Happy Thanksgiving - Judge Gives Debt-Ridden Couple a House

[Robb]

Source: NBC News

Greg Horoski and his wife, Diane Yano-Horoski, were on the verge of being tossed out of their ranch home in East Patchogue. They owed $525,000 in mortgage payments, had no equity on the house, and their California bank threatened foreclosure.

Then Suffolk Judge Jeffrey Spinner gave them a Thanksgiving gift they'll remember all their lives. He erased their debt and slammed their bank, OneWest, for its "harsh, repugnant, shocking and repulsive" behavior, according to The New York Post.

Now Yano-Horoski and her husband owe practically nothing on their home. And OneWest, which accepted a whopping $814.2 million in federal bailout money, was excoriated by the judge.

"The bank was so intransigent that he decided to punish them," Horoski, 55, told the Post about Spinner's ruling last week. "I think the judge felt it was almost a personal vendetta. like dealing with organized crime."

Horoski and his wife had only been paying interest on their mortgage; they had pleaded with OneWest to restructure their loan to no avail. Spinner's decision negated up to $291,000 in principal and $235,000 in interest and penalties, reports the Post.

Read more: http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local-beat/Happy-Thanksgiving-Judge-Gives-Couple-a-House-73531952.html

[wryter2000]

1. Awesome

I wish more judges would do this. :applause:

[scotus]

86. I concur baby!

[wryter2000]

90. Welcome to DU

:hi:

[tigereye]

2. wow!

I wish more mortgage holders threatened with fore-closure had some recourse from their lenders, who have a lot of gaul to dun people after greedy and ill-advised bankers created the problem.

[AndyA]

3. We need more judges like this!

Obviously, Congress isn't going to do anything for the American people, unless there's something in it for them, so if a few more judges would start slapping the crap out of these big corporations that are so abusive, it would sure put a stop to some of the crap.

Good for Spinner! :thumbsup:

[mrbarber]

4. Kudo's to the Judge!

Nice to see the little guy win every once in awhile!

[Hepburn]

5. Wow...fabulous!

:patriot: <------- there go de judge!

[Warpy]

6. Judgments like this might get banks to stop being stupid

and find ways to keep people in their homes while still generating income for the banks, instead of being punitive, throwing them out on the street, and ending up with more unsellable properties to attract vermin, vandals, and vagrants.

I hope more judges pick up on this one and start slapping the stupid bastards the only place it hurts them, in the wallet.

[wolfgangmo]

75. I'm not saying that I will break the law

But if they foreclose on me I'm not going.

And if a deputy comes by to make me leave I will of course leave, but I will run for sheriff the next year on a platform of not enforcing foreclosures. If asshole banks want to foreclose then they can get someone else to evict and if the person they hire steps a toe over ANY law they will be tossed in the stir.

[Warpy]

87. If you're facing foreclosure

Tell them you want to see the paper held by the mortgage holder. The bank you write the check to is usually just servicing the mortgage for a fee.

If it's been sold off and chopped up like so many have, that tactic will buy you a lot of time, often years.

Good luck.

[SutaUvaca]

7. Old fashioned Jubilee Justice

I love it. The bank takes mega millions in taxpayer bailout dollars and then has zero sense of mercy themselves. Gotta love this judge.

[aquart]

8. I hope this is upheld on appeal.

These assholes need to feel real fear.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zavulon]

73. Welcome to DU, and you're right.

Banks aren't legally required to restructure loans for the customer's convenience. If the bank can show it wasn't in violation of the loan agreement, this won't stand up to appeal for a minute.

[pnorman]

36. Probably not, but it'll be a Pyrric Victory for that bank!

n/t

[WriteDown]

65. Why didn't he give them a house on the beach?

He seems like a pretty mean judge.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

99. Seeing the common folk get an upper hand for a change does rile you up, innit?

Good.

[XanaDUer]

9. And of course, in the true American spirit of petty meaness

there are nasty comments follwing the story re deadbeats. Sheesh.

