Not paying back money you borrow makes you a deadbeat. That the rules allow you to avoid that responsibility in no way changes that someone who doesn't pay back a debt is a deadbeat.

Skipping unnecessary administrative procedures is the norm and something that is required to make any complex system function. I find it odd that you don't see a distinction between rules that matter and rules that serve no purpose and exist only because the people who design the system rarely actually work in it so don't realize how unnecessary certain things are.

Your position seems to be that rules should be followed at all times. So a single mom shows up and wants to cash a cheque but bank policy is 10 day hold so too bad? Should the bank be allowed to just ignore the rule if they feel like helping out this person? Similarly, you see this all the time with the elderly where banks and other institutions bend rules to facilitate the functioning of the system. Unfortunately systems are getting more and more bureaucratic and no one wants to take the risk of using personal judgment so this is less common now than ten years ago but still something that should be encouraged.

No. Some rules matter and others don't. It is illegal to jaywalk but no one really enforces that. It is illegal to make a lane change without signalling. Going 110 in a 100. For society to function we allow certain things to slide. Not all rules matter. The rules in question here had no value.

The rules being broken were not part of the agreement with the customer. The party that would have a complaint would be the legal system since the issue revolved around signing an affirmation that you had personally viewed documents that were stored at a different bank. Technically the person is committing perjury because they are claiming that they themselves have seen the documents and they haven't. They could have had they had them sent over but that isn't important since it doesn't change anything if the person signing has actually seen the paperwork or not. None of this is part of the mortgage contract with the customer.

When you look at people who stop paying debts rarely are they destitute. If someone had put all their **** on e-bay and sold it and was living on just the bare essentials then I might feel sorry for them. As long as they still have a TV though they are deadbeats because they are not doing everything they can to pay the loan back. I have a theory that bleeding heart help the poor types should go and live in a poor community for a year. It would really change their views on the poor pretty quickly.

I have no idea how things are in Canada, but it is certainly not the "norm" in this country, and certainly not an authorized one. Things do get missed, and they are often not caught , for various reasons. When such things are discovered, though, there is often a mad rush for ass-covering, because the ramifications can be heavy, despite the seemingly inconsequential nature of the trespass.

Also, in the situation we are discussing, it was a matter of willful disregard, not ignorance or mistake. Ask any auditor, there is a very real and tangible difference, in effect and influence, between sloppy paperwork and blatant rule-snapping, no matter how expedient it may be.

Stop with the cheap lawyering. You don't find it odd, you are not surprised, you are not shocked. You're just trying to emphasize a point of obviousness that isn't there, or is of little real matter.

Or, hell, maybe you really do talk like that. Guess I'll give you benefit of the doubt that it is unintentional.

First of all, rules and company policies are not laws. A company can go against it's own policy for matters just like this, as long as they comply with the laws and regulations governing their industry.

Second, You may see this all the time. I sure don't. I see it occasionally, but it is not done often. And that is how it should be; the policies are in place for a variety of reasons, and exceptions should be just that, not matters of common practice.

Because:
A very good point. Mostly because it is, I'm afraid, far easier to engender compliance, and more difficult for companies to develop good individual judgment. So you get a nation of ass-coverers. My wife's boss, a very competent and professional lady, lost her job recently for something similar, trying to help a good customer. Nobody was happy about it, but nobody was willing to put their ass on the line like she did for said customer.

First of all, I don't recall you being gifted with the authority to make a value judgment, at least not in matters of legality. Even the minor things you mention do have utility; if I don't make that turn signal, and an accident occurs because of it, I am liable, and I will more than likely be charged with a offense. Hell, I can be charged even if there is not an accident.The fact that you see "no value" in it is of no importance.

Still, you did not address the second part of that paragraph. You keep trying hammer home the questionable point that these rules were of "no value"; my wife, who works in the industry, and I know to be a pretty sober correspondent of such matters, tells me differently, that these rules had utility and their breaking was more malicious than mere mistake, and more harmful than a surface glance may indicate.

Hmmm. Who gets the cred, here?

Rail against the "activist" wife to begin in 3,2,1...

And not to derail...but they have 100 mph. limits in Canada?

Point taken.

