Upcoming Foreclosures

My girlfriend is a single mother and desperately needs to know the current michigan foreclosure laws? thanks!? My girlfriends' home is nearly in the foreclosure process and she's wondering how long she can legally stay in her home before she really ACTUALLY MUST vacate her home if it's bought through foreclosure auction. Any other legal advice may prove helpful in her situation. Thanks and good luck to you! :)

Michigan Landlord/Tenant Law on Foreclosure? I am a tenant in Michigan with a lease option that ends in July. The house is now in foreclosure and will be auctioned Feb 15. Not to mention back taxes and waterbill, which I have paid. Do I continue to pay my landlord rent after the sale on Feb 15 or not? I would like to know if he legally can collect rent on the house or does he have to redeem it in order to collect rent on the said house. Please help I am wrecking my brain. Please note I need MICHIGAN law on this one.

Does anyone know if in Michigan a bank can come after personal assets after a foreclosure? I am considering foreclosing on a condo in Michigan. I paid $369K in 2005 and my it has been listed at $225K for over a year. I still owe about $280K. I now live in Colorado and have bought another house. The condo is sitting empty in Michigan and is costing me about $3000 per month. The right financial decision is to foreclose, but I have the cash to pay it off and I don't want the bank coming after me after foreclosure. I've heard that in some states, the bank has to file a different type of foreclosure in order to come after assets and banks don't do it because it's very expensive and time consuming. Does anyone know what Michigan foreclosure law dictates? Thanks.

Michigan Foreclosure...? My mother-in-law informed my husband and I that she is losing her house. I'll give you the info she gaves us and maybe someone can tell us what can be done? A little over a year ago the home was refinanced (the second time in a little over 5 years) for the full purchase price and equity (a total of a little over 120 grand). She claims that she made a payment plan with the mortgage company (cant say how true that is) and went yesterday to make the first payment according to the plan. The mortgage company told her that in essance it was too late and that the home was/will be auctioned Thursday. Apparently it has been in the paper for this auction for the last month (we knew nothing of this). The mortgage company also told her that she would have to pay $4,000 to stop the auction sale. So if she doesn't come up with this money and the home is sold at auction, how long does she have to stay in the home? Can she try and sell it herself?? Is there still a chance to save the house?

In foreclosure in Michigan (home), how do they determine if you have to pay deficiency or not? The law says something to the effect of "in some cases a deficiency may be charged". How is that determined?

Can anyone explain Michigan short sales law? ? When exactly is foreclosure, before or after the redemption period

How to get more time to evict a home? Hi, If a home is in foreclosure and the redemption period is up..the bank will get a court summons to evict the owner. However, is there a way to ask the judge for more time to move out? How does MICHIGAN law work?

Questions about buying a foreclosure home in San Diego.? I live in Michigan and have been drooling over the foreclosures in Ocean Beach, CA. I’m just scared of the property tax. How do I find out what the property tax is in San Diego? Their .gov site doesn’t tell me anything. I don’t want to commit to a realtor until I get more information. What are the foreclosure laws in CA.? I do plan on seeing the place before getting serious and my hubby can fix it up himself. My daughter lives in OB and I can put it in her name to take care of the residency issues. I would love to be able to buy her a place and let her rent out the extra room. Any help is greatly appreciated.

How despicable can you get? The GOP in Michigan tried to remove voting rights for people who lost their homes? in the state. It has been labelled "The most despicable act of caging" Ovbiously this is 100% illegal, but what does the law matter when you are a Republican. The Democrats have filed lawsuits. Link is below. http://www.michiganmessenger.com/4463/obama-campaign-files-suit-over-foreclosure-lists

lawyer question foreclosure&bankrupcy need help fast? do to job loss had to relocate to another state. home in michigan has been on market for 6 months no takers yet even after multible reductions in price. can't afford two homes any more so have'nt paid for the home in michigan (taxes are due also) recieved notice of foreclosure to take place 30th august. with bankrupcy laws that have changed what do you do first? talk w/lawyer or take pre bankrupcy class/ I never in my 50yrs thought I would have to do something like this. is foreclosure worse than a bankrupcy? can't even do a short sale no lookers. if I give the bank the deed back I also have a equity loan and have no equity left in the home. the auction will take place on the 30th I don't know what to do first. I'm humiliated at the thought of all this happenning. will I ever get a loan again? how much upfront to file bankrupcy? any help is appreciated.

Can a Fannie Mae HomePath cash investor live on the property if it cannot be leased? I plan to purchase a Fannie Mae Home Path foreclosure property in Detroit, Michigan. I will be paying cash since it is a relatively small amount of money. If I am unable to lease the house to a tenant, can I legally live on the property without penalty? I don't want to break any laws. However, if I can't lease the home, I would like to live in it to cut my expenses.

Educated info on foreclosure? My son's landlord repeatedly lied to him and the other tenants about their duplex going into foreclosure. Notices for the landlord were being mailed to their address, landlord claims he lives there and doesnt, and a friend of theirs that is a realtor told them it was up for foreclosure in Sept. When my son asked the landlord, he claimed it was all a mistake and he was taking care of it and not to worry. Today a realtor for the bank told them that it would be foreclosed on Sept 15 and not to pay the landlord for Sept. They are on a month to month lease, so I know the bank has to give them written 30 day notice. The realtor also told them that they could sue the landlord for 3 months rent as he mislead them AND that the realtor was going to make sure the bank gave the tenants a $500.00 buy out. Is this $500 per person? There are 5 people in the lower and 3 people in the upper and none are related. This is a 2 bedroom upper and 4 bedroom lower. All are friends. And does the buy out mean they waive their right to a written 30 day notice? My sons part (lower) is in perfect condition, but how do you get a deposit back from the landlord or do we get it back from the bank? I am a landlord of 14 yrs but have no education on foreclosure. Please help. Are there any websites to help tenants with forclosure laws for the state of Michigan?

How come Republicans lie when they say the Community Reinvestment Act was responsible for economic collapse? In a paper published on the website of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Michigan law professor Michael Barr stated that as of 2005: "Only 25 percent of subprime loans were made by banks and thrifts, and the Federal Reserve reports that only six percent of subprime loans were CRA-eligible." http://www.frbsf.org/publications/community/cra/community_reinvestment_emerging_from_housing_crisis.pdf#page=3 Similarly, a 2008 study by a law firm specializing in CRA compliance estimated that in the 15 most populous metropolitan areas, 84.3 percent of subprime loans in 2006 were made by financial institutions not governed by the CRA. http://www.traigerlaw.com/publications/addendum_to_traiger_hinckley_llp_cra_foreclosure_study_1-14-08.pdf#page=2 Bernanke: Experience "runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties." http://menendez.senate.gov/pdf/112508ResponsefromBernankeonCRA.pdf SF Reserve Bank's Yellen: "[S]tudies have shown that the CRA has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households." "Most of the loans made by depository institutions examined under the CRA have not been higher-priced loans, and studies have shown that the CRA has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households." http://www.frbsf.org/news/speeches/2008/0331.html I can't take anyone seriously who gives me You Tube videos as a counter argument.

about foreclosure? my brother-in-law is trying to work a deal with my mortage company, so we do not lose our home. but here's my question: if our home does get auctioned off, how long do we have before we have to be out. we are in flint michigan, and have no were else to go. any investors out there? we need help. our mortage company is nothing but a bunch of liars. i also got this loan with a 536 credit score, should not have gotten this loan. why did i? krjones i wish i could e-mail you!

