JUDGING INDYMAC – New York Supreme Court Judge Finds IndyMac’s behavior “repugnant, shocking, repulsive and completely devoid of good faith”.
A judge in New York, The Honorable Jeffrey Arlen Spinner, was shown what its like to request a loan modification from IndyMac/One West Bank… and he was not at all impressed. In fact, he was so offended by IndyMac’s attitude and treatment of homeowner Diana Yano-Horoski that he decided the only responsible decision he could reach, in addition to publicly chastising the bank, was to wipe out the homeowner’s entire indebtedness to IndyMac. Will the decision be appealed? Probably, but I think that’s besides the point. This appears to be the first decision by a court based on the behavior of a bank or servicer towards a homeowner… and as far as I’m concerned, it’s about time.
In Judge Spinner’s decision, he wrote that the homeowner had been eminently reasonable in her requests for a loan modification, while IndyMac Bank (recently renamed “One West Bank”), throughout the process, was completely unwilling to entertain any outcome short of foreclosure. The judge referred to IndyMac’s conduct as being “inequitable, unconscionable, vexatious and opprobrious,” so obviously this is a guy who can complete the Sunday crossword in the New York Times using a pen. But he didn’t stop there. He went on to say:
“Plaintiff’s conduct is wholly unsupportable at law or in equity, greatly egregious and so completely devoid of good faith that equity cannot be permitted to intervene on its behalf. Indeed, Plaintiff’s actions toward Defendant in this matter have been harsh, repugnant, shocking and repulsive to the extent that it must be appropriately sanctioned so as to deter it from imposing further mortifying abuse against Defendant.”
IndyMac/One West Bank… Mortifying abuse… completely devoid of good faith… harsh, repugnant, shocking and repulsive. Bravo, Judge Spinner… Bravo! When I read it for the first time, it literally brought tears to my eyes.
It all started when IndyMac wanted to foreclose on a home located in Suffolk County, New York. The mortgage involved secured an adjustable rate note with an initial interest rate of 10.375%, with an original principal amount of $292,500. Because the loan was considered “sub-prime” or “high cost,” and I suppose based on a New York State law, the homeowner requested that the court schedule a settlement conference. And that’s when things started to go wrong.
The court tried five times to get IndyMac to cooperate and attend the settlement conference, and finally the court had to direct what some would refer to as the world’s most intolerable bank, to produce an officer of the bank and show up in court.
On September 22, 2009, Karen Dickinson, IndyMac’s Regional Manager of Loss Mitigation showed up to represent the bank. Ms. Dickinson claimed that IndyMac was the servicer of the loan, and that Deutsche Bank was the owner, although the record holder was IndyMac Bank FSB, an entity no longer in existence, so who the heck knows what the real deal is on that point.
Judge Spinner wrote that at that conference, it was made clear to the court that IndyMac had no intention of resolving the matter in any way but to foreclose on the property. At first, Ms. Dickinson insisted that the homeowner had recently been offered a “Forbearance Agreement,” which she claimed had been defaulted on immediately, but after “substantial prodding” by the court, she finally admitted “with great reluctance” that the agreement had not been sent to the homeowner until after the stated first payment was due! So, just so we’re clear… Ms. Dickinson lied to the court.
According to IndyMac, the total amount due on the mortgage is now $525,000, and the bank freely conceded that the property today is worth no more than $275,000. The homeowner’s daughter had offered to purchase the property for its fair market value, but good old IndyMac, who is nothing if not consistent in its unreasonableness, flatly rejected the offer.
IndyMac also refused to consider a loan modification that would rely on any more than 25% of the income earned by the homeowner’s husband and daughter, both of whom live in the house. IndyMac’s excuse was that “We can’t control what non-obligors do with their money,” which caused the judge to consider the logical follow-up question: How does the bank control what the obligor does with her money?
Judge Spinner found IndyMac’s position to be “deeply troubling,” which only shows that he’s an adult with a brain and a conscience. Further, Judge Spinner stated that there have been “a plethora of sub-prime loans in this County’s Foreclosure Conference Part have been successfully modified with the lender’s reliance upon the income of non-obligors who reside in the premises under foreclosure.”
IndyMac rejected whatever the homeowner offered in terms of an alternative solution. And Judge Spinner stated that “It should be noted here that Defendant did not even request any waiver or “forgiveness” of the indebtedness aside from some tinkering with the interest rate, just a modification of terms so as to enable her to repay the same.”
