Attorneys criticized for advertisement to induce strategic default

Aug 1st, 2011  
by IrvineRenter  in Library News

Astute Observations

Astute Observation by Perspective
2011-08-01 09:17 AM

It will be interesting to see if the Nevada Bar gets involved (although I don’t see anything here that would violate the California Bar’s rules of professional conduct or ethics).

Reply to this astute observation
Astute Observation by Honcho
2011-08-01 10:43 AM

There were a couple of attorneys that tried this direct approach a couple of years ago in California (pay me instead of paying your mortgage since I am less than it would be to even pay rent).  Judges did not take very kindly to these attorneys when it was brought to their attention that the attorneys were advising clients to pay the attorney rather than paying their mortgage, especially where the legal arguments being raised were dubious to begin with.  I saw a federal judge in LA swear in my opposing counsel and put him on the witness stand to speak about his business model. It didn’t end well for that attorney.

Judges saw right through the legal pleadings and positions as an attempt to simply delay the foreclosure process.  The judges actually acted quicker to dismiss these cases where they normally would give the attorney and his clients time to amend and correct any defects in their claims.

Reply to this astute observation
Astute Observation by IrvineRenter
2011-08-01 12:04 PM

That could be why these guys evade the obvious with your comments about their ads.

Reply to this astute observation
Astute Observation by Alan
2011-08-01 10:37 AM

I like the “Lied Institute for Real Estate Studies” but I admit it is a cheap shot at someone’s name.

If the lawyers shouldn’t or can’t give financial advice, there should be at least some CFA’s who can, coupled with legal advice on how best to do it. Unless of course we are to believe that the banks and their lawyers have the customers’ and debtors’ best interests in mind.

Reply to this astute observation
Astute Observation by irvine_home_owner
2011-08-01 04:29 PM

This reminds me of something back during the 90s bubble crash where some legal firm would have the owner sign over the house to them (for a fee) so that the foreclosure would not show up on the owners record and then the owners could buy another home without the ding on their credit.

Not sure if I’m recalling that correctly.

Reply to this astute observation
Astute Observation by newbie2008
2011-08-01 07:50 PM

Is history repeating itself with 2011 houses RE instead of 1990’s TX commerical RE?

http://news.yahoo.com/bulldoze-way-foreclose-102000063.html

.Banks have a new remedy to America’s ailing housing market: Bulldozers.

There are nearly 1.7 million homes in the U.S. in some state of foreclosure. Banks already own some of these homes and will soon have repossessed many more. by Sephen Gandel of Time.com

Why is it a moral hazard when the banks are forced to temporary bailout squatters’ free rent and it’s a necessity when taxpayers are forced to bailout the banksters’ bad business practices? 

Honcho, was that LA—Los Angeles or Louisiana?

Reply to this astute observation
Astute Observation by Honcho
2011-08-01 08:17 PM

Los Angeles

Reply to this astute observation
Astute Observation by SanJoseRenter
2011-08-01 10:21 PM

So $438,000 for a condo with $490/month in HoA and Mello Roos.

Pass.

$592,000 peak price? WTF!

Reply to this astute observation
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

<< Back to main