4 ms·

This problem is indicative of how screwed up our legal system is. Lawyers harass regular folks at-will as most people have no recourse (i.e. money to hire thei

This problem is indicative of how screwed up our legal system is. Lawyers harass regular folks at-will as most people have no recourse (i.e. money to hire their own lawyer, or knowledge of the expanding and complicated laws). Two ways I can think of fixing it - one is offering simple, straightforward hearings in front of a judge with the power to use their own judgement (instead of relying on overly-specific, exploitable laws); the other is to implement some counterbalance punitive fee for wrongly harassing citizens - something that decreases the profit ratio for predators and makes defending people in otherwise unprofitable cases profitable.

rayiner 13y ago
What do you think was happening in the months and months before the lien sale happened? There were a million opportunities to avoid the whole process through a straightforward administrative process, no lawyers involved.
- gutnor 13y ago
  That assumes you are still capable to follow that process. Apparently the current procedure does not take your present circumstances into account. (like mild dementia, alzeihmer, nursing home example in the article) In Europe, once you get too incapacitated to take care of your stuff, social security take you in charge. After you die, they repossess your property and sell them to recover their cost. What's left is then given to whoever is supposed to inherit. I am not quite sure what would be acceptable with the more liberal US culture, but profiteering of the weak is certainly not an american value.
  - toomuchtodo 13y ago
    >but profiteering of the weak is certainly not an american value. Clearly, yes, it has become that. Each day, I become more ashamed of where I live.
derleth 13y ago
> a judge with the power to use their own judgement (instead of relying on overly-specific, exploitable laws); Yes, because a single corrupt or idiotic or assholic judge should be able to ruin lives left and right without regard for the law. > the other is to implement some counterbalance punitive fee for wrongly harassing citizens - something that decreases the profit ratio for predators and makes defending people in otherwise unprofitable cases profitable. And you have another system to game, another way for the scummy lawyers to beat people over the head to prevent their crimes from being punished.
- briancaw2 13y ago
  I'd rather take my chances with a judge than nearly guaranteeing failure in the current system. We already do this with small-claims court I believe and to be honest I'm not sure of the differences between that and a court that would handle a tax lien. And yes, any system you make could be gamed, but you could make one that is harder to game than the current one.
  - derleth 13y ago
    > I'd rather take my chances with a judge than nearly guaranteeing failure in the current system. Ah yes, the "Let that person solve it" school of fixing major social problems. It works really well right up until it fails really badly: George Washington was, for a while, effectively a dictator in that he could have been President-For-Life long before we came to associate that concept with bad outcomes; sadly, for every Washington who willingly resigns and refuses dictatorial powers, there are multiple leaders who exploit them to the fullest, possibly with good intentions to begin with, but that gets lost on the way to having a syphilitic strongman who eats the flesh of his enemies. > We already do this with small-claims court I believe and to be honest I'm not sure of the differences between that and a court that would handle a tax lien. Small-claims courts are, by their very nature, both high-volume and self-limiting: A judge-dominated process is necessary because we can't afford a jury to sit on every case involving piddling small change, and the fact they are limited to piddling small change means the amount of damage a judge can do is extremely limited. It's a trade-off, not a broad social principle.
do-it-good 13y ago
The complexity of the laws is not a coincidence: 1. It gives more power to the government and less power to the people. 2. The majority of lawmakers are lawyers - complexity means them more job/business opportunities and significance in society.
- muzz 13y ago
  Did you even read the article? It points out this arose from a change in 2001 that occurred because the agency was trying to do LESS work, not more. "But the work overwhelmed the agency, and in 2001, city leaders made a critical change: They told investors to head directly to court to file a foreclosure case. The move empowered investors to start charging legal fees and court costs — a game changer that allowed them to turn minor delinquencies into insurmountable debts."
- csallen 13y ago
  Motive alone does not a case make.
- 31reasons 13y ago
  Law is ripe for disruption. We need something like IBM's Watson to fight the complexity.
  - do-it-good 13y ago
    No, that won't help. When accountants got electronic spreadsheets, the complexity of accounting laws rised 50 fold.
rayiner 13y ago
> Two ways I can think of fixing it - one is offering simple, straightforward hearings in front of a judge with the power to use their own judgement (instead of relying on overly-specific, exploitable laws) Administrative hearings are used in a wide range of situations in the U.S. For example, when applying for federal benefits or under compensation programs. They're not a panacea. As organizations, they tend to become biased towards one side or the other. Good luck getting the Department of Labor to rule your way as an employer. One of the values of lawyers is that they force decision makers to justify their decisions to a sophisticated party, which reduces the tendency towards systematic bias or alternatively arbitrary action. In the context of foreclosures generally, lawyers protect the lenders' interests. Foreclosure is already heavily stacked against the lender. The homeowner has months or sometimes years and numerous second chances to come up with the delinquent payments. Do we need to make the system even more biased by getting rid of the rules and letting a judge decide based on who has the most heartbreaking reason for not paying what they owe? Incidentally, this situation also clearly demonstrates why the "loser pays legal expenses" rule is a bad one. When the loser pays, the biggest entity in the litigation has no incentive to reign in its legal expenses. Imagine applying "loser pays" to banks in foreclosure proceedings.

