Cran Down of Homes in Chapter 13 is Back Before Congress

bobbyw24

Banned
Joined
Sep 10, 2007
Messages
14,097
Additional Background information that you might want to use:

* The amendment that will be offered on the floor would empower bankruptcy judges to modify mortgages on primary residences as the "stick" that financially-strapped homeowners desperately need to get their lenders to work with them to prevent avoidable foreclosures.
* This narrowly-tailored change to the bankruptcy code would not cost the U.S. taxpayer one penny for stopping foreclosures and stabilizing the economy by providing homeowners access to court-supervised mortgage modifications.
* The amendment will not excuse families from paying their mortgage or encourage a rush to bankruptcy court. Rather, it will give judges the authority to modify unaffordable loans for families who are facing foreclosure and cannot obtain a voluntary modification.
* The clear objective of the amendment is to encourage the servicers of troubled homeowners to offer aggressive loan modifications that would help keep families in their homes, which, when compared to foreclosure, is more profitable to banks, more secure for the families, and more stable for the surrounding neighborhood and community.

4. Here are some key messages for speaking with the staff person or leaving a voice mail message:

* Urge Rep. __________ to support an amendment to H.R. 4173 being offered by Reps. Conyers, Turner, Lofgren, Marshall and others that will help financially distressed families avoid foreclosure.
* The number of homes in foreclosure continues to rise dramatically, with up to 3 million new foreclosure starts this year alone. This continued foreclosure crisis undermines the prospect for any kind of economic recovery. (Add any local examples or flavor that you can.)
* The latest adjustments by the Obama Administration to its nine-month old foreclosure program do little but highlight the continued failure of the lenders' voluntary efforts to stop the foreclosure crisis. Lenders have insisted for almost 3 years now that they will voluntarily address the foreclosure crisis. But the record is abundantly clear that the voluntary programs have not worked.
* For those Members who voted yes on HR 1106: This amendment is identical to H.R. 1106, a bill Rep. _______supported when it came up for a vote earlier in the year.
* For those Members who voted no on HR 1106: I understand that Rep. __________ had concerns about a similar bill when it passed the House earlier this year. What you should know is that in the intervening months, the foreclosure crisis has gotten worse, not better. If our economy is to recover, we need the housing market to stabilize first.

http://www.NACBA.org
 
Let me acquire more gold and silver first before I sign this petition.

The moron public thinks this is good for them...lol
 
Too much legislation.....system is going to crash....

Cloward and Piven win.
 
If you took out the loan, and you go bankrupt, then you should lose your home or have to liquidate assets in order to keep in; bankruptcy is merely a "cheaters way" of avoiding debt that your honestly owe: http://mises.org/journals/jls/1_4/1_4_2.pdf Not only that, but it forces those who are conservative and wise in their loans to pay for the risk of bankruptcy associated with less scrupulous individuals.
 
If you took out the loan, and you go bankrupt, then you should lose your home or have to liquidate assets in order to keep in; bankruptcy is merely a "cheaters way" of avoiding debt that your honestly owe: http://mises.org/journals/jls/1_4/1_4_2.pdf Not only that, but it forces those who are conservative and wise in their loans to pay for the risk of bankruptcy associated with less scrupulous individuals.

Sorry but that's not the law. Whether a debtor may keep her home is based on state law exemptions (or federal BK exemptions). A debtor's non-exempt assets are liquidated ub bankruptcy.

The Founding Fathers put the right to file bankruptcy in the Constitution Article I--so I guess the Founders liked "cheaters" and "unscrupulous individuals."

It is a myth that filing bankruptcy costs are passed on to "those who are conservative and wise in their loans."
 
Mortgage Cram-Down

A mortgage “cram-down” bill that stalled in Congress earlier this year will also be attached to the broader financial regulatory legislation and voted on this week, Frank said today. The cram-down provision would let federal judges lengthen mortgage terms, cut interest rates and reduce loan balances for homeowners in bankruptcy court, even if the lender objects.
 
Why Republicans need to support legislation allowing Cram downs

In January 2009, I was in the unusual position of asking my fellow Republicans to support legislation sponsored by the Democrats that would have given bankruptcy judges the capability of modifying mortgages in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy. Click here to read my original article. Unfortunately, this legislation failed to pass in the Senate. I have now received word that the concept of judicial loan modification in Bankruptcy Court could be resurrected.

Congress will soon be considering amendments to H.R. 4173, the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, that would give consumers a powerful negotiating tool to use when trying to negotiate loan modifications with intransigent lenders. I am once again urging my fellow Republicans to set aside outdated perceptions of irresponsible borrowers and support this legislation.

President Obama's loan modification program, commonly known as Home Affordable Modification Program or HAMP, has been a dismal failure. As of September 2009, only about 1700 homeowners had received "permanent" loan modifications under the HAMP program. As any bankruptcy attorney can tell you, experience has shown that lenders have very little motivation to modify loans. Consumers have seen their 90-day "trial payment periods" under HAMP drag on for months with no sign of a permanent loan modification offer in sight.

The threat of an involuntary loan modification in bankruptcy court may be the only way to force lenders and loan servicers to take loan modifications seriously and to stop dragging their collective heals in offering reasonable solutions.

I am urging all of my readers, colleagues and clients to contact their representatives in Congress by going to http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/mcapdir.html and urging them to support amendments to this bill that would give bankruptcy judges the power to modify residential mortgage loans.

With 3 million new foreclosures expected in 2010, the ongoing foreclosure crisis will continue to cause a rise in bankruptcy filings and undermine any hope of an economic recovery.