Quitclaim deed or short sale a house? My mother in law ows $90k on a house that she probably can only sell for $50k. She was talking about doing a quitclaim deed with the lender, and I am not familiar with this. Where is the difference btw quitclaim deed and a foreclosure? What is the best thing to do? She lives in Michigan.

Why did bush's top banking officals say that the community investment act had nothing to do with the crisis? Bush appointees Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and FDIC Chairman Shelia Blair, both republicans, have stated that the CRA had nothing to do with the housing crisis. In fact, bush's top 2 banking appointees have stated that the CRA - community reinvestment act - has had absoutely nothing to do with the banking crisis. Bush appointee Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said "Experience runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties." In a November 25, 2008, letter, Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke stated: "Our own experience with CRA over more than 30 years and recent analysis of available data, including data on subprime loan performance, runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties." Most subprime mortgages not issued by institutions under CRA. In a paper published on the website of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Michigan law professor Michael Barr stated that as of 2005: "Only 25 percent of subprime loans were made by banks and thrifts, and the Federal Reserve reports that only six percent of subprime loans were CRA-eligible." Similarly, a 2008 study by a law firm specializing in CRA compliance estimated that in the 15 most populous metropolitan areas, 84.3 percent of subprime loans in 2006 were made by financial institutions not governed by the CRA. Bush appointee FDIC chairwoman Shelia Blair said in a speech: Remarks by FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair to The New America Foundation conference: "Did Low-income Homeownership Go Too Far?": Washington, DC December 17, 2008 Good morning and thank you for inviting me to speak. What I'd like to do today is bury two myths that have been circulating lately. The first myth is that the Community Reinvestment Act caused the financial crisis. And the second myth is that working with troubled homeowners to reduce foreclosures lacks urgency and may be akin to a fool's errand. CRA as a scapegoat I think we can agree that a complex interplay of risky behaviors by lenders, borrowers, and investors led to the current financial storm. To be sure, there's plenty of blame to go around. However, I want to give you my verdict on CRA: NOT guilty. Point of fact: Only about one-in-four higher-priced first mortgage loans were made by CRA-covered banks during the hey-day years of subprime mortgage lending (2004-2006). The rest were made by private independent mortgage companies and large bank affiliates not covered by CRA rules. You've heard the line of attack: The government told banks they had to make loans to people who were bad credit risks, and who could not afford to repay, just to prove that they were making loans to low- and moderate-income people. Let me ask you: where in the CRA does it say: make loans to people who can't afford to repay? No-where! And the fact is, the lending practices that are causing problems today were driven by a desire for market share and revenue growth ... pure and simple. CRA isn't perfect. But it has stayed around more than 30 years because it works. It encourages FDIC-insured banks to lend in low and moderate income (or LMI) areas, and I quote, -"consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions". Another question: Is lending to borrowers under terms they can not afford to repay "consistent with the safe and sound operations"? No, of course not. CRA always recognized there are limitations on the potential volume of lending in lower-income areas due to safety and soundness considerations. And, that a bank's capacity and opportunity for safe and sound lending in the LMI community may be limited. That is why the CRA never set out lending "target" or "goal" amounts. That is why CRA supporters, many of you here today, have labored for three decades to figure out how to do it safely. It makes no sense to give a loan to someone under terms you know they can't pay back. That's a set up for failure. Despite our current problems, the homeowner is still one of the best credit risks in the world. Today, the delinquency rate on all home mortgages is only 3.6 percent. For subprime loans, there is a stark difference in the type of loan. The rate of seriously delinquent subprime fixed rate loans is a little more than one-third the rate for subprime adjustable rate mortgages. Any family willing to work, save money, pay the mortgage on their house is a sound basis of credit and a sound basis for America. So let the record show: CRA is not guilty of causing the financial crisis.

In 2002, why did Bush order 440 BILLION in subprime loans from fannie mae/freddie mac? Here is the video...go to the 4 minute mark to hear him say it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNqQx7sjoS8 Here is the offical white house text of that speech he gave in atlanta on june 17, 2002. http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020617-2.html Here is the offical white house fact sheet: http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020617.html Bush said "...That's why I've challenged the industry leaders all across the country to get after it for this goal, to stay focused, to make sure that we achieve a more secure America, by achieving the goal of 5.5 million new minority home owners. I call it America's home ownership challenge. And let me talk about some of the progress which we have made to date, as an example for others to follow. First of all, government sponsored corporations that help create our mortgage system -- I introduced two of the leaders here today -- they call those people Fannie May and Freddie Mac, as well as the federal home loan banks, will increase their commitment to minority markets by more than $440 billion. (Applause.) I want to thank Leland and Franklin for that commitment. It's a commitment that conforms to their charters, as well, and also conforms to their hearts." (Please note that bush appoints Leland and Franklin to their jobs at fannie mae and freddie mac so when he asks for 440 BILLION that is basically a presidential order) Also note: The govt can not force a bank to make a bad loan. And surely, an ALL REPUBLICAN GOVT would not force a bank to make a bad loan. In 2002, republicans controlled both congress and the white house. You can't blame this on democrats and barney frank. In fact, bush's top 2 banking appointees have stated that the CRA - community reinvestment act - has had absoutely nothing to do with the banking crisis. Bush appointee Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said "Experience runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties." In a November 25, 2008, letter, Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke stated: "Our own experience with CRA over more than 30 years and recent analysis of available data, including data on subprime loan performance, runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties." Most subprime mortgages not issued by institutions under CRA. In a paper published on the website of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Michigan law professor Michael Barr stated that as of 2005: "Only 25 percent of subprime loans were made by banks and thrifts, and the Federal Reserve reports that only six percent of subprime loans were CRA-eligible." Similarly, a 2008 study by a law firm specializing in CRA compliance estimated that in the 15 most populous metropolitan areas, 84.3 percent of subprime loans in 2006 were made by financial institutions not governed by the CRA. Bush appointee FDIC chairwoman Shelia Blair said in the following speech: Remarks by FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair to The New America Foundation conference: "Did Low-income Homeownership Go Too Far?": Washington, DC December 17, 2008 Good morning and thank you for inviting me to speak. What I'd like to do today is bury two myths that have been circulating lately. The first myth is that the Community Reinvestment Act caused the financial crisis. And the second myth is that working with troubled homeowners to reduce foreclosures lacks urgency and may be akin to a fool's errand. CRA as a scapegoat I think we can agree that a complex interplay of risky behaviors by lenders, borrowers, and investors led to the current financial storm. To be sure, there's plenty of blame to go around. However, I want to give you my verdict on CRA: NOT guilty. Point of fact: Only about one-in-four higher-priced first mortgage loans were made by CRA-covered banks during the hey-day years of subprime mortgage lending (2004-2006). The rest were made by private independent mortgage companies and large bank affiliates not covered by CRA rules. You've heard the line of attack: The government told banks they had to make loans to people who were bad credit risks, and who could not afford to repay, just to prove that they were making loans to low- and moderate-income people. Let me ask you: where in the CRA does it say: make loans to people who can't afford to repay? No-where! And the fact is, the lending practices that are causing problems today were driven by a desire for market share and revenue growth ... pure and simple. CRA isn't perfect. But it has stayed around more than 30 years because it works. It encourages FDIC-insured banks to lend in low and moderate income (or LMI) areas, and I quote, -"consistent with the s

