Big banks and over-committed mortgage-holders have been under the foreclosure microscope for a long time. Foreclosure lawyers are next up for scrutiny; according to an article from The New York Times, an increasing number of judges are accusing lawyers of processing inaccurate and even fabricated documents in foreclosure actions when representing banks. Are these accusations accurate, and if so, what is the source of the problem?
All this week, we are looking back at the events that triggered the financial meltdown, one year ago. Today, we focus on the housing market, then and now. We talk to economist Robert Shiller, of the Case-Shiller home-price index, who was among the few experts to warn of the coming housing crisis. We also speak to New York State Supreme Court Judge Arthur Schack, who has a penchant for halting the bank foreclosures that come before his bench. (Read his profile in the New York Times, "A ‘Little Judge’ Who Rejects Foreclosures, Brooklyn Style") And we also talk to Pamela Zombeck, who is struggling to hold on to her home in Salem, Massachusetts.
Listen to more housing stories in this series.
"A lot of the paperwork I find from banks, is insufficient, it's not accurate, there's sloppiness so I believe there has to be a level playing field for homeowners as well as banks."
—Judge Arthur Schack, New York State Supreme Court judge on one of the reasons why he's thrown out 46 of the 102 foreclosure motions that have come before him.
The show is a co-production of WNYC Radio and Public Radio International, in collaboration with The BBC World Service, New York Times Radio and WGBH Boston.
Major funding provided by:
