Are Settlement Decisions “Predictably Irrational”?

Posted by Cliff Tuttle

On August 8, PLBT posted a story about a study which concludes that 61% of plaintiffs who passed up a settlement offer and went to trial ended up getting less money than if they had taken the offer. Although defendants made the wrong decision far less often, when they did, the costs were much higher.

One of the study authors suggested that one explanation lies in the fact that taking a risk by turning down the offer and going to trial costs the contingent fee plaintiff nothing, while the defendant usually pays more counsel fees and takes more risk by going to trial. Plaintiffs would be more willing to take a risk when faced with a choice between small gain and potential large gain than would the defendant faced with the choice of small loss and risk of large loss.

A comment to the PLBT post suggested that one answer might be found in a book released earlier this year called “Predictably Irrational: the Hidden Forces that Shape our Decisions” by Dan Ariely, a professor at MIT’s Sloan School of Management. Ariely’s work is part of a growing trend to apply social science methods to the study of economic behavior.

Ariely does not deal directly with the issue of why plaintiffs appear to want to try cases that should be settled, but he does discuss the power of zero cost in biasing economic decision making. For example, Amazon.com sells a lot of extra books by offering free shipping for multiple orders. The cost of the extra books usually exceeds the value of the shipping and there is evidence that the extras wouldn’t even be sold. Ariely reports that when Amazon began this practice it had a big increase in sales. However, in France, where shipping had been offered at the price of one Franc, sales remained the same. When the one Franc offer was replaced with the multi-book free shipping offer, sales in France jumped to match increases in other parts of the world. In reality, one Franc for one book was a better deal, but the “power of free” was too strong. Ariely says:

“What is it about zero cost that we find so irresistible? Why does free! make us so happy? After all, free! can lead us into trouble: things that we would never consider purchasing become incredibly appealing as soon as they are free! For instance, have you ever gathered up free pencils, key chains, and note pads at a conference, even though you’d have to carry them home and would only throw most of them away? Have you ever stood in line for a very long time (too long), just to get a free cone of Ben and Jerry’s ice cream? Or have you bought two of a product that you wouldn’t have chosen in the first place, just to get the third one for free?
What is it about free! that’s so enticing? Why do we have an irrational urge to jump for a free! item, even when it’s not what we really want?
I believe the answer is this. Most transactions have an upside and a downside, but when something is free! we forget the downside. Free! gives us such an emotional charge
that we perceive what is being offered as immensely more valuable than it really is. Why? I think it’s because humans are intrinsically afraid of loss. The real allure of free! is tied to this fear. There’s no visible possibility of loss when we choose a free! item (it’s free). But suppose we choose the item that’s not free. Uh- oh, now there’s a risk of having made a poor decisionâ€”the possibility of a loss. And so, given the choice, we go for what is free.”

Defense counsel in personal injury suits have long argued that many cases would never be filed if the plaintiffs had to pay the fees. Perhaps the same observation applies to pretrial settlement. Ariely cites experimental evidence that we all tend to overvalue what we own, which would presumably include a cause of action.

How do you overcome that bias? Ariely suggests getting feedback from neutral parties.

Going beyond the covers of the book let me suggest a thought. When the arbitration limit was raised, many cases that would have gone to trial before a judge began to be argued before arbitrators. After the arbitrators decision, many of those cases settled. Many others were dropped and never appealed. Although reasons vary, in some cases the losing party accepts the arbitrator’s decision as the probable outcome on appeal and simply quits. This was one of the reasons for the institution or pre-trial arbitration in our U.S. District Court. Also, courts which hold mini-trials as a prelude to big cases, like medical malpractice suits, report a high rate of settlement after the verdict of the mock jurors is heard.

If you wish to read a comprehensive review of “Predictably Irrational, click here.

Category: Uncategorized

A Prayer for the Lucky Puppies of Denham Springs, Louisiana

Posted by Cliff Tuttle

Two days ago my wife Marylyn traded email with our friend Robin, a professional dog groomer in Denham Springs, LA, a short distance from Baton Rouge. She was loading the crated dogs at the Lucky Puppy Rescue for the evacuation from the path of Hurricane Gustav.

