Posts Tagged ‘obamacare’

Two-Faced Freddie Mac, The Fiscal Cliff and the Obamacare Real Estate Tax, 2012’s Top Headlines Continued

Friday, December 28th, 2012

Happy New Year

Continuing our recap of our most popular blogs from 2012…

#5 — Robosigning Settlement Proves Sky Was Falling! Chicken Little Was Right!

Yesterday’s robosigning settlement that all but one state ultimately signed off on, was far from perfect.

Let’s make that perfectly clear.

Depending on what you have read, you might be outraged, you might be relieved, you might be overjoyed. And the target of your wrath or sympathy might depend on your own personal perspective.

But make no mistake about it, yesterday was a day of reckoning, for me, and much more importantly, for the people I represent.

Read the full post here.

#4 — What I Tell Clients Who Receive A Foreclosure Notice

As a real estate attorney, I’ve had plenty of prospective clients come to my office after being served with a foreclosure notice. It is safe to say they are usually not in a good mood; they are usually scared.

And the truth is I would be too.Foreclosure can be a scary process for even the most legally astute homeowner.

When a homeowner walks into my office for that first time, there is one question that comes up almost every time. It’s a basic yet very essential question to anyone under the threat of foreclosure…

What do I do next?

Read the full post here.

#3 — Freddie Mac — Playing Two-Face to the American Homeowner?

Aaron Eckhart might have played Two-Face in the last Batman movie, but Freddie Mac seems to have settled into the role these days.

Non-profit ProPublica and National Public Radio allege that Freddie Mac, which was set up to make home loans more accessible, was in fact betting against homeowners.
(more…)

Seguro Medico de Obama (Obamacare), La Crisis de Foreclosure y Las Reglas de la Ley

Tuesday, July 3rd, 2012

Estecomentario fue publicado en Yahoo! Originalmente, y esta siendo re distribuidopor el Blog Legal del Sur de la Florida conprevia autorización.

United States Supreme CourtAh? Que significa el seguro medico de Obama oObamacare como es referido y que tiene que ver con la Crisis de Foreclosure?

Simplemente pon, el debate legal acerca del Obamacaresobre un mandado especifico, una ley que requiere que los ciudadanos del paíscompren un seguro medico lo quieran o no.

Para mi asombro, La Corte Suprema ha pasado esta ley, pero como un impuesto.

Durante el periodo de tiempo mientras esta ley estabasiendo discutida y pasada, parecía que el Presidente hubiera asumido que elGobierno tenía el derecho de forzar a los ciudadanos a adquirir un producto deuna compañía privada aunque este no sea necesariamente deseado.

La supervivencia de este mandado en La Corte Supremaen un estándar más limitado, deja este asunto lejos de ser solucionado.

Yo siento que hubo muy poco, si acaso algún análisisconstitucional hecho por parte del Presidente o su equipo al momento de ladecisión de pasar el mandado, excepto por el hecho de percibir que había unagran necesidad de este.

Así fue como el debate sobre la Ley de seguros médicosme recordó de un debate legal ocurrido durante la crisis de Foreclosure.

Cuando yo empecé a defender dueños de hogar, los juecesle daban un solo vistazo: si solicitaste el préstamo, entonces debes el dinero,y tienes que pagarlo.

Nadie se detenía a pensar si los bancos queintroducían estos foreclosure tenían el derecho constitucional de hacerlo.

Nadie.

Nadie preguntaba si los bancos habían cumplido con losrequerimientos legales antes de proceder a introducir la demanda, como porejemplo la asignación de notas o elconocimiento del verdadero dueño de la hipoteca.
(more…)

Obamacare, the Foreclosure Crisis and the Rule of Law

Friday, June 29th, 2012

This commentary was originally published on Yahoo! Homes and is being redistributed on South Florida Law Blog with their permission.

United States Supreme CourtHuh? What do “Obamacare” and the foreclosure crisis have to do with each other?

Simply put, the legal debate over Obamacare largely centered on the individual mandate, a law that would require people to buy health insurance whether they wanted to or not.

A little to my surprise, the Supreme Court did uphold it, although as a tax.

During the passing of the healthcare law, it seemed that the president assumed that the government had the ability to force people to buy a product from a private company that they did not necessarily want.

The mandate’s survival in the Supreme Court on a much narrower standard apparently leaves the question far from settled.

I felt that there was little, if any, constitutional analysis done by the president and his team when they decided to pass the mandate, except for the fact that they perceived a compelling need for it.

And that’s how the debate over the healthcare law reminded me of the legal debate during the foreclosure crisis.

Back when I started defending homeowners, the judges took a simple view: You borrowed the money, therefore you owe the money, so you have to pay it back.

No one stopped to think whether the banks bringing these foreclosures had the constitutional right to do so.

No one.

No one asked whether the banks had fulfilled their legal requirements before filing suit, such as properly assigning notes and knowing who owned the mortgage.

Instead, there was a preference for expediency. Since the homeowner borrowed the money and owed the money, the homeowner had to pay. The banks would be able to sort out who actually owned anything among themselves, and the most important thing was to get the home away from the homeowner.
(more…)


PHP/MySQL Components, WordPress Plugins, and Technology Opinions at TravisWeston.com

Bad Behavior has blocked 1587 access attempts in the last 7 days.