T Nation

A Sign of Things to Come?

A Long Island couple is home free after an outraged judge gave them an amazing Thanksgiving present â?? canceling their debt to ruthless bankers trying to toss them out on the street.

Suffolk Judge Jeffrey Spinner wiped out $525,000 in mortgage payments demanded by a California bank, blasting its “harsh, repugnant, shocking and repulsive” acts, the New York Post reported.

The bombshell decision leaves Diane Yano-Horoski and her husband, Greg Horoski, owing absolutely no money on their ranch house in East Patchogue.

Spinner pulled no punches as he smacked down the bankers at OneWest â?? who took an $814.2 million federal bailout but have a record of coldbloodedly foreclosing on any homeowner owing money.

“The bank was so intransigent that he [the judge] decided to punish them,” Greg Horoski, 55, said about Spinner’s scathing ruling last Thursday against OneWest and its IndyMac mortgage division.

It erased up to $291,000 in principal and $235,000 in interest and penalties.

The Horoskis â?? who had been paying only interest on their mortgage â?? had no equity in the home.

Horoski, who had begged the bankers to let him restructure the loan, said, “I think the judge felt it was almost a personal vendetta.” Dealing with the bank, he said, was “like dealing with organized crime.”

OneWest said, “We respectfully disagree with the lower court’s unprecedented ruling and we expect that it will be overturned on appeal.”

It claimed it “has been extremely active in working with consumers on home loan modifications through the Obama administration’s Home Affordable Modification Program and other loan modification initiatives.”

The bank is owned by a private equity group that purchased the failed IndyMac bank.

Yano-Horoski, a college professor of English and cognitive reason, and Horoski, who sells collectible dolls online, bought their 3,400-square-foot, one-level house 15 years ago for less than $200,000.

In 2004, court records show, they refinanced, paying off their original mortgage with part of a $292,500 sub-prime loan from Deutsche Bank. They used what was left for health care and for his business.

The loan carried an initial adjustable interest rate of 10.375 percent, which soared to 12.375 percent.

It eventually ended up being either owned or serviced by IndyMac, and the bank sued the couple in July 2005 when they began having trouble making payments because of Horoski’s health problems.

After a foreclosure was approved last January, Yano-Haroski successfully asked for a court settlement conference.

Spinner excoriated OneWest for repeatedly refusing to work out a deal, for misleading him about the dollar amounts at stake in the case, and for its treatment of the couple over months of hearings.

OneWest’s conduct was “inequitable, unconscionable, vexatious and opprobrious,” Spinner wrote.

He canceled the debt because the bank “must be appropriately sanctioned so as to deter it from imposing further mortifying abuse against [the couple].”

The bank is involved in a similar case in California, where it’s trying to foreclose on an 89-year-old woman, despite two court orders telling it to stop.

This judge sounds like someone I could get along with.

Government bailing out people who took loans they never should have and you can get along with them?

You do realize that it is people like that, that are responsible for the current economy right?

Nowhere, in any legal precedent or code, does it say to unfairly punish a bailee, creditor or institution because you “don’t like” the methods that they use to collect what is theirs.

And the couple has no mortgage now, because the judge decided to play Robin Hood. I hope this is a one time occurrence.

[quote]archiewhittaker wrote:
Nowhere, in any legal precedent or code, does it say to unfairly punish a bailee, creditor or institution because you “don’t like” the methods that they use to collect what is theirs.

And the couple has no mortgage now, because the judge decided to play Robin Hood. I hope this is a one time occurrence. [/quote]

Excuse me, Robin Hood took from the government and gave the people their taxes back.

[quote]archiewhittaker wrote:
Nowhere, in any legal precedent or code, does it say to unfairly punish a bailee, creditor or institution because you “don’t like” the methods that they use to collect what is theirs.

And the couple has no mortgage now, because the judge decided to play Robin Hood. I hope this is a one time occurrence. [/quote]

Its in the “fuck it, the law says what I feel is right in the moment”- clause of the constitution.

You will have noticed that these days this has almost become legal dogma.

[quote]John S. wrote:
Government bailing out people who took loans they never should have and you can get along with them?

You do realize that it is people like that, that are responsible for the current economy right?[/quote]

“loans they never should have”, according to your article they needed the money to pay for their house and medical bills. From the sounds of it the judge ruled in their favour due to the unethical behaviour on the part of the bank (harassment, lying about number figures, etc). Were the people responsible for paying back the loan? Sure, but it looks like (based on the information given) that the judge felt the bank was going about trying to collect said loan in a very shady manner.