[1monster]

58. Those guys are probably bank industry employees hired just to make such posts.

[winyanstaz]

10. Let this judge run for president!

Too bad he wasnt around before I had to sell my home....luckily I was able to sell it for what I owed on it...
But I still lost my home.

[rymmie1981]

11. OT but very important

I don't post here much. I just lurk, so I can't start my own thread, but this is too important to not say something. If someone who can start a topic will do this, I'd like this put out here.

Tennessee just setup a program for pharmacies to give Tamiflu free to the uninsured and under-insured. The pharmacies sign up and the State health department will send them the antiviral from the state stockpile.

Story here: http://www.wsmv.com/news/21726150/detail.html">http://www.wsmv.com/news/21726150/detail.html

[niyad]

44. done, and thank you for the info

[geckosfeet]

12. "like" dealing with organized crime? They are organized. And it is criminal.

What I don't understand is how it is legal for banks to take millions in bailouts and turn the screws on the taxpayers who bailed them out.

Good on the judge.

[lsewpershad]

13. Banks

do this to us because those that we elect to "represent" us work for them. It is time for us to grow up and elect people to repersent us.

[aquart]

51. Not possible as long as we allow current financing.

Frankly, I want the next candidate who deluges me with pieces of four-color cardboard to be fined for littering.

[truedelphi]

20. Big difference in Dem Administrations

Both supposedly run by Dems.

Back in the day, FDR stated that it was less dangerous to be involved with organized Crime Families than organized Banking Families. (Speech given in Madison Garden, 1936)

If the Geithner/Bernanke duo got some decent instruction from Obama about this, maybe we wouldn't see the sheer horridness of these financial parasites kicking people out of their homes and then turning around and selling the homes for 40 to 60% less. Why not work with the original owner and try and help them? It is after all, t he original owners, along with the rest of us that have to make good on the eleven trillion (and counting) giveaways and guarantees that Congress allowed the banks.

[geckosfeet]

23. Agreed. Looks like local judges will have to do the dirty work.

[closeupready]

28. Do you know, I was just going to post the EXACT same thing. LOL

"What is this 'like' business?" Something like that. :rofl: Funny, but I guess it's really not funny - it's infuriating how they bite the hands of those who feed them. :mad:

[Lugnut]

43. I had the same plan.

They are worse than organized crime. Loan sharking has been made legal by our so-called representatives.

[wolfgangmo]

76. AT least with a loan shark you know what you are getting.

Hell, my bookie is an honest and straighforward guy.

My insurance or banking dudes, not so much.

[Lorien]

30. +1. I'd like to see similar rulings a million times over

something has to be done to punish them for the suffering they've caused.

[Fire1]

14. Oh how very american of him. n/t

[thelordofhell]

15. Here Come Da Judge!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZY6qW2Aktk&feature=related

Courtesy of Judge Jeffrey "Pigmeat" Spinner

[SeattleGirl]

16. I'm giving a standing "O" to that judge!

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[quakerboy]

17. They can do that?

cool. I suppose it happens all the time, but its nice to have one on "our" side rather than "theirs".

[lovuian]

19. Here come the Judge Woohoo!!!

they deserve it

[Jefferson23]

21. FANTASTIC Good for you Judge!

To think this scum bank is still persuing an old lady despite orders to stop is beyond disgusting.

[proud patriot]

22. cool

:)

[unkachuck]

24. excellent....

....dear Honorable Judge Spinner, have you ever considered running for President? A fine, patriotic, humanitarian American, like yourself, deserves higher office....it's nice to see someone displaying compassion in our cold, heartless system....thank you....

"I think the judge felt it was almost a personal vendetta. like dealing with organized crime."

....it is organized crime; banking is legalized organized crime....

[BrklynLiberal]

25. YES!! The bailouts should have gone to the homeowners in the first place....

[defendandprotect]

26. Good for Judge Spinner -- !!!

[WriteDown]

67. Nonsense, he could have given them a house on the beach..

or a mansion, but he gave them their same old house. Seems like he was pretty selfish.

