Booster4324 Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Link In a modern-day evocation of David's slingshot triumph over Goliath, a couple of foreclosed homeowners in Naples, Florida reportedly foreclosed on a Bank of America branch last week, their attorney actually having moving trucks pull up in front of a Naples branch to execute a foreclosure judgment against the bank. :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Link :lol: Of course, you can't foreclose on a civil judgment (you can file a lien, sure...but not foreclose on it). And the local branch isn't the entity responsible for the foreclosure (that would be a completely different B of A office). And even if you could foreclose on a bank branch, the branch could easily get it withdrawn under Florida's homestead law (which would be a misuse of the law...but no less so than foreclosing on the damn bank to begin with.) But other than that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted June 7, 2011 Author Share Posted June 7, 2011 Of course, you can't foreclose on a civil judgment (you can file a lien, sure...but not foreclose on it). And the local branch isn't the entity responsible for the foreclosure (that would be a completely different B of A office). And even if you could foreclose on a bank branch, the branch could easily get it withdrawn under Florida's homestead law (which would be a misuse of the law...but no less so than foreclosing on the damn bank to begin with.) But other than that... It worked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Speaking of Florida, I see they are targeting the poor for drug tests. ACLU is going to fight this, from what I hear. What happens if they find a mom is smoking a joint? Starve her? Is this smart public policy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Speaking of Florida, I see they are targeting the poor for drug tests. ACLU is going to fight this, from what I hear. What happens if they find a mom is smoking a joint? Starve her? Is this smart public policy? I'm against drug testing in general, and if people want to sit around smoking pot and watching talk shows all day that's their business. But don't ask me to pay the !@#$ing bills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 It worked. Oh, okay. The ends justifies the means. Thanks for clearing that up, pBills. Speaking of Florida, I see they are targeting the poor for drug tests. ACLU is going to fight this, from what I hear. What happens if they find a mom is smoking a joint? Starve her? Is this smart public policy? Yep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 I'm against drug testing in general, and if people want to sit around smoking pot and watching talk shows all day that's their business. But don't ask me to pay the !@#$ing bills. I'm pretty sure that's exactly what Dave thinks should happen. Can't expect a poor, single, pot-smoking woman to pay her own bills can we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Speaking of Florida, I see they are targeting the poor for drug tests. ACLU is going to fight this, from what I hear. What happens if they find a mom is smoking a joint? Starve her? You think cutting her benefits is starving her? Tying her to a tree for a couple weeks would be starving her. If they cut her benefits and she doesn't eat, then she starved herself and it's nobody's fault but her own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 You think cutting her benefits is starving her? Tying her to a tree for a couple weeks would be starving her. If they cut her benefits and she doesn't eat, then she starved herself and it's nobody's fault but her own. That's exactly what he thinks. Dave's sense of morality requires everyone else to feed her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 That's exactly what he thinks. Dave's sense of morality requires everyone else to feed her. He might want to re-examine his sense of morality considering that encouraging learned helplessness seems like a pretty immoral act in itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiragandhi'sthong Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Speaking of Florida, I see they are targeting the poor for drug tests. ACLU is going to fight this, from what I hear. What happens if they find a mom is smoking a joint? Starve her? Is this smart public policy? In Fla.. Smart has nothing to do with it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted June 7, 2011 Author Share Posted June 7, 2011 (edited) Oh, okay. The ends justifies the means. Thanks for clearing that up, pBills. That was just wrong. You take that back, you... you... kind hearted, compassionate individual you. Edited June 7, 2011 by Booster4324 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CookieG Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 It worked. It worked because it wasn't really a foreclosure, it was execution on a judgment. In most states, you can execute on any non-exempt property of a judgment debtor after a judgment becomes final. Since this was several months after the order was issued, it was no doubt a final order. It happens all the time. People get a bank account or their wages garnished, a vehicle seized, given an order to appear in front of a judge with a list of their assets, etc. A bit unusual that it happens to a bank, but the method used is pretty common. Frankly, B of A got off cheap if they only had to pay attorney fees. And the blond reporter is a hottie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 It worked because it wasn't really a foreclosure, it was execution on a judgment. In most states, you can execute on any non-exempt property of a judgment debtor after a judgment becomes final. Since this was several months after the order was issued, it was no doubt a final order. It happens all the time. People get a bank account or their wages garnished, a vehicle seized, given an order to appear in front of a judge with a list of their assets, etc. A bit unusual that it happens to a bank, but the method used is pretty common. Frankly, B of A got off cheap if they only had to pay attorney fees. And the blond reporter is a hottie. Twice attorney's fees, it sounds like. Very cheap...should have been 3x, could have easily been more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CookieG Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Twice attorney's fees, it sounds like. Very cheap...should have been 3x, could have easily been more. Most likely costs of sale, having the moving guys hang around for a few hours. That's pretty standard in a post judgment proceeding, and they get paid off the top. I've been practicing law for 20 years and this wrongful foreclosure stuff is something that was unheard of until a few years ago. If there was a dispute in a foreclosure case, it was usually due to whether payments were made, how they were applied, interest charged, disclosures, or something like that. But trying to foreclose on someone when you didn't have the paperwork..or worse, in this case, when you don't even have a mortgage on the house...these things just didn't happen. 10 years ago, if a bank filed a foreclosure proceeding on a property they didn't have a mortgage on, any real estate lawyer's response would have been "They did what??" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 You think cutting her benefits is starving her? Tying her to a tree for a couple weeks would be starving her. If they cut her benefits and she doesn't eat, then she starved herself and it's nobody's fault but her own. Yes, and her child, too. Tying her? Sounds like you been listening to too much Rush dude. There are a whole lot of people out there that can't work because they are dysfunctional, there are no jobs in their areas, child care issues, etc. Targeting them for drug testing is just harassment. We should be spending more money to ensure there are fewer dysfunctional people so we can really cut welfare at it's source, reducing the amount of people that need it. Of course who would the Right wing hate then? Oh ya, the immigrants, I forgot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted June 7, 2011 Author Share Posted June 7, 2011 (edited) Yes, and her child, too. Tying her? Sounds like you been listening to too much Rush dude. There are a whole lot of people out there that can't work because they are dysfunctional, there are no jobs in their areas, child care issues, etc. Targeting them for drug testing is just harassment. We should be spending more money to ensure there are fewer dysfunctional people so we can really cut welfare at it's source, reducing the amount of people that need it. Of course who would the Right wing hate then? Oh ya, the immigrants, I forgot IIRC the benefits for the child can be transfered to another adult. So theoretically at least (wonder if mom is going to eat the food? duh) the child will not suffer. Edit - Oh and I did not actually think they foreclosed on the bank. I found the resourcefulness of the couple admirable and the banks actions deplorable. All in all, a highly amusing story about a couple who said !@#$ you to a bank that is too big to care. Edited June 7, 2011 by Booster4324 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Speaking of Florida, I see they are targeting the poor for drug tests. ACLU is going to fight this, from what I hear. What happens if they find a mom is smoking a joint? Starve her? Is this smart public policy? Strange we don't have a thread on this topic yet. ACLU may indeed fight it, but on grounds that it reinforces negative sterotypes. Huh? I would see thier point if they were arguing that it might be a waste of funding since druggies may just try and stay clean till the test and then smoke it up, but thier reason is bull ****. Why would anyone think that this is enforcing a sterotype? Almost everyone I know who holds a regular job is subjected to random drug testing, why is this any different? Lets see what the loonies have to say about that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Yes, and her child, too. Tying her? Sounds like you been listening to too much Rush dude. Sorry, didn't realize I had responded to one of the mindless automatons which have infested this board. Won't happen again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts