OPINION

Eminently reasonable

Using the power of eminent domain to restructure underwater mortgages is constitutional, beneficial and administratively feasible.

, The National Law Journal

   | 1 Comments

Using the power of eminent domain to restructure underwater mortgages is constitutional, beneficial and administratively feasible.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to LexisAdvance®.

Continue to LexisAdvance®

Not a LexisAdvance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via LexisAdvance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at customercare@alm.com

What's being said

  • MARSHA MAINES

    Apparently, it's been a long time since this author has read the Declaration of Independence. A Better Idea: Enforce the LAW. Have lawyers & settlement agents PAY the local court systems the FEES they failed to pay when the codes required it upon Recordation of the mortgage/deeds of trusts. Audits have found most county & state courthouses are literally just "crime scenes". Once the lawyers who have acted either knowingly or unknowingly as co-consipirators to the Banks/Lenders false witnesses against the Individual Sovereign Homeowners are held accountable, then localities (for the benefit of All persons of the community) will be able to handle the rising tide of exposure to loss of presumed "revenue" based on taxes (a communist concept anyways).

    In addition, If you start with the premise that the original mortgage was defective for the primary reason that it was unfunded by the payee on the note, the party identified as “Lender” or the mortgagee or beneficiary, then Homeowners who paid (consideration in exchange for the offer) are denying the transaction, denying the signature where possible (or pleading that the signature was procured by fraud), and thus denying that any “transfer” afterwards could not have conveyed any more than what the “originator” had, which is nothing. It's a Wonderful Life!

    This is not a new concept. Investors are suing the investment banks on this premise alone. The origination process was fatally defective, the notes and mortgages ARE unenforceable and the predatory lending practices lowering the value of even being a “lender.” are just now being put into play. The harsh reality is - the LENDERS and BANKS ran a scam to rip off Title Insurers, now they've been caught red-handed.

    Eminent Domain is constitutional? Sure it is, in the People's Rupublic of China...America's governments have been usurped by PRIVATE Bar Associations (private unions) special folk, special deals, Tyrants hell-bent on the destruction of the Dream our Founding Fathers espoused. Unfortunately, America is a Democratic Republic, not the licensed professionals of a Private judicial club's playground. The Court has determined that regulations that strip property of value or that do not substantially advance legitimate state interests are takings for which compensation is required (Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825, 107 S. Ct. 3141, 97 L. Ed. 2d 677 [1987]

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202572203513

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.