Thread: Judge wipes out $525,000 mortgage

Judge wipes out $525,000 mortgage



A Long Island couple is home free after an outraged judge gave them an amazing Thanksgiving present -- canceling their debt to ruthless bankers trying to toss them out on the street.



Suffolk Judge Jeffrey Spinner wiped out $525,000 in mortgage payments demanded by a California bank, blasting its "harsh, repugnant, shocking and repulsive" acts.



The bombshell decision leaves Diane Yano-Horoski and her husband, Greg Horoski, owing absolutely no money on their ranch house in East Patchogue.



Spinner pulled no punches as he smacked down the bankers at OneWest -- who took an $814.2 million federal bailout but have a record of coldbloodedly foreclosing on any homeowner owing money.



"The bank was so intransigent that he [the judge] decided to punish them," Greg Horoski, 55, said about Spinner's scathing ruling last Thursday against OneWest and its IndyMac mortgage division.







It erased up to $291,000 in principal and $235,000 in interest and penalties.



The Horoskis -- who had been paying only interest on their mortgage -- had no equity in the home.



Horoski, who had begged the bankers to let him restructure the loan, said, "I think the judge felt it was almost a personal vendetta." Dealing with the bank, he said, was "like dealing with organized crime."



OneWest said, "We respectfully disagree with the lower court's unprecedented ruling and we expect that it will be overturned on appeal."



It claimed it "has been extremely active in working with consumers on home loan modifications through the Obama administration's Home Affordable Modification Program and other loan modification initiatives."



The bank is owned by a private equity group that purchased the failed IndyMac bank.



Yano-Horoski, a college professor of English and cognitive reason, and Horoski, who sells collectible dolls online, bought their 3,400-square-foot, one-level house 15 years ago for less than $200,000.



In 2004, court records show, they refinanced, paying off their original mortgage with part of a $292,500 sub-prime loan from Deutsche Bank. They used what was left for health care and for his business.



The loan carried an initial adjustable interest rate of 10.375 percent, which soared to 12.375 percent.



It eventually ended up being either owned or serviced by IndyMac, and the bank sued the couple in July 2005 when they began having trouble making payments because of Horoski's health problems.



After a foreclosure was approved last January, Yano-Haroski successfully asked for a court settlement conference.



Spinner excoriated OneWest for repeatedly refusing to work out a deal, for misleading him about the dollar amounts at stake in the case, and for its treatment of the couple over months of hearings.



OneWest's conduct was "inequitable, unconscionable, vexatious and opprobrious," Spinner wrote.



He canceled the debt because the bank "must be appropriately sanctioned so as to deter it from imposing further mortifying abuse against [the couple]."



The bank is involved in a similar case in California, where it's trying to foreclose on an 89-year-old woman, despite two court orders telling it to stop.



http://www.nypost.com/f/print/news/l...Y58z6gu1AQbWMI



Take that you predatory bastids!

[quote name='Gypsy' date='25 November 2009 - 09:22 PM' timestamp='1259205730' post='67499']

Judge wipes out $525,000 mortgage



A Long Island couple is home free after an outraged judge gave them an amazing Thanksgiving present -- canceling their debt to ruthless bankers trying to toss them out on the street.



Suffolk Judge Jeffrey Spinner wiped out $525,000 in mortgage payments demanded by a California bank, blasting its "harsh, repugnant, shocking and repulsive" acts.



The bombshell decision leaves Diane Yano-Horoski and her husband, Greg Horoski, owing absolutely no money on their ranch house in East Patchogue.



Spinner pulled no punches as he smacked down the bankers at OneWest -- who took an $814.2 million federal bailout but have a record of coldbloodedly foreclosing on any homeowner owing money.



"The bank was so intransigent that he [the judge] decided to punish them," Greg Horoski, 55, said about Spinner's scathing ruling last Thursday against OneWest and its IndyMac mortgage division.







It erased up to $291,000 in principal and $235,000 in interest and penalties.



The Horoskis -- who had been paying only interest on their mortgage -- had no equity in the home.



Horoski, who had begged the bankers to let him restructure the loan, said, "I think the judge felt it was almost a personal vendetta." Dealing with the bank, he said, was "like dealing with organized crime."



