Tuesday, March 04, 2008
The power of the lender narrative
Calculated Risk takes the Gray Lady's impressionistic mortgage anecdotes to task:
The Wellmans have a history of financial distress going back for more than ten years. They got an accountant to work for them, and they have had a lawyer working for them for free for three years. They got a day in trial court and a day in appellate court. It appears that they have not made any mortgage payments--even regular payments, ignoring those contested fees--since 2004.
What is the obvious conclusion to draw?
Okay, now you can read the appellate decision.
A note to anyone in trouble with a mortgage: if you are asked to sign something, read it. If it stipulates that you have been represented by an attorney, don't sign it unless you are really represented by an attorney. If it has a dollar amount on it you are agreeing to repay, demand an itemization before you sign, not afterwards. If you really aren't sure that the other party to the agreement owns your loan, don't sign it. If it says that foreclosure will commence if you stop paying, it means it.
Best possible thing you can do: see a lawyer.
Worst possible thing you can do: read the New York Times.
I would add - the "excessive fees" appear to be related to...not making debt service payments and negotiating forbearance several times.
The 'evil lender' narrative is in the DNA of most Times reporters. It also demonstrates the affinity for a more compelling narrative, which is generally my explanation for what people call 'media bias'. I wrote a long post on that back at AI or More Than Zero, but I can't seem to dig it up.
2 Comments:
By 
, at
Tue Mar 04, 01:47:00 PM:
Dreck ... I know someone who did the very same thing two times. You can get away for years without paying, and still have the benefit of living in the property. Meanwhile, you bank up all your earnings in socks, safe deposit, etc. and spring out scott free at the end. Run up the credit cards for bling, you name it.
Blaming the lender for expecting a borrower to actually pay is just silly. Where's the good faith when you send zero over the course of three years?!
By 
drew, at
Tue Mar 04, 04:26:00 PM:
Perhaps you don’t grasp the meta-narrative that The Times insists on in all stores such as this – the fact that the poor “victims” haven’t made any payments in the last 3-4 years on their mortgage is absolutely meaningless – it’s the eeevil corporate/WallStreet/mortgage interests that are clearly at fault here. The mere fact that there were fees involved in a mortgage transaction is indicia of the impropriety involved here.
When The Times decides that they’ve determined who the victim is, the other facts merely become an impediment to reporting (making?) the news. It’s somewhat reminiscent of the original opening to (I think) The Daily Show; viz., “when News Breaks…We Fix It!”
