4 ms·

I feel like you are supposed to be able to get an injunction against this, but in practice it is probably stupid hard :(.

• daxcurzon 5y ago
  They took out a mortgage after being served but before they ever got in a court room. The law is so slow here that it could've taken years just to settle that issue. Probably easier to address post victory.
  • cycomanic 5y ago
    Isn't it in the duty of care of the bank to make sure that the property they give a mortgage on is actually owned by the mortgagee? I would assume that you should get the land and the bank can then sue the brothers to get their money back. Why should the mortgage be transfered to the original owners, they never agreed to it.
    • ansible 5y ago
      Yes, but the bank can afford more and better lawyers, so good luck getting them to eat the cost of the mortgage.
      • ansible 5y ago
        Just to be clear, I'm not saying this is at all the desired outcome, that the people who have been swindled out of their property lose all their money. I'm just predicting the likely outcome.
• encryptluks2 5y ago
  In Federal court the U.S. Supreme Court has set a high burden of proof for a plaintiff seeking an injunction. Unfortunately, once case law is established its nearly impossible to change. In this instance, in a civil case based on diversity it would be really difficult to prove public interest. Generally injunctions in federal courts are used to prevent states from doing things, like proceeding with an execution or changing voting laws.