OneWest said, "We respectfully disagree with the lower court's unprecedented ruling and we expect that it will be overturned on appeal."



It claimed it "has been extremely active in working with consumers on home loan modifications through the Obama administration's Home Affordable Modification Program and other loan modification initiatives."



The bank is owned by a private equity group that purchased the failed IndyMac bank.



Yano-Horoski, a college professor of English and cognitive reason, and Horoski, who sells collectible dolls online, bought their 3,400-square-foot, one-level house 15 years ago for less than $200,000.



In 2004, court records show, they refinanced, paying off their original mortgage with part of a $292,500 sub-prime loan from Deutsche Bank. They used what was left for health care and for his business.



The loan carried an initial adjustable interest rate of 10.375 percent, which soared to 12.375 percent.



It eventually ended up being either owned or serviced by IndyMac, and the bank sued the couple in July 2005 when they began having trouble making payments because of Horoski's health problems.



After a foreclosure was approved last January, Yano-Haroski successfully asked for a court settlement conference.



Spinner excoriated OneWest for repeatedly refusing to work out a deal, for misleading him about the dollar amounts at stake in the case, and for its treatment of the couple over months of hearings.



OneWest's conduct was "inequitable, unconscionable, vexatious and opprobrious," Spinner wrote.



He canceled the debt because the bank "must be appropriately sanctioned so as to deter it from imposing further mortifying abuse against [the couple]."



The bank is involved in a similar case in California, where it's trying to foreclose on an 89-year-old woman, despite two court orders telling it to stop.



http://www.nypost.com/f/print/news/l...Y58z6gu1AQbWMI



Take that you predatory bastids!

[/quote]



Bad move ! They should still be responsible for the principal and this sets a bad legal precedent. If every activist judge decided to punish those meanie bankers then our economy as we know it would dissolve completely. Why exactly do these people get a break when 10 of thousands of families are losing their homes on a daily basis ?

[quote name='Six' date='25 November 2009 - 11:38 PM' timestamp='1259210336' post='67513']

Bad move ! They should still be responsible for the principal and this sets a bad legal precedent. If every activist judge decided to punish those meanie bankers then our economy as we know it would dissolve completely. Why exactly do these people get a break when 10 of thousands of families are losing their homes on a daily basis ?

[/quote]

Maybe this will "encourage" mortgage companies to work with their customers rather than foreclosing. The point of this ruling was that the customers tried and tried to work something out. The bank refused to discuss it. This bank was a recipient of TARP funds. Remember those funds that were supposed to shore up companies and get them lending again? Well, they took the money, used it for bonuses and didn't help their customers. It was a bad company that used bad business practices. They deserve to take the hit. Maybe this ruling will in fact help those thousands who lose their homes daily.



I worked for a company that took TARP funds. They did squat to help the customers during these times. I got tired of customers asking for help and having to tell them that the company wouldn't do anything to help. Each day I left work I felt the weight of the world on my shoulders. I felt terrible that I wasn't allowed to help them.

theres a lot going on in this story, so its hard to know where to side, but one thing that stood out:



The loan carried an initial adjustable interest rate of 10.375 percent, which soared to 12.375 percent.



um, a 2% increase is not "soaring". i've dealt with credit cards with rates that went from 12% to 29%. THATS soaring.

[quote name='nickcuse' date='26 November 2009 - 01:57 AM' timestamp='1259218672' post='67537']

theres a lot going on in this story, so its hard to know where to side, but one thing that stood out:



The loan carried an initial adjustable interest rate of 10.375 percent, which soared to 12.375 percent.



um, a 2% increase is not "soaring". i've dealt with credit cards with rates that went from 12% to 29%. THATS soaring.

[/quote]

its funny, thats the main thing i caught too.

[quote name='TennesseeRain' date='26 November 2009 - 10:20 AM' timestamp='1259248822' post='67590']

Isn't that a relative thing? I believe a two percent interest hike on a $500,000 30 year mortgage is about $1,000 per month.

[/quote]



yea, thats my bad on that one. mortgage interest is a bit different than credit card interest.



so then the question becomes, why did they start with a loan that carried a 10.375% interest rate??