Why do republicans avoid questions that prove them wrong? I have seen dozens of posts about how "dems forced banks to make bad loans" but when I provide proof, they won't respond. In fact, bush's own top banking appointees have said the "cra had nothing to do with the crisis" Bush appointee Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said "Experience runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties." In a November 25, 2008, letter, Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke stated: "Our own experience with CRA over more than 30 years and recent analysis of available data, including data on subprime loan performance, runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties." Most subprime mortgages not issued by institutions under CRA. In a paper published on the website of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Michigan law professor Michael Barr stated that as of 2005: "Only 25 percent of subprime loans were made by banks and thrifts, and the Federal Reserve reports that only six percent of subprime loans were CRA-eligible." Similarly, a 2008 study by a law firm specializing in CRA compliance estimated that in the 15 most populous metropolitan areas, 84.3 percent of subprime loans in 2006 were made by financial institutions not governed by the CRA. Bush appointee FDIC chairwoman Shelia Blair said in the following speech: Remarks by FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair to The New America Foundation conference: "Did Low-income Homeownership Go Too Far?": Washington, DC December 17, 2008 Good morning and thank you for inviting me to speak. What I'd like to do today is bury two myths that have been circulating lately. The first myth is that the Community Reinvestment Act caused the financial crisis. And the second myth is that working with troubled homeowners to reduce foreclosures lacks urgency and may be akin to a fool's errand. CRA as a scapegoat I think we can agree that a complex interplay of risky behaviors by lenders, borrowers, and investors led to the current financial storm. To be sure, there's plenty of blame to go around. However, I want to give you my verdict on CRA: NOT guilty. Point of fact: Only about one-in-four higher-priced first mortgage loans were made by CRA-covered banks during the hey-day years of subprime mortgage lending (2004-2006). The rest were made by private independent mortgage companies and large bank affiliates not covered by CRA rules. You've heard the line of attack: The government told banks they had to make loans to people who were bad credit risks, and who could not afford to repay, just to prove that they were making loans to low- and moderate-income people. Let me ask you: where in the CRA does it say: make loans to people who can't afford to repay? No-where! And the fact is, the lending practices that are causing problems today were driven by a desire for market share and revenue growth ... pure and simple. CRA isn't perfect. But it has stayed around more than 30 years because it works. It encourages FDIC-insured banks to lend in low and moderate income (or LMI) areas, and I quote, -"consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions". Another question: Is lending to borrowers under terms they can not afford to repay "consistent with the safe and sound operations"? No, of course not. CRA always recognized there are limitations on the potential volume of lending in lower-income areas due to safety and soundness considerations. And, that a bank's capacity and opportunity for safe and sound lending in the LMI community may be limited. That is why the CRA never set out lending "target" or "goal" amounts. That is why CRA supporters, many of you here today, have labored for three decades to figure out how to do it safely. It makes no sense to give a loan to someone under terms you know they can't pay back. That's a set up for failure. Despite our current problems, the homeowner is still one of the best credit risks in the world. Today, the delinquency rate on all home mortgages is only 3.6 percent. For subprime loans, there is a stark difference in the type of loan. The rate of seriously delinquent subprime fixed rate loans is a little more than one-third the rate for subprime adjustable rate mortgages. Any family willing to work, save money, pay the mortgage on their house is a sound basis of credit and a sound basis for America. So let the record show: CRA is not guilty of causing the financial crisis.

Why do republicans keep repeating the lie that "loans to minorities" created the crisis? Almost all economic experts have said this is a lie. Even bush's top 2 banking appointees have said this is a lie. Bush appointee Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said "Experience runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties." In a November 25, 2008, letter, Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke stated: "Our own experience with CRA over more than 30 years and recent analysis of available data, including data on subprime loan performance, runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties." Most subprime mortgages not issued by institutions under CRA. In a paper published on the website of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Michigan law professor Michael Barr stated that as of 2005: "Only 25 percent of subprime loans were made by banks and thrifts, and the Federal Reserve reports that only six percent of subprime loans were CRA-eligible." Similarly, a 2008 study by a law firm specializing in CRA compliance estimated that in the 15 most populous metropolitan areas, 84.3 percent of subprime loans in 2006 were made by financial institutions not governed by the CRA. Bush appointee FDIC chairwoman Shelia Blair said in the following speech: Remarks by FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair to The New America Foundation conference: "Did Low-income Homeownership Go Too Far?": Washington, DC December 17, 2008 Good morning and thank you for inviting me to speak. What I'd like to do today is bury two myths that have been circulating lately. The first myth is that the Community Reinvestment Act caused the financial crisis. And the second myth is that working with troubled homeowners to reduce foreclosures lacks urgency and may be akin to a fool's errand. CRA as a scapegoat I think we can agree that a complex interplay of risky behaviors by lenders, borrowers, and investors led to the current financial storm. To be sure, there's plenty of blame to go around. However, I want to give you my verdict on CRA: NOT guilty. Point of fact: Only about one-in-four higher-priced first mortgage loans were made by CRA-covered banks during the hey-day years of subprime mortgage lending (2004-2006). The rest were made by private independent mortgage companies and large bank affiliates not covered by CRA rules. You've heard the line of attack: The government told banks they had to make loans to people who were bad credit risks, and who could not afford to repay, just to prove that they were making loans to low- and moderate-income people. Let me ask you: where in the CRA does it say: make loans to people who can't afford to repay? No-where! And the fact is, the lending practices that are causing problems today were driven by a desire for market share and revenue growth ... pure and simple. CRA isn't perfect. But it has stayed around more than 30 years because it works. It encourages FDIC-insured banks to lend in low and moderate income (or LMI) areas, and I quote, -"consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions". Another question: Is lending to borrowers under terms they can not afford to repay "consistent with the safe and sound operations"? No, of course not. CRA always recognized there are limitations on the potential volume of lending in lower-income areas due to safety and soundness considerations. And, that a bank's capacity and opportunity for safe and sound lending in the LMI community may be limited. That is why the CRA never set out lending "target" or "goal" amounts. That is why CRA supporters, many of you here today, have labored for three decades to figure out how to do it safely. It makes no sense to give a loan to someone under terms you know they can't pay back. That's a set up for failure. Despite our current problems, the homeowner is still one of the best credit risks in the world. Today, the delinquency rate on all home mortgages is only 3.6 percent. For subprime loans, there is a stark difference in the type of loan. The rate of seriously delinquent subprime fixed rate loans is a little more than one-third the rate for subprime adjustable rate mortgages. Any family willing to work, save money, pay the mortgage on their house is a sound basis of credit and a sound basis for America. So let the record show: CRA is not guilty of causing the financial crisis.