The judge described Ms. Dickinson as having an “opprobrious demeanor and condescending attitude”. And even though, as I read the judge’s decision, I had no idea what that meant, I cheered along anyway. After looking it up, I discovered that the first definition of “opprobrious” is written as “expressing scorn, contempt or severe criticism,” and the second definition says, “bringing shame or disrepute”. So, obviously Ms. Dickinson completed Banking & Servicing 101, where I’ve decided they teach you to be an obnoxious prick or bitch, depending on your gender. (I’d like to take a moment to say a small prayer: Dear God… please let me have the opportunity to kick at least one banker’s ass before I die. Amen.)
There was some back and forth… Dickinson claimed that the bank had offered the homeowner not one but two modification offers, but that both were refused by the homeowner. The homeowner basically replied that Ms. Dickinson was clearly smoking crack and out of her mind. Then Dickinson said that the homeowner’s financial status made her ineligible for a modification under Federal HAMP Guidelines, to which the homeowner basically replied that Ms. Dickinson was smoking crack and out of her mind. (Okay, that’s not verbatim or anything, but you get the idea, right?)
The judge couldn’t figure out why IndyMac thought they were owed over $500,000 either. He tried a lot of math equations, but none seemed to make any sense. Finally, Judge Spinner decided that “the pendulum of credibility swings heavily in favor of Defendant”. He also said that, taking into consideration the conduct of IndyMac in its entirety, compelled him to invoke an “ancient and venerable principle” known as “Falsus in uno, falsus in omni,” which is Latin for “false in one, false in all”. (I don’t know about you, but if Judge Spinner ever goes on Jeopardy, I’m betting on him to win by a landslide.)
In the elegant words of Judge Spinner: “Regrettably, the Court has been unable to find even so much as a scintilla of good faith on the part of Plaintiff. Plaintiff comes before this Court with unclean hands yet has the insufferable temerity to demand equitable relief against Defendant.”
Judge Spinner also commented that even though the homeowner and her husband have health problems, they, along with their daughter, managed to appear at each and every scheduled conference before the court. The judge also said that the homeowner, at each appearance, tried their best to resolve the matter “in an amicable fashion, only to be callously and arbitrarily turned away” by IndyMac.
Then Judge Spinner pointed out several things that I have not heard of a court recognizing up until this decision. He said:
“Were IndyMac amenable, the homeowner would presumably continue to maintain the property’s physical plant, pay taxes thereon and the property would retain or perhaps increase its market value. IndyMac would receive a regular income stream, albeit with a reduced rate of interest and without sustaining a loss of several hundred thousand dollars. In addition, no neighborhood blight would occur from the boarding of the property after foreclosure, which would, in turn, avert problems of litter, dumping, vagrancy and vandalism as well as a corresponding decline in the property values in the immediate area. In short, a loan modification would result in a proverbial “win-win” for all parties involved. To do otherwise would result in virtually certain undomiciled status for two physically unhealthy persons and their daughter, leading to an additional level of problems, both for them and for society.”
Wicked smart… this judge is wicked smart. If he’s willing to run, I’m willing to support him for President of the United States in 2012, or any other office he might be interested in for that matter.
Judge Spinner also wrote: “The maxim of “clean hands” fundamentally was conceived in equity jurisprudence to refuse to lend its aid in any manner to one seeking its active interposition who has been guilty of unlawful, unconscionable or inequitable conduct in the matter with relation to which he seeks relief.” And that statement was followed by a whole string of numbers and squiggles that lawyers seem to understand and claim as useful, although I have my doubts.
The judge said that the court, when attempting to reach a decision as to whether to permit the foreclosure, is required to look at the entire situation, and to give careful consideration to “whether the remedy sought by Plaintiff (IndyMac) would be repugnant to the public interest when seen from the point of view of public morality”. And let’s face it… as far as the public morality thing goes, IndyMac is way repugnant.
Judge Spinner wrote:
“Equitable relief will not lie in favor of one who acts in a manner which is shocking to the conscience, neither will equity be available to one who acts in a manner that is oppressive or unjust or whose conduct is sufficiently egregious so as to prohibit the party from asserting its legal rights against a defaulting adversary. The compass by which the questioned conduct must be measured is a moral one and the acts complained of need not be criminal nor actionable at law but must merely be willful and unconscionable or be of such a nature that honest and fair minded folk would roundly denounce such actions as being morally and ethically wrong. Thus, where a party acts in a manner that is offensive to good conscience and justice, he will be completely without recourse in a court of equity, regardless of what his legal rights may be.”
