patrick.net

They are in denial just like existing home owners trying to sell.

This isn't "extend and pretend." Sounds like they had/have some shoddy paperwork and need to get it in order so they don't get their pants sued off.

Very interesting to keep an eye on, though. I wonder if they have some sort of "where's the note?" problem that will constrain their ability to foreclose on some homes going forward.

Oh wouldn't it be funny if they destroyed bunches of titles and notes in effort to clean up? LOL I wish some lawyer would chime in as to WHY THOSE STATES, and it does say they are still foreclosing later in the article.. sounds as if in conflict with Memo... I dont get it.

if the current owner can be proved THE owner, then whoever earns the interest on the serviced note can be proved the note holder. They have to declare gains and loses. This is just some lawyers wanting their piece of the action.

I see no issue with this if they didn't receive TARP money.

They can do what they want if they don't receive public funds. I've always believed that.

If they received TARP money, it's a different story. Liquidate them and sell their assets, like most of the big banks.

If you received TARP money, you're my business, if not, do what you like. Simple.

I think Alpine is right, it is not "extend and pretend," more like "muster and uncluster."

Taking homes off the market to keep prices up would be dangerous without some form of enforced collusion with other lenders. The first banker to bust the cartel would get the highest prices on their forclosed homes, just before knocking the bottom out of the market for the rest.

test

HeadSet says

I think Alpine is right, it is not “extend and pretend,” more like “muster and uncluster.”

"try to tuck and unfuck" is more like it. They have already screwed the pooch on the documentation - so they need to cleanup the mess before they can continue in the foreclosure states.

shrekgrinch says

“I did not have…improper relations…with…THAT…woman….Miss Lewinsky”

There's nothing improper about sex between consenting adults, although there is something gross about keeping the evidence.

Grinchybaby, if you're going to quote something, as evidenced by your use of quotation marks, you might want to use the actual quote:

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."

There was no need to insert an ellipsis, which stands in for words that are left out.

shrekgrinch says

Show me third party verification, please.

Here it is:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_..._at_the_end_of_a_sentence_mean

and, no - it doesn't depend upon what the definition of "is" is.

elliemae says

There’s nothing improper about sex between consenting adults

so, if you love a man, and he tells you he loves you, and he asks you to enter into a monogomus relationship, and you accept, and soon after that he finds a few other adult women wanting to have multiple sexual encounters with him, you see nothing improper with that??? Cool.
Would you please give an example of what you do find improper between concenting adults, sexually, fiscally, and spiritually? Thanks -- and happy post-Turkey, black Friday, Saturday, Sunday day! (I don't think the consumers spent as much as wallstreet and China needed -- those war games may heat up now)

Bap33 says

so, if you love a man, and he tells you he loves you, and he asks you to enter into a monogomus relationship, and you accept, and soon after that he finds a few other adult women wanting to have multiple sexual encounters with him, you see nothing improper with that??? Cool.

He didn't have improper sex - he had sex outside the bounds of his marriage which may or may not be improper for him and the person to whom he was married. But the act itself, not improper.

Shall I say, "informed consent?"

I did contribute to the cause, bought a new vacuum. It was either that or move out.

again I ask (lol) ... what EXACTLY falls under the term "improper sex" - if not the above described?

lol ... touche'