Why did republicans give everybody a free house, then bet that they would not pay the mortgage? In 2002, why did Bush ask his fannie mae appointees to "make 440 BILLION in subprime loans to minorities"? Here is the video...go to the 4 minute mark to hear him say it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNqQx7sjoS8 Here is the offical white house text of that speech he gave in atlanta on june 17, 2002. http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020617-2.html Here is the offical white house fact sheet: http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020617.html Bush said "...That's why I've challenged the industry leaders all across the country to get after it for this goal, to stay focused, to make sure that we achieve a more secure America, by achieving the goal of 5.5 million new minority home owners. I call it America's home ownership challenge. And let me talk about some of the progress which we have made to date, as an example for others to follow. First of all, government sponsored corporations that help create our mortgage system -- I introduced two of the leaders here today -- they call those people Fannie May and Freddie Mac, as well as the federal home loan banks, will increase their commitment to minority markets by more than $440 billion. (Applause.) I want to thank Leland and Franklin for that commitment. It's a commitment that conforms to their charters, as well, and also conforms to their hearts." (Please note that bush appoints Leland and Franklin to their jobs at fannie mae and freddie mac so when he asks for 440 BILLION that is basically a presidential order) Also note: The govt can not force a bank to make a bad loan. And surely, an ALL REPUBLICAN GOVT would not force a bank to make a bad loan. In 2002, republicans controlled both congress and the white house. You can't blame this on democrats and barney frank. In fact, bush's top 2 banking appointees have stated that the CRA - community reinvestment act - has had absoutely nothing to do with the banking crisis. Bush appointee Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said "Experience runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties." In a November 25, 2008, letter, Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke stated: "Our own experience with CRA over more than 30 years and recent analysis of available data, including data on subprime loan performance, runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties." Most subprime mortgages not issued by institutions under CRA. In a paper published on the website of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Michigan law professor Michael Barr stated that as of 2005: "Only 25 percent of subprime loans were made by banks and thrifts, and the Federal Reserve reports that only six percent of subprime loans were CRA-eligible." Similarly, a 2008 study by a law firm specializing in CRA compliance estimated that in the 15 most populous metropolitan areas, 84.3 percent of subprime loans in 2006 were made by financial institutions not governed by the CRA. Bush appointee FDIC chairwoman Shelia Blair said in the following speech: Remarks by FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair to The New America Foundation conference: "Did Low-income Homeownership Go Too Far?": Washington, DC December 17, 2008 Good morning and thank you for inviting me to speak. What I'd like to do today is bury two myths that have been circulating lately. The first myth is that the Community Reinvestment Act caused the financial crisis. And the second myth is that working with troubled homeowners to reduce foreclosures lacks urgency and may be akin to a fool's errand. CRA as a scapegoat I think we can agree that a complex interplay of risky behaviors by lenders, borrowers, and investors led to the current financial storm. To be sure, there's plenty of blame to go around. However, I want to give you my verdict on CRA: NOT guilty. Point of fact: Only about one-in-four higher-priced first mortgage loans were made by CRA-covered banks during the hey-day years of subprime mortgage lending (2004-2006). The rest were made by private independent mortgage companies and large bank affiliates not covered by CRA rules. You've heard the line of attack: The government told banks they had to make loans to people who were bad credit risks, and who could not afford to repay, just to prove that they were making loans to low- and moderate-income people. Let me ask you: where in the CRA does it say: make loans to people who can't afford to repay? No-where! And the fact is, the lending practices that are causing problems today were driven by a desire for market share and revenue growth ... pure and simple. CRA isn't perfect. But it has stayed around more than 30 years because it works. It e

Why did bush's top banking officals say the CRA had nothing to do with the crisis? In fact, bush's top 2 banking appointees have stated that the CRA - community reinvestment act - has had absoutely nothing to do with the banking crisis. Bush appointee Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said "Experience runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties." In a November 25, 2008, letter, Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke stated: "Our own experience with CRA over more than 30 years and recent analysis of available data, including data on subprime loan performance, runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties." Most subprime mortgages not issued by institutions under CRA. In a paper published on the website of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Michigan law professor Michael Barr stated that as of 2005: "Only 25 percent of subprime loans were made by banks and thrifts, and the Federal Reserve reports that only six percent of subprime loans were CRA-eligible." Similarly, a 2008 study by a law firm specializing in CRA compliance estimated that in the 15 most populous metropolitan areas, 84.3 percent of subprime loans in 2006 were made by financial institutions not governed by the CRA. Bush appointee FDIC chairwoman Shelia Blair said in the following speech: Remarks by FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair to The New America Foundation conference: "Did Low-income Homeownership Go Too Far?": Washington, DC December 17, 2008 Good morning and thank you for inviting me to speak. What I'd like to do today is bury two myths that have been circulating lately. The first myth is that the Community Reinvestment Act caused the financial crisis. And the second myth is that working with troubled homeowners to reduce foreclosures lacks urgency and may be akin to a fool's errand. CRA as a scapegoat I think we can agree that a complex interplay of risky behaviors by lenders, borrowers, and investors led to the current financial storm. To be sure, there's plenty of blame to go around. However, I want to give you my verdict on CRA: NOT guilty. Point of fact: Only about one-in-four higher-priced first mortgage loans were made by CRA-covered banks during the hey-day years of subprime mortgage lending (2004-2006). The rest were made by private independent mortgage companies and large bank affiliates not covered by CRA rules. You've heard the line of attack: The government told banks they had to make loans to people who were bad credit risks, and who could not afford to repay, just to prove that they were making loans to low- and moderate-income people. Let me ask you: where in the CRA does it say: make loans to people who can't afford to repay? No-where! And the fact is, the lending practices that are causing problems today were driven by a desire for market share and revenue growth ... pure and simple. CRA isn't perfect. But it has stayed around more than 30 years because it works. It encourages FDIC-insured banks to lend in low and moderate income (or LMI) areas, and I quote, -"consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions". Another question: Is lending to borrowers under terms they can not afford to repay "consistent with the safe and sound operations"? No, of course not. CRA always recognized there are limitations on the potential volume of lending in lower-income areas due to safety and soundness considerations. And, that a bank's capacity and opportunity for safe and sound lending in the LMI community may be limited. That is why the CRA never set out lending "target" or "goal" amounts. That is why CRA supporters, many of you here today, have labored for three decades to figure out how to do it safely. It makes no sense to give a loan to someone under terms you know they can't pay back. That's a set up for failure. Despite our current problems, the homeowner is still one of the best credit risks in the world. Today, the delinquency rate on all home mortgages is only 3.6 percent. For subprime loans, there is a stark difference in the type of loan. The rate of seriously delinquent subprime fixed rate loans is a little more than one-third the rate for subprime adjustable rate mortgages. Any family willing to work, save money, pay the mortgage on their house is a sound basis of credit and a sound basis for America. So let the record show: CRA is not guilty of causing the financial crisis.

