Quote:
Originally Posted by goof2
I suspect the difference was due to the small number being the amount the bank loaned them and the larger number being the total repayment amount if the borrowers had followed their repayment schedule.
Ultimately what this comes down to is the lender and the borrower signed a contract. The borrower is no longer able to fulfill their requirements under the contract. If the lender is willing to change the terms of the contract to accommodate the borrower that is great, but the lender is completely within their rights to hold the borrower to the original terms. What would be most beneficial to the lender is irrelevant. They can choose to do whatever they want within the law no matter what this shithead judge says. Cases like this are why the appellate courts exist.
|
Except in this case the law is against the lender. The required settlement conference requires that both parties bargain in good faith, not just sit there and draw a line in the sand.
While I generally believe that banks get a bad rap from people who don't understand the realities involved, after having two parents in the industry for my whole life, this is a case in which a lending institution needed to be hammered down.