We have a warm place in our hearts for Robin, her family and the Lucky Puppy Rescue. We adopted one of our two dogs, now called Froggy, then called Duke, through this Shelter a little over a year ago. Marylyn had been looking for a rescue dog (all of our dogs over 35 years have been rescued) and found a picture of Duke posted on the internet.

No, our dog was not rescued from Katrina. But had it not been for the kindness and devotion of Robin and her family, we would have never been able to adopt a wonderful dog. Now, she is about the business of saving other dogs in every meaning of the word. We are grateful that there are deeply devoted people in the world like Robin. We hope and pray that Robin, her family and every one of their dogs, are safe and dry tonight and that they will soon be safe at home.

If you want to see some very lucky pups, click here.

CLT

Category: Uncategorized

Notaries of the World, Unite!

Posted by Cliff Tuttle

I just completed the quadrennial renewal of my Notary Commission. I’ve been doing so since the Reagan Administration and it has always been a tedious and expensive proposition. Notaries are paid a pittance so that few do it for the notary fees alone. It is the sine qua non of real estate closings, motor vehicle transfers and a few other businesses that require a steady flow of notarized documents.

About 20 years ago, complaints were heard that notaries were charging more than the lawful $3.00 per punch. The Department of State decreed that every notary must post a fee schedule in the waiting room or conference room of his or her office in full view of the customer. At that time, I and many others stopped charging notary fees.

Despite the poor pay, the barriers to joining the select fraternity/sorority of notaries are growing higher all of the time. Unless you are an old-timer like me, you’ll have to take (and pay for) a prescribed number of professional education courses every four years with a test at the end. Then you must obtain the endorsement of your State Senator (don’t worry, he endorses everyone) on a form, send it to Harrisburg with $40.00 and wait a couple of months. Eventually, you receive a form to take to a bonding company where you pay $75.00.

In Allegheny County, you record your bond at the Department of Real Estate (formerly Recorder of Deeds) and pay another fee. Until this August 25, you were required to run around to the former Prothonotary (now Department of Court Records, Civil Division) and the former Clerk of Courts (now Department of Court Records, Criminal Division) to sign cards and pay fees. It was like trick-or-treat, except that the trick was on you and they got the treat.

From this August 25 onward, the new or renewing notary need only visit the Department of Real Estate. I guess this is part of the benefit for consolidation we were promised when these elected Row Offices were eliminated. I renewed on August 24. I will have to wait four years to find out if the fees are any cheaper under the new system.

What is the point of renewing a notary commission? Do we actually forget how to notarize and need retraining? Is there a danger that someone will start using our equipment? The answer is: None of the above. Being a notary is so easy that the essentials of most notorial duties (except perhaps motor vehicles and a few specialties) can be learned in 15 minutes. The real purpose of the quadrennial renewal process is to collect fees. Yes, they are user fees, but did you ever consider that the fee is for the purpose of processing the renewal and if there were no renewals, there would be no need for fees?

Notaries with no special expertise are in demand for in-home real estate closings. They work cheaper than lawyers and other real estate professionals (both of whom were also notaries) who used to do the majority of closings. The notary is instructed to get all required signatures, notarize when required, make copies and get the package returned. Under no circumstances is the notary to explain the documents. After all, you are a mere notary. Just tell them to sign.

Yes, it is the sad truth that notaries get no respect. They are charged big time for the privilege of being a notary and that is not going to change. They are ordered around by the Commonwealth, their bosses and sometimes even the customers. There is a Pennsylvania Association of Notaries, but this organization is actually a service company, conducting the continuing education classes and collecting fees from notaries for providing them with newsletters, special information and forms. There is no chance that notaries will ever stop playing the doormat unless we take it upon ourselves to cast off our chains.