[defendandprotect]

94. We gave all the "houses on the beach" to Wall Street and the banks . . .

now we're getting ready to give "lots on the beach" to the insurance companies and

health care industry--!!!

You know them all -- the "Welfare Queens" . . . !!

:evilgrin:

[WriteDown]

95. No doubt there.

The great healthcare heist of 2010.

[Jkid]

27. Only these words would describe this.

[Doremus]

29. Get a load of the wingers who posted comments.

Bunch of fvcking bootstrappers. :mad:

May their karma soon come a'calling.

[Nihil]

55. Yeah ... in this thread too ...

As someone downthread observed
> What is this, low post count "BACK THE BANK" day?

... except there seem to be a few long-time wingers posting
upthread too ...

:eyes:

[earcandle]

31. CSR at work, even if it has to be force fed. Great work!

[Libertas1776]

32. Cool

this is right in my area; good to know. :thumbsup:

[Stumbler]

33. That's a great story! Thanks for sharing.

[elias7]

34. I have a problem with this.

OneWest may have received a "whopping" $814.2 million in federal bailout money, but this must be paid back. The judge's decision negated these people's $525,000 debt, essentially giving them a "whopping" half a million dollars, which they don't have to pay back.

Hell, if I had a 3400 sq ft house on Long Island fully paid off, I could retire. Instead, I have years and years and years of work ahead of me in large part because of my mortgage. While I think it's great that this couple got the equivalent of a winning lottery ticket, the judgment doesn't make sense to me, and it is not fair to everyone who is struggling to make ends meet and who have succeeded in not defaulting on their debt obligations.

[earcandle]

38. if you read the post, they already paid that 525000 and were only paying interest at this point.

at least that is how I read it.

go ahead and talk me down. 

[elias7]

42. If that's the case, I don't have much issue then

I didn't get that from the link...a paucity of details. I thought that they were only able to afford interest at this point, but that they still owed 291k in principal.

What do you mean,"talk me down"?

[24601]

98. That's not how I read the numbers. Initially they bought a house by

borrowing approx $200,000. Then, as house values went up, they borrowed more against the house in order to finance his business (online seller of collectable dolls) and for medical bills. This pushed the debt up to about $300,000. They defaulted in 2005 and the remaining $240,000 was penalties and accumulated interest.

[Bucky]

45. Sadly, many of us are caught in this racket (I use the term loosely here). However...

It's actually pretty common these days, in the age of "flexible" interest rates, for people to be caught paying several times more than the worth of their homes in interest payments. I've heard here in Houston of several families who ended up losing their homes because they owed more in back interest than what the house itself was actually worth. If they were farmers and this was 1915, we'd call it share cropping. If this was occurring in pre-Revolutionary Mexico, it'd be an example of debt servitude.

[defendandprotect]

96. Unregulated capitalism is merely organized crime . . !!!

[RollWithIt]

50. What is this, low post count "BACK THE BANK" day?

I believe the word here is....

TRANSPARANT.

[treestar]

93. I agree, or at least, we need to see the written opinion to figure out why

this happened. Maybe there was some underlying fraud found on the original loan. The posts on the board assume they just got a windfall, but the law would not allow for that. There must have been a finding that the original loan was invalid somehow and that they'd already paid an amount that covered the value of the money reasonably.

Interesting chance for the media to educate on the law. Instead they make it sound like judges have the power to just punish whoever they think did wrong.

[kurtzapril4]

35. Happy Thanksgiving

Did these people buy more house than they can afford? Seriously, just asking. I live in a "ranch" house. 900 SF for 2 people and some indoor only critters.

Greg Horoski and his wife, Diane Yano-Horoski, were on the verge of being tossed out of their ranch home in East Patchogue. They owed $525,000 in mortgage payments, had no equity on the house, and their California bank threatened foreclosure

Did they perhaps buy more house than they could afford?

[Frosty cupcake]

41. No.

If you read the whole story you would see that they have been in the home 20 years. They originally paid under $200,000 for it, but refinanced to pay the husband's medical bills. They eventually got caught with a high interest rate and have been paying--and paying--out the nose on the interest only. The couple tried to renegotiate the interest rate to get their payments down, but the mortgage holder refused to work with them. That's it in a nutshell.