I sense that it is just that, a theory. I have lived in a "poor" community (although even that concept is open to definition), and I saw some who are as you describe. A lot, although I would hesitate to quantify it as a majority. However, far from "changing my views", as you so sagely insisted it would, it broadened my awareness, and made me a lot more focused in finding out the real causes of such things, not just a finger pointing exercise that allowed for cheap rationalization of baser and more selfish prejudices.

Reacting and thinking are not mutually exclusive, and you, sir, do not have exclusivity on the latter.

It is also an extremely shaky jump in logic, both in assumption and application.

You keep using such broad and sweeping characterizations to create a simple picture. It is not a binary, either/or situation, any more than "you have a 50/50 chance of being ridiculously wealthy...you either make it or you don't".

There is a world of nuance, there, and the fact that your presuppositions may contain aspects of the truth (and they do) does not mean the are all-encompassing and total.

And whales can't jump.

Your posts are too long and rambling and you don't understand the issue so I won't be reading or responding to them.

Seriously?

I'll give you the crashnotes:

- disagrees with your assertion that unnecessary administrative procedures are routinely ignored without consequence;

- accuses you of intellectual dishonesty/cheap lawyering;

- makes valid point on the difference between company policy and statutory/regulatory laws and the consequences of violating one vs. the other;

- agrees with you that taking power away from individuals in bureaucratic setting is bad;

- dislikes your absolute language about which rules matter and which don't;

- forgot that Canada uses the lol metric system;

- disagrees with your idea that living in a poor community would do as you suggest to change the attitudes of bleeding hearts, and claims to have a proper basis for comparison;

- makes poor logical argument attacking your paternalism/personal freedom dichotomy (among other black/white distinctions);

- whales can't jump (which is demonstrably false).

"Whales can't jump" was an inside joke made in reference to arbitrary fudging of definition. Probably a little to cryptic for everybody here, bit I liked it.

Also..
Yep...my America-centric self forgot about the ol' metric system. For a second there, I was ready to move to Canada.

Yes. I got as far as No one is claiming it was a mistake. It was intentional -- I have never claimed otherwise. I'm happy to debate the topic but if someone doesn't even have the basics down then it is too much work.


What response am I suppose to have for that? I have no issue having people ignore both policy and law when the policy or law is stupid.

Again not sure how I was suppose to respond to him claiming that not all laws are equal and the less important laws are routinely not enforced is intellectual dishonesty. It is obvious and a simple fact of life. We don't enforce all laws and if we did the legal system would grind to a halt.

I also don't like that he constantly in multiple topics accuses me of lawyering. I'm an unemployed bum not a lawyer not that there is anything wrong with being a lawyer.

That is a valid point and it occurred to me when I was writing it. Institutions have broken non-important laws as well I just didn't want to get into a debate about yes they do / no they don't since the point I was trying to make is that this position in favour of bureaucratic i-dotting and t-crossing is a BS argument of convenience. Every person making it would abandon it in a second if they were trying to deal with a personal issue that was being hindered by stupid red tape. They would all want the individual to bend the rule / law and just get the issue resolved. No one actually believes that every procedure has to be followed perfectly even when they serve no purpose. They are simply taking that position because it serves their purpose here.

Tough. That is reality. Certain rules don't matter.

Reality is what it is. People have debt issues because they make bad decisions. There is the rare case where the individual really isn't to blame but that is a very small sub-group. The vast majority it is their fault.

Henry have you ever been wrong about anything in your life, ever?

Yes

Look, Hank, take out the "intentional" part. You are still making an assertion that a company or individuals observance of a law is arbitrary, and contingent on on whether or not they consider it "stupid".

Yet you call for striingent adherence from distressed homeowners.

And the instance in question, again, was not just a matter of expedince, nor as trivial as you propose.

Okay, back to work. Don't want to achieve deadbeat status.

Explain why it wasn't trivial?

Reread my earleir post, the first one.

Jesus, Hank. Do you LOOK like Blarg, as well?

I read your post. It does not contain any specific discussion of the topic. It contains some general fluff of why following procedures is important. I want you to explain why following this specific procedure was important.

So again why was this not a trivial procedure?

