This is a cheap way for the school to boost its employment stats.

More lawyers won't help the foreclosure problem; all those people are screwed.

Why is representing homeowners who do not pay back their loans a "public service" that should be lauded? How is this different than the work done by an attorney who represents a bank in recovering the value of its loan?

They should take that money and buy some better football players. Two losses = unacceptable.

"helping low income families fight off foreclosure proceedings"

Maybe these people should go back to renting and not living in homes they couldn't afford to pay for in the first place. Can anyone help me buy a car on installments, not pay the car loan, and still keep using the car?

"But instead of raising tuition and bemoaning the lack of public interest lawyers, Miami’s fellowship program is giving its graduates a little bit of help in their efforts to give back to the community. "

What in the hell are you talking about? U. of Miami's already too high tuition in comparison to its value was increased again another couple thousand this year for every student. I don't see how giving $80K out of its $40Million in tuition collected from its student body leads to this kind of statement.

This sounds like a job for Tajudeen Oladiran of Arizona. I hear that he's good at fighting foreclosures.

oh the comments on here never seize to amaze me. Of course people would take the opportunity to find the negative, instead of realizing that this actually a great thing that the school is doing. Sad bunch of law students with no concept of the real world on here.

5 - I think I can help you with that car....

As a federal clerk, I am inundated with people trying to remove their foreclosure actions or file TILA-related complaints. It has been my experience that every one of these people signed all the loan docs and none of them have any valid claims. They all relied on the "misrepresentations" that home prices would always rise and that refinancing would always be available. Those representations are not actionable.

The only difference between these people paying rent to a landlord or interest to a bank is psychological. They thought they were homeowners, but they weren't, really.

The only injustice I see is that banks never would have loaned to so many broke people if the loans weren't being guaranteed by the taxpayers via Fannie/Freddie/FHA/etc.

10,

"The only injustice I see is that banks never would have loaned to so many broke people if the loans weren't being guaranteed by the taxpayers via Fannie/Freddie/FHA/etc. "

Right on

8 - nice to hear from you Dean White

- 6

10, how is that different than the banks lending hundreds of thousands of dollars to broke college grads to attend NYLS or Northeastern Law School because the loans are 97% guaranteed by the feds?

I think this program is spot on and in line with Commissar Obama's objectives. I also think it is great that the non-peer institution of UMiami Law is helping folks who lied on their HUD applications to obtain a house they simply could not afford (a la Tajudeen Oladarian). These fraudulent perpetrators are now crying foul and that the bank somehow was able to flex undue pressure and coercion in making them sign mortgage instruments and notes. These cases are much more compelling when you have lawyers (i.e., Tajudeen Oladarian) claim they were unsophisticated and too mentally challenged to negotiate on equal footing with the evil monolithic banks. What a great way to waste resources UMiami Law.

8 - Please see the following:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cease
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/seize

That is all.

13, it's not.

13, because unlike housing prices, lawyer salaries and employment always go up, duh.

The most miserable person in the world that I know of went to Miami. She was just so awful that I would discourage anyone from going to this school.

5-
Of course someone can help you with that, ask Obama and one of his Car Czar's. In "Omerica" it is "from each who can afford it to each who want it". Gone are the days of actually earning something. Just whine enough and say it is unfair because Im Black/IWOP/Poor, just pick one. Glad to see someone is out there fighting for the "little guy" who should never have been in this situation in the first place.

13-
Because that money will always come back. The housing loans were made with a security on the property. If the value of the property goes up, great, if it goes down the bank loses money (bad). With student loans the government WILL get that money back. How you ask? Well 99% of student loans are non-dischargable meaning that you will be forced to continue to pay the loans no matter what you do. Thus they will just garnish your wages from McDonalds or whatever other "firm" you end up at until the loan is repaid. QED

18=bitter person from rutgers camden

5 - sure. Buy a used car. Acquire enough unsecured debt to build up enough assets to pay off the car loan (don't so it directly, use the unsecured to pay things like your rent and then your income, no longer needing to make rent payments, can go toward paying off the car loan). Only make very small payments on the unsecured debt itself for a while while the value of the car depreciates enough to fall below (or near) the auto exemption and to get past any lookback periods, then file Chapter 7.

I am a UVA2L.

Perhaps the UMiami Law or Mr. Oladarian can help bankrupt the global banking system by aiding the man in the linked story win his multi-sextillion lawsuit against Bank of America.

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE58O3BK20090925

5 - Half of all foreclosures have medical causes.

