Judge Spinner relieves Homeowner of Mortgage to Penalize Lender
Yesterday on Long Island New York Judge Spinner in INDY MAC v YANO HOROSKI http://www.courts.state.ny.us/courts/10jd/suffolk/pdf/foreprogramrules.pdf held in essence that a bank who is seeking foreclosure against a homeowner whose is in default must act in good faith http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/good+faith and negotiate in good faith in an attempt to medicate damages. The Judge stated ” The judge concluded that the banks’ conduct was “wholly unsupportable at law or in equity, greatly egregious and so completely devoid of good faith that equity cannot be permitted to intervene on its behalf.” However he went further stating that the banks conduct made him believe they would repeat this conduct, and a penalty would not therefore be a deterrent. SO HE EXTINGUISHED THE ENTIRE DEBT.
See http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202435781738&rss=newswire
Facts. Ms Yano Horoski a college professor refinanced her existing mortgage and refinanced the residence for $ 292,500.00 with an adjustable whose interest rate went from 10% to 12%. Part of the monies in the refinancing went to her husband’s home doll collection business. Apparently due to some financial and medical issues they could no longer afford the mortgage. As such they approached the lender. The Judge held that the family made several efforts to mediate the matter including one in which her daughter would purchase the home. But the law firm Steven J Baum http://www.mbaum.com/SJB/index.jsp attorney would not agree to anything but foreclosure.
Steven Baum is the dominant law firm in New York representing banks in foreclosure sales and “short sales”. They never permit any changes in a contract, and in fact are aggressive . In their contracts they only give a purchaser 30 days to obtain a mortgage and if you don’t monetary penalties kick in which are in my opinion draconian and penalize purchaser’s unfairly.
I’m glad the Judge slammed the lenders and their attorney who all benefit from taxpayer “TARP” bailout monies but treat consumers like garbage.
Now Hold On, No Lights No Sirens 
Why is a sub-prime borrower who more than likely OVER STATED their income and used their house as an ATM supposed to get the benefits of TARP
when the rest of us do not.
Diana Yano needs to produce tax returns to prove her 1003 was accurate at time of application and all her supposedely paid medical bills.
You are right that there is a moral consideration, in that if the borrowers were fraudulent in applying for the loan they should not be entitled to assistance. However, the loans being given out were so dicey the bank should have known that they were likely to default as such , in my opinion we have two less than desirable parties.
The Judge requested they ‘work it out”, the bank refused , and as such the Judge penalized them his message to other banks “you helped create this mess, now you have to help clean it up’.
Alas, you may be right the banks might simply say, let Uncle Sam clean it up.
My mortgage company wants me to pay $154,449.60 until year 2037 instead of a mortgage of 67,542 for 7 years as a loan modification with 30,000 down payment. There is a lot of information regarding this situation.I need your assistance . I am retired 63 year old women and will be 90 years old if I take this offer and I think they are taking advantage of me.