[quote]JLu wrote:
John S. wrote:
Government bailing out people who took loans they never should have and you can get along with them?

You do realize that it is people like that, that are responsible for the current economy right?

“loans they never should have”, according to your article they needed the money to pay for their house and medical bills. From the sounds of it the judge ruled in their favour due to the unethical behaviour on the part of the bank (harassment, lying about number figures, etc). Were the people responsible for paying back the loan? Sure, but it looks like (based on the information given) that the judge felt the bank was going about trying to collect said loan in a very shady manner.[/quote]

The bank was going to collect its property.

They should have sold there house when they were no longer able to afford it. Back in 2004 they could have sold there house easy. This is just another way of the Government saying people are too stupid to accept the consequences of there actions.

[quote]JLu wrote:
John S. wrote:
Government bailing out people who took loans they never should have and you can get along with them?

You do realize that it is people like that, that are responsible for the current economy right?

“loans they never should have”, according to your article they needed the money to pay for their house and medical bills. From the sounds of it the judge ruled in their favour due to the unethical behaviour on the part of the bank (harassment, lying about number figures, etc). Were the people responsible for paying back the loan? Sure, but it looks like (based on the information given) that the judge felt the bank was going about trying to collect said loan in a very shady manner.[/quote]

The only shady thing about his whole thing is the judge. Since when do we let personal fleeting emotions dictate when we follow precedents. This couple (and others like them), As John S. said, are the reason why bubble popped in the first place. How about some accountability for your actions nowadays? If you are irresponsible in your research of the lends you take, then you should pay the consequences of being an idiot.

Incompetent lenders, unqualified borrowers and the tax payers get to pay for the whole thing. The lesson - start a bank.

I can’t see the decision standing.

So when the bank couldn’t afford to stay afloat they should’ve thrown in the towel? Or do the expectations for being accountable for your actions and being responsible only apply to normal citizens and not corporations like banks?

[quote]JLu wrote:
So when the bank couldn’t afford to stay afloat they should’ve thrown in the towel? Or do the expectations for being accountable for your actions and being responsible only apply to normal citizens and not corporations like banks?[/quote]

The banks should have collapsed.

The Judge is right. They slamed the people with interest rates that made their mortgage unplayable. The borrower in good faith asked pleaded and begged the bank for a reduction in interest so they could stay in their home. A home that is Modest and the people honest but fell prey to bad lending practices. You know bad things can happen to good people.

The Bank in Question got paid for their losses via Government bailouts and gladly took the money and now they were after more. They would rather foreclose then loose a few hundred dollars per month on a lower interest rate.

So again for a few hundred dollars monthly they refused to help and would rather foreclose and throw a family out on the street.

I applaud the Judge for this specific scenario. Ive dealt with Banks before and their Officers and CFO’s. You have no idea how close to organized crime they are. They hold all the cards and they know it. I would rather default and talk to John Gotti about me having a hard time with payments because there is better chance to a inkling of humanity in him then a BANK. LOL! Isn’t that Obvious?

[quote]Gregus wrote:
The Judge is right. They slamed the people with interest rates that made their mortgage unplayable. The borrower in good faith asked pleaded and begged the bank for a reduction in interest so they could stay in their home. A home that is Modest and the people honest but fell prey to bad lending practices. You know bad things can happen to good people.

The Bank in Question got paid for their losses via Government bailouts and gladly took the money and now they were after more. They would rather foreclose then loose a few hundred dollars per month on a lower interest rate.

So again for a few hundred dollars monthly they refused to help and would rather foreclose and throw a family out on the street.

I applaud the Judge for this specific scenario. Ive dealt with Banks before and their Officers and CFO’s. You have no idea how close to organized crime they are. They hold all the cards and they know it. I would rather default and talk to John Gotti about me having a hard time with payments because there is better chance to a inkling of humanity in him then a BANK. LOL! Isn’t that Obvious? [/quote]

Sorry but I have to totally disagree.

People should know how bad an interest only loan is, and they still went along with it. They signed their name on the dotted line regarding the loan, and if they were not fully informed it is their own fault. I am not saying the bankers are saints, but you need to be on the defensive with your money issues. If you are dumb enough to get an interest only loan, then you should be held responsible for it. Why the bankers didn’t re-structure the loan is simple to understand, but then again they are not obligated to. Should we all get bailouts when we make bad decisions? I am glad my family taught me better than that, to fall for such stupidity.

