People speak up, in defense of lenders
An article in National Public Radio outlines the process of Florida's Rocket Docket, but without mentioning the term 'Rocket Docket.' Even without the hyperbole, the article set off a series of argumentative talking points.
Take this predictable one from author Anonymous Pi:
So, one tiny paragraph about the actual cause of the problem and half the article about how this is a hardship for the banks? Thank goodness Florida actually requires banks to prove there was a loan and a default, unlike many states where banks just stole houses from people and judges didn't care.
What has happened to the quality of reporting here at NPR?
What's particularly noteworthy is many commentators are actually willing to defend the article — and even the actions of lenders.
Author Brim Stone offers a few pro-bank perspectives, and even advises distressed homeowners to follow suit by looking after their own financial prerogatives. Needless to say, these comments, while representative of a new class of confident, pro-business voices, do not go over very well with other forum participants.
But, technically, in this remark Brim Stone is literally asking for it:
Please explain how banks "just stole houses from people".
So you have a person living in a house, and you have a bank saying they loaned money to the person to buy the house.
Are you saying that the banks are lying about loaning the money? Or the terms of the loan? Where did the person get the money to buy the house? Did they inherit it? Did they buy the house outright? Did they get the money from a different bank? How hard would any of those situations be to prove?
Do you really think banks are just randomly picking houses and falsely saying "Oh that person owes us money for the mortgage."?