So, fellow notaries, do you think it makes more sense to have our commissions renew, say, every ten years? If so, let your State Senators and Representatives know about it. Did I mention that there are 84,000 of us? See the article in Wikipedia.

Category: Uncategorized

Constitutional Law: Is Pole Dancing a Form of Free Speech?

Posted by Cliff Tuttle

Adams Township is a growing community in Southern Butler County, located on Route 228, between Cranberry Township and Mars. The Township’s zoning officer turned down an application to operate a dancing school in May. So the Applicant, forgoing the usual avenue of appeal, filed a Complaint in the US District Court, alleging that the denial was an infringement upon the Applicant’s rights under the First Amendment.

No, it wasn’t the kind of dancing school you and I went to when we were twelve. The only freedom of expression issues arising there would have involved whether she said he was cute — and there was no protection, Constitutional or otherwise, from that kind of free speech.

No, it was a different kind of dance studio. It made national news last Thursday. Then the Wall Street Journal Law Blog covered the federal case filing on Friday. Psst! — do you want to hear what I found out about Stephanie Babines? Very quietly, click here.

Now that you have read the WSJ Law Blog account, you may still be wondering what dancing of any kind has to do with the First Amendment. The answer is that the dance is a medium whereby the dancer expresses her sexuality. Moreover, the zoning officer had viewed the Applicant’s sexually explicit website (but only in the line of duty) and had decided to punish her for the content of the webite, which is protected by the First Amendment. Lest you think I am making some of this up, the Complaint states, beginning at paragraph 52:

“52. Defendants’ denial of plaintiff’s application for an occupancy permit for her dance
studio violated plaintiff’s First Amendment rights because defendants’ decision was based on the
expressive content of the dance classes that plaintiff intended to teach and is thus a content-based restriction on plaintiff’s expressive activity unsupported by any compelling governmental interest.
53. Defendants’ denial of an occupancy permit to plaintiff for the operation of her dance
studio because of the content of her website and advertising constitutes retaliation for plaintiff’s
constitutionally protected speech, in violation of plaintiff’s First Amendment free-expression rights.
54. Defendants’ zoning ordinance restricting the locations of “adult businesses” in Adams
Township regulates expressive activity and is overbroad in violation of the First Amendment.
55. Defendants’ zoning ordinance restricting the locations of “adult businesses” in Adams
Township regulates expressive activity and is unconstitutionally vague as applied to plaintiff’s dance studio.”

Shortly after finishing dance class, I enrolled in law school. Maybe you did, too. If you studied Constitutional Law during the early days of the Berger Court, you were probably under the impression that freedom of speech had to do with the expression of ideas. That might even include non-verbal speech, like flag burning or wearing T shirts with in-your-face messages.

So far, so good. But how do we get from flag burning to pole dancing? If some of you who have taken the course more recently can help me, I’d appreciate it. Thanks in advance for helping me catch up on trends in Con Law.

CLT

Category: Uncategorized

Champion of the Solos: Carolyn Elefant of “My Shingle.com”

Posted by Cliff Tuttle

It can be discouraging, being all alone. Some days you come home all beat up. Some days you worked 16 hours and didn’t make a cent. And some days, you remember with regret how easy it really was when somebody else did the job you just spent the whole day doing yourself.

The virtues of sole practice are many. But we need somebody to call them to mind. Nobody does that job better than Carolyn Elefant, author of the blog “My Shingle.com.” You may have noticed that it was added to the blogroll on the right hand column of this page.

Carolyn is a sole practitioner in Washington, DC. But she is also a very serious mother, an author of books, lecturer and giver of seminars. She is probably a few more things I don’t know about. And she is a mentor, advisor and cheering section for more single practice and small firm lawyers than you or I could count.

Carolyn preaches the gospel of solo practice to the galley slaves who man the oars in the triremes of Big Law. Here is a powerful example of vintange Elefant.