rayiner 13y ago

What do you think was happening in the months and months before the lien sale happened? There were a million opportunities to avoid the whole process through a straightforward administrative process, no lawyers involved.

gutnor 13y ago
That assumes you are still capable to follow that process. Apparently the current procedure does not take your present circumstances into account. (like mild dementia, alzeihmer, nursing home example in the article) In Europe, once you get too incapacitated to take care of your stuff, social security take you in charge. After you die, they repossess your property and sell them to recover their cost. What's left is then given to whoever is supposed to inherit. I am not quite sure what would be acceptable with the more liberal US culture, but profiteering of the weak is certainly not an american value.
- toomuchtodo 13y ago
  >but profiteering of the weak is certainly not an american value. Clearly, yes, it has become that. Each day, I become more ashamed of where I live.

derleth 13y ago

> a judge with the power to use their own judgement (instead of relying on overly-specific, exploitable laws); Yes, because a single corrupt or idiotic or assholic judge should be able to ruin lives left and right without regard for the law. > the other is to implement some counterbalance punitive fee for wrongly harassing citizens - something that decreases the profit ratio for predators and makes defending people in otherwise unprofitable cases profitable. And you have another system to game, another way for the scummy lawyers to beat people over the head to prevent their crimes from being punished.

briancaw2 13y ago
I'd rather take my chances with a judge than nearly guaranteeing failure in the current system. We already do this with small-claims court I believe and to be honest I'm not sure of the differences between that and a court that would handle a tax lien. And yes, any system you make could be gamed, but you could make one that is harder to game than the current one.
- derleth 13y ago
  > I'd rather take my chances with a judge than nearly guaranteeing failure in the current system. Ah yes, the "Let that person solve it" school of fixing major social problems. It works really well right up until it fails really badly: George Washington was, for a while, effectively a dictator in that he could have been President-For-Life long before we came to associate that concept with bad outcomes; sadly, for every Washington who willingly resigns and refuses dictatorial powers, there are multiple leaders who exploit them to the fullest, possibly with good intentions to begin with, but that gets lost on the way to having a syphilitic strongman who eats the flesh of his enemies. > We already do this with small-claims court I believe and to be honest I'm not sure of the differences between that and a court that would handle a tax lien. Small-claims courts are, by their very nature, both high-volume and self-limiting: A judge-dominated process is necessary because we can't afford a jury to sit on every case involving piddling small change, and the fact they are limited to piddling small change means the amount of damage a judge can do is extremely limited. It's a trade-off, not a broad social principle.

do-it-good 13y ago

The complexity of the laws is not a coincidence: 1. It gives more power to the government and less power to the people. 2. The majority of lawmakers are lawyers - complexity means them more job/business opportunities and significance in society.

muzz 13y ago
Did you even read the article? It points out this arose from a change in 2001 that occurred because the agency was trying to do LESS work, not more. "But the work overwhelmed the agency, and in 2001, city leaders made a critical change: They told investors to head directly to court to file a foreclosure case. The move empowered investors to start charging legal fees and court costs — a game changer that allowed them to turn minor delinquencies into insurmountable debts."
csallen 13y ago
Motive alone does not a case make.
31reasons 13y ago
Law is ripe for disruption. We need something like IBM's Watson to fight the complexity.
- do-it-good 13y ago
  No, that won't help. When accountants got electronic spreadsheets, the complexity of accounting laws rised 50 fold.

rayiner 13y ago

> Two ways I can think of fixing it - one is offering simple, straightforward hearings in front of a judge with the power to use their own judgement (instead of relying on overly-specific, exploitable laws) Administrative hearings are used in a wide range of situations in the U.S. For example, when applying for federal benefits or under compensation programs. They're not a panacea. As organizations, they tend to become biased towards one side or the other. Good luck getting the Department of Labor to rule your way as an employer. One of the values of lawyers is that they force decision makers to justify their decisions to a sophisticated party, which reduces the tendency towards systematic bias or alternatively arbitrary action. In the context of foreclosures generally, lawyers protect the lenders' interests. Foreclosure is already heavily stacked against the lender. The homeowner has months or sometimes years and numerous second chances to come up with the delinquent payments. Do we need to make the system even more biased by getting rid of the rules and letting a judge decide based on who has the most heartbreaking reason for not paying what they owe? Incidentally, this situation also clearly demonstrates why the "loser pays legal expenses" rule is a bad one. When the loser pays, the biggest entity in the litigation has no incentive to reign in its legal expenses. Imagine applying "loser pays" to banks in foreclosure proceedings.