And then in closing, my new favorite judge of all time wrote:
“The Court cannot be assured that Plaintiff will not repeat this course of conduct if this action is merely dismissed and hence, dismissal standing alone is not a reasonable option. Likewise, the imposition of monetary sanctions is not likely to have a salubrious or remedial effect on these proceedings and certainly would not inure to Defendant’s benefit. This Court is of the opinion that cancellation of the indebtedness and discharge of the mortgage, when taken together, constitute the appropriate equitable disposition under the unique facts and circumstances presented herein.”
My Conclusion…
Okay… first of all I’d just like to again say “Bravo!” to Judge Spinner for doing the right thing, and for sending a message to IndyMac, and hopefully to all the other banks and servicers, that their egregious behavior as seen consistently throughout today’s crisis will not be tolerated forever by the people of the United States of America. This decision, as several attorneys have told me, will likely be overturned on appeal… but I have to tell all of the homeowners reading this: I don’t care about that at all.
IndyMac may have changed their name to One West bank, but they will not be able to hide from thousands of homeowners, should they follow suit and file suit. If it were me, I’d get started immediately. As anyone close to the foreclosure crisis knows… this isn’t a fluke, this is how IndyMac behaves towards all homeowners at all times. They are in the home stealing business, and they are not to be trusted… ever.
I have personally received hundreds of stories from homeowners that describe unconscionable behavior on the part of IndyMac/One West Bank. In point of fact, just yesterday, a homeowner in Buena Park, California called to tell me that IndyMac told her last Friday at 3:30 PM, that she had until Monday at 9:00 AM to come up with some $72,000 or her home would be sold on Monday at noon. When the homeowner responded that she would be able to pay the $72,000, but would need 4-5 days to get it from her retirement plan account, IndyMac simply and callously said no. Monday at 9:00 AM was it.
I’m not a lawyer. Let’s be very clear about that. And I’m told that this case in New York provides no precedent as it is not an appellate court decision. In fact, I’ve been told a lot of things by attorneys attempting to diminish the value of Judge Spinner’s decision. But, again… I don’t care. People… if you feel that you’ve been or are being tormented by the bastards at IndyMac/One West bank… call an attorney… or file the damn case yourself, if you think you can handle that path. This homeowner did it, and I think you can to.
Will you win… who knows, but I have to believe that we’ve all been quiet long enough, and with this next year being an election year… there’s no better time to make a statement. And you have to think that a few thousand lawsuits filed by homeowners across the country would have to be noticed by someone, don’t you? Look, I don’t know what I’m talking about here, but I wouldn’t let it go just because a couple of lawyers don’t think it will provide legal precedent.
(Sorry, lawyers reading this… but there are times when a citizen should disregard the letter of the law and make a statement, and I don’t want to discourage anyone from doing so based on this decision.)
I would also like to say to Mrs. Diana Yano-Horoski, the homeowner in this case who appeared before the court as a Defendant Pro Se, meaning that she did not have a lawyer: “YOU GO GIRL!” You are quite sincerely my idol and I will never forget your courage and dedication to pursuing justice in the face of oppression. You are clearly a patriot who has great faith in this country… and I salute you.
To Judge Spinner… I hope you understand just how much joy you have brought to me, regardless of where things go from here, I’ll always remember reading your decision and feeling renewed hope and faith in our nation as a place where tyranny will not endure.
To Michael Dell and George Soros… This is only the beginning. Your bank has gone too far and cannot survive the onslaught of homeowners who will never have anything but hatred for what you have allowed to take place. Mr. Soros, I suppose you are insulated, as no one knows what you do for a living. Being Jewish myself, the fact that you’re a Jew offends me. But… Mr. Dude-You’re-Getting-a-Dell… we know where your bread is buttered, and I for one would rather return to using an IBM Selectric II typewriter, white out and all, then ever touch the keyboard of a computer with your name on it.
And last, but by no means least… to Ms. Karen Dickinson. F#@K YOU. How dare you? Have you no shame? You are a person so utterly lacking in character that, for the first time in my life, I find myself fantasizing about the possibility that one day forced sterilization programs will prevent people like you from reproducing and polluting our society as a result. Everything about you offends me. All I can do now, is everything possible to put you out of my mind forever.
