Primeau Law, P.A.

John Primeau

John is a Florida Board Certified Real Estate Lawyer who specializes in commercial and residential real estate transactions and litigation. John also practices business law, wills & trusts, probate, and commercial litigation.

May 12, 2012

By

Should banks be able to avoid judicial fraud inquiries by voluntarily dismissing a case?

Should banks be able to avoid judicial fraud inquiries by voluntarily dismissing a case? The Florida Supreme Court heard arguments on that issue yesterday in Pino v. Bank of New York. The issue is pretty straightforward, but it is a very important one.

In Pino, the Bank of New York filed a foreclosure lawsuit against Mr. Pino.  Mr. Pino’s lawyers challenged a document created by the bank’s lawyers (Law Offices of David J. Stern) and sought to question employees about the document’s veracity.  On the eve of the depositions, the bank voluntarily dismissed the case thereby blocking the court’s ability to address any sanctions.  [Under the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, the court effectively loses jurisdiction over a case once it is voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff.]  Pino’s lawyers sought to block the bank from re-filing the case, which it did several months later.  The trial court denied the request and Mr. Pino appealed to the Fourth District Court of Appeal.  The Fourth DCA certified the issue to the Florida Supreme Court.  In an interesting twist, the parties settled their dispute, but the Supreme Court still wanted to receive briefs and hear argument due to the importance of the issue.

Some of the questioning by the justices focused on the harm to Mr. Pino.  For example, Chief Justice Charles Canady posed this question to Amanda Lundergan, Mr. Pino’s lawyer, “What it seems like to me, you’re just looking for a ‘gotcha’ to get out of the mortgage.  Am I wrong?”

The bank’s argument was that voluntary dismissals in foreclosure cases should be treated the same as any other civil case and that rule changes aimed at voluntary dismissals in foreclosures could have far-reaching effects.

We have not had problems.  This is, because it’s a mortgage foreclosure case, because there are a lot of those cases, it has attracted a lot of attention. But I think we have to look at this in the universe of general civil litigation. And this has not been a problem in general civil litigation. – Bruce Rogow, lawyer for BNY

Mr. Rogow’s point is well taken, but he overlooks the obvious.  Fraudulent filings in have not been a widespread problem in “general civil litigation,” but they do remain a very real (and widespread) problem in foreclosure cases.  The issues of robo-signing and fraudulent documents in residential mortgage foreclosure cases have been widely reported yet it continues to happen.

The underlying consideration should be preserving the integrity of the judicial system and the lawyers who are officers of the courts.  The existing rule structure provides an opportunity for unscrupulous banks or lawyers to submit fraudulent paperwork in the hopes of getting away with it.  When it appears the scheme didn’t work, they can simply dismiss the case and get a do-over.  Our judicial system should not let that happen.  We have a special rule of civil procedure for the verification of complaints which only applies in mortgage foreclosure cases.  Why shouldn’t there be a similar special rule for voluntary dismissals in foreclosure cases?

The Supreme Court took the first step towards limiting this fraud by requiring verification of foreclosure complaints.  However, much of the robosigning and fraud occurs in affidavits filed much later in the case.  The next step should be to allow the trial courts to retain jurisdiction after a voluntary dismissal in a foreclosure case, upon a proper showing, to consider sanctions against lawyers and lenders who submit fraudulent documents to the courts. Thus, it is still too early to determine what the Court will ultimately decide.

Court watchers will tell you not to read too much into the questioning by the justices.  The justices’ feelings can’t be assumed simply from their questioning, and the written opinion often reaches a completely different result than one would assume from the questions asked at the hearing.

We will post another blog on this issue once the Supreme Court issues its opinion.

For more background on the Pino case, here are links to articles in the Bradenton Herald and Palm Beach Post. You can also read the appellate briefs here.

Share
Feb 10, 2012

By

Florida joins in $25 billion foreclosure settlement

It’s official. Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi signed off on the record $25 billion joint federal-state settlement agreement with the nation’s five largest mortgage servicers over foreclosure abuses and unacceptable nationwide mortgage servicing practices. Forty-nine of the fifty states have approved it, with Oklahoma being the lone hold out.

According to the Florida Attorney General’s official press release, the settlement generally releases civil claims related to robo-signing, other foreclosure-related abuses, and loan origination misconduct, but it provides no release of criminal claims or of claims related to mortgage securitization.