In a study, 49% of all foreclosures were caused in part by a medical problem, including illness or injuries (32%), unmanageable medical bills (23%), lost work due to a medical problem (27%), or caring for sick family members (14%). Altogether, seven in ten cases (69%) had at least one of these factors.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1416947

@25

So what?

25 - Are you making an argument that people who do not pay their bills should get to keep "their" homes? So if I buy a car and then get sick and cannot pay for that car, I should get to keep it?

If you are not making this argument, are you trying to make us "feel" better about lawyers doing this kind of work and agree that more public and private dollars should be poured into this noble cause?

25, your study uses $2,000 as the threshold for medical expenses that "cause" foreclosure. First, that means if someone has $2050 of medical bills and $80,000 of credit card bills and gets foreclosed upon, that's a foreclosure caused "in part" by a medical problem and obviously deserving of sympathy by liberals. Let me call the waaambulance.

The study also says, among those who cite a medical cause for bankruptcy, that the median unreimbursed medical bill was $3000. If your rainy day fund can't handle $3000 of one-time expenses, you shouldn't be trying to "own" a $400,000 house.

Thanks 28, those are the type of numbers I expected to find at 25's link if I were interested enough to click.

So 28, you find no fault at all with the sub-prime lenders who were allowed to operate in this country, granting loans by misrepresenting their customers' incomes and assets in loan docs?

30, are there subprime lenders trying to stay in their offices without paying rent and law schools helping them stiff their creditors? I've only noticed the lenders going bankrupt and liquidating their assets.

Don't buy stuff you can't afford. Simple, really.

I take it those lawyers here who find pro bono representation of foreclosees morally reprehensible and economically inefficient would similarly deny those who have likely commited actual crimes to go pro se in criminal trials in the name of justice. Do our law schools still teach the duty of zealous representation and the the necessity in an adversarial judicial process to have competent counsel on both sides?

33, do our law schools teach personal responsibility and self-discipline? You have a fundamental and constitutional right to be represented in criminal proceedings. You do not have a constitutional right or entitlement to home ownership.

Where can we sign up to do pro bono work helping banks mitigate their losses by foreclosing on deadbeats who lied about their incomes?

34, well-taken regarding criminal trials. Though I don't imagine that a the existence of a right settles the normative issue here. In any event, the suggestion that some litigants are unworthy of representation because they don't have your Values is fairly obnoxious. (And, really, why would a law school, medical school, TV repair school, or any educational institution serving adults teach those things?)

I hope you work out how to square your need to exert constant moral supremacy while practicing law before you graduate because counseling and defending those who have made grave lapses in personal or professional judgement is kind of what most lawyers in private practice do.

I think the banks should start referring these deadbeat borrowers that misrepresented their incomes and at times legal residency status (including all those illegal Mexicans in California and Cubans in Miami) to the FBI Mortgage Fraud Unit for prosecution under federal law. Many of these people bought properties, cashed out the equity and fucked over the banks. In the case of Mexicans, most funneled the ill gotten equity to purchase properties in Mexico. Others, simply purchased properties, flipped them as a result of pricing speculation, made a profit and walked away from their last properties as a result of the real estate market crash. These people are criminals and do not deserve pro bono legal services to delay foreclosures and continue fucking over the taxpayers. Mind you, the children of these illegal "homeowners" drain your town's resources (public education and charity healthcare). The liberals in DC use the plight of the homeowner but whatever happened to the "homeowners' bailout?" Oh, I forgot, Obama really isn't down for the people, he is bought and paid for by the banks.

36, I agree. It's obnoxious, not to mention racist, to expect people to take personal responsibility, not buy stuff that they can't afford, and return stuff that they're supposed to return.

You know, every story on this site dealing with foreclosures generates tons of comments about how the borrowers only have themselves to blame. Sure, from the standpoint of someone with a legal education, the actions of said borrowers were imprudent.

What most commenters fail to realize is that these borrowers are not well educated. The lender gives them a document they do not understand, makes various representations (whether actionable or not), and exerts pressure to get them to sign.

The above-mentioned practice was a win for the banks as well, in theory. Either the borrower pays off his high interest rate loan and the bank makes money, or the he defaults and the bank gets to foreclose and resell the property after is has appreciated in value. This is no longer the case, obviously.

I think both the banks and the borrowers are to blame. You cannot, however, ignore the role of the banks. They too did business relying on impractical assumptions and are now feeling the pinch. The difference: Banks got a government bailout because they are too big to fail, while the "little guy" is ridiculed and given a modicum of help.