Pssst… Karen… over here…
No offense..but I have sent you already a bunch of links regarding IndyMac Bank which has been practicing "cherry picking" when it comes to loan modifications... I have given up..
If anyone wants to follow what is happening with Indymac, and the inside scoop..google Mr. Mon. E. Penny...she is writing some great articles about this "dirty bank"
Although I do not agree with IndyMac's ethics--Not Sure at All how you can think the borrower is a Hero!!!
Was the loan Stated--sounds like it--since on a $525,000 mortgage,
the incomes would have to be substantial.
WHAT YOU TOTALLY MISSED WAS THE ORIGINAL LAON AMOUNT WAS $295,000. What happened to the almost $300,000 Cash Out that Borrower took out of the home.
If borrower had NOT USED THE HOUSE AS AN ATM, original loan amount was $295,000--house is now worth $275,000--paying the mortgage should
have been affordable. The borrowers who take cash out $300,000 tax free
are rewarded. Hardly a Hero in my book--
So tired of homeowners who take NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR ACTIONS, and are a victim---
Two wrongs do not make a right--
You mention the borrowers facing health challenges. If their income was reduced due to health issues, I would understand the $525,000 loan amount being a substantial challenge.
But the Judge should have asked borrowers to re-verify that income stated on the $525,000 loan application was ACTUALLY THE INCOME THEY WERE MAKING AT TIME OF CLOSING. Most often difficulty in making mortgage payments starts first with mis-represented--INFLATED INCOME.
Of course, I am aware that job loss and health issues are also key factors.
If income was not within 5%, a Judge has just Rewarded individuals for mis-representing their income. Since I am out of the mortgage business now, and was in Wholesale prior, it has been a while since I read the back of a 1003.
But I do remember telling borrowers that it was a crime to mis-represent income. Really do not think that has changed at all!!!
Again, it was your choice in using the word HERO. But it appears that this hero used her house as an ATM, and possibly over-stated income.
The Judge has punished Bad Behavior by punishing IndyMac--but then has rewarded a seperate set of bad behavior on the part of the homeowner.
Actually I am going to write the court and ask the Judge if last mortgage application was verified at all, especially income.
There are many people deserving of free homes in this country, especially disabled veterans returning to the USA.
THAT IS A TRUE HERO!!!!
To Brandon1995:
What's with you dude?
#1 - you are so mathematically challenged. $525,000 minus $295,000 = $230,000. Where in the heck do you get $300,000.
#2 - clearly you do not read the article that you are commenting on. At no time did Mandelman say the additional $230,000 was borrowed by the defendant. In fact he pointed out that even the judge wasn't able to figure out where how additional funds originated. Look up the word "usery".
What does your having worked in the wholesale mortgage industry have to do with your comments. I also worked in the wholesale mortgage industry and I'm not insensitive. [Deleted by mod action] Nobody said the defendants were saints but they did stand up to tyranny and sought fair and reasonable treatment. This is America. That's what American hero's do.
Take a chill pill.
Yes, Thank You for Your Response.
My numbers may have been incorrect based on various articles and the defendants change of answer of when they actually stopped paying real estate taxes and whether their last morgage payment was in 2008 or actually as far back as 2007.
Sorry, but I am entitled to my opinion, have seen it too many times--
borrowers especially sub-prime who pay taxes and insurance outside of mortgage payment stop paying EVEN their real etate taxes.While they use the town services and their kids and grandkids attend the schools.
Not sure as in this case, why at least real estate taxes were not paid during the lengthy foreclosure process.
Anyhow, I never did a Sub-prime loan in 16+ plus years of origination.
Maybe if I had, I would agree with the Judge out of guilt on my other sub-prime originations.
Bottom line if 1003 IS NOT 100% ACCURATE, feel that the borrowers have responsibility in their own foreclosure. Not sure if borrowers "online doll business," is the sole income used to qualify borrowers for initial loan.
Possibly the majority of my sympathy was dissapated when borrowers admitted to being delinquent in over $35,000 in back real estate taxes, and
appears that loan MAY have been Very Stated.
My first real estate purchase in 1986 was a Condo, by 1989 condo was half its original value. My 3 Year Arm with Citi--excellent credit adjusted in 1989 to 11%. Eventually rented out condo, and sold years later.
Never should have taken arm in 1986 but thought I would be out in a few years. I took responsibility in purchasing condo, and choosing arm instrument. it was my unwise choice.