We are talking specifically about "robosigning", correct?

I read an article about robo signing in the fortune and bloomberg magazines.


The reporter depicted a story about a poor old couple being foreclosed on. The old couple were complaining that the bank could not show the original deed of loan document that is required to prove that the bank owns the loan. The loan had been sold and resold to different banks and the original document was in some warehouse somewhere that they couldn't trace.


Then the reporter asked the old couple when was the last time they made a payment. Old couple responds over a year ago.


I loled.

I think so.

As I understand what the banks did. Law says Bank B must see Bank A's actually legal documents prior to foreclosing and not go by just a summary or court document? Right?





When collecting we always have to see originals because:

1. Sometimes lawyers/banks misrepresent the facts
2. sometimes the documents are wrong
3. sometimes dates are wrong
4. sometimes names and addresses are wrong

Skipping these steps can result in large expensive and damaging mistakes to other bank, the bank itself and the customer. The people that are doing this work have no idea who the customer is. The customer is just a few letters and numbers on a piece of paper. Usually this information is correct but being careful stops mistakes

This is not likely a conspiracy from the top as some suggest. This type of thing(skipping steps) is usually done by middle manager types trying to look good or trying to deal with pressure from above to speed things up.

The increased risk of error is negligible. At least at the time that the story became big news there had been no instance of a home owner that wasn't in default getting foreclosed.

Now lets assume that an error does happen. This isn't limb amputation. It is easy enough to deal with an error should one happen and on a cost analysis you are still way better off.

It is ridiculous that the person signing the affidavits has to have seen the actual original documents when they have access to accurate records of the mortgage status. These people are not paying their mortgage. They are deadbeats that are going to lose their home. Making lenders jump though meaningless hoops is just stalling for time. Meanwhile by dragging this out you put the health of the entire economy at risk.

Hank, because I love you like a furry, little cellblock bitch, I spent my lunchbreak talking to my wifes coworker, a lady at the bank who handles such things, to get you the answers you requested. Basically, its just as Merek said. But she said that in some of the cases in the situation we are discussing, there was willful intent to stay one step ahead of the bankruptcy attorneys who were trying to save homes from being foreclosed. Not only was it an abstract corruption of the integrity of the process, it was a blatant attempt to avoid due process.

At any rate, it is hardly the trivial matter that you distantly observe to be "stupid". I mean, think that all you want, call others deadbeats if it makes you feel good about yourself. To paraphrase you: Tough. Reality is what it is.

Come on Henry. You are too smart for statements like this. The banks will not fail because they had to wait 3 weeks longer to foreclose. However speeding the process will put an additional 3%(guess) of deadbeat houses into a downward spirling market full of foreclosed homes a bit faster. If you want to argue slowing the process will lessen the risk to the economy a tiny bit...I might buy that.

But to argue a slightly slower process will be a significant risk to the economy makes you look like a argumentive idiot and diminishes some of your other points that do have real merit. I know you love to win arguments but geez?!!? If I made such a statement you would laugh at me.

lol @ staying one step ahead of the bankruptcy attorneys. It takes literally 10 minutes to file a skeleton petition to stop a foreclosure. The bankruptcy e-filing counter is open 24/7/365. If a bank proceeded with a foreclosure it is void ab initio, and willful violation of the automatic stay brings a pretty heavy hammer depending upon the judge.

No one said they would. The health of the economy is a concern because an unstable housing market impacts so much. It has zero to do with the banks health.

Actually, I wouldn't because it is a valid argument and something that I was pretty sure was common knowledge. The economy will not function properly until all these bad mortgages are dealt with. Dragging this out is bad for the economy.

crash, you certainly sound like you know more than this lady; she didn't sling the Latin so effortlessly. Obviosuly, you both know more than me, as I have to keep asking. As I mentioned, she did say some stiff penalties were handed out, but whether they were due to disregard of such stays, or agency fines, I don't know.
And the impression I got was that it was a "gum up the informationflow", kind of thing. Transfers made prematurely and whatnot. Is that a realistic possibility? And since you seem to be familar, is it merely a bookkepping issue, or is there real merit to such protocols?

Edit: I guess I could do a google search, but I get conflicting info there, too.