Below is a great little post from ml-implode.com…
It’s the same thing that Florida did when they created the new legislation which said that attorneys couldn’t take any upfront fees from anyone regarding a foreclosure case. By the way, it wasn’t just attorneys… paralegals, realtors, lenders, brokers, consultants and loan modification firms were included in this legislation as well.
Well, I understood the concern. There were scammers out there taking money but, once again, our state legislators are trying to prevent illicit activity through legislation! This is absurd! Do we really think that the scammers and crooks care about the legislation? Of course they don’t! These are always political moves by idiot politicians who propose these idiotic bills for face value purposes. They want to create the illusion that they are on the side of the “little guy.”
The reality is that these very bills do in face deny people their right to unfettered access to legal representation and to legitimate resources that could really help them. What professional is going to work for someone without payment? This is idiotic! Consumers should always be wary and ask questions but my god, you cannot expect laws to control the unlawful.
It’s the same with gun control… gun laws are only followed by the law abiding citizen. Legislating gun rights away or seizing guns from law abiding citizens only disarm those who follow the laws and respect life. Criminals don’t care about gun laws and they will ALWAYS get their hands on guns and weapons. No matter what the laws say.
But, isn’t this just common sense?
This is the main problem with leadership these days. Precious few leaders do not lead with common sense.
Here’s the excerpt from ml-implode.com…
The Federal Reserve, on its Website, says that although it does regulate banks, and will look into every complaint it receives from consumers regarding the banks it regulates, it does not have the authority to resolve every type of problem.
Disputes over contracts, undocumented factual disputes between a consumer and a bank, matters that are the subject of a pending law suit, complaints about customer service, or disagreements over a specific bank policy or procedure not addressed by federal law or regulation… as examples, are all outside the Fed’s authority as far as obtaining a resolution is concerned.
In those instances, where the Fed’s authority does not allow it to resolve matters, the Federal Reserve recommends that consumers contact an attorney.
So, what is a loan modification?
It’s an attempt to renegotiate and amend a legally binding contract, which if successful will produce an addendum to that contract.
Call me crazy, but that sounds dangerously close to being considered “contract law” to me.
I’ve got it now… so, the Federal Reserve recommends that consumers contact an attorney when involved in contract disputes with banks, but the California legislature is about to pass a law saying that lawyers can’t charge a client a fair retainer when taking on such clients, which will effectively eliminate a consumer’s ability to retain legal counsel?
Do I have that right, or am I missing something?
Nope, I think I’ve got a handle on things here… and it’s embarrassing for our government on a scale I’ve never even contemplated before.
STOP CALIFORNIA SB 94 NOW!
Write to your elected representative and tell him or her that you want to be able to hire an attorney when you want to hire an attorney.
And since the Federal Reserve recommends doing so when engaged in a contract dispute with a bank… which is another way to describe a loan modification… perhaps SB 94 creates a much larger problem than it attempts to fix.
And, if you’re an attorney, write to the California Bar Association. Tell them not to support SB 94.
Enforce the existing laws and put anyone scamming homeowners in jail. It’s already illegal to defraud a homeowner out of thousands of dollars. All SB 94 will accomplish is to take the legitimate and reputable law firms out of the business of helping consumers negotiate with banks.
The banks will love it, I’m sure. But that’s a pretty good reason why it shouldn’t pass, don’t you think?