Unlike the expensive bailouts provided to the big lenders, this change to the Bankruptcy Code will not cost taxpayers one penny and will help stabilize the economy. The voluntary loan modification programs simply are not working.

So if the Republican Party wants to stop looking like it is out of touch with reality, supporting this legislation might be a good first step in fixing the public's perception of the party.

About the Author: Carl H. Starrett II has been a licensed attorney since 1993 and is a member in good standing with the California State Bar, the San Diego County Bar Association and the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys. Mr. Starrett practices in the areas of bankruptcy, business litigation, construction, corporate planning and debt collection.
 
Update on this Bill

The House Rules Committee just minutes ago agreed to allow the bankruptcy modification amendment to be considered on the House floor as an amendment to the broader financial services reform bill AS EARLY AS THIS AFTERNOON!!
 
Sorry but that's not the law. Whether a debtor may keep her home is based on state law exemptions (or federal BK exemptions). A debtor's non-exempt assets are liquidated ub bankruptcy.

I realize that, but all in all, in some instances it's a "get out of jail free" card and the person declaring bankruptcy can end up walking away with an unpayed loan and the assets that are liquidated (if any) are of a lesser value than the loan.

The Founding Fathers put the right to file bankruptcy in the Constitution Article I--so I guess the Founders liked "cheaters" and "unscrupulous individuals."

I don't care if it's the law or in the Constitution; I am no longer a Constitutionalist, as I think it has so many flaws. Sure, it's better than what we have now, but compared to the Articles of Confederation, it was a step in the wrong direction.

It is a myth that filing bankruptcy costs are passed on to "those who are conservative and wise in their loans."

*chuckles* I'd like to know how you attest for this; if a bank's loan "goes bad" and the bankruptcy favors the consumer or the the assets liquidated are not enough to cover the loan, in its entirety; this is going to set the bank back which, of course, they'll pass on to consumers. It doesn't take a lot of logic to figure out which customers will get the brunt of it.

In January 2009, I was in the unusual position of asking my fellow Republicans to support legislation sponsored by the Democrats that would have given bankruptcy judges the capability of modifying mortgages in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy. Click here to read my original article. Unfortunately, this legislation failed to pass in the Senate. I have now received word that the concept of judicial loan modification in Bankruptcy Court could be resurrected.

Congress will soon be considering amendments to H.R. 4173, the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, that would give consumers a powerful negotiating tool to use when trying to negotiate loan modifications with intransigent lenders. I am once again urging my fellow Republicans to set aside outdated perceptions of irresponsible borrowers and support this legislation.

President Obama's loan modification program, commonly known as Home Affordable Modification Program or HAMP, has been a dismal failure. As of September 2009, only about 1700 homeowners had received "permanent" loan modifications under the HAMP program. As any bankruptcy attorney can tell you, experience has shown that lenders have very little motivation to modify loans. Consumers have seen their 90-day "trial payment periods" under HAMP drag on for months with no sign of a permanent loan modification offer in sight.

The threat of an involuntary loan modification in bankruptcy court may be the only way to force lenders and loan servicers to take loan modifications seriously and to stop dragging their collective heals in offering reasonable solutions.

I am urging all of my readers, colleagues and clients to contact their representatives in Congress by going to http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/mcapdir.html and urging them to support amendments to this bill that would give bankruptcy judges the power to modify residential mortgage loans.

With 3 million new foreclosures expected in 2010, the ongoing foreclosure crisis will continue to cause a rise in bankruptcy filings and undermine any hope of an economic recovery.

Unlike the expensive bailouts provided to the big lenders, this change to the Bankruptcy Code will not cost taxpayers one penny and will help stabilize the economy. The voluntary loan modification programs simply are not working.

So if the Republican Party wants to stop looking like it is out of touch with reality, supporting this legislation might be a good first step in fixing the public's perception of the party.

About the Author: Carl H. Starrett II has been a licensed attorney since 1993 and is a member in good standing with the California State Bar, the San Diego County Bar Association and the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys. Mr. Starrett practices in the areas of bankruptcy, business litigation, construction, corporate planning and debt collection.

this is an anti-free market piece of legislation; forcing the banks to change their terms? Making things more "reasonable" for the consumer who took out the loan? I'm sorry, but the customer signed the contract, and he's fully liable for it. This also proves my point of the costs being passed on to consumers. Yeah, it won't cost a dime of tax-payer money, but it means harder to get loans/more "expensive" loans for customers of the bank. Longer loan terms than were originally accounted for, reduce rates, reduce payments, etc....if those are forced on the bank by the government, judges, etc, it will result in a loss for the banks...which they will pass on to consumers.


Just more Statist bullcrap.

found this later:
I am a bankruptcy attorney and can post or PM bankruptcy FAQs to members


special interest group, ahoy!
 
The lenders new the loan was going to go bad when they made it. Even if they keep the house its still worth way less than when they made the loan.

The cram-down threat will simply force proper accounting and destroy all the insolvent banks.
 
The lenders new the loan was going to go bad when they made it. Even if they keep the house its still worth way less than when they made the loan.

The cram-down threat will simply force proper accounting and destroy all the insolvent banks.

There's not proof they "knew the loan was going to go bad"; that's utter non-sense. A bank wouldn't have made a loan if they knew it was going to go bad. Banks have zero incentive to give you a loan, only to take a loss later on.

the reason the house is worth less is because its returning to a bit more realistic price on the market, which is a good thing; prices need to fall, as its part of the correction.

I really don't see the support for legislation such as this amongst some here on Ron Paul forums; last I checked this was supposed to be a fiscally responsible, libertarian oriented forums, and not some populist paradise.
 
Back
Top