You need to be your own banker, doctor, lawyer, accountant, etc, because no one values your own money and well being more than YOU.

[quote]John S. wrote:
Government bailing out people who took loans they never should have and you can get along with them?

You do realize that it is people like that, that are responsible for the current economy right?[/quote]

No, it is investment banks and speculators responsible for the current economy, and it’s people like you who are trying to rewrite history to let them get away with it.

[quote]John S. wrote:
JLu wrote:
So when the bank couldn’t afford to stay afloat they should’ve thrown in the towel? Or do the expectations for being accountable for your actions and being responsible only apply to normal citizens and not corporations like banks?

The banks should have collapsed. [/quote]

And then we would be in Great Depression 2.0, and everyone would suffer, which goes against your principle of not suffering for other people’s mistakes.

[quote]MaximusB wrote:Sorry but I have to totally disagree.

People should know how bad an interest only loan is, and they still went along with it. They signed their name on the dotted line regarding the loan, and if they were not fully informed it is their own fault. I am not saying the bankers are saints, but you need to be on the defensive with your money issues. If you are dumb enough to get an interest only loan, then you should be held responsible for it. Why the bankers didn’t re-structure the loan is simple to understand, but then again they are not obligated to. Should we all get bailouts when we make bad decisions? I am glad my family taught me better than that, to fall for such stupidity.

You need to be your own banker, doctor, lawyer, accountant, etc, because no one values your own money and well being more than YOU.[/quote]

If these were such terrible loans, why did the bank allow them? You are desperate to absolve the banks of all responsibility for this when it’s clear they were to blame. Why?

At any rate, no matter how bad somebody wants a loan, if the banks say no, they can’t have it. Trying to lay all the blame on homeowners (and we’ve already covered the fact that subprime loans were not primarily to blame, but maybe your were sleeping) is laughable.

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
MaximusB wrote:Sorry but I have to totally disagree.

People should know how bad an interest only loan is, and they still went along with it. They signed their name on the dotted line regarding the loan, and if they were not fully informed it is their own fault. I am not saying the bankers are saints, but you need to be on the defensive with your money issues. If you are dumb enough to get an interest only loan, then you should be held responsible for it. Why the bankers didn’t re-structure the loan is simple to understand, but then again they are not obligated to. Should we all get bailouts when we make bad decisions? I am glad my family taught me better than that, to fall for such stupidity.

You need to be your own banker, doctor, lawyer, accountant, etc, because no one values your own money and well being more than YOU.

If these were such terrible loans, why did the bank allow them? You are desperate to absolve the banks of all responsibility for this when it’s clear they were to blame. Why?

At any rate, no matter how bad somebody wants a loan, if the banks say no, they can’t have it. Trying to lay all the blame on homeowners (and we’ve already covered the fact that subprime loans were not primarily to blame, but maybe your were sleeping) is laughable.

[/quote]

If you were stupid enough to not see the problem with an interest only loan, then maybe you should have your money and home taken away from you. You are clearly not in a position to buy a home in a responsible many, but cry for a bailout when you realize your own bad decision. Because of stupid thinking like yours, I have to pay for people’s lack of responsibility. Some of these people knew the loans were bad, but took them anyway. Why? So they could then take out an equity loan on a home that they knew would be foreclosed on. Bankers played their part, and home buyers played their part. But above all of that, all of them are guilty.

Gee, how many people would love to buy a million dollar mansion that they cannot afford, and when the loan defaults because they made a stupid decision spending beyond their means, everyone else is “obligated” to pay for their mistake? Really? And if they don’t, they are being mean, inhumane, racist, and the rest of the useless unbased verbage that is always used. Spoken like a true Socialist.

The point, which you clearly missed, is there are people in the world who always try to take money from you. That does not mean it is ok either. But that will never change, because that is the nature of the world. But it is YOUR job to be smart enough to not allow that to happen. During my sleep, I saw much more than you did.

Dear Ryan,

Will you please buy me out of my debt which I created out of my own foolishness, because I am a lazy bum who refuses to do my own research, and believes everything that comes of the mouth of anyone who works in finances? While I can blame my stupidity on others who intentionally tried to scam me, I refuse to accept my own part in the financial deal which went bad. I could have gotten helpful advice from others who have been through this ordeal before, but instead I will lean on the government and it’s people, since it’s everyone else’s job to save me, instead of my own. Yes, I think I need to laugh to deal with dumb ass thinking like this.

