept, but I would like to offer a different view.

The banks are effectively a brokering service for the creation of new money.

Yes they create the money from nothing, and collect interest, but they must also pay interest on the newly created money also.

Banks compete to offer the best interest rates (both on borrowing and savings).

So to get revenge on the system, just borrow at the lowest rate possible and save at the highest rate.

If you borrow at 3% and save at 4% you are costing the banking system money.

There also advantages to this money creation, the alternative would allow rich people to hoard cash and control the money supply. This system means that

even Bill Gates can have no hope of controlling the money supply. And any individual bank has no control either.

It's a shi*te system but what is a better alternative?

Gold? I don't think so. Fiat currency? Localised currencies?

I think the current system has a number of advantages that are easy to take for granted.

Yes it does.

The Bank of England has monopoly control of the money supply.

The rich don't hoard money for obvious reasons but they do get the lions share of newly created money to spend into the economy first, before the value of it decreases. By this mecanism, wealth is always being tranferred to the richest people in society because the spending power of money always decreases after its initial creation.

[scottbeard]

Banks do NOT lend money.

What exists is an unenforceable unilateral contract. What the banks refer

to as ‘your contract with us’ is not a valid bilateral agreement since the four requirements of a lawful, binding contract were not met on the loan ‘application’, namely:

1. Full Disclosure (we are not told that we are creating the credit with our signature);

2. Equal Consideration (they bring nothing to the table, hence they have nothing to lose);3. Lawful Terms and Conditions (they are based upon fraud); and

4. Signatures of the Parties/ Meeting of the Minds (corporations can’t sign because they have no right, or mind, to contract as they are legal fictions).

Banks DO lend money and they DO have something to lose.

For example, i take out a £10,000 loan. The bank credits my account with £10,000. This, in effect, creates £10,000 and I agree does not cost them anything.

However, I then withdraw the £10,000 as cash. They hand over the cash. I blow it on the horses, and default my loan. The bookie deposits it in another bank.

Sure the banking system overall hasn't lost, but my bank has lost £10,000 of *actual cash*. Therefore, individual banks DO risk something when they make a loan.

The system has only broken down because, other than Lehman Brothers, the banks who made bad loans have not been allowed to go bust.

When you borrow money from a bank, you are never told that you are actually creating that credit with your signature. It's all a gigantic fraud.

The whole system is a fiction but its very difficult to challange peoples' lifetime held belief systems

I agree that you aren't told, but does that make it a fraud?

I remember reading in about fractional reserve banking in a book about finance for kids, when I was about 10 years old. I have known about it virtually all my life.

It has pros and cons, and one of the cons is the problem that with nothing to limit the printing of cash by the central bank, eventually it can lead to hyperinflation. But alternative systems have pros and cons as well.

[Andy_K]

However, I then withdraw the £10,000 as cash. They hand over the cash. I blow it on the horses, and default my loan. The bookie deposits it in another bank.

Sure the banking system overall hasn't lost, but my bank has lost £10,000 of *actual cash*. Therefore, individual banks DO risk something when they make a loan.

Suppose you spend the £10,000 on a car instead, and pay by bank transfer. No cash involved. What happens then?

[ImA20SomethingGetMeOutOfHere]

The bank didn't lend them anything. It just pretended to.

Banks do NOT lend money.

What exists is an unenforceable unilateral contract. What the banks refer

to as ‘your contract with us’ is not a valid bilateral agreement since the four requirements of a lawful, binding contract were not met on the loan ‘application’, namely:

1. Full Disclosure (we are not told that we are creating the credit with our signature);

2. Equal Consideration (they bring nothing to the table, hence they have nothing to lose);

3. Lawful Terms and Conditions (they are based upon fraud); and

4. Signatures of the Parties/ Meeting of the Minds (corporations can’t sign because they have no right, or mind, to contract as they are legal fictions).

Arguably true, but what you sign isn't a contract anyway. It's a consumer credit agreement as regulated by the consumer credit act 1974. it may look a bit like a contract but it isn't.

[The Spaniard]

Let's hope that the judge doesn't die suddenly and unexpectedly six months later as Justice Martin Mahoney did forty years ago after making a similar judgement.

http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/dollar-deception.php