So what does this mean for Florida homeowners and Florida’s housing market? That remains to be seen. According to the press release, Florida’s share of the total monetary benefits under the settlement will be approximately $8.4 billion.

  • Florida borrowers will receive an estimated $7.6 billion in benefits from loan modifications, including principal reduction, and other direct relief.
  •  Approximately $170 million will be available for cash payments to Florida borrowers who lost their home to foreclosure from January 1, 2008, through December 31, 2011, and suffered servicing abuse.
  •  The value of refinanced loans to Florida’s underwater borrowers would be an estimated $ 309 million.
  •  The state will receive a direct payment of $350 million.

Sounds like a lot of money, but how soon can we expect to see any actual relief? My prediction is that we won’t anytime soon. The Tampa Bay Times is reporting that at least one of the banks seems to agree.

‘The immediate results are not going to be all that pleasant,’ said Mark Vitner, an economist with Wells Fargo. His bank is one of the biggest lenders in Florida as well as a participant in the settlement. ‘The amount of foreclosures will actually increase and there will be some additional downward pressure on home prices.’

According to the Tampa Bay Times article, here’s how the settlement will be carried out:

  • Because of the complexity of the agreement — the second-largest civil settlement in U.S. history next to 1998’s tobacco industry deal — federal officials said borrowers will not immediately know if they are even eligible. And the timetable for a payout is lengthy.
  • Over the next 30 to 60 days, negotiators will pick an administrator to handle logistics of the settlement and to monitor compliance.
  • Then it will take another six to nine months for the administrator, the attorneys general of 49 states (Oklahoma did not participate) and the mortgage servicers to identify which homeowners would qualify for immediate cash payments, principal reductions and refinancing. Those eligible will receive letters.
  • The settlement will be executed over the next three years.

Reaction to the settlement is mixed. Here are links to a few good articles which take a critical look at the settlement – huffingtonpost.com, firedoglake.com, and nakedcapitalism.com – 12 Reasons You Should Hate the Mortgage Settlement.

My predictions are:

  • Florida homeowners are not going to be unhappy about this settlement a year from now.
  • Those who lost their homes to robosigned (i.e., fraudulent or forged) documents are not getting their homes back and a check for a few hundred or a few thousand isn’t going to make them feel better about the experience.
  • It’s going to be an uphill battle for anyone to actually receive the cash payments.
  • The principal reductions and refinances are going to be just as frustrating and difficult to obtain as loan modifications are today.
  • Even though the settlement doesn’t release the bankers from criminal liability, don’t hold your breath waiting to see any criminal prosecutions. If there are more than a handful, I will be shocked.

Check back here in a few weeks for a follow-up article once the actual settlement document is available.

Share
Jan 19, 2012

By

Broward Courts Considering Changes to Residential Foreclosure Mediation Program

I was honored to co-moderate last night’s Foreclosure Crisis Committee which was held by the Broward County Bar Association’s Real Property Section.

I previously blogged here about the Florida Supreme Court’s termination of the statewide mandatory mediation program for residential foreclosures.  The new Administrative Order provides that circuit chief judges of each circuit may “adopt or employ any measures permitted by statute or court rule to manage pending and new residential mortgage foreclosure cases, including referral of cases to mediation on a case-by-case basis pursuant to section 44.102, Florida Statues, and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.700(a).”

Broward County’s Chief Judge (Hon. Peter Weinstein), the Administrative Civil Judge (Hon. Jack Tutor), and the Foreclosure Division Judge (Hon. Marina Garcia-Wood) are considering different options for a new foreclosure mediation program.  To their credit, they were open to hearing recommendations from the various participants in the foreclosure mediation process before making a final decision.

The BCBA’s Real Property Section invited Judge Garcia-Wood and a cross-section of plaintiff and defense foreclosure attorneys, HOA/condo attorneys, and mediators to discuss the problems with the RMFM mediation program and suggestions to improve the foreclosure mediation process.  Following introductory comments by each attendee, the different groups met separately and discussed mediation issues from their perspective and offered a series of suggestions to improve the process.   Some excellent ideas were exchanged, and there was actually quite a bit of common ground among the various participants.  Judge Garcia-Wood appreciated the suggestions and is going to factor them into the decision making process for the new mediation program.