[sojourner]

71. self-delete

[Riverman]

37. OMG, As someone who has worked in affordable housing most of

adult life, how awesome and courageous action bby this judge. What if similar courage was exhibited every day by other judges, Congress, Federal and state oversight organizations and the President of the United States. I can dream!

[Bette Noir]

39. Yafuckin'hoo!

Score one for the good guys.

[MrMickeysMom]

40. With more decisions like this, more influence by case law

... to punish the pigs at the trough

Hoo-ray!

[anonymous171]

46. This judge is my new hero. Fuck bankers. nt

[pengillian101]

47. WOW!

How great is this?

[nvme]

48. As much as I cheer,

I see this as a dangerous trend. I am all for forcing a cram-down to banks, but this can have chilling effect on lending. I hate greedy bastards that prey on less fortunate people. I see justice as being reducing the terms and maybe some penalty to bank for its intransigence. This will make it harder for little schmucks like me to get loans to maybe buy our homes.

[wolfgangmo]

77. Staw man

You are putting up a straw man argument, to wit the at some point in the future that you maybe might not be able to get a loan which you maybe might apply from some bank that maybe might get corrected by some judge somewhere at sometime.

Try a local bank or a credit union and you will find that they likely will have managed their money conservatively and are interested in loaning to you. It's the big asshole banks that won't be lending and who gives a shit about them except washington and wall street?

Fuck em - shop local for your loans and you won't have any problems.

[TotallyIgnored]

49. What about people who will never have a chance of a home?

I don't have a home and probably never will, and even if it were offered, I'd never accept an interest only loan in the first place. If the bank is organized crime then the borrowers are accomplices. I'm glad the judge made his decision but it doesn't speak to everyone else who is basically already on the streets for life (or maybe that's just me). When you get an interest only loan, don't you have the option to also pay toward the principal while making the interest payments???? I wonder why they didn't think about that ahead of time.

[Robb]

54. What about people who don't read the article? nt

[santamargarita]

52. Screw the banksters and piss off the right-wing assholes - excellent

~

[timtom]

53. This post reminds me why I love DU.

Sometimes I get really discouraged with DU.I can't quit, however. Everyone here, good or bad, is like family to me.

The resounding YES!!! is so heartening. The few opposing views only underscore the YES!!! all the more.

So, to respond directly to the OP: YES!!!

[JNelson6563]

56. Bravo!!!

This makes my day. :toast:

Julie

[rateyes]

57. $525,000 owed on their mortgage?

Nice house they got for free. I hope this couple pays it forward.

[1monster]

60. They have lived in the house for 20 years and originally paid less than $200,000 for it.

They refied in 2004 with a subprime loan to pay medical bills. The principal on the loan is $219.00; the $325.00 is the interest that the bank is charging. The oringal refi interest was within their means to pay. However, their interest rates skyrocketed so that the interest payment alone is larger than the whole mortgage and interest payment was at the start of the mortgage.

The couple tried to renegotiate their interest rate with the bank, but the bank flat out refused and continued to add penalties inflating the already outrageous interest rates.

Had the bank showed even a modicum of good faith towards these people, who wanted to pay their mortgage, this ruling most likely would never have been made.

The couple showed good faith. The bank did not show good faith.

Believe it or not, good faith is an unwritten part of every contract.

[rateyes]

61. I'm with the judge.

And, a $200,000 home bought 20 years ago is a helluva home. I'm glad the bank got stiffed for what they have done. I also hope the couple pays it forward.

I'd like to have the mortgage on my home forgiven, even if it isn't subprime, and the original loan wasn't close to $525,000.00

As for the medical expenses---another reason for single-payer, or at least a STRONG public option that is an option for all. Too many uninsured and insured people are losing their homes.

Again, I hope the couple shares their blessings with others. And, the bank can go to hell.

