From MSNBC:
A dozen Democrats joined Republicans in the 45-51 vote to scuttle the bill, which Obama had said was important to saving the economy and promised to push through Congress. But facing stiff opposition from banks, Obama did little to pressure lawmakers who worried it would encourage bankruptcy filings and spike interest rates.
I remind everyone that next year, 2010, is an election year. If you want to know who to blame, here’s the roll call vote.
From Today’s Washington Post:
Days before an expected vote, Senate leaders yesterday touted their version of a proposal to allow bankruptcy judges to modify mortgages, but have yet to secure the support of the financial services industry and face fierce opposition that could derail the proposal again.
The characterization of the opposition being “fierce” is unfortunate, but it appears to be accurate:
“I hope we can muster the courage and find the votes, although I know it will be hard,” (Senate Majority Whip) Durbin (D-Ill) said on the Senate floor yesterday. Durbin has been pushing the measure for more than two years. “It’s hard to imagine that today the mortgage bankers would have clout in this chamber, but they do.”
For more on the President’s Foreclosure Prevention Plan, click here.
No one likes cleaning up a mess that someone else made, especially lawyers. I’ve coined the term “clean up” to describe a particular type of case – whether it be debtor or creditor. In most cases however, it’s a debtor’s case that was handled by an attorney who is no longer returning phone calls, or has informed the debtor that they can no longer handle the case. The debtor is extremely concerned, and is usually in a very difficult position. And unfortunately, I’m seeing these types of cases with greater frequency.
There are many reasons why a debtor’s case may not be progressing the way they expected. But in many cases I am seeing, when a debtor is contacting me to either get a second opinion, or to get a new attorney it’s because something in the case is going dreadfully wrong. It could be an improperly completed form, or a complete lack of understanding of how bankruptcy works. It could also be a little of both.
The economy is drying up legal work in other areas and this may be pushing attorneys who do not know bankruptcy law into the practice in an effort to their own ends meet. However, attorneys who do this with an assumption that bankruptcy is “easy” or is just about filling forms will soon realize that this is not the case.
A report from Housing Wire suggests that the answer may be ‘no’.
“[Senator Richard] Durbin [D-Ill] had a hell of a time coming up with a bill that’d pass the Senate,” said Burt Ely, a banking expert and principal of Ely & Co. “He’s watered it down so much that his proposal now limits the accessibility or intention of the bill. Even if he got it passed, the gulf is so big it wouldn’t even get out of [the House] conference committee to be enacted into law.”
Not surprisingly, consumer advocates are seeing red.
“With Durbin, Dodd and Reid doing the bidding for the banks, this current state of the cramdown bill will have virtually no impact for at-risk borrowers,” says Bruce Marks, CEO of Neighborhood Assistance Corp. of America, a mortgage broker and consumer activist. “The Senate Democrats have made no measurable actions this year to help the housing crisis.”
There is this whole Twitter craze going around, and I understand that it’s becoming the new hip way to market oneself in cyber-land. I fear I sound too old for my age when I say that I really just don’t get it.
As I understand it, people can send 140 character messages, also referred to as “Tweets” that let “followers” know what they are doing or thinking. I honestly cannot fathom who would be even remotely interested in my daily thoughts, musings or activities as they happen.
For example, today I noticed that one of my colleagues (and I use that term loosely) left a comment to the article on Filing Bankruptcy Without an Attorney. Comments on this blog are moderated because occasionally, some are not appropriate. This comment said the following: “Our attorneys have expertise, [sic] our firm goes beyond filing, [sic] we utilize every opportunity in Bankruptcy i.e. Avoid Liens on Property, Redemption, Selling real estate in Bankruptcy. For more details, log on [to our website].” My colleague (again, used loosely) then proceeded to list out their firm contact information. The comment left me feeling a bit put off.
I cannot imagine that as I was deleting the comment I would have the wherewithal to mention that I could not believe how infuriating it was that my colleague this dude opted to try and advertise his services here without even the courtesy of a voice mail message saying “hey, I know we have never been introduced but do you mind…?”. And, I might add, especially the wherewithal to get it done in just 140 characters.
Then, there is this lunch program I attended today. It was an informative and timely discussion on the role of mediation in bankruptcy cases (a topic I’ll be writing about in the coming days and weeks). However, could I send a “tweet” about that? Probably but not without missing something being discussed. I can’t exactly say “hold that thought, I’d like to ‘tweet’ about it.” Arguably, I could “tweet” that I wish that the room had better acoustics, but who cares about that?