Special thanks to Gary M. Singer, Esq. (BCBA Real Property Section Chair) for inviting me to co-moderate the event with him.

I will post an update on this blog when the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit implements the new foreclosure mediation Administrative Order.

Share
Jan 10, 2012

By

Palm Beach County Courts Redact Personal Information from Cases Available to Public

Yesterday’s Palm Beach Post ran an informative article about the Palm Beach County Clerk’s Office redacting personal information from cases available to public. The article explained that certain imaged documents from the court file can now be viewed at terminals at the South County and North County Courthouses.  The most interesting part of the article was at the end:

Bock also points out that lawmakers have kept in place a restriction keeping court records from public view online. Images of official records – deeds, marriage licenses, mortgages, plats, deeds and court judgements – have for years been available for public view online.

“We believe that the (Florida) Supreme Court should be looking at those issues again,” Bock said.

I agree with Ms. Bock. Are we supposed to celebrate because we don’t have to drive as far to see an imaged copy of a court document?  It’s 2012!  It’s time for the state government and the state courts to get with the program and make the images available online.  In federal court, you can go on PACER and see EVERY DOCUMENT on your computer while sitting in your office. This isn’t something new; it’s been this way for years. I am not aware of any reason to treat state court documents any differently, and I hope the state courts will finally change these archaic rules as e-filing is implemented.

Share
Dec 21, 2011

By

Florida Ends Statewide Residential Mortgage Foreclosure Managed Mediation (RMFM) Program

Florida’s residential mortgage foreclosure managed mediation (RMFM) program is dead. Administrative Order No. AOSC11-44, signed yesterday by Florida Supreme Court Chief Justice Charles Canady, terminates the statewide mediation program.

 The Court has reviewed the reports on the program and determined it cannot justify continuation of the program. Accordingly, upon issuance of this administrative order, the statewide managed mediation program is terminated. Cases already referred to and pending in a mediation program on the date of this order pursuant to the statewide managed mediation program will remain in the program through completion of mediation. After the date of this order, no new cases may be referred to mediation pursuant to the statewide managed mediation program.

The end of the program was not a big surprise to anyone who has been following this issue.  The Court’s decision follows a panel recommendation from October that Florida’s twenty judicial circuits should be allowed to set up local mediation programs.  I wrote about the panel’s report and recommendations here.

Where do we go from here?  That depends on each circuit’s chief judge.  The Administrative Order provides that circuit chief judges may “adopt or employ any measures permitted by statute or court rule to manage pending and new residential mortgage foreclosure cases, including referral of cases to mediation on a case-by-case basis pursuant to section 44.102, Florida Statues, and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.700(a).”

It remains to be seen how each circuit is going to react.  The logical question is whether circuit-by-circuit will be any more effective than mediations under the statewide program.  Unless those programs address the root causes in failed mediations under the statewide program, I don’t expect to the see the dismal mediation success rate improve much.

Don’t forget to check back to our blog for more information.  We also post a lot of information on our firm’s Facebook page, so don’t forget to “like” our page.

If you’re interested in Florida foreclosure issues, I also encourage you to check out the Palm Beach Post which continues to do an excellent job covering Florida’s foreclosure crisis. Here’s a link to the Post’s article regarding the end of the RMFM program.

Share
Nov 10, 2011

By

Your Chance to Vote on New TILA / GFE / HUD-1 Forms

Our federal government is once again going to make real estate transactions “easier” for consumers to understand.

For almost two years, real estate practitioners have been struggling with the new Good Faith Estimate (GFE) and HUD-1 Settlement Statements on all RESPA transactions.  The intent behind these revised forms was to make things “easier” for the consumer.  The result was, of course, the exact opposite.  The new forms are creating a host of compliance issues for lenders and settlement agents, while doing absolutely nothing to make things easier for the consumer to understand.

Only a government bureaucrat could come up with a form which makes things “easier” by requiring settlement agents to charge a seller’s closing cost (i.e., owner’s policy title insurance premiums) to the buyer, and then give a credit back to the buyer for the same item, regardless of how the contract between the parties allocates those costs.  Here’s a news flash for the folks in DC – that does not make things easier!  Buyers look at settlement agents like we’re nuts when we explain the charge/credit scenario to them, and it needlessly adds at least five minutes to every closing.