[Robb]

64. Indeed.

If only the banksters could see the big picture... if everyone has affordable health care, they might be able to keep paying their onerous mortgages. :D

[Joe Chi Minh]

72. You're hardly going out on a limb there.

[wolfgangmo]

80. IUnfortunately there is not even a weak public option on the table

So medical bills will continue to be the number one reasons for forecolsures and bankruptcy in America.

The rich are getting richer and the middle class is becoming the poor - at our current rate it will only take another generation and the US will be no different demographically than a 3rd world plutocracy. Count on it, the cops, military, media and politicians all work for the wealthy and the wealthy don't give a shit about anyone except themselves.

[rateyes]

89. You know. This country probably needs another Great Depression.

I sometimes hope that everybody loses their ass. Then, we'll all be in the same boat.

[Missy Vixen]

97. I wouldn't wish it on others

Nobody should be suffering.

[WriteDown]

68. Would have been awesome if they SOLD their house

when they began having problems. But a free house is a much better deal.

*See post 83

[1monster]

70. Do you know how morgages work? They borrowed $220,000. They did not borrow $525,00. The $325,000

difference is the bank profit for lending the money.

And that amount grows every month that the borrower cannot pay the full mortgate amount.

The bankers knew that the subprime mortgate rate would go up and could go high enough that the borrowers could not afford the loan. I'm doubtful that the borrowers were warned of that.

ARM loans usually have a ceiling on how high the interest can go and how much it can be raised in a one-year, two-year, and three-year time frame. Those usually had a ceiling of three perecnt.

From what I've heard about subprimes, that is not the case.

I don't believe this is a case of the borrowers trying to game the system. The subprimes were the banks gaming the borrowers and (since we bailed them out) the taxpayers.

The bank did not act in good faith.

What does good faith mean? Several years back, a beach driver ran over two girls lying in the sand. Both girls were badly injured. The driver, who said he did not realize that he had driven over the girls continued on. Later, after it was determined that he was the driver and his vehicle was the one involved, his insurance company refused to pay on the claim. Their maximum liability in that case was $50,000. However, because they refused to pay out, the parents of one girl sued and were awarded $17,000,000, for which the insurance company was liable.

They had to pay out the $17,000,000 because they failed to show good faith...by refusing to pay out the $50,000 up front.

The bank failed to show good faith. Why should they not be held to the same rules?

On edit: I see you have edited your post so that mine no longer address your issue. For your current post, hindsight is always so much clearer thand foresight.

[WriteDown]

79. Do you know how home sales work?

If they sold the house they would have received the SAME 220,000 AND ANOTHER 305,000. Maybe they could have bought a house with a doll workshop.

[Vidar]

81. Kudos to the judge.

[lonestarnot]

59. Take that you bank bastards!

[Christa]

62. Wonderful!

Kudos to the judge!

:toast:

[dugaresa]

63. Most banks deserve a good kick in the ass

I am sorry, but selling people on re-financing your home for more than it is worth on a variable interest rate is beyond predatory, its immoral.

A long time ago banks were stewards. The banker would politely tell you, "no you can't afford that" or "no we can't refinance, have you looked at your expenses and income?"

Now I believe people should take responsibility for themselves but when you create an entire system that is almost designed to trip the majority of people up, then you deserve a kick in the ass.

Why did this happen? Because Wall Street got involved and started dealing in mortgages like a commodity. Instead of the local bank owning the mortgage, it got sold and rebundled, etc. It became profitable to just grant mortgages without a thought because you could sell them off to some twit on Wall Street and not worry that you just put some person/couple into a shitty situation that you KNEW would probably end badly.

I say screw the banks and I also think some people need a wake up call on how to manage personal finances.

[wolfgangmo]

83. The freepers who keep harping about "peersonal responsiblity" forget 1 thing.

That one thing is that professional responsibility is a much higher standard.

Lawyers who give bad advice, doctors who miss an obvious diagnosis, teachers who don't report abuse, accountants who play fast and loose with your taxes, commercial drivers who speed, etc are all examples of professionals held to a higher standard. They are held to that higher standard because they have a higher degree of training and knowledge and are EXPECTED and REQUIRED to use it.

