«
»

Tuesday, October 14th, 2008 at 8:28 PM

Center of Mortgage-Lawsuit Universe

From www.sddt.com

A federal judicial panel ordered that all lawsuits filed across the nation against Countrywide Financial Corp. alleging predatory lending practices be consolidated and tried in San Diego.

Complaints have been brought by the San Diego city attorney’s office, and attorneys general of California, Florida, West Virginia, Connecticut, Illinois and Indiana.  The decision was announced Tuesday by the Federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) after a Sept. 25 hearing in Boston.

“San Diego has now become ground zero in the legal battle to stop foreclosures and rework these predatory loans that should never have been issued in the first place,” said San Diego City Attorney Michael Aguirre. “Keeping families in their homes is clearly a better option than destroying neighborhoods.”

In its decision, the MDL panel refused to grant Countrywide’s request to withdraw their Section 1407 motion to consolidate the pre-trial proceedings for the two cases that have been settled with the attorneys general of California and Illinois. Those settlements, however, have not yet been finalized. The MDL panel selected the Southern District of California in part because two of the actions are pending in the district, and Countrywide’s principal place of business is in California.

This week, Aguirre filed two additional predatory lending practice lawsuits against Washington Mutual and Wachovia.

Posted on Tuesday, October 14th, 2008 at 8:28 PM in Mortgage Lawsuits | 16 Comments » | Print Print You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Reader Comments: 16 Responses

  1. We’ll work on getting inside scoops, dirt on Aguirre, and Mozilo sightings. Extra credit for videos.

    Jim the Realtor | October 14th, 2008 at 8:36 pm

  2. Why not Calabasas?

    Rob Dawg | October 14th, 2008 at 9:10 pm

  3. Wow.. this ought to be a nice booster shot to Mikey’s ego.

    Stephen Waits | October 14th, 2008 at 9:44 pm

  4. So if CW loses, who pays? Aren’t they bankrupt?

    Or does B of A now cough up/have to re-write the loans?

    shoppingaround | October 15th, 2008 at 2:13 am

  5. “Keeping families in their homes is clearly a better option than destroying neighborhoods.”

    I can afford the homes people get kicked out of and I have $$$ to pay taxes you pandering idiot. I can’t believe it’s come to this. I’m begging to pay taxes so government will actually kick people out of houses. This whole housing bailout and the mentality it’s created is sickening.

    shadash | October 15th, 2008 at 6:37 am

  6. “Keeping families in their homes is clearly a better option than destroying neighborhoods.”

    What about the people who never should have been in the house in the first place? Why do we have to keep them in it?

    I’d rather live next door to a responsible family that didn’t buy a house they couldn’t afford but waited till they could buy something affordable.

    loharp | October 15th, 2008 at 8:32 am

  7. Yeah single individuals or families in owner occupied homes is the cause of the foreclosure problem we are facing. If you believe that I have a bridge to sell you in Coronado.

    How about we also exempt anyone who took a cash out refi at am interest rate higher than their previous mortgage. I think that will prbably eliminate everyone.

    LV Renter | October 15th, 2008 at 10:12 am

  8. While I echo the sentiments of many of you here regarding my distaste for people who signed bad loans… As a (responsible) homeowner, I want to keep foreclosures to a minimum. Why? Because they negatively affect the value of my home. So far there has been only one in my immediate neighborhood, but I’m deathly afraid that more will show up and tank my home’s value.

    So while the vengeful side of me would like to see all the people responsible for this mess punished, the homeowner side is screaming “NIMBY!!”

    Kwaping | October 15th, 2008 at 1:31 pm

  9. Let me get this straight….
    2 consenting parties (a lender and lendee) agree to a voluntary contract – to borrow and lend for a home mortgage.

    How is this predatory? And why wasn’t it “predatory” when people were making trucks of money from these transactions?

    Lets all vote that tool Aguirre out of office this fall.

    garbler | October 15th, 2008 at 1:51 pm

  10. Heh… didn’t you say you found what you were looking for at acceptable price and you are not worried about the direction of the prices?

    On the other hand, foreclosure in your neighborhood will replace a deadbeat with Shadash. Shadash will turn around and spends tens of thousands on adjusting the housing unit to fit his needs, make sure the grass is green and HOA/taxes paid. Isn’t he a better neighbor for you?

    Think about it – the foreclosed person, Shadash, JtR, Home Depot, Landscaper Union, city/state/feds – everyone benefits .

    BGinRB | October 15th, 2008 at 1:58 pm

  11. Kwaping

    don’t kid yourself the value of your property is going to fall regardless. Many of the plans are based on principle reductions. What do principle reductions do, they allow the current owner to sell at a lower price. The Realtors(R) were quick topoint out how often people moved in the past. This desire is not going to change.

    While temporarily painful it is in the best interest of everyone for the market to reach long term equilibrium. Foreclosure help that process. I am certain you want a neighbor who appreciates the home for what it is, not for what they wanted it to be.

    LV Renter | October 15th, 2008 at 2:13 pm

  12. Nothing personal Kwaping, but I’m always amused by homeowners crying foul over nearby properties falling into foreclosure and therefore negatively impacting the value of their own home. Where was the outrage when homes selling down the street for outrageous and unsustainable sums were pushing up the value of your home?

    Asset valuation ain’t a one-way street folks.

    Woodrow | October 15th, 2008 at 3:30 pm

  13. Yes lenders loaned money to people they knew couldn’t pay it back, but the borrowers themselves knew they couldn’t pay it back either and gladly took the loan… none of the parties involved can claim victimhood/ignorance here. The underwriting process must have a zero tolerance policy for the little lies…like when a borrower puts down that a property will be their primary residence when it really won’t be, or padding their income by a small amount, etc. On the surface such little lies seem harmless, but on a massive scale the little lies add up.

    Dave | October 15th, 2008 at 3:38 pm

  14. Okay, I see everyone’s points and I stand corrected. Thanks for straightening me out. :)

    By the way, Woodrow, I’m a new homeowner so I didn’t do any cashing in. My wife and I fell into the “save and wait” category. This is the first home I’ve owned.

    Kwaping | October 15th, 2008 at 5:20 pm

  15. “Where was the outrage when homes selling down the street for outrageous and unsustainable sums were pushing up the value of your home?”

    In my case it was mostly amusement, because I’ve ridden the rollercoaster before. My wife and I would talk about how much our house had “made” this year, making that little quotation-mark gesture with our fingers, because nothing is “made” or “lost” unless you sell and step out of the market, and until/unless you do that, it’s all monopoly money.

    Unfortunately, it seems a lot of people played without reading the part about how it’s not wise to use all your money to buy the Boardwalk.

    GeneK | October 17th, 2008 at 9:16 am

  16. How can we contact Mr. Aguire for the class action against countywide

    aline | November 7th, 2008 at 11:30 am

Post a new comment