2012-12-13 — ml-implode.com
``As I understood it, being in a court of equity meant you had to do good to get good. So, even if the foreclosing party had done things wrong, the homeowners had too, by not paying their mortgages, so they weren't going to walk out with a windfall in the form of a free and clear house. And again, the judges had no power to force the compromise position that would have been to modify the loan.
Many readers didn't like my point of view one bit, and quite a few let me know it loud and clear. Clearly, they were committed to fighting for their own homes in the courts and me saying that we weren't going to win that way was not at all something they wanted to hear.
I understood why they felt the way they did... but it didn't make them right. I explained that I wasn't saying that they, or anyone else for that matter, shouldn't fight for their homes in court, nor was I saying that they or anyone else would necessarily lose their individual cases. After all anything is possible in court, I suppose, it depends on the case, the lawyer and the judge.
What I was saying, and was still certain of, was that homeowners as a group wouldn't ultimately win this battle in the courts as long as the laws didn't change to better address the crisis.''
Comments: Be the first to add a comment