Actions over Mortgages must take account of EU rules.

Squiggle

How can possession orders be granted in the light of this judgement by Judge Max Barrett? If it's the case that:

"The EU rule imposes an obligation on courts in such cases, regardless of whether they are asked to do so or not, to examine the mortgage contract and decide if any of its terms are unfair."

how can cases proceed? I also see that, just before Christmas, the Waterford county registrar suspended all repossession cases pending clarification form the High court. See here.

CIARAN_BOYLE

Well the court must now consider if the mortgage is unfair before granting a possession order. It is an extra thing to examine in the courts. Not a total roadblock. 
Are you arguing that possession orders can't be granted because Mortgages are unfair in general?

Robbo

Worst case scenario for the banks, they'll need some new blue pencils. This isn't going to result in the Free Gaff Bonanza that it's being promoted at in some quarters.

It's also worth noting that the mortgage terms in the Spanish cases there quite onerous by any standard. Default interest rates of 18% and the very little opportunity to raise objections at first instance.

Squiggle

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Well the court must now consider if the mortgage is unfair before granting a possession order. It is an extra thing to examine in the courts. Not a total roadblock. 
Are you arguing that possession orders can't be granted because Mortgages are unfair in general?

No not at all - I meant how can a possession order be granted without taking account of EU law. I'm wondering is it actually the case that the courts are considering EU law before making an order, since , from the link above:

" The EU rule imposes an obligation on courts in such cases, regardless of whether they are asked to do so or not, to examine the mortgage contract and decide if any of its terms are unfair. "

Peregrinus

Well, if neither party raises the issue, and the court doesn't examine it of it's own volition, then it might be possible on appeal to get the possession order set aside and have the case remitted to the lower court to consider it properly.

The thing is, if neither party has raised the issue at the trial, how likely are they to make the issue the basis of an appeal? Sure, there'll be a transitional period where possession orders have already been granted with nobody having raised the issue and the time for appeal has not yet expired, but what will happen in any new application for a possession order that comes before the courts?

What will happen is that the mortgagee's lawyers will raise the issue of fairness, making submissions that the mortgage terms are indeed fair. The mortgagor will have an opportunity to respond to those submissions, and/or to make submissions of its own. Why will mortgagees do this? Because, really, they don't want to get a possession order that is liable to be overturned on appeal. Therefore, they'll want it on the record that fairness of terms was addressed by the court.

Mortgage documents are pretty standard. If any court does refuse a possession order on the grounds that a standard term is unfair, the banks will appeal that all the way, for obvious reasons. They'll hope to get a ruling that the term is not unfair. Either way, though, we'll pretty soon have an authoritative ruling on the fairness of the term, and therefore it won't be a source of uncertainty in future possession actions.

Squiggle

Either way, though, we'll pretty soon have an authoritative ruling on the fairness of the term, and therefore it won't be a source of uncertainty in future possession actions.

When is that ruling likely to be made and where would one find that official ruling ie can be viewed by the public?

Claw Hammer

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, if neither party raises the issue, and the court doesn't examine it of it's own volition, then it might be possible on appeal to get the possession order set aside and have the case remitted to the lower court to consider it properly.

It would only go back to the lower court on appeal from a judicial Review. Max Barrett has been frequently overturned and it would be a novel approach to say that in an inter partes hearing the Court can't assume that a matter not raised by either of the parties as being in dispute that it should examine the issue of its own motion.

Peregrinus

Squiggle wrote: »

When is that ruling likely to be made and where would one find that official ruling ie can be viewed by the public?

Who knows when it will be made? What you're looking for is the following sequence of events: (a) in an action for possession by a mortgagee, the court considers the terms of the mortgage, finds one of them to be unfair, and refuses a possession order; (b) the mortgagee appeals; (c) the appeal court delivers a reasoned judgment holding that the term in question either is, or is not, unfair.

Or it could work the other way; the court at first instance finds the term