naked capitalism

Mish says:

An entirely correct ruling

I applaud the judge for judicious use of common sense
Mish

psychohistorian says:

It just came to me. This is all just about natural evolution.

We are just evolving from Rule of Law to Rule of Money.

Mish says:

It’s worth remembering that years back, Mish devoted countless blog space to the desirability of the mortgage “walk away”, those with the ability to make their payments, but whose financial position could be enhanced by property abandonment. He later went on to advise legal counsel before such a step. Perhaps Mr. Zulueta was simply following Mish’s earlier advice.

Good luck in trying to square this circle. Mish’s definition of common sense departs radically from most other’s.

Jean it would help if your comments made any sense at all.

Yes I am an advocate of walking away. Please note when someone walks away, they lose the house.

You are making the idiotic argument that walking away means owning a house free and clear.

This person did not pay his mortgage and lost the house. Justice was served. That should not be so tough to figure out now should it?

Yes I do advocate getting rid of public unions. I presented a strong case many times in many ways how public unions make people slaves. You failed to say anything about my arguments, you just threw mud.

Moreover, and in the first place, the union debate nothing to do with today’s argument at hand.

Jean, I advise you to think before you write, or you will make yourself look even more foolish than you do now.

Mish

Jean says:

Mish,

You applaud the judge’s “common sense” decision. I do not, as written by Random Observer … “The closest thing to “legal reasoning” in the proceeding is the statement that debtor is not getting a free house. This should be remanded, especially in light of the Judge’s order, which provides absolutely no findings of fact or law to support his order. No findings of fact = no appellate deference to the judge below.” I do not see judicial “common sense” at play here. I do not applaud a court order based on a the need that no one get a free house. That does not equal advocating for a free house. I am an advocate of due process. You appear to place the desired final result/action above due process. That’s genuinely frightening stuff.

There is a connection between your advocacy of “walking away” (with which BTW I do not concur). You support the walking away, but only if the borrower loses the house. My position is that once the “walking away” lands in court, due process must be afforded to both parties.

I made no representation of the entirety of your anti-public union stance, and am not interested in arguing it here. But, like it or not, legal contracts are in play here. You have many times stated those contracts can be dismissed as fraudulent, without ever showing anything to support that.

You can lash out all you like, but there are people who simultaneously think and do not agree with your positions.

highplainslawer says:

Well, I practiced Bankruptcy law for over 25 years and I see nothing wrong with what the judge did. What I did see in the transcript was a pro se client who did not have a clue about what he was doing or how to present a case.

This was basically the wrong forumn for this dispute. The validity of the lien really needs to be determined in state court.

The debtor does not get a free house. If the mortgage company does not have a valid lien, the trustee sells the property and distributes the proceeds to the debtor’s creditors. It is interesting that the trustee was not even present.

indio007 says:

This case is a loser. the judge asked him for evidence and he failed to provide any. HIS OWN TESTIMONY IS SUFFICIENT. Arguing like an attorney when you are pro se is a death knell.
You don’t argue that it fraud you testify that it’s fraud. You are a witness to everything when you are pro se.

Only a pro se defendant and the notary can identify absolutely the authenticity of a document. A straight denial goes a long way.