Fiserv
Thoughts & Comments
On Long Island, a Dumb and Expensive Ruling
In voiding a legitimate mortgage contract, a judge helps make borrowing a little harder for everyone

Thomas Brown  ( about me )
Posted 11/27/2009
bankstocks.com
tbrown@bankstocks.com

Out in Suffolk County, Judge Jeffrey Spinner must be really pleased with himself. This week, he cancelled—cancelled—$525,000 in mortgage debt a delinquent borrower owes a lender seeking to foreclose. The New York Post says the judge didn’t approve the “harsh, repugnant, shocking, and repulsive” collection tactics employed by the lender, OneWest (a successor to IndyMac), and said the company’s conduct was “inequitable, unconscionable, vexatious, and opprobrious.” The judge seems to buy his adjectives in four-packs.

But notice the judge didn’t say “illegal.” Idiotic rulings like this are what make an already tough environment for mortgage lenders even more difficult.  

This isn’t complicated. A mortgage is a legally binding contract. Both parties to the contract should expect that a judge will uphold the contract’s terms if they are challenged in court.

But Judge Spinner didn’t do that. Instead, he tossed the mortgage aside, for no legally defensible reason. Thus he added an new element of uncertainty into the mortgage business. OneWest will now have to needlessly spend additional money to appeal the ruling, and will surely win. It will take back the house a little later than it would have, and will likely realize a little less value upon its disposition. All of which, if you add up events like this many times over, makes mortgage debt a tad harder to get and a tad more expensive. And for what?    

In making his cockamamie decision, Judge Spinner surely must have felt some smug, self-satisfied sense that he was “speaking truth to power.” Baloney. In this case, Spinner was the one with the power. And by nullifying a perfectly legitimate contract, he’s abused it.

What do you think? Let me know!


  Add your comment

 

 

Kevin B Posted On 11/27/2009 9:22:46 PM

A bullseye as usual Tom. You would think a judge would have the sense to stop short of financial vigilantism. These are strange days with strange people in charge

sgr Posted On 11/29/2009 8:17:31 PM

Wait? You are asking judges in Long Island to follow the law? How boring. It's so much more fun and impresses the media when you make it up as you go.

Hoofin Posted On 11/29/2009 11:17:38 PM

Did he actually void the debt? Or did he rule that the mortgage was no longer a lien on the property? (Therefore, an unsecured debt.)

Dante Posted On 11/30/2009 11:39:07 AM

Well said.

Hope & Change... Posted On 11/30/2009 12:05:52 PM

Bond holders mortgage lenders - whats the difference - This is not the hope and change this country and its institutions can withstand....

Jack Posted On 11/30/2009 12:29:40 PM

This will encourage lenders to make more loans.... Ha ha... Its reasons like this that lenders do not want to lend... Belive it or not I had the same thing happen to me in 1998, a BK judge thew out a mortgage because the borrower claimed he did not get copies of it at closing, despite that he signed a documents receipt and the title company testified they gave him the copies... I spent 50k on an appeal and lost that as well. We shortly after that time got out of making residential loans and have not made one since then....

Robin Posted On 11/30/2009 1:12:01 PM

You're right about the consequences in the mortgage market. But the issue is MUCH bigger. Indeed, the frequent abrogation of contract rights, a hallmark of the current administration, poses a serious threat to our constitution and our liberty. Every bondholder, stockholder and property owner should recognize the peril for what it is.

ACEMAN Posted On 11/30/2009 1:23:49 PM

Y'all must consider Judge Spinner for the next Supreme Court opening. Who cares if this is constitutional or not, to the good judge playing to the voters is an old American tradition. As far as the US Consitution is concerned, the basic document is about contracts and contract law, so if the good Judge Spinner wishes to take the next step and conclude that the US Consitution can no longer be useful for contracts, then let's make it possible that throughout the land all real estate contracts are null and void. Maybe Judge Spinner is on to something by voiding the supreme tenet of capitalism. What a judge!

Nick Ruffin Posted On 11/30/2009 1:46:38 PM

Borrowing to buy a home became too easy. The Post story says there was a sub-prime refinancing. The lender should have been more careful inextending credit. It will be good for the economy if lenders and borrowers no longer see a home as an investment. Home ownership is consumption and should not be highjly leveraged.

Larry B Posted On 11/30/2009 2:00:19 PM

No doubt Judge Spinners political leanings must be far left of liberal. There's no "Kings-X" in contractual law.