Well, the good news / bad news is that the government is revisiting this issue.  The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is working on consolidating the Truth in Lending (TILA) Notice, GFE, and HUD-1 into a single document.   I am glad to see that they’re trying to simplify the current forms, but I fear that the “law of unintended consequences” may make the situation even worse.   I encourage you to review the two proposed forms and vote on which one you think is better.    Click here for instructions on how to vote on the proposed forms.

Share
Nov 03

By

Report Issued by Statewide Managed Mediation Program Assessment Workgroup

Mediation Photograph
Mediation

In an earlier blog, I wrote about the Florida Supreme Court’s appointment of a “Statewide Managed Mediation Program Assessment Workgroup” to examine the statewide residential foreclosure managed mediation program data.  The Workgroup recently submitted its report to the Supreme Court.  You can obtain a copy of the report here.  The report is worth reading in its entirety, but I will touch on a few key points.

After consideration of the available program data, public comments, chief judge input, and other information, the workgroup voted to: (1) eliminate the mandate for a statewide managed mediation program; and (2) allow circuits to opt in to a new, revised uniform model administrative order, either as an exclusive approach or in addition to referral of cases to mediation on a case-by-case basis under relevant court rules and statutes.  The workgroup concluded that for those circuits that choose to continue a managed mediation program, adherence to a modified model administrative order is important to maintain consistency throughout the state. In those circuits that choose not to opt in to a modified model administrative order, the chief judge should be responsible for devising a plan for discontinuing the local managed mediation program.

The workgroup recommends that the Supreme Court establish a separate workgroup to develop modifications to the order, including the following:

• Require borrowers to affirmatively opt in to the program upon service of suit papers

• Develop steps to improve the integrity of borrowers’ financial information and to identify the appropriate lender contact

• Develop steps to improve performance on document exchange and document review

• Review and update document exchange requirements for both parties

• Clarify the correlation between bankruptcy and participation in the program

• Explore options for sanctions for noncompliance by either party

• Explore fee reductions, including borrower contributions to fees, borrower payment of foreclosure counseling fees, and reduction of overall program costs

• Develop data mechanisms to track post-mediation settlements

• Shorten the time frame for completion of mediation

• Eliminate the mandate for referral of all residential mortgage foreclosure cases to the program.

• Examine the manner in which the results of mediation are reported

Interestingly, the Report states anecdotal evidence suggests that the percentage of foreclosure cases resulting in settlement would “materially” increase if data could be obtained for cases at which an impasse is declared at mediation. Later, the Report states that other features of the managed mediation program explain why a “significant” number of cases settle after impasse is declared at mediation. That is not consistent with the anecdotal evidence I have heard, but I also recognize that most of what I have heard comes from the 17th Judicial Circuit in Broward County.

It should come as no surprise that the comments from the plaintiffs’ lawyers are mostly in favor of ending the mandatory mediation program. Conversely, the comments from mediators and defense lawyers are overwhelmingly in favor of continuing the mediation programs.

A more successful mediation program would benefit both homeowners and lenders, but it remains to be seen whether the suggested changes will actually translate into positive results.

Share
Sep 28, 2011

By

Do Mandatory Mediations Work in Florida Foreclosure Cases?

Do mandatory mediations work in Florida foreclosure cases?  That’s the question being asked by the Florida Supreme Court.  The Court is seeking your input, but you only have until October 3rd to send in your comments.

Earlier this week, the Florida Supreme Court released Administrative Order SC11-33.  In its Administrative Order, the Florida Supreme Court noted that more than one year of data has been collected on the statewide managed mediation program for residential foreclosures, and the Court wants to examine whether the mediations are effective.

The Court appointed a “Statewide Managed Mediation Program Assessment Workgroup” (the “Workgroup”) comprised of five judges and one court administrator, to examine the program data, consider other relevant information including the reduction in the backlog of foreclosure cases by other means, and make recommendations to the Court regarding the continuation, modification, or elimination of the statewide program.

Specifically, the Workgroup is charged with addressing the following two issues:

  1. Assess the success of the statewide managed mediation program in resolving cases as evidenced by data collected to date, as well as any other relevant information, including current foreclosure filings and other measures that have been taken to reduce the backlog of residential mortgage foreclosure cases, and make recommendations to continue, modify, or eliminate the statewide program; and
  1. Recommend steps to be taken to manage pending and new residential foreclosure cases if the mandate for managed mediation in these cases is eliminated.