After observing the interaction of Michelle Obama, who once worked in a large Chicago law firm, with her daughters during the Democratic Convention, Carolyn mused:

” I couldn’t help thinking that even if Michelle Obama had worked at one of the fifty supposedly most family friendly law firms that she would have missed out on this type of experience. Michelle would have spent her time with her girls in carefully metered segment, from 7 pm when she arrived home until 8:30 pm when they went to sleep. And if Michelle Obama had brought her daughters to large firm meeting or conference (even on days when she was supposed to be working reduced hours), I’m sure she’d have been met with glowering stares or snide comments rather than the sheer delight that spilled forth from the convention audience.”

Carolyn persuasively argues that solos are the true pioneers in implementing advances in legal technology and trends that make law practice more efficient and effective. They bring down the cost of practice and thus the cost of legal services to the public. They are more likely to be wireless, paperless and even happy.

And she writes an outstanding, readable blog.

CLT

Category: Uncategorized

Back Talk Requested: Don’t Tase me Bro!

Posted by Cliff Tuttle

The Pittsburgh Post Gazette reports that a lawsuit was recently settled involving the North Braddock Police for $100,000. The thing that makes the suit interesting is that the plaintiff was in his own home when the police arrived in response to a silent alarm. They found the door unlocked, entered the apartment and saw the Plaintiff stretched out on the sofa. The police say he failed to show his hands. They thought he might be hiding a weapon, so they used their tasers. (All comments on what you are probably thinking at the moment will be tased.)

The problem with that defense, according to the PG account, was that they tased him three separate times, including after he had produced ID showing that he lived there. Then, after his family members came home and confirmed his identity, they cuffed him and threw him in a holding cell for a few hours.

The defense attorney stated that the officers were acting in good faith and are thus entitled to statutory immunity. However, the case was settled because the outcome might cost more, even with a defense verdict. Plaintiff’s counsel said he and his client were happy with the settlement. Would you be willing to endure three blasts of a taser for $60,000.00, after paying the contingent fee? Here is the full PG story.

Tasers were introduced as a humane alternative to pistols. They could be used to stun, not kill, a fleeing or potentially armed suspect, just like the phasers on Star Treck. Does that virtue encourage their over-use?

What do you think about the $100,000.00 settlement? Based on what is reported in the newspaper (which is not necessarily what the trial testimony would indicate) would you be inclined to make an award for the plaintiff? Lawyers: what would you look for before you would be willing to take this kind of case for a plaintiff?

Brad Shuttleworth, a Philadephia lawyer with a substantial criminal law practice, may have some thoughts on the subject. I’ll ask if he wants to share a few of them. Brad recently linked his web site, Philadelphia Criminal Justice Blog, to PLBT. You can click over to it on the blogroll at the right, or you can just. click here.

CLT

Category: Uncategorized

bit-x-bit,LLC’s Susan Ardisson on Electronic Discovery: a Q&A

Posted by Cliff Tuttle

Can you remember your first email? Do you remember calling friends on the telephone in those days saying, “Do you have email? I’ll send you one.”

Chances are, you send and receive more email every day in 2008 than you did in a month (not counting spam) ten years ago. And it is very likely that you do a substantial portion of your business transactions using email.

So, what do you think happens in 2008 when lawsuits arise over those business transactions? Right! Everybody wants to see the email. But nobody wants to print out a file cabinet (or in some cases, an entire warehouse) full of paper. We’re past that. Put it on electronic media. And by the way, don’t erase any of the metadata! Welcome to the age of electronic discovery in litigation. Get used to it — there’s no going back.

The following is a short Question and Answer session with Susan Ardisson, an attorney and CEO of bit-x-bit, LLC, a company that provides technical assistance to lawyers and litigants in the field of electronic discovery or e-discovery. If you want (or need) to know more, you can follow the link to bit-x-bit’s website at the end of the Q&A. But read the Q&A first. More challenging material will appear on the electronic pages of PLBT in the future. And there will be a test.