So what would I tweet about? There’s the “I just watched Attorney X get his head handed to him by the judge” tweet. Or I could send this tweet: “I cannot believe how slow Trustee Y is with their creditor’s meetings today. Clearly they didn’t have enough coffee, and I’m going to be here all day.” Neither are particularly nice Tweets, but these things could happen, and I could Tweet about them. And I bet some people might feel a tad resentful. Or bored.
The Tweeting could also end up being something mind-numbingly boring: “I just read a decision out of Florida that a mortgage prepayment may arise to a level of an avoidable preference.” Or even worse: “I’ve just scoured three years worth of bank statements. It’s time for lunch! And it’s stuffed peppers day at Pace’s!” Might watching paint dry be more entertaining and informative?
In fairness, I have not ruled out Tweeting, but I am ensconced on the fence. I do need to learn more about it and really think about whether it is something that my clients and my readers will benefit from…or if it is something that is not nearly as fun as watching paint dry.
It would help if you shared your two cents. Please comment. I promise I won’t delete it. Unless of course, you’re selling something. Sorry, but we cannot have any of that. 
According to a New York Times article, more and more people are representing themselves in court. I have had much experience counseling debtors who have initially elected to seek bankruptcy protection without the benefit of counsel. There are many reasons for this: the lack of money to hire an attorney being one of them, if not the biggest. Another, and perhaps more troubling reason is that pro see filers have a belief that a judge will help them through the process.
From the article:
Judges complain that people miss deadlines, fail to bring the right documents or evidence and are simply unprepared for legal proceedings. Such mistakes make it more likely they will fare poorly – no matter the merit of their cases.
This applies in any courtroom, and in any legal proceeding. If you want to represent yourself, you have to be prepared. That means, you have to know what the legal issues are (not what you think the legal issues are or should be) and have your ducks and documents all lined up. It also helps if you know the law.
But relying on the judge to help your is tantamount to ignoring that the role of the judge actually is. As the Times discusses:
Overseeing a proceeding where one or both sides lack lawyers puts a judge in a difficult position: The judge is supposed to be neutral but also has an interest in moving things along.
“If you see a person making a terrible mistake, you can’t always jump in and save them,” said Judge Borbely, the circuit court judge in Vermilion County, Ill. “You cannot take the role of an advocate.”
To ensure fair outcomes, courts must do more to help people navigate the courts, said John T. Broderick, the chief justice of New Hampshire. “If you and I went to the hospital and they said, ‘Do you have insurance?’ and we don’t, and they said, ‘There are some textbooks over there with some really good illustrations,’ ” Judge Broderick said, “we would think that was immoral.”
At the same time however, while courts can and do offer navigation assistance (such as the Pro Se Clerk at the US Bankruptcy Court), they cannot offer legal advice and the judges cannot be your advocate.
That’s the question being asked by the folks over at Calculated Risk in light of a report issued today by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision.
More here:
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision
After reading a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision issued yesterday, I’ve been struggling. There’s an important legal issue to discuss, but at the same time, I’ve been struggling with the title. I wanted to use a title that was little kitschy, because after all, that’s what makes a blog even moderately entertaining and worth visiting. I think. I also thought the issue justified my resorting to something profound. Something that makes the reader go “hmmm…so true.” Then, there’s a part of me that just wants the decision to speak for itself. So here goes.
In July 2001, Robin got a Providian credit card. The terms of the account – on that slip of paper that people have a tendency not to read required that it be governed by New Hampshire law. If you have not heard of Providian, spend some time on the net searching them out. You’ll get the sense that they weren’t a particularly consumer-friendly company, unless your idea of being consumer-friendly is only to pretend to be friendly. But I digress.
She defaulted on the card in November 2001. We don’t know why she defaulted. Don’t know if it was a lost job. A health matter. Don’t know if she was just being irresponsible. We just don’t know and I cannot assume what I do not know (and what’s not discussed in the decision). Her bill was about $3,000 with an interest rate that was high enough to be flirting with 25 percent. The New Hampshire statute of limitations on credit cards is three years.
In December 2004, more than three years later, Robin received a letter from a debt buyer attempting to collect the debt. The debtor buyer than sued her. After that suit was voluntarily dismissed, she sued the debt buyer claiming violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act for attempting to collect a debt that was time-barred.