By 1989 I would have needed approximately $34,000 to refinance because of the substantial drop in condo value. Did not have an extra $34,000 in my twenties with paying back college loans and having put 25% downpayment on the condo.
Citi held arm, but held strong on 11% interest rate.With two jobs I held onto the condo and made timely payments.
Anyhow, I have had other real estate challenges including my builder never completing my present home. Nothing has come easy.
Yes, the mortgage industry made owning too easy in the last decade.
So please do not mis-understand. Sorry but I know what I and famly members and friends have done owning up to choices, sometimes very poor choices with the best of intentions.
But my choices, my actions are my responsibility.
I beg to differ that in the authors words Ms. Horoski is a "hero."
But I am more than willing to be corrected, and offer an apology.
Show me a 1003, backed with tax returns for time of application and a timely paid tax bill, and my apologies will be numerous and loud.
I think this all gets uglier. As you know Indymac was seized by the FDIC and many pending lawsuits on various loans had to have administrative claims filed with the FDIC to proceed. Personally, I am aware of TILA rescission claims that were lost due to the FDIC and forcing people to administrative processes.
But lets think about that for a minute... as in the case you pointed out... Indymac did not own the loans, they merely serviced it. How could the FDIC force homeowners to their administrative process for loans not owned by Indymac? Yes, they had servicing rights but that is a contractual obligation between the owner of the obligation and Indymac of which the borrower is not a party of.
The whole thing smells. I would argue that even the FDIC and/or counsel for any seized bank that only serviced the loans (such as Indymac) may have applied the "asset protection" provisions of the receivership by the FDIC against homeowners in which it did not really apply. Real claims that were adjudicated may have been more of a lie. Appearing in a court of law on a loan owned by someone like Deutsche Bank, who was not in receivership, and getting a lawsuit dismissed under the D'Oench Duhme Doctrine because the servicer is in receivership is unconscionable.
This is a terrific decision, not only because it will grab headlines, but it's also nice precedent for attorneys. Even though this is a New York case, it can certainly be used as persuasive authority and put in front of a court in any state. It is time homeowners start standing up for themselves and suing their lender. It is not unreasonable to say that in virtually any situation in which a borrower is denied a loan modification, there may be a cause of action against the lender for bad faith and unfair business practices. At the very least, borrowers may allege they should have qualified for a government program (HAMP, etc.), and let the lender explain why they didn't. It's time to start shifting the burden of proof to the lenders to justify why they did NOT offer a modification after taking tax money to stay in business.
In the spirit of full disclosure, I may be biased. I am a real estate attorney engaged in the business of suing lenders for denying borrowers loan modification requests.
Don't get me wrong, I am on the side of the borrower in this mess as well but aren't there some real problems with what you said in the broad view?
For example didn't Civil Code 2923.6 really give the loan servicers and lenders a "get out of jail free card" by this statute?
(a) The Legislature finds and declares that any duty servicers may have to maximize net present value under their pooling and servicing agreements is owed to all parties in a loan pool, not to any particular parties, and that a servicer acts in the best interests of all parties if it agrees to or implements a loan modification or workout plan...
I think this makes a great case that servicer and lender are prohibited from providing a loan modification that a borrower cannot afford. So while they may lower the payments, if the data shows that they cannot afford those lower payments, they are not allowed to offer a loan modification. As such, to claim an unfair business practice or bad faith claim would most likely fail under those circumstances.
Second, you are dealing with a servicer, not the lender in 99% of the cases. The good faith and fair dealing cause of action relates to a contractual relationship. The servicer is not a party to the contract and does not have a contractual relationship with the borrower.
I just do not think a bunch of homeowners should think they can just run out and sue their servicer and lender too easily without clearly evaluating their situation and the risks associated with proceeding. It is absolutely worth investigating but just because they got money from the government does not give any consumer the right to expect a handout from the servicer/lender. They don't have to and it is clear, they are exercising their right to not do it. To be blunt, they suck in that regard. I am a bigger advocate of hand them the keys and let them lose at numbers that 10x what they are today. Then you would see them modify loans.
In the spirit of full disclosure, I may be biased. I am a real estate attorney engaged in the business of suing lenders for denying borrowers loan modification requests.
Dear Attorney McFarlin:
May I ask what loan modifications banks are refusing to grant.
Are they not willing to particpate in the Home Affordable program and lower borrewer's PITI to 31% of Monthly Income?
Or are the modifications you requesting having the principle mortgage amount reduced to the now current homes value.