***********************************************
Q: Until now, electronic discovery has been used almost exclusively in large cases. However, with small companies and even individuals doing the bulk of their business by email, will electronic discovery eventually come to be involved in litigation involving amounts as small as, say, $25,000.00?

A: Yes. There are relatively inexpensive e-discovery capture and review tools available which can suit the needs of smaller law firms and companies. During the past year, we have seen significant growth among small and medium sized law firms toward establishing in-house processing and review capabilities. And once the tools/systems are in place, the attorney time necessary to review thousands of potentially relevant documents can drop dramatically, making the whole process more affordable for the client.

Q: Is there currently a danger that a large business employing a large law firm equipped for electronic discovery will force a small company with limited ability to pay for litigation costs to settle unfavorably by hitting it hard with requests for production of documents on electronic media?

A: Certainly that possibility always exists in litigation. However, because each side bears its own costs for production of electronically stored information under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is often the larger company that must capture and search extremely large volumes of data for potentially relevant electronic documents and may be forced to settle a case because of these costs, particularly in employment law matters. The Journal of Law and Technology at the University of Richmond recently published an article on this issue: Asymmetrical Warfare: The Cost of Electronic Discovery in Employment Litigation by Ronald A. Satterwhite and Matthew J. Quatrara.

Q: What should a small business or individual proprietor do to prepare for the eventual possibility that its electronic records will be subjected to electronic discovery?

A: Establish clear business records retention and destruction policies that are adhered to by everyone in the company. Then backup and preserve all possible electronic data (business records/documents and email).

Q: What developments in technology do you anticipate occurring in the next ten years that will impact litigation?

A: On the negative side, as the volume of electronically stored data continues to increase, what must be captured and reviewed in the discovery phase of a case for potentially relevant electronic data will also continue to rise. On the positive side, however, the tools available to index and search this growing repository of electronic information are continuing to improve.

**************************************************

Susan Ardisson, Esq. is the Chief Executive Officer of bit-x-bit, LLC, a computer forensic and e-discovery firm located in downtown Pittsburgh. Certified in computer forensics through the International Society of Forensic Computer Examiners (ISFCE), bit-x-bit recently received the exclusive endorsement of the Allegheny County Bar Association (ACBA) to provide computer forensic and e-discovery consulting services to ACBA members. For more information about bit-x-bit’s services, please visit www.bit-x-bit.com by clicking here or call 412-325-4033.

If you would like to read the article mentioned by Susan Ardisson (“Asymetrical Warfare . . .”) click here.

Category: Uncategorized

Real Estate: Should we be glad to bid farewell to “Seller Assist”?

Posted by Cliff Tuttle

According to Bankrate.com’s “Mortgage and Real Estate News”, those “seller assist” settlement sheet transfers are to become a thing of the past on October 1, 2008 under the Housing and Recovery Act of 2008. A favorite or real estate agents, seller assist hasn’t been around so long that it isn’t still news to a few people who haven’t transacted a house sale/purchase for a decade or more.

In case you are one of the above, here’s how the deal comes down. The seller indicates that a certain price, lets say $200,000.00, is acceptable. So the agent says, lets make that $207,000.00 and you give back $7,000.00 on the settlement sheet as a credit to the buyer’s settlement costs. (These numbers are for illustration purposes only.) Of course, there will be a little more realty transfer tax, but not so much as to kill the deal. And the agent, bless her soul, will even forgo collecting commission on the extra $7,000.

In this market, the seller is happy to have a deal at all. The suggestion meets little resistance. If thats what the buyer wants to do, what difference does it make?

But to the buyer, it can make a big difference. The property will probably appraise for the full amount of the inflated sales price. The buyer is thus able to borrow more money. As a consequence of this and a few more little tricks (like simultaneous first and second mortgages), the buyer comes away with very little equity, often no equity, in the property on the day of closing.

If the plan is to keep the house and mortgage(s) for 20 years, things might turn out all right. But too often, adjustable rate financing was sold as an intermediate stop on the way to fixed rate financing at a lower rate. Pay on time for twelve consecutive months, the loan broker told the buyer, and I’ll put you in an A mortgage with a low fixed rate. For some, that day never came.

