Monthly Archives: February 2009

I Suspect There’s A Poignant Story Here

On my way to class this morning, I saw this sitting there, with no one around:

trash-roses.jpg

When I came out of class an hour and a half later, it was gone.

Posted in Law School | 2 Comments

Five Seconds on Morning Drive Time

I'm on local radio this morning — about five seconds on WIOD 610 AM — talking about Facebook. It ran at 7:35 this morning and last night they said it would probably run several times during the morning cycle.

Posted in The Media | 3 Comments

Taking the Back of the Envelope to the Homeowner Bailout

The New York Times tells me that President Obama is proposing fifty billion to bailhelp out three million families who can't make their mortgage payments. That works out to an average of $16,666.66 each. Let's say we're going to help cover two year's payments – that's $694.77 /month. Which sounds like a lot.

But if you borrowed, say, $250,000 at 10% for 30 years, your monthly payment is $2193.90.

Let's imagine there's an insurance piece here (and, to make it really easy, that it's free and credible). Then our hypothetical borrower can refinance at the market rate of 5.27% (very optimistic, I know, given the likely credit history), lowering the monthly payment to $1383.61 Our hypothetical unemployed hard-luck case will still have to come up with $688.84 for the next two years, before the federal money runs out. Is that realistic?

I imagine one thing is that there's going to be more focus on insurance to allow refinance and/or encourage banks to swallow a cramdown and less on monthlies?

Oh heck. Should have started by reading Calculated Risk. According to Obama Housing Plan, it's $75 billion, and the NYT summary left out all the good details:

The plan contains two separate programs. One program is aimed at 4 to 5 million struggling homeowners with loans owned or guaranteed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac to help them refinance their mortgages through the two institutions.

A separate program would potentially help 3 to 4 million homeowners by allowing them to modify their mortgages to lower monthly interest rates through any participarting lender. Under this plan, the lender would voluntarily lower the interest rate and the government would provide subsidies to the lender.

Under the modification program which would involve government subsidies to lenders, lenders will be responsible for bringing down interest rates so that a borrower's monthly mortgage payment is no more than 38% of their pre-tax income. After that the government program would match the amount reduced by the lender to bring a homeowner's payments down to 31% of their pre-tax income.

And the money will come from stage two of the TARP Funds.

OK, that makes a little more sense. It will help people in the zone to be helped, but not the destitute. And there's lots of vigorish for the banks/servicing companies to create an incentive to do workouts (right now the servicing companies to whom all this is outsourced make much more money on the foreclosure, which is part of the reason they don't try real hard to do workouts).

[Update: I feel a little better noting that from the timestamps the Calculated Risk post wasn't up when I took out the envelope…]

Posted in Econ & Money: Mortgage Mess | 1 Comment

Bailouts

If I were Ford, which has been run soundly enough not to need bailouts, I'd be fairly unhappy about the prospect of $39 billion going to subsidize my improvident and incompetent competitors.

I'm not Ford, and I'm still unhappy about it.

On the other hand, I'm a homeowner but I don't object to $50 billion going to prop up people who cannot afford their mortgages and have fallen behind on their monthly payments. That's so even though only some are 'deserving': “Many took out loans they were never going to be able to afford, while others have since lost their jobs.”

If there's going to be a windfall, I'd just as soon it went to people who let the American Dream beguile them into buying modest homes they couldn't actually afford, whether or not the ultimate blame belongs to them or a fast-talking mortgage broker. Now, if we're subsidizing folks who traded up to McMansions, on the other hand….

Posted in Econ & Money: Mortgage Mess | 4 Comments

Secret Taping in Florida 10th Judicial Circuit Courts

This very confusing article entitled More questions about court recordings indeed raises more questions than it answers. Piecing together the story between the official obfuscation and the uneven writing, what seems to have been going on is…

  • Someone — we don't know who — in the state court system in the 10th Judicial Circuit installed an official backup taping system in the Florida state courts. At present no one is willing to take the credit for this innovation.
  • Signs were posted warning the public that taping was going on, but it is unclear if the signs referred to the primary system — which has “a blue indicator light [that] is apparent at the front of each courtroom” when it is on. More to the point, that appears to be what the public thought it meant.
  • The court staff indicates judges were aware of the system and could ask for it to be turned off; they also are now suggesting that it was used more in criminal than civil cases. But if there were court orders regarding when taping should be on or off, they have yet to be produced; it's likely that litigants were not informed one way or the other.
  • The tapes are public records covered by Florida's aggressive Sunshine Law — but the court staff are not responding very enthusiastically to record requests. They say they have to redact them first (I'm unclear as to how much redaction they are entitled to do).
  • Although this is particularly unclear from the article , there is some implication that the tapes might have able to capture sounds over the whole courtroom, not just the front.
  • Parties are concerned that private conversations with their lawyers may have been recorded.

Lots here that remains very murky. Florida is a two-party consent state for sound recording. Does putting up a sign in a court room suffice to get consent?

Posted in Florida, Law: Criminal Law, Law: Practice | 1 Comment

Chief Justice Roberts Makes Tactical Foray Into Partisan Politics?

Perhaps I'm just in a grumpy mood but I was somewhat taken aback by the Chief Justice's statements as reported in the New York Times's Sidebar – Judging the Merits of a Supreme Court Drawn Only From the Judiciary.

For the first time in its history, every member of the United States Supreme Court is a former federal appeals court judge. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., in a lively and surprising talk a couple of weeks ago, said that development might be a good thing.

Even the Times found that too much to swallow.

But there are reasons to question the chief justice’s conclusions.

The political scientists who study such things say there is no empirical support for the notion that former judges are more apt to feel constrained by earlier rulings or to suppress their political views. “Former appellate court judges are no more likely to follow precedent or to put aside their policy preferences than are justices lacking judicial experience,” according to a study to be published soon in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review.

It seems to me that this (empirically unsupported) claim that appellate judges are “less political” (and thus, presumably, “better”) is a remarkably partisan remark coming from the Chief Justice when it does. Who are the youngish appellate judges who might be appointed to the Supreme Court today? Why, it just happens that at present they just happen to be … wait for it … pretty much entirely a group of very-conservative to ultra-conservative appointees put on the bench by George W. Bush. Were President Obama to have to make an appointment in the near term, and were his goal to be to appoint a youngish non-conservative, the intersection of that set with sitting judges on the Courts of Appeal is approximately zero.

It is hard to see how this convenient fact could have been lost on someone as smart as the Chief Justice. In which case, I find a not-very-hidden agenda in his remarks: that of giving aid and comfort to any GOP attempt to block a non-judicial liberal from being put on the Court. And believe me, that's very much on the mind of the right-wing establishment. I would like to be wrong about this; I had hoped for better from him.

Posted in Law: The Supremes | 3 Comments