Your response would be appreciated, because I have seen the banks give the Home Affordable to the 7 people I know that applied. At least those that are working, if you are out of work the banks will not help in even taking your 20 year mortgage--temporarily making it a 30 year, even paying a higher interest rate.
I thought the judge ruled the way he did because of the way INDYMAC treated the borrower. The treatment of borrowers and fraud being committed by the banks in regards to loan modifications or deliquent borrowers is CRIMINAL. The politicians pass laws to protect the borrowers from advance fees being paid by grown adults for assistance in dealing with the CROOKS who hold their mortgages. If the banks were honest and decent no one would have to pay anyone to help them stay in their home. What would happen if everyone in an underwater loan walked how many vacant homes would be on your street what would the value of your home be. I think the borrowers who are willing to stay in a home that is worth half of what they owe are HEROS and doing more than the rest of the country to help our economy nothing else is working. This story has made my day, thank god someone with power took the time to see whats really going on and made the right decision. Chase and B of A are next. The whole country is being scammed by the Banks.
But some sub-prime borrowers did not mind when fraud was committed on their 1003 so they could get into a house they could not afford.
But when the foreclosure starts they believe ethics should begin.
Convenient how fraud is embraced by borrowers when they want their house, then when values decrease they scream fraud during the foreclosure process.
Human nature and a fact of life.
I have not read the case but if Indymac was merely the servicer and the true owner of the contract, apparently Deutsche Bank, was not part of the case, how could a judge render Deutsche Bank's loan as discharged when they were not a party? The appeal will be interesting.
Legally "criminal" or ethically "criminal"? Let us all not forget... the banks and Wall Street are investing millions upon millions of dollars funding the campaigns of our legislators (and lobbyists) to ensure they are not accountable. They are brilliant in this regard, they got us, through our legislators, to give them money and then turned around and did so little for consumers that it is offensive. But... they have won so far.
Malaho Guy--Did you work for MortgageIt in 2007.
Just wondering saw a vey impressive seminar presented by an AE living in Hawaii--and thought I remember someone saying that Malaho Guy was his nickname.
I know it is a strech--just curios, because I did enjoy his presentation
Your right they are brilliant and they are winning. This article is one of the few rays of sunshine on the whole dark cloud of deception and greed that hangs over our country's economy. As far as the fraud on the homeowners part they should have been caught by the BANKS underwriters and if anyone else was involved they should have been put out of business. The reason that didn't happen more often is greed by the banks.
Sorry, not me.
Just wondering saw a vey impressive seminar presented by an AE living in Hawaii--and thought I remember someone saying that Malaho Guy was his nickname.
I know it is a strech--just curios, because I did enjoy his presentation
To: CINDIE7777
In regards to fraud on the part of the homeowners, you say it is ok because the bank did not catch it. Ridicoulous. Sixty Minutes aired a show
where homeowner had used her dead's husband income on her 1003.
Refinance, had to take more money out of a house she had owned for 20 years.
But the underwriter did not catch that her husband was dead on a Stated Loan. Borrower is suing, she is a Victim.
What a joke, was she so mentally incapacitaed that she did not know her husband was dead. No, her own airing on tv showed she was not.
Because she cmmitted fraud and the underwriter did not catch it, it is now the American WAy to reward her.
She is not responsible for knowing her husband is dead, but the underwriter who never was at her home should know her husand is dead.
Fraud effects everyone, from mortgage professionals who were never paid for months of work, never reimbursed for months of expenses, medical bills not paid though they paid $800 in medical premiums, and then not even offered Cobra when their Morgage Company went BK.
No wonder with public comments that are made similar to yours that mortgage professionals are beng black balled from other professions due to ethics issue.
Hope as a parent you did not teach your kids that it is ok to lie, committ fraud, and if they do not catch you--it is the other party's fault and greed!!
Again, ridiculous!!!
TO: JESS B.
As far as being sensitive and joing the human race, I do TAKE GREAT OFFENSE. You know nothing about me.
In almost all years of working, I hace contributed over 10 percent of my income to charity. Second to last employer had over 1700 employees.
My monthly contributions to the United Way was in the top 2 percent of dollar contributions.
Sorry I do choose in my charitable giving to help people that have falen upon hard times due to circumstances beyond their control,
not circumstances they created having to have too large of a house or living in the right neighborhood.
The Victim card has been so overplayed in the mortgage industry.
A few borrowers are victims, but MOST are not!!!