Banking Law

Two more stories surfaced today on HousingWire that prove the truth of old adage, "all the loose nuts fall and roll to the west coast."

The first concerns the introduction of a bill in Oregon that purports to "prohibit a lender from in any way transferring a mortgage loan for half a decade after the deal closes. In addition, the lender cannot transfer servicing rights or obligations for the same time period." When asked about it today, I repeated the sentiments of mortgage broker Michael Dolan: "I'm not concerned at all. (The bill) is so outlandish it can't pass." Then again, Michael, it IS Oregaon.

The other story involves a California couple that defaulted on their home loan but refused to move out. That's when the fun began. By the time the fun was finished, the couple's attorney was cited for contempt. In the following excerpt, "Canejo" is the foreclosing lender, "Pines" the attorney for the borrowers, and "the Earls" the borrowers.

But Canejo obtained a writ of possession from the court on the home, and the Earls were evicted in July. But, according to court documents, Pines and the Earls prevented the foreclosure sale after Conejo spent money to remodel the property. In October, they had a locksmith change the locks on the property, and the Earls moved back in.

Conejo obtained a second writ of possession from the court a week later, but both Pines and the Earls attempted another break in December 2010 but was thwarted by the Sheriff's Office.

The judge found Pines in contempt of court, based, in part, upon the following statements he made in a court hearing last November.

"Regardless of what the court does here today, we're going back to the cycle where we are going back to the property," Pines told the court, according to documents. "We are getting a locksmith and we are moving back in."

The court replied, "I certainly hope not. That is a blatant violation of the court order."

"Well then I think you should hold a contempt hearing, and I welcome that," Pines said, continuing to press for a contempt proceeding because of he wanted to give the case media attention, he said.

Beware what you "welcome." Beware, also, taunting judges in open court. They tend to react poorly.

Just sayin'...