In 2002, why did Bush ask his fannie mae appointees to "make 440 BILLION in subprime loans to minorities"? Here is the video...go to the 4 minute mark to hear him say it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNqQx7sjoS8 Here is the offical white house text of that speech he gave in atlanta on june 17, 2002. http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020617-2.html Here is the offical white house fact sheet: http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020617.html Bush said "...That's why I've challenged the industry leaders all across the country to get after it for this goal, to stay focused, to make sure that we achieve a more secure America, by achieving the goal of 5.5 million new minority home owners. I call it America's home ownership challenge. And let me talk about some of the progress which we have made to date, as an example for others to follow. First of all, government sponsored corporations that help create our mortgage system -- I introduced two of the leaders here today -- they call those people Fannie May and Freddie Mac, as well as the federal home loan banks, will increase their commitment to minority markets by more than $440 billion. (Applause.) I want to thank Leland and Franklin for that commitment. It's a commitment that conforms to their charters, as well, and also conforms to their hearts." (Please note that bush appoints Leland and Franklin to their jobs at fannie mae and freddie mac so when he asks for 440 BILLION that is basically a presidential order) Also note: The govt can not force a bank to make a bad loan. And surely, an ALL REPUBLICAN GOVT would not force a bank to make a bad loan. In 2002, republicans controlled both congress and the white house. You can't blame this on democrats and barney frank. In fact, bush's top 2 banking appointees have stated that the CRA - community reinvestment act - has had absoutely nothing to do with the banking crisis. Bush appointee Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said "Experience runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties." In a November 25, 2008, letter, Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke stated: "Our own experience with CRA over more than 30 years and recent analysis of available data, including data on subprime loan performance, runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties." Most subprime mortgages not issued by institutions under CRA. In a paper published on the website of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Michigan law professor Michael Barr stated that as of 2005: "Only 25 percent of subprime loans were made by banks and thrifts, and the Federal Reserve reports that only six percent of subprime loans were CRA-eligible." Similarly, a 2008 study by a law firm specializing in CRA compliance estimated that in the 15 most populous metropolitan areas, 84.3 percent of subprime loans in 2006 were made by financial institutions not governed by the CRA. Bush appointee FDIC chairwoman Shelia Blair said in a speech: Remarks by FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair to The New America Foundation conference: "Did Low-income Homeownership Go Too Far?": Washington, DC December 17, 2008 Good morning and thank you for inviting me to speak. What I'd like to do today is bury two myths that have been circulating lately. The first myth is that the Community Reinvestment Act caused the financial crisis. And the second myth is that working with troubled homeowners to reduce foreclosures lacks urgency and may be akin to a fool's errand. CRA as a scapegoat I think we can agree that a complex interplay of risky behaviors by lenders, borrowers, and investors led to the current financial storm. To be sure, there's plenty of blame to go around. However, I want to give you my verdict on CRA: NOT guilty. Point of fact: Only about one-in-four higher-priced first mortgage loans were made by CRA-covered banks during the hey-day years of subprime mortgage lending (2004-2006). The rest were made by private independent mortgage companies and large bank affiliates not covered by CRA rules. You've heard the line of attack: The government told banks they had to make loans to people who were bad credit risks, and who could not afford to repay, just to prove that they were making loans to low- and moderate-income people. Let me ask you: where in the CRA does it say: make loans to people who can't afford to repay? No-where! And the fact is, the lending practices that are causing problems today were driven by a desire for market share and revenue growth ... pure and simple. CRA isn't perfect. But it has stayed around more than 30 years because it works. It encourages FDIC-insured banks to lend in low and moderate income (or LMI) areas, and I quote, -"consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions". Another question: Is lending to borrowers under terms they can not afford to