STR1967 Posted On 11/30/2009 2:30:20 PM

I don't agree with the judge's ruling and am sure it will be reversed but I have a hard time feeling sympathy for mortgage companies at all. This only makes a mortgage more expensive to get because the mortgage industry does not recognize that some things are the cost of doing business and will always make the consumer the one who ultimately bears the expense. Anyone who books mortgages and does it the right way should be tired of the behavior that has sullied the entire industry.

Terry Penn Posted On 11/30/2009 2:37:57 PM

I agree wholeheartedly. The Fascists have made a perfectly legal contract worthless. The press wonders what has happened to the secondary market.

Lngolf Posted On 11/30/2009 2:49:36 PM

What a great idea I just had. I can stop paying my mortgage, disregard collection efforts, taunt the collector, and then claim that I was mistreated. I thought there was no such thing as a free lunch. Thank you Judge Spinner!

STR1967 Posted On 11/30/2009 3:19:56 PM

I don't agree with the judge's ruling and am sure it will be reversed but I have a hard time feeling sympathy for mortgage companies at all. This only makes a mortgage more expensive to get because the mortgage industry does not recognize that some things are the cost of doing business and will always make the consumer the one who ultimately bears the expense. Anyone who books mortgages and does it the right way should be tired of the behavior that has sullied the entire industry.

william Posted On 11/30/2009 4:55:29 PM

off with his head!

Tom Posted On 11/30/2009 6:16:29 PM

You are right on track. I hope your comments reach some of the right people. Keep it up.

Dave Tan Posted On 11/30/2009 8:44:53 PM

Tom, Is this a different case from the one where the mortgage was securitized so many times, that the bank couldn't prove that it owned the mortgage? Thank you.

RBG Posted On 11/30/2009 9:14:14 PM

Well, there is no question this ruling is ridiculous. Yet, I can't help but find amusement and irony in the fact that all of those adjectives were used against Indymac for behavior that, given the lag times between incident and trial, occurred under the supervision of the FDIC and that Great Protector of the Consumer, Sheila Bair. This would be the same Ms. Bair who was lecturing banks a year and a half ago about forgiving mortgage debts. I guess the judge was just helping her meet that goal.

Kudlow Posted On 12/1/2009 8:54:13 AM

Now Bankers won't get bonuses. They won't buy high end products. Unemployment will rise to 15%. We need tax cut for the top 1% now...Let us pray

Irwin Posted On 12/1/2009 2:32:41 PM

Spinner is representative of much Long Island government. He probably had an audience shaking their heads up and down, encouraging him to be so wonderfully articulate.

Craig Carney Posted On 12/1/2009 3:33:37 PM

You are so right on this one. A contract must be a contract or else there is no banking system or any other system for that matter!

Dave in Dallas Posted On 12/1/2009 5:40:48 PM

Very good comments and I agree. It's an abuse of power that's becoming more common from our judicial system.

Michael Posted On 12/3/2009 10:03:27 PM

After the lender wins on appeal, I wonder if they can sue the judge for malpractice or something similar?

gpankake Posted On 12/4/2009 5:17:24 PM

This smells of something bigger than just tossing a mortgage aside.

banker Posted On 12/18/2009 5:09:51 AM

should we call "learned "judges as they fail to enforce the contract
Ad for inter-arch
Ad for Bankstocks
 

     Bankstocks.com is a public web site operated by individuals who also operate investment advisory firms that serve as investment advisers to hedge funds (the "Firms"). Some articles are authored by employees of the Firms while others are authored by third parties. Under no circumstances does any article posted on Bankstocks.com represent a recommendation to buy or sell a security. This article is intended to provide insight into the financial services industry and is not a solicitation of any kind. The Firms do not vouch for the accuracy of any information contained in any article posted herein and the views expressed in any article herein do not necessarily reflect the views of the Firms. The Firms buy and sell securities on behalf of their fund investors and may do so, before and after any particular article herein is published, with respect to the securities discussed in any article posted herein. The Firms’ appraisal of a company's prospects is only one factor that affects the Firms’ decision whether to buy or sell shares in that company. Other factors might include, but are not limited to, the presence of mandatory limits on individual positions, decisions regarding portfolio exposures, and general market conditions, and liquidity needs. As such, there may not always be consistency between the views expressed in this article and the Firms’ trading on behalf of their fund investors. There may be conflicts between the content posted on Bankstocks.com and the interests of the Firms. For an explanation of these conflicts, including an explanation of our trading policy, and how we resolve them, click here.

Neither the authors nor any Bankstocks.com team members can provide investment advice or respond to individual requests for recommendations. However, we encourage your feedback and welcome your comments on any of the articles on this site. Neither the authors nor Bankstocks.com has undertaken any responsibility to update any portion of this article in response to events which may transpire subsequent to its original publication date.