Comments on: Hero of the day: Jeffrey Spinner

By: bill-s

bill-s — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 14:26:56 +0000

I am at a loss trying to understand the willful ignorance of those who support the bank in this lawsuit. The operative issue here is that the Plaintiff could not adequately prove that they owned the underlying debt!!! Do any of you think that it is fair or right for someone- be they bank or borrower to march into court and try to collect a debt that is not owed them???

By: torrie

torrie — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 17:26:11 +0000

For those of you who have not had the “pleasure” of dealing with IndyMac/OneWest bank, please keep your comments to yourselves. IndyMac/OneWest are crooks, plain and simple. We made our payments on our construction loan every month and on time. Our payment doubled at one point, which no one can explain why. When we finished construction on our home IndyMac never converted our loan from construction phase to a mortgage loan. WE signed for a 1 time signing and interest rate of 4.75%. WE never heard from IndyMac. We sent letters, we sent certified letters, we called. Nothing has happened and now they say we have defaulted on our loan for the “Vacant Property”. WE have been living in our home for 2 years. Everytime we call, we get the runaround from someone who has no clue about our loan. WE are told someone will call us back, we never hear from a soul.
IndyMac/OneWest bank should be sued and sued big time. OneWest back “purchased” the assest of IndyMac for pennies on the dollar. I should have the same consideration to purchase my loan from them for pennies on the dollar since OneWest bank did not “loan” us the money.

By: FedUp

FedUp — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 02:30:29 +0000

We have indymac/onewest as a mortgage company and they are very scary people. We have never been late on our mortgage for over 15 years. My husband and I were both laid off from our jobs and we made payments not more than a week late. Well, Hell Hath No Fury as a borrower paying the bank a few days late. We received upwards of ten phone calls from them in one day asking where the payment is and we could lose our home to foreclosure if we don’t pay up. My stomach really starts to hurt a lot lately. The circumstances are beyond our control but we manage to make our payments (I am no longer a supervisor, but work at Wendy’s and my husband pumps gas until we find better paying jobs). They try to use scare tactics on us which work really well. Our home is worth four times more than what we owe on our mortgage and it’s very scary that they could take it away in a heartbeat. We don’t sleep well, we don’t eat well, we’re starting to look like crap and we have two kids in college. They won’t do a loan modification we are not behind (although they treat us as if we are because of a payment being late a few days). I applaud Judge Spinner and hope to see more rulings like his. As for you people who think just because a person cannot make a payment on time they should be considered a deadbeat, I hope there comes a time when you cannot make a payment. Walk a mile in my shoes!

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 01:11:39 +0000

Part of the Credit Cardholders’ Bill of Rights Act signed by president Obama attempts to limit risk for individuals under age 21. To protect lenders, people under that age must have a co-signer involved in the credit or loan process, or the total amount borrowed cant be more than 20% of the individuals income. The main issue with using credit cards is the amount of interest that can add up over time, more education for students about the credit card cycle is needed, so that no one falls into a situation that requires bankruptcy.

By: Andy Dufresne

Andy Dufresne — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 13:50:06 +0000

I personally find it very interesting that no one has brought up the fact that the Judge’s mortgage is serviced by Indymac/OneWest Bank. Can we say conflict of interest?

By: jl

jl — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 09:55:15 +0000

The judge misidentified plaintiff/defendant exactly twice, in the same paragraph, referring to plaintiff’s daughter/husband. The rest of the opinion was fundamentally sound.The amount owed was nowhere near 525,000 (except, of course, in the flat out lies of the bank in question – read the opinion, at most it was 440k including penalties and interest, and there’s some question about that).Fundamentally, the court did the right thing – there is an obligation in equity cases to refuse to grant a judgment in favor of someone coming before the court who has engaged in their own unclean behavior (like, for example, lying to the court or attempting to use the legal system for unethical or illegal purposes – for example, to enforce a default against someone without any chance on their part to make good, or LYING TO THE COURT). As such, under no circumstances was a foreclosure going to be the result. Voiding the debt was an unusual response, but not outside the scope of the court’s abilities in equity; if you look at the opinion, the rationale behind the choice of that sanction against the unclean plaintiff is fairly simple. Dismissal wouldn’t prevent another attempt to enforce their unfair prosecution, and monetary sanctions provide an inadequate penalty. Equity is best defined as the judgment that is “in the best interests of justice”, and here the interests of justice were best served by dismissal of a debt whose debtholder used unfair, unethical, and illegal tactics.