Comments from interested persons concerning these two issues only may be submitted to the Workgroup.  You must use the form located here.  Interested persons must electronically submit the comment form by October 3, 2011. Here is the e-mail link, but don’t forget that it is mandatory that you submit your comments using the approved form which you can get here. No comments will be accepted in any other format, or after October 3, 2011.  The Workgroup will present its report to the Florida Supreme Court by the end of October.

Although the mandatory mediations sounds like a great idea on paper, the results have been less than impressive.  The Palm Beach Post reported this week that only 3.6 percent of all cases referred to mediation statewide in a yearlong period ended in a written agreement between the lender and homeowner.  In Palm Beach County, the success rate is even lower – only 1.6 percent of the 4,632 referrals made ended in a written agreement.  Both sides in the foreclosure cases blame the other for the low success rate at mediation.  Regardless of the cause, this preliminary data suggests that the managed mediation program should be significantly retooled or dropped entirely.

Lawyers and litigants on both sides of foreclosure cases will be watching to see if there will be any statewide changes as a result of the Workgroup’s examination and report.  Check back here at the end of October for an update after the Workgroup submits its report to the Florida Supreme Court.

Share
May 18, 2011

By

The Role of Guardian Ad Litems in Foreclosure Cases

In addition to representing plaintiffs and defendants in foreclosure cases, I am regularly appointed by our local court to serve as a Guardian Ad Litem, Attorney Ad Litem, or Administrator Ad Litem in foreclosure cases.   A recent frustrating experience with a “foreclosure mill” in one of those cases prompted me to write about this issue.

You’re probably asking yourself, “What exactly is a Guardian Ad Litem, Attorney Ad Litem, or Administrator Ad Litem?”  It is a lawyer appointed by the court to represent the interests of a defendant in a foreclosure case when the plaintiff is unable to locate and serve a copy of the foreclosure lawsuit on that defendant.  The distinction between a Guardian Ad Litem, Attorney Ad Litem, and Administrator Ad Litem depends on who they were appointed to represent.  A Guardian Ad Litem is appointed to represent the interests of an unknown minor or incapacitated person.  An Attorney Ad Litem is appointed to represent the interests of an unknown entity or person, including someone who is in active military service.  An Administrator Ad Litem is appointed to represent the interests of unknown heirs, beneficiaries, or personal representatives of a deceased person.  In most cases, the plaintiff is not entirely sure of the status of the unknown parties, so they seek the appointment of an attorney to serve in all three capacities.  That attorney is commonly referred to as a “GAL,” regardless of whether they are serving as a Guardian Ad Litem, Attorney Ad Litem, Administrator Ad Litem, or any combination of the three categories.

The GAL is appointed to try to locate the defendant and to ensure that the defendant’s due process rights are considered by the Court, even if the person cannot ultimately be located.  The defendant may have moved without leaving a forwarding address or may be evading service of process.   In other cases, the defendant may be in active military service or may have died.

Why do the banks seek to have GALs appointed in foreclosure cases?  Typically, it isn’t because they’re concerned about the borrowers’ due process rights.  They usually do it so they can get insurable title after the foreclosure is finished.  In most foreclosures, the bank ends up owning the property after a foreclosure sale.  If a bank finishes the foreclosure without serving the lawsuit on a particular defendant (typically the property owner or borrower), subsequent purchasers may have concerns about the possibility of a title dispute resulting from a claim being brought by the person who did not receive notice of the foreclosure.  This concern limits the bank’s ability to sell the property.  By having a GAL appointed to represent the defendant’s interests, the bank alleviates the title concern.

It should not come as a surprise that many of the large banks and their lawyers don’t really care whether the GAL actually finds the defendant; they just need to go through the process.  The bank pays the GAL’s fees, so they want to keep the GAL’s fees as low as possible, regardless of whether the GAL actually locates the missing defendant.  In fact, some bank attorneys prefer that the GAL not locate the defendants since it usually prolongs the foreclosure if the defendant is located and the bank is required to serve the defendant.