Didn't the Chairmn of the Fed/FDIC both say the"Community reinvestment loans had nothing to do with the crisis? I keep hearing how dems forced banks to make loans to poor people which caused the housing crisis. Dozens of economic experts have stated this is a lie. In fact, bush's own top banking appointees have said the "cra had nothing to do with the crisis" Bush appointee Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said "Experience runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties." In a November 25, 2008, letter, Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke stated: "Our own experience with CRA over more than 30 years and recent analysis of available data, including data on subprime loan performance, runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties." Most subprime mortgages not issued by institutions under CRA. In a paper published on the website of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Michigan law professor Michael Barr stated that as of 2005: "Only 25 percent of subprime loans were made by banks and thrifts, and the Federal Reserve reports that only six percent of subprime loans were CRA-eligible." Similarly, a 2008 study by a law firm specializing in CRA compliance estimated that in the 15 most populous metropolitan areas, 84.3 percent of subprime loans in 2006 were made by financial institutions not governed by the CRA. Bush appointee FDIC chairwoman Shelia Blair said in the following speech: Remarks by FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair to The New America Foundation conference: "Did Low-income Homeownership Go Too Far?": Washington, DC December 17, 2008 Good morning and thank you for inviting me to speak. What I'd like to do today is bury two myths that have been circulating lately. The first myth is that the Community Reinvestment Act caused the financial crisis. And the second myth is that working with troubled homeowners to reduce foreclosures lacks urgency and may be akin to a fool's errand. CRA as a scapegoat I think we can agree that a complex interplay of risky behaviors by lenders, borrowers, and investors led to the current financial storm. To be sure, there's plenty of blame to go around. However, I want to give you my verdict on CRA: NOT guilty. Point of fact: Only about one-in-four higher-priced first mortgage loans were made by CRA-covered banks during the hey-day years of subprime mortgage lending (2004-2006). The rest were made by private independent mortgage companies and large bank affiliates not covered by CRA rules. You've heard the line of attack: The government told banks they had to make loans to people who were bad credit risks, and who could not afford to repay, just to prove that they were making loans to low- and moderate-income people. Let me ask you: where in the CRA does it say: make loans to people who can't afford to repay? No-where! And the fact is, the lending practices that are causing problems today were driven by a desire for market share and revenue growth ... pure and simple. CRA isn't perfect. But it has stayed around more than 30 years because it works. It encourages FDIC-insured banks to lend in low and moderate income (or LMI) areas, and I quote, -"consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions". Another question: Is lending to borrowers under terms they can not afford to repay "consistent with the safe and sound operations"? No, of course not. CRA always recognized there are limitations on the potential volume of lending in lower-income areas due to safety and soundness considerations. And, that a bank's capacity and opportunity for safe and sound lending in the LMI community may be limited. That is why the CRA never set out lending "target" or "goal" amounts. That is why CRA supporters, many of you here today, have labored for three decades to figure out how to do it safely. It makes no sense to give a loan to someone under terms you know they can't pay back. That's a set up for failure. Despite our current problems, the homeowner is still one of the best credit risks in the world. Today, the delinquency rate on all home mortgages is only 3.6 percent. For subprime loans, there is a stark difference in the type of loan. The rate of seriously delinquent subprime fixed rate loans is a little more than one-third the rate for subprime adjustable rate mortgages. Any family willing to work, save money, pay the mortgage on their house is a sound basis of credit and a sound basis for America. So let the record show: CRA is not guilty of causing the financial crisis.

Why do republicans keep lying about the community reinvestment act. Bush ordered 440 BILLION in subprime loans? Here is the offical white house text of that speech he gave in atlanta on june 17, 2002. http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020617-2.html Here is the offical white house fact sheet: http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020617.html Bush said "...That's why I've challenged the industry leaders all across the country to get after it for this goal, to stay focused, to make sure that we achieve a more secure America, by achieving the goal of 5.5 million new minority home owners. I call it America's home ownership challenge. And let me talk about some of the progress which we have made to date, as an example for others to follow. First of all, government sponsored corporations that help create our mortgage system -- I introduced two of the leaders here today -- they call those people Fannie May and Freddie Mac, as well as the federal home loan banks, will increase their commitment to minority markets by more than $440 billion. (Applause.) I want to thank Leland and Franklin for that commitment. It's a commitment that conforms to their charters, as well, and also conforms to their hearts." (Please note that bush appoints Leland and Franklin to their jobs at fannie mae and freddie mac so when he asks for 440 BILLION that is basically a presidential order) Also note: The govt can not force a bank to make a bad loan. And surely, an ALL REPUBLICAN GOVT would not force a bank to make a bad loan. In 2002, republicans controlled both congress and the white house. You can't blame this on democrats and barney frank. In fact, bush's top 2 banking appointees have stated that the CRA - community reinvestment act - has had absoutely nothing to do with the banking crisis. Bush appointee Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said "Experience runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties." In a November 25, 2008, letter, Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke stated: "Our own experience with CRA over more than 30 years and recent analysis of available data, including data on subprime loan performance, runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties." Most subprime mortgages not issued by institutions under CRA. In a paper published on the website of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Michigan law professor Michael Barr stated that as of 2005: "Only 25 percent of subprime loans were made by banks and thrifts, and the Federal Reserve reports that only six percent of subprime loans were CRA-eligible." Similarly, a 2008 study by a law firm specializing in CRA compliance estimated that in the 15 most populous metropolitan areas, 84.3 percent of subprime loans in 2006 were made by financial institutions not governed by the CRA. Bush appointee FDIC chairwoman Shelia Blair said in the following speech: Remarks by FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair to The New America Foundation conference: "Did Low-income Homeownership Go Too Far?": Washington, DC December 17, 2008 Good morning and thank you for inviting me to speak. What I'd like to do today is bury two myths that have been circulating lately. The first myth is that the Community Reinvestment Act caused the financial crisis. And the second myth is that working with troubled homeowners to reduce foreclosures lacks urgency and may be akin to a fool's errand. CRA as a scapegoat I think we can agree that a complex interplay of risky behaviors by lenders, borrowers, and investors led to the current financial storm. To be sure, there's plenty of blame to go around. However, I want to give you my verdict on CRA: NOT guilty. Point of fact: Only about one-in-four higher-priced first mortgage loans were made by CRA-covered banks during the hey-day years of subprime mortgage lending (2004-2006). The rest were made by private independent mortgage companies and large bank affiliates not covered by CRA rules. You've heard the line of attack: The government told banks they had to make loans to people who were bad credit risks, and who could not afford to repay, just to prove that they were making loans to low- and moderate-income people. Let me ask you: where in the CRA does it say: make loans to people who can't afford to repay? No-where! And the fact is, the lending practices that are causing problems today were driven by a desire for market share and revenue growth ... pure and simple. CRA isn't perfect. But it has stayed around more than 30 years because it works. It encourages FDIC-insured banks to lend in low and moderate income (or LMI) areas, and I quote, -"consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions". Another question: Is lending to borrowers under terms the

Does this demonstrate how Republicans REALLY feal about people who have lost their homes (read link)? <<Lose your home, lose your vote. The chairman of the Republican Party in Macomb County, Michigan, a key swing county in a key swing state, is planning to use a list of foreclosed homes to block people from voting in the upcoming election as part of the state GOP’s effort to challenge some voters on Election Day. The Michigan Republicans’ planned use of foreclosure lists is apparently an attempt to challenge ineligible voters as not being “true residents.” One expert questioned the legality of the tactic. “You can’t challenge people without a factual basis for doing so,” said J. Gerald Hebert, a former voting rights litigator for the U.S. Justice Department who now runs the Campaign Legal Center, a Washington D.C.-based public-interest law firm. “I don’t think a foreclosure notice is sufficient basis for a challenge, because people often remain in their homes after foreclosure begins and sometimes are able to negotiate and refinance.” As for the practice of challenging the right to vote of foreclosed property owners, Hebert called it, “mean-spirited.”>> http://www.michiganmessenger.com/4076/lose-your-house-lose-your-vote