Bankers and mortgage brokers had that higher knowledge and did not exercise their professional responsibility. And so just like a truck driver who faces fines that are 10 times what the average Joe faces, so must the bankers and brokers be held responsible. They should lose their ability to practice their profession, pay fines and perhaps serve jail time just like any other professional who DELIBERATELY IGNORES their professional responsibility.

Sure, hold your average Joe and Jane accountable but only in relation to how accountable we hold the professionals who ignored their duty for a quick buck.

[Odin2005]

66. Wonderful judge!

:D

[WriteDown]

69. Does anyone ACTUALLY READ THE ARTICLES?

The Horoskis bought the 3,400-square-foot home nearly two decades ago for less than $200,000, reports the paper. Greg is an online seller of collectible dolls and Diane works as a college professor. The couple had to refinance in 2004, using part of a subprime loan from Deutsche Bank to pay off their initial mortgage and the rest to support Greg's business and pay for health care, reports the Post.


Guess collectible dolls wasn't pulling in the cash. FREE HOUSES FOR EVERYONE!

[Joe Chi Minh]

74. That's not a bad idea, actually. In fact a very good one. When their country

went down the pan, with good servings of help from the West, almost all Russians took over ownership of their homes.

[WriteDown]

78. There's only one question though....

Do we have enough pristine coastline?

[WriteDown]

82. DO NOT USE YOUR HOUSE AS AN ATM PEOPLE...

I implore you.

A better article:

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/282705

[Robb]

85. An update from your link:

UPDATE November 26: Mr Horoski has contacted Digital Journal to advise that when he and his wife refinanced there were no surplus funds and all the loan money went to the direct payment of debt. Their home was valued at more than $450,000 at that time and Mr Horoski emphasizes that they only borrowed what they could repay.

[WriteDown]

88. They still borrowed against a paid off house...

AND to pay for his online doll selling business. What I can't understand is why that business did not take off? :eyes:

[StreetKnowledge]

84. Well done to that Judge.

Banks screwing customers is hardly news to any of us - I'm sure that all of us have been there sometime in our lives. But finding out about a judge screwing the bank right back is not only good, its excellent. We need more guys like that on the bench, pronto. I hope somebody has asked this guy if he'd consider running for office. If he does, donation on the way from yours truly. :D

[Dinger]

91. : ) Thanks For Posting this. K & R!!

:)

[greengestalt]

92. Banks shouldn't have it both ways

It's really amazing how "Capitalists" enshrine such a system, but only when it works for them. When it doesn't they are the worst "Welfare Bums" imaginable.


If the banks hadn't gotten bailed out, the "Market" itself would have forced them to re-negotiate with homeowners because they'd simply end up with "Jingle Mail" that is homes they don't want because they can't sell them, or tons in legal battles with desperate homeowners. But they got bailed out, but many still want to keep taking homes or leeching the payments from their customers.


If they get bailed out, they should drop the debts they owe, or perhaps just leave a token amount to re-pay. That way, a huge financial burden is lifted off many people who'll both save and buy with the money. More equity in banks to loan against and more money flowing through society to go into banks or be loaned to businesses.


In short, the elites hurt themselves in the long run, and they are the ones that benefit most from the system.


I hope this judge's decision is used as a precedent.

[laughingliberal]

100. Also from the article:

<snip> For its part, OneWest claimed it's been working hard with homeowners on loan restructuring in accordance with Presidnt Barack Obama's affordable home plan and evaluating other loan options. However, the company is currently involved in a similar case in California, where the bank is trying to foreclose on an 89-year-old woman's home despite court orders demanding it cease and desist. <end>

Notice how OneWest claims "it's been working hard with homeowners... in accordance with President Barack Obama's affordable home plan..."

We have seen a post on DU just today showing NOT ONE loan has been modified by any lender required to participate in the program. That would tell me this bank has not modified one loan. Not sure what their definition of "working hard" is but I don't see them working hard at anything except avoiding loan modification.