Most of the high-volume foreclosure law firms (a/k/a the foreclosure mills) have preferred GALs who agree to work within the law firm’s compensation requirements, typically under $350.00, in exchange for receiving a large number of appointments.  Those plaintiff-friendly GALs will conduct a minimal investigation and routinely file a report stating that the plaintiff’s paperwork is in order and the plaintiff can proceed to a final judgment.  What I find interesting is that in most of the cases where I have been appointed, there is a “standing” defense apparent from the allegations of the Complaint and the attached exhibits.  There must be a statistical anomaly since the cases I am appointed on routinely have apparent standing defenses, yet this rarely occurs when the foreclosure mills have their preferred GAL appointed.  I have discussed this issue with other attorneys who serve as GALs but are not on the preferred list, and they noticed the same discrepancy.

Plaintiff’s lawyers could minimize the cost of the GAL if they would simply respond to the GAL’s requests for the basic information needed to locate the missing party.  It is not uncommon to request the information several times before finally receiving a response from the bank’s attorney.  In some cases, formal discovery requests and Motions to Compel are necessary just to get the banks to provide the basic information needed for the GAL to conduct an investigation.  Interestingly, the most non-responsive law firms are the same ones that usually object that the GAL’s fees are too high.  In recent years, the foreclosure mills have been attempting to limit the GAL’s compensation to $350.00   In Broward County, that provision is usually stricken from the proposed Order appointing the GAL with good reason.  Even at reduced hourly rates, it is difficult to do the GAL’s job correctly for $350.00.  Every case is different, but it is impossible, in most cases, to review the foreclosure pleadings, research the property being foreclosed, and conduct an investigation to locate the defendant for $350.00.   That assumes, of course, that the GAL takes the role seriously and is concerned with actually trying to locate the missing party.  Sadly, that isn’t always what happens.

When defendants are unable to be located, one common reason is that the person may be serving in the U.S. military.  Federal laws and regulations afford certain protections to service members while they are in active military service.   Among those protections are limitations on foreclosures and collection matters against the service member.  Therefore, plaintiff’s attorneys or the GAL must check with the Department of Defense to determine whether the missing defendant is in active military service.  Unfortunately, that is not always done, and there have been recent reports of service members losing their homes due to insufficient efforts by the plaintiff’s law firm and the GAL.  [See Matt Weidner’s excellent blog for a recent story on this issue. Caveat: I have not reviewed the case file, so I don’t know the particulars and am not rendering any opinion on the GAL’s efforts in that case.]

In my experience, the plaintiff’s lawyers could avoid the need for a GAL in most foreclosure cases if they simply conducted their own minimal investigation.  There are financial reasons they don’t do that.  I will explain why in my next post.

Share
Apr 02, 2011

By

Do We Need a “Bad Mortgage” Bailout Fund?

South Floridians are acutely aware of the foreclosure meltdown. We’ve all had family, neighbors, or friends who have been affected. We’re not alone though. Many parts of our country are still reeling from the foreclosure crisis, and we’re not even close to seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. Foreclosure cases continue to drag on, and many question whether the foreclosing banks have the legal right to bring the cases to begin with.

For years, Florida real estate lawyers have been aware of the legal “standing” issues in foreclosure cases caused by bad paperwork in the securitization process and faulty or missing assignments of mortgages. However, in recent months and weeks, it appears that the judges are now opening their eyes to these problems. As recently as last week, Daily Finance reported about an Alabama case where the judge ruled that the securitized trust did not have the right to foreclose (under the Pooling & Servicing Agreement or under the Uniform Commercial Code) where the securitization process was flawed. As we see more rulings like this, we will see even more litigation over these issues.

Has the time come for a bailout fund to stem tide of lawsuits caused by bad mortgage paperwork in foreclosure cases? FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair thinks so. On tomorrow night’s episode of 60 Minutes, she tells Scott Pelley that banks should be forced to contribute billions to a clean-up fund that will help stressed homeowners stay in their homes and stave off lawsuits that threaten the economic rebound.

We are facing a very real problem with faulty paperwork and outright fraud by the banks in many cases. Is a bank bailout fund really the answer? If so, who is going to pay for it? Sure, on paper it will be “the banks” paying for it. But why should smaller community banks with “portfolio” loans have to pay for the errors committed by the large banks. Equally as important, does anyone really doubt that the ultimate cost is going to be borne by the federal government and ultimately the taxpayers?

I am still undecided on this issue, but tomorrow’s 60 Minutes episode promises to be enlightening. I’m sure we’re going to see a lot more about this issue in the coming weeks.

Share