Another unintended consequence: escalating tax assessments. The tax assessors can’t tell whether a selling price has been inflated by seller assistance. And neither can anyone else.

The article indicates that there is a chance that even newer legislation will rescue seller assist from the ash bin. To read what Bankrate.com has to say about it, click here.

Category: Uncategorized

Commonwealth Court holds that zoning ordinance requiring one acre minimum can cause merger of undersized lots under common ownership prior to enactment of the ordinance.

Posted by Cliff Tuttle

The Commonwealth Court returned to the subject of when undersized lots are merged in light of a zoning ordinance that requires a greater minimum lot size. When the facts require the lot owner to prove an intention to keep the lots separate, this must be accomplished by a physical manifestation of that intention. Maintaining separate deed descriptions or tax parcels does not constitute a physical manifestation of intention to keep the lots separate and distinct. Landowners who acquire adjoining lots afterwards, are required to perform physical acts, such as the erection of a wall or fence or planting of a line of trees along the borderline of the two lots.

In an opinion filed on August 15, 2008 in the case of Mary Ann Cotone et. al. v. Zoning Hearing Board of Polk Township, No. 292 C.D.2007, the Commonwealth Court discussed the law regarding the merger and non-merger of undersized lots at some length.

The Polk Township zoning officer denied Cottone a permit to build a house on a lot of .3 acres because the zoning ordinance requires a minimum one acre lot for a house served by a water well and on-lot sewage treatment. This decision was upheld by the Zoning Hearing Board and by the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas. On appeal, the Commonwealth Court stated: “In this case we consider, inter alia, whether the zoning ordinance effected the merger of Cottone’s lot with adjoining lots in spite of the fact that the size of her lot had been established in an approved subdivision plan, was separately deeded, and separately taxed.”

Cottone’s lot was one of 16 undeveloped lots in a plan approved in 1975. Each lot was approximately .3 acres in size and the whole development was owned by a single owner from 1966 to 2003. The lots were still undeveloped when Polk Township enacted the one acre minimum lot size. All sixteen lots were sold to Reflection Builders Enterprise, Inc. (Reflection) who in turn sold Lot 75Q to Cottone in July 2005. At that point, Reflection still owned the other 15 undeveloped lots. The application for a building permit was denied. On appeal, Cuttone requested a special exception or variance from the Zoning Hearing Board. The Common Pleas Court affirmed denial of all relief requested.

Citing cases, the Commonwealth Court noted that common ownership of adjoining properties does not automatically create a merger. But when a zoning ordinance causes one or more adjoining parcels under common ownership to become undersized, such a merger is possible, depending upon the facts of the case. This depends upon when the ownership became common and when the ordinance became effective.

Adjoining lots under separate ownership are presumed to be buildable after the enactment of the ordinance unless later acquired by a single owner, whereupon the burden is on the municipality to show that the new common owner has merged the two lots into one.

“On the other hand,” the opinion stated, “lots are presumed to merge as necessary to comply with a zoning ordinance’s lot size requirements when they are under common ownership prior to the passage of the ordinance. It is the landowner’s burden to rebut this presumption by proving the intent to keep the lots separate and distinct. In doing so, the landowner’s subjective intent is not determinative, rather, there must be proof of some overt or physical manifestation of intent to keep the lots in question separate and distinct.” [citations omitted.]

The Court reviewed two cases where the landowner had attempted to prove intent to keep parcels separate by maintaining separate deed descriptions or tax parcels. This was held to be insufficient. So, too, in the present case.

The lesson of this case and those cited within is that an owner acquiring adjacent undersized parcels must promptly erect or plant some distinct physical barrier between the lots. A strong, permanent fence running along the length of the property line would perform this task very well.

To read the full opinion, click here.