Stop judging these people through the lens of a sophisticated, legally-trained mind, and start appreciating the situation for what it really is.

39, why do we have to assign "blame" at all? A loaned $ to B, and under the contract if B defaults, A gets to sell B's house. Is it even necessary to parse through who is morally culpable in making this contract? That is, does this blame serve any purpose, other than expressing who you personally think deserves more pity?

40, okay, I see your point. The use of the concept of "blame" was really just a poor way of saying that the equities of the situation warrant some assistance to the borrowers. Moreover, courts have long recognized the concept through the doctrine of unclean hands, for example.

39, you should check yourself into the nearest ER and have them stitch that bleeding heart of yours. No one put a gun to the borrowers' head and told him/her to sign a mortgage. Stupidity is not an excuse for lacking responsibility. It would stand to reason that if you make $60,000 a year, you cannot afford an $800,000 McMansion. Yet many people sign these ridiculous mortgages based on a gamble that home values would continue to skyrocket forever. They gambled and lost. Now you would like for us to show sympathy? Uhh, NO! I work hard and live within my means. I make $300K a year and my mortgage loan was for $250K (after putting $100k down). Most of these "homebuyers" didn't put a fucking nickle down so the way I see it is, they are not losing anything. The banks on the other hand are losing. And guess who is bailing out the banks? We, the taxpayers are. In the meantime, these foreclosures are taking 3-4 years and the "homeowner" lives rent/mortgage free (while engaging in rent skimming) while working stiffs like myself have to go out and make a living and pay my fucking bills. Go cry a fucking river for someone else.

Don't forget the mortgage brokers who actively facilitated the fraud. Cashing in on ignorant folks who wanted to own a home and then selling these folks a financial product that was sure to implode once the interest rates reset and refinancing was impossible.

Funny how all these people who benefited from rising home prices from 1997-2005, flipping homes and taking out home equity loans along the way, suddenly discovered that they didn't know what the word "mortgage" meant in 2006-2009. It's amazing that so many people found these big bad banks shoving incomprehensible monthly mortgage payment requirements down their throats, but only when home prices started falling.

42, First, you need to calm down. I understand that the comment board of ATL is not known for cordial discussion, but have some class. You can try to refute my point without resorting to personal attacks and vulgar language.

Second, since when is "holding a gun to someone's head" the legal standard for coercion or fairness? I assume you have heard of concepts such as undue influence, duress, and the like, all of which grant relief to an individual far short of such an extreme situation.

Once again, you fail to understand a critical difference between yourself and the sub-prime borrowers--education. I applaud you for living responsibly and within your means, but you and they are not one in the same. You understood what you signed and its consequences, others did not.

Did I say allowing borrowers to live in the homes for years without paying is the solution? Did I say they are completely free from responsibility? No, I did not. Attack the argument I have made, not the straw man you have created.

Many of these people were prayed upon by banks, and that deserves some consideration when exploring possible solutions. I do not advocate a nanny state, but why do the banks not have a responsibility to verify that people are able to pay off a potential loan, especially when there is such a great inequality in bargaining power and knowledge?

Your idea of a completely unchecked market is why our country finds itself in the current situation. Again, I do not advocate a nanny state. There is, however, a proper balance between oversight and caveat emptor that needs to be struck.

Oh, for the record, 42 and 45 is me, 39.

err... 41

And replace "prayed" with "preyed."

Okay, I'm done for the night...

-39

39, 45--39 here.

You assume that most of these unsophisticated "homeowners" were not represented by counsel. This is a false assumption as an overwhelming majority of borrowers had an attorney at their closing. If someone purchased a home without an attorney, then they are stupid and deserve the consequences of their foolish conduct. You claim the banks are big and bad. Well then if they are, you wouldn't bring a knife to a gunfight would you? Stop making excuses for these people that behaved irresponsibly. Many of them cashed out equity without putting a damn nickel down and made off like bandits. Most are rent skimming (renting their residences while foreclosure proceedings are pending for years without honoring the assignment of rents clause in their mortgages). These people are criminal. You say they shouldn't be held accountable because they didn't know what they were signing. Bullocks. You don't need to be a rocket scientist or a lawyer to know what a mortgage is, which is a promise to pay back secured by your home. You don't pay, bank forecloses. See that is simple. As for the banks, most were lied to. Many borrowers colluded with mortgage brokers to lie on loan applications to exaggerate about their incomes (through the so called "no doc" loans). So basically you are advocating the position that these criminals that broke the law, lost nothing and are living rent/mortgage free be allocated free legal resources to prolong the bank's foreclosure proceedings? Gee, perhaps it is this sort of liberal thinking that got our nation in the mess it sees itself in.