what penalties do you face for a foreclosed home? Hello. My parents are going through a rough financial time right now. I have no knowledge to give them, or advice to offer on a foreclosed home, because I have ever mortgaged, and know nothing of mortgaging a home. Right now, their home is worth only half, of what they currently owe on it, and they are in their early fifty's and it will take them thirty yrs before they pay their home off, and they can barely afford their mortgage as is. They have found nicer homes, in nicer areas south of where we live. My grandparents (who are healthy and don't have a mortgage) offered to mortgage one of these homes in their names for my parents. From a financial standpoint, it is a good idea for them to walk away from their home now, and let it go into foreclosure, and walk into a new home mortgaged by my grandparents. My parents would pay their own bills, it would just be under my grandparents names (and also willed to my parents). It is a good idea, because they can get a nicer home, and in the process cut their mortgage in half, which will give them an extra 1000 dollars a month to save. My concern for them though, is what kind of a penalty does one have when their home is foreclosed. I heard that it wasn't the same as bankruptcy, and a foreclosed home only stays on you financial record for two years. Is this true? Also, my father has excellent credit, how negatively and for how long will a foreclosed home affect him? Thank you, I want to be able to give them the best advice possible, also please include sources if you have any. Also they live in Michigan in case the law varies by state.

Should I go to this interview for a Paralegal job at People's State Bank? I currently work as an assistant at a globally recognized law firm in Michigan and my job is pretty secure, flexible and I work with great people. However, I am wanting to move into my Paralegal field soon. I got a call a few moments ago from a woman from People's State Bank who saw my resume online and wanted to set up an interview to assist an attorney who deals with foreclosures and defaulted loans. I do not have actual experienced with real estate law but i'm a fast learner. That's not my worry. My concern is the rigidness of working at a Bank, as well as the detailed credit checks, criminal background checks, character checks, driving record checks etc that i'm supposed to sign off on. I have had a suspended license in the past and had traffic tickets before (years ago) almost $1000 (paid off). I also got nabbed for retail fraud for eating a popsicle before paying for it at a Meijer in a small town in Northern Michigan while at College. Also, I do NOT have A-1 credit. My husband and I just purchased a home though, so our credit is good enough for that, however, there have been issues in the past with late pays and collections that are now rectified, but still....it happened. Should I even waste my time trying to get a job at a Bank? Be frank.

How slim are my chances of securing this Paralegal position at a Bank? I currently work as an assistant at a globally recognized law firm in Michigan and my job is pretty secure, flexible and I work with great people. However, I am wanting to move into my Paralegal field soon. I got a call a few moments ago from a woman from People's State Bank who saw my resume online and wanted to set up an interview to assist an attorney who deals with foreclosures and defaulted loans. I do not have actual experienced with real estate law but i'm a fast learner. That's not my worry. My concern is the rigidness of working at a Bank, as well as the detailed credit checks, criminal background checks, character checks, driving record checks etc that i'm supposed to sign off on. I have had a suspended license in the past and had traffic tickets before (years ago) almost $1000 (paid off). I also got nabbed for retail fraud for eating a popsicle before paying for it at a Meijer in a small town in Northern Michigan while at College. Also, I do NOT have A-1 credit. My husband and I just purchased a home though, so our credit is good enough for that, however, there have been issues in the past with late pays and collections that are now rectified, but still....it happened. Should I even waste my time trying to get a job at a Bank? Be frank.

Legal issues regarding realtors? Hi the house I rent is up for sale (the landlord went into foreclosure) and is now owned by the bank. About the same time all the inspectors from the bank were doing walk throughs a woman came over to take pictures. She informed me that she was taking them "for the bank", about a month later I find out that she worked for the realtor. Well when I went on the realtor's website I find that all the inside pictures she took are now posted on their website, including my bedroom! I immediately contacted the realtor and they assurred me the pics were coming down immediately. A few weeks later I check again and they are still up! I call back, they say that they need to get in touch with whoever takes care of the website. Few more weeks go by, pictures are still up, I send an email giving them 24 hours to pull down pictures or I seek Legal advice. I was sent back an email stating that my computer must be storing them on my "cache" so it is just my computer not their website. So I had a friend pull the website up at her house and she can see all my stuff plain as day. I'm in Michigan and I know this falls under privacy laws somewhere, but I cannot seem to find any written law on this. Anyone in the legal field able to help me on this? (I actually do not have the money to go to a lawyer). Please cite where your info came from.

I don't own a pit bull but...? Please... Help get justice for Rocky. Please explain to me why people are so prejudiced against this breed? I'm a pro dog groomer and have been bitten by many many dogs. Golden Retrievers are a big culprit, collies too, as well as shih tzus, dachshunds, chihuahuas, and sheep dogs... But never ever ever has a pit bull type breed even growled at me! Ever. Paws for Life rescued Rocky in May 2009. His owner, who took him in as a puppy, lost his job, then later lost his home to foreclosure. He surrendered Rocky and another dog, as well as two cats, to PFL. Rocky passed his temperament test with flying colors. We were able to easily handle his paws, ears and look at his teeth. He gave up no issues and only wanted to roll over for belly rubs. In foster care, Rocky played with other dogs and spent time with children and people of all ages. Again, no issues with his behavior. Rocky attended numerous adoption events of all kinds. Again, no issues with his behavior. He was a healthy, happy goofball with a loving smile and always-wagging tail. Rocky moved to a new foster care home in Royal Oak as summer ended. He was a daily jogging partner and constant companion in his new foster home. He again had frequent playdates with dogs of family members and friends. A 3-year-old, neutered male mutt, Rocky had ZERO prior incidents with people and other animals. He loves to play with his toys and romp and run through the yard. He was an affectionate, kind-hearted teddy bear. On Sunday, October 25, 2009, Rocky was out jogging with his foster care mom in Royal Oak, Michigan. A dog across the street was walking with his owner and a friend of the owner. The owner let his dog off leash and Rocky slipped his collar. The two dogs ran toward each other, met in the middle and began to sniff one another. The other dog growled and a fight ensued. The friend of the owner stuck his hands into the dog fight and was bit on the finger, but no one knows by which dog. The police were called and Rocky was taken away. Monday morning, Oct. 26, Paws for Life called the Royal Oak police and asked when Rocky would be released. We were told he would be released once they received proof of his rabies vaccine. So we faxed them the rabies certificate. Animal Control Officer Briggs then drove to our foster volunteer’s home without reason to do so. She coerced the volunteer into signing over Rocky, knowing full well from the 8 conversations we had that morning that he was the property of the rescue and the volunteer had no authority to sign anything. And she never would have had she not been threatened with fines, tickets and arrest while officers were standing in her living room. Upon leaving the home, Officer Briggs immediately had Rocky euthanized, even though she did not have the legal right or authority to do so. We are asking for your support of Rocky and dogs like him. He was given no chance for justice. He was the victim of breed discrimination and hatred. Any other dog breed involved and both owners would have been ticketed and that’s it. Other animal control agencies, rescues and shelters are outraged at how this case and Rocky himself were handled. Again, Rocky had NO prior incidents. He never attacked or bit anyone or anything. He came from a home with other dogs and cats. He frequently played with other dogs. He attended adoption events without problems. He was a big goofy teddy bear with a silly heartwarming smile and always-wagging tail. He loved children and he loved every person he met. He didn’t deserve this. Please spread the word, share Rocky’s story with everyone you can anyway you can. Call and write letters to Royal Oak and Berkley officials too. They have jurisdiction of Officer Briggs and the incident, which was not handled according to the law. This is a gross abuse of power by Officer Briggs who ignored a STOP order from our attorney, who acted according to her own personal, prejudiced beliefs and outside the law. Regardless of the incident and which dog was at fault, Rocky was given no time to have the situation examined. There was no opportunity for anything. He never had a chance. Other officers and officials have expressed their outrage and shock by the rushed and hurried nature of what they did. Officer Briggs lied to us and deceived us, repeatedly. http://justiceforrocky.com/ I am not affiliated with this rescue in any way. I just live near the city in which this happened and I am upset. I am worried this sets a bad example of how to deal with large and powerful breeds, and things like this.