CLT

Category: Uncategorized

Predatory Servicing: Meet the Loss Mitigation Department

Posted by Cliff Tuttle

Mortgage foreclosure is about to commence. You are trying to reduce the delinquency, but they won’t accept partial payments. You feel hopelessly trapped. Then, out the darkness comes a ray of sunshine. The Loss Mitigation Department of your lender sends you a letter or pamphlet containing a message something like this:

“You may be able to save your home by modifying the existing mortgage. The interest rate and payments will be reduced. You will be able to start with a clean slate.”

This might seem to be too good to be true. In many cases it is.

Make no mistake about it, the term “loss mitigation” means mitigation of the lender’s loss. Mortgage foreclosures, especially when the fair market value of the collateral has declined or never equalled the appraised value, create large losses for lenders. If some of the delinquent mortgages can be reinstated on terms that enable those borrowers to keep paying, losses can be postponed or even avoided.

The tool that is being commonly used to accomplish this feat is the loan modification, sometimes referred to as a mortgage modification or just modification or “mod.” This process is distinct from a refinance, which involves originating a new loan. A refinance requires new disclosures under Regulation Z. It requires a that the borrow be given a three day right of recission. By contrast, modifications are largely unregulated. The same loan remains in place, but the terms are changed. Disclosures to the borrower are not required.

In the 1990’s, when interest rates were falling, modifications were frequently used to lower rates without the costs and paperwork involved in refinancing the loan. Until then, modifications were relatively rare. But the marketplace forced lenders to protect the loans in their portfolio from paying off early en masse. The lower return on an existing loan was better than finding new ones at the same rate. Since these modifications were highly beneficial to the borrower and since the trend at the time was deregulation, there was no effort to extend lending regulations to mods.

But it is now apparent that modifications can be used for less sanguine purposes. There were regulatory barriers to refinancing delinquent loans,but not to accomplishing the same objective though modification. Certain lenders, often in the subprime category, have been using modifications to do such things as “re-age” delinquencies, making their balance sheet appear better than it is.

Customers of some of the largest home lenders in America are reporting that they have accepted loan modification offers from loss mitigation departments, ostensibly set up for the purpose of stemming the tide of foreclosures, and lived up to their end of the bargain, only to have the lender proceed with foreclosure anyway. This has occurred, without explanation, after the borrower has sometimes paid a substantial fee and even several monthly payments. Reports of such incidents are widespread on the internet. To read two of them, from a strident consumer advocate website called Ripoff Report, click here and here.

Category: Uncategorized

« go back — keep looking »

Welcome

CLIFF TUTTLE has been a Pennsylvania lawyer for over 45 years and (inter alia) is a real estate litigator and legal writer. The posts in this blog are intended to provide general information about legal topics of interest to lawyers and consumers with a Pittsburgh and Western Pennsylvania focus. However, this information does not constitute legal advice and there is no lawyer-client relationship created when you read this blog. You are encouraged to leave comments but be aware that posted comments can be read by others. If you wish to contact me in privacy, please use the Contact Form located immediately below this message. I will reply promptly and in strict confidence.

Pittsburgh Legal Back Talk

Legal topics of interest to lawyers and consumers with a Pittsburgh and Western Pennsylvania focus.

1410 Posts and Counting

Categories

Are Settlement Decisions “Predictably Irrational”?

A Prayer for the Lucky Puppies of Denham Springs, Louisiana

Notaries of the World, Unite!

Constitutional Law: Is Pole Dancing a Form of Free Speech?

Champion of the Solos: Carolyn Elefant of “My Shingle.com”

Back Talk Requested: Don’t Tase me Bro!

bit-x-bit,LLC’s Susan Ardisson on Electronic Discovery: a Q&A

Real Estate: Should we be glad to bid farewell to “Seller Assist”?

Commonwealth Court holds that zoning ordinance requiring one acre minimum can cause merger of undersized lots under common ownership prior to enactment of the ordinance.

Predatory Servicing: Meet the Loss Mitigation Department

Welcome

Recent Posts

Posts You Might Like

Subscribe to our feed