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
MaximusB wrote:Sorry but I have to totally disagree.

People should know how bad an interest only loan is, and they still went along with it. They signed their name on the dotted line regarding the loan, and if they were not fully informed it is their own fault. I am not saying the bankers are saints, but you need to be on the defensive with your money issues. If you are dumb enough to get an interest only loan, then you should be held responsible for it. Why the bankers didn’t re-structure the loan is simple to understand, but then again they are not obligated to. Should we all get bailouts when we make bad decisions? I am glad my family taught me better than that, to fall for such stupidity.

You need to be your own banker, doctor, lawyer, accountant, etc, because no one values your own money and well being more than YOU.

If these were such terrible loans, why did the bank allow them? You are desperate to absolve the banks of all responsibility for this when it’s clear they were to blame. Why?

At any rate, no matter how bad somebody wants a loan, if the banks say no, they can’t have it. Trying to lay all the blame on homeowners (and we’ve already covered the fact that subprime loans were not primarily to blame, but maybe your were sleeping) is laughable.

If you were stupid enough to not see the problem with an interest only loan, then maybe you should have your money and home taken away from you. You are clearly not in a position to buy a home in a responsible many, but cry for a bailout when you realize your own bad decision. Because of stupid thinking like yours, I have to pay for people’s lack of responsibility. Some of these people knew the loans were bad, but took them anyway. Why? So they could then take out an equity loan on a home that they knew would be foreclosed on. Bankers played their part, and home buyers played their part. But above all of that, all of them are guilty.

Gee, how many people would love to buy a million dollar mansion that they cannot afford, and when the loan defaults because they made a stupid decision spending beyond their means, everyone else is “obligated” to pay for their mistake? Really? And if they don’t, they are being mean, inhumane, racist, and the rest of the useless unbased verbage that is always used. Spoken like a true Socialist.

The point, which you clearly missed, is there are people in the world who always try to take money from you. That does not mean it is ok either. But that will never change, because that is the nature of the world. But it is YOUR job to be smart enough to not allow that to happen. During my sleep, I saw much more than you did.

Dear Ryan,

Will you please buy me out of my debt which I created out of my own foolishness, because I am a lazy bum who refuses to do my own research, and believes everything that comes of the mouth of anyone who works in finances? While I can blame my stupidity on others who intentionally tried to scam me, I refuse to accept my own part in the financial deal which went bad. I could have gotten helpful advice from others who have been through this ordeal before, but instead I will lean on the government and it’s people, since it’s everyone else’s job to save me, instead of my own. Yes, I think I need to laugh to deal with dumb ass thinking like this. [/quote]

Fucking A, well said, Sir.

Who the fuck are you talking about? The banks? Because homeowners sure as hell didn’t get bailed out. Stop equivocating, no one had a gun to the banks’ collective head and forced them to make these loans. Hell, it wasn’t even one type of loan that was the problem. They ALL went bad, which is an inconvenient fact the right would like people to forget.

No, it’s actually because of stupid thinking like YOURS. Who do you think got the bailouts? It was the financial institutions. Not po’ folks that bleeding-heart liberals like me (ha) want to help.

Except that the bankers are serveral trillion times more guilty. Just because you refuse to learn anything about what actually happened in this crisis doesn’t mean you get a pass for ignorance.

Besides the fact that this bears no resemblance to anything a Socialist would advocate (read: you don’t know what you’re talking about), this is not what happened. Again, you may have a point in regards to whatever you’re talking about, but it’s pretty irrelevant here.

That reminds me: Goldman Sachs has set aside $17 billion of your tax money to pay out as bonuses this year. But go on…

[quote]Dear Ryan,

Will you please buy me out of my debt which I created out of my own foolishness, because I am a lazy bum who refuses to do my own research, and believes everything that comes of the mouth of anyone who works in finances? While I can blame my stupidity on others who intentionally tried to scam me, I refuse to accept my own part in the financial deal which went bad. I could have gotten helpful advice from others who have been through this ordeal before, but instead I will lean on the government and it’s people, since it’s everyone else’s job to save me, instead of my own. Yes, I think I need to laugh to deal with dumb ass thinking like this. [/quote]

Um, OK, so your point is that, yeah, it was the banks’ fault for all the reckless lending and fraud that went on, and yes we’re paying money to bail out the people who torpedoed our economy but consarn it, I think the most important thing here is that a few poor people don’t get a free ride. Oh, the irony…