Sorry 49 and 42 same author.

Your idea of a completely unchecked market is why our country finds itself in the current situation. Again, I do not advocate a nanny state. There is, however, a proper balance between oversight and caveat emptor that needs to be struck.

49, I don't know where you get the "fact" that most borrowers were represented by attorneys. I do not know if that is true or not, but if you have some evidence, it would certainly boost your credibility.

It is true that almost everyone understands the basic concept of a mortgage. They do not, however, understand all the "boilerplate," nor do they understand the ramifications of those terms.

Still, you engage in two logical fallacies. First, you overgeneralize by taking the "criminal" conduct of some and attribute it to all. While I also failed to adequately distinguish between those legitimately taken advantage of and those who were exploiting the system, such was not my intent. I only advocate assistance for those who played by the rules and got burned.

Second, you are using an all-or-nothing mentality. It does not have to be where everyone gets the same help or nobody does. There are middle grounds.

Okay, now I am really done for the night...

-39

As someone who works in this area, I can tell you that most people do not understand the full picture of what went on and is going on now, and cling to a black/white view (either it's all the borrowers' fault or all the banks' fault). For example, 49's comment is one of the most factually incorrect and naive comments I have seen in a while.

Credible public interest attorneys do not take the cases of people who simply took out more than they could afford and now want a free ride. There are simply too many cases of actual fraud where borrowers were indeed scammed, whether by mortgage brokers (most likely), lenders, or third parties. Such fraud occurred far more often than people realize; indeed, the way the system was set up facilitated such fraud. If you are looking for someone to blame for this mess, it should be directed primarily at mortgage brokers (who were incentivized financially by YSP, etc. to place people in sub-prime loans, close bad loans, and inflate borrowers' income) and Wall Street, which created the market that demanded the paper from the banks and the brokers, then sold these products to investors, who relied on CRA's that were paid by Wall Street and thus themselves had perverse financial incentives to rate the shit high.

Especially when it comes to the elderly (many of whom either owned their houses outright, had tons of equity, or were in good reverse mortgages), brokers and banks often flat-out screwed many of these people. Banks also have a big role in hammering down sensible regulation and making it so that mortgages do not have to be publicly recorded, which facilitated the transferring, slicing, and securitization of bad mortgages. And many borrowers got into loans that they simply could not afford, whether through ignorance or bad faith. That's not where the legal services need is, as most recognize that these people should not keep their homes.

Yes, there are bad attorneys trying to stall/avoid foreclosures with bad cases. These are usually for-profit attorneys who themselves may be scamming the clients. Good public interest attorneys and the good for-profit consumer advocates do not have the time to take cases where it's simply a question of an unaffordable loan. There's too much other heinous shit out there.

52, I think you should take a look in the mirror if you want to see what a naive person looks like. Were there people that were scammed by mortgage brokers? Yes, of course, a tiny fraction. The rest simply gamed the RE market for profit and acted in concert with real estate brokers, mortgage brokers, title companies and all parties that rode the $$$ gravy train from 2001-2005. Elderly people were victimized by some reverse mortgage scams and you get no disagreement from me: they deserve legal help. As for the rest of the people who could not compute that a $10/hr wage cannot buy you a $500,000 home, please spare your breath about who got taken. People, especially first generation immigrants and illegal aliens were caught up in the American dream of homeownership. Homeownership was flaunted as if it was a god given right. Newsflash: Not everyone can be a homeowner! I have seen settlement statements signed by people who claim they didn't know what they were signing. They claim "I saw nothing, understood nothing, and did nothing." They knew the brokers inflated their incomes to qualify for outrageous mortgages. They used fake social security numbers and false identities. They figured they could rent every nook in the house to every Tom, Dick and Juan in order to afford the mortgage. In the meantime, these homeowners were violating municpal ordinances by renting illegal attics and basements just until they could flip the property for a profit. I hope for your sake that you are helping the real victims, the taxpayers that are financing this mess.

So here is the universal wisdom: Socialism for banks (government bailout) and free market capitalism for the "little guy". Makes sense. Ah, and I almost forgot: Liberal thinking is the cause of all evil. God Bless 42/49/53 for opening my eyes to this problem.

21 = Villanova law student still bragging that his school won the law school study hour survey, and still hoping for that dream estate planning job in Chester County .

UM has a law school?