By: Betty

Betty — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 07:21:48 +0000

The amount owed by the Horoskis was over $525,000Foreclosure started in 2005 with the borrowers only make 6-9 payments, that is with the $100,000 cash out.TAXES ARE OVER $1,000 a monthSo Yes, so approximately 52 months of back payments at an average of 10.50, plus $1000 real estate taxes,homewoners insurance, penalties and fees plus the original $295,000 that was interest only–that is $525,000.So basiclly they used the $100,000 CASH OUT to make the few mortage payments they did.PLEASE GO TO ZILLOW–They post the values from the accessors office. HOUSE is worth OVER $500,000Taxes are over $12,000 a Year.3400 square ft house –50 minutes from ManhattanBought 15 years ago for $200,000The Judge believed it was now worth $250,000-according to what I have read.That is what the daughter deemed as fair market value.Market did not crash that much that in one of the most desirable real estate locations, values are back to 1994.No way, by her job and age she could afford on her own to buy a house over half a million.Of course, IndyMac would reject her offer to buy for half-price.Posters favoring IndyMac–let me know when your home is being listed for half price–NEVER!!!!Plus why should a house be sold back HALF PRICE TO the family that defaulted.If Banks are going to be FORCED TO SELL at HALF THE MARKET VALUE, the 1.3 Million Men and Women that serve our country with young chidren should be first in line to benefitBut daughter plans on going to medical school in two years, according to her web posts. Would have been hard for her to support a half million dollar house while attending medical school, so that is possily why her offer was so low.Showed good faith to a Judge that was so Pro-Defendent, and let her not be tied to a mortgage when attending medical school.THOSE THAT FEEL INDY WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE:1) Borrowers had been in house–rent free–it appears since 2005.2) 25% offer of their income (INCOME) is not known.But if it was $5,000 monthly, 25% would be $1,250–that would leave $50 to go towards Principle and Interest of Debt of $525,000.Other 1,200 would need to go to Real Estate Taxes and Hazard Insurance.Would you take back seller financing on Half a Million dollars for approximately $50.00I will admit the $5,000 is a guestimate–used salary.comEven if their income was double that–so $2500 would go towards 525,000 debt. Again taxes and Insurance would be $1200.$1300 is not enough to pay back $525,000.Plus if the Family Income was $10,000 a month–why was not even the real estate taxes paid.Life is choices and consequences.Judge Spinner should have his staff at the hospital, because it appears that even if you STOP MAKING MORTGAGE PAYMENTS 1 Year before your heart attack, you can still use medical issues as your excuse.What is fair, do all mortgage holders with medical issues that feel their mortgage payment does not fit into their budget, does the Court it??Sorry but back in 2005 when REAL ESTATE MARKET IS FLYING,after misisng 2 payments, the responsible action would be to sell the house and downsize. Living in a 3400 square foot house is not a guaranteed right.If I had $300,000 out of my house–$100,000 PLUS$200,000 (back real estate taxes and interest from 2005)along with more than 4 years living RENT FREE–I wouldnot be stating that dealing with Indy was like dealing with organized crime.To make that analogy Mr. Horoski must have experience dealin with organized crime. Also what is up with an English Professor acussuing the Bank loss mitagation repof “smoking crack.”The words crack and organized crime are not even used by me in conversation.Their neighborhood looks nice on the web, but their statments of CRACK AND ORGANIZED CRIME–are very, veryinteresting.”MAE CULPA,” is a phrase more Sub-Prime Borrowers need to embrace.

By: Davein Philly

Davein Philly — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 01:41:01 +0000

4christsake…that’s your problem, you read the article and didn’t read the ENTIRE court ruling itself. Do thorough due diligence next time, OK?The judge repeatedly misidentified the plaintiff and defendant in his written ruling. Something as simple as that, and not get it straight, is very revealing. I think we have reached the stage where the lower courts are to be easily dismissed due to judges legislating from the bench. The REAL court system seems to start at the appeals level.

By: 4christsake

4christsake — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 17:26:08 +0000

for people siding with the bank… did you actually read this article? Seems oblivious in several points who was taking advantage and who was being attempted to have advantage taken of them.

By: DaveinPhilly

DaveinPhilly — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 02:04:22 +0000

Next thing you know, Judge Spinner or a judge like him, will give someone a free car because that car owner had to suffer mental anguish when the bank sent the repo man who came and got their car in the middle of the night.Bleeding heart liberals like Salmon don’t really have a grasp of the concept of a slippery slope or unintended consequences. When government uses the heavy hand to force loan modifications when the lender doesn’t want to, then the rule of law is violated and our capitalist system is finished.

By: DaveinPhilly

DaveinPhilly — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 01:51:27 +0000

Wow. The professional deadbeats get a free house. That’s the bottom line fact. The court ruling said that less than ONE year after taking out the mortgage the Horoski’s stopped paying. And NEVER paid anything again for the next FIVE years! Can you believe it! No wonder the bank didn’t want to modify the mortgage. I wouldn’t have either.The Horoski’s showed their true deadbeat colors and the bank was on to them and knew that they would just repeat the cycle and get a few more FREE years in the house. Naturally, they came up with a story of having alternate financing in place at the beginning of this year when the noose was finally tightening around their necks, but I’m not buying their story and the bank said they didn’t believe it was a valid offer either. Frankly, at that point, the Horoski’s had zero credibility.I used to manage apartment complexes and I have seen numerous professional deadbeats who ride out the legal system as long as they can for what amounts to a free apartment and then move on and rip off the next landlord. The Horoski’s are giving off that same distinct aroma.

By: Patti Grant

Patti Grant — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 19:46:46 +0000

My post, immediately above, inadvertently mentions two fictitious names–James and Joe. James is correct.

By: Patti Grant

Patti Grant — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 19:42:38 +0000

All the pro-corporate anti-consumer comments above make me shake my head in disbelief at the arrogance and smugness of those writers who have not had to do battle against a gigantic, secretive corporate entity. Please be sure to share with us how your attitude changes when it’s your turn in the fire.A friend of ours (I’ll call him James), permanently disabled in a head on crash caused by an uninsured drunk driver, was sued for insurance fraud BY HIS OWN INSURANCE COMPANY (think little green limey lizzard). After five years of utter hell the case finally came to trial and on the fourth day was thrown out of court when the Judge said there was not one scintilla of evidence against our friend. Joe then counter sued the company and won a large financial settlement.These two cases prove that sometimes the system does indeed work for the unjustly persecuted.

By: William Campbell

William Campbell — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 15:48:15 +0000

I don’t think the decision will hold up. The owner of the note advanced the money and has a right to collect. However, there should be a way to punish the bad behavior of Indy Bank and its lawyer. Like maybe making them responsible for all or part of loan.The real loser is most likely Freddie or Fannie Mae and ultimately the taxpayer. I think the banks should be obligated to meet with the borrower and make a good faith effort to modify a loan in the best interests of loan owners and home owners. It would save the banks, GSEs and Investors significant amounts of money.

By: Jason

Jason — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 18:17:16 +0000

Jim Vindal, @ November 26th, 2009 8:07 pm GMT, is spot-on. All the commenters outraged at ruling seem to care about moral hazard and “rewarding bad behavior” only when ordinary persons are the ones behaving badly. Ordinary persons who took out loans in the past decade or so have not been acting any differently from how they did in the history of mortgage markets — people who wanted a home took the best mortgage that a bank would offer them. What has changed is that lenders and those buying mortgages from lenders have become reckless. In any individual dispute, both lender and borrower share responsibility, but at a systemic level, it is the changed behavior of lenders and securitizers of debt that has caused the economic crisis and has put taxpayers on the line for billions of their losses.Sure, ideally, the Yano-Horoskis would still owe they money they owe, and the bank would be ordered to come to an amicable repayment agreement. Perhaps more important than whatever this particular family still owes on this particular loan and what the particular terms of repayment that this particular bank is made to accept, however, is that the bank face criminal charges for fraud and its representatives criminal charges for perjury, as well as the bank facing punitive civil damages.