When will Obama wake up? Obama has surrounded himself with the same types of people that are shelling for the special interests on Wall Street. As a result we have seen no regulations from the regulators, no oversite, no accountablity and so on. Obama's GOT TO WAKE UP and get rid of these advisors that are nothing more than yes men & women for Wall Street. Obama is nothing more than the Banks puppet on string that does their bidding. Obama has got to wake up and he should be the one dictating to the Banks not the other way round. Here is a great article I found below. The metaphor is by now common but completely appropriate: If your house was on fire, would you be drawing plans to remodel the upstairs bathroom? That seems to be what the Obama administration is doing right now. The country, indeed the world, is in the midst of the most severe economic crisis since the 1930s and more than a few people are worried that we might enter into a new Great Depression. More than 11% of mortgages are delinquent or in foreclosure. American jobs are being shed at the rate of 600,000 a month and unemployment has topped 8% for the first time in 25 years. Gross Domestic Product last quarter declined at a staggering annual rate of 6.2%. Deficits, both state and federal, are soaring into uncharted territory. And yet the Obama administration is holding conferences on how to reform health care and education. Both are very important topics, but not when the entire economy is imploding. And while the stimulus bill and the omnibus spending bill that passed this week will both help create jobs, both are larded with pork and with projects that have nothing whatever to do with reviving the economy. They have a lot to do with re-electing congressmen and senators. We forget this basic fact at our peril: The heart of the crisis is the banking system. "Heart" is exactly the right word here, for the banking system is to a modern economy what the circulatory system is to the body. And while, say, a broken arm is painful and disabling for a time, a broken heart can be swiftly fatal. Yet the Treasury Department is still largely unstaffed at the highest levels where policy is made. No comprehensive banking plan has been advanced. Franklin Roosevelt faced a similar if (at least at the moment) worse crisis. When he took office on March 4, 1933, the public had entirely lost faith in the banking system after thousands of failures in the previous three years. A general bank run had begun in Michigan and the governor of that state had no choice but to close all the state's banks. By the time FDR took the oath of office, the bank panic had spread nationwide and banks were entirely closed in 38 states and had restricted withdrawals in the other 10. Roosevelt acted decisively. He ordered all the nation's banks closed until they could be examined by federal regulators. Only five days later he sent to Congress the Emergency Banking Act, a bill that had been largely written by holdovers from the Hoover administration still working in the Treasury. The bill was passed in the House that afternoon by acclamation and that evening in the Senate, with only seven dissenting votes. Roosevelt signed it into law at 8:36 p.m. On Sunday, March 12, he gave the first of his fireside chats, telling the huge audience that when the banks began to reopen the next day, it would be "safer to keep your money in a reopened bank than under the mattress." The people believed him and the American banking system began to recover from its near-death experience. The American economy began to climb out of the pit of the Great Depression. To help it along, a week later Roosevelt signed the Economy Act. This act cut government spending by $500 million (out of a budget of about $4 billion), slashing government salaries and even the pensions of some veterans - then the most potent lobby in Washington - in order to help fund unemployment benefits and other relief. The next day FDR signed into law the bill creating the Civilian Conservation Corps (the CCC) to give jobs to 250,000 unemployed young men. Later - emphasis on "later" - the New Deal would reform the banking system, Wall Street, labor relations and establish Social Sec

Seller Not Paying Mortgage on Land Contact Home I purchased? I brought a home over a year ago on a land contract. The terms of our written contract were that I would pay the seller for three years on a land contract. And at the end of the third year would seek financing for the home. This week I received a letter in my mail boxe with no envelope from the bank the seller purchased the home from. The letter stated the seller's Mortgage was in default and if the past payments and payment due next month weren't received house would be placed in foreclosure. All of my monthly payments have been paid on time and I have paid my March Payment at this time. What recourse do I have at this time? I have contacted the bank regarding the foreclosure status of the home I reside in. But since i am not the buyer they weren't able to provide me with any information. I feel that I should retain my monthly house payment for April. If he is losing my home why would I be paying him to have him pocket my money and not pay the mortgage company. I reside in Michigan and I am not sure of what the laws are concerning the Land Contract buyers. Please I need advise as soon as possible. I can tell you that I haven't contacted the seller because I talk to him every month and not once has he mentioned his lack of paying on the home I am purchasing from him at this time

Looking for financial help? I am married and have 2 little girls (6 and 3 years old). My wife works part time and I just took an all commission job in the mortgage business as that all I can find in Michigan (plus I have 15 years experience in mortgage lending). Recent relocation from FL to Michigan. Trying to get back on our feet and living with in laws, as we really have no income, We have 1 car as we sold other vehicle to get money to survive. Looking for any help at all, I personally need car, and money to get a small place of our own. In laws are great but too many people in one small home, especially with little kids and their 'stuff'. Straight up financial help would be a blessing or even a long term loan. Looking to try and get $5000-$10,000 funding for car, apartment and school tuition. Can document any and all of the above, and open to terms if required. Both of our credit is bad due to foreclosure of home in florida. Please help if you can. Thank you.

What should I read up on if I am seeking a job assisting an atty who deals with defaults and foreclosures? I have an interview Monday with a Bank and the job is assisting an attorney who deals with defaulted loans and foreclosing properties, and the reselling of those properties. I know their will be on the job training, but what specific things should I research that would pertain to this area of law? I want to have a little knowledge of this area of law so I won't look completely clueless at the interview. This is in Michigan, btw, if that matters. This is for a Paralegal position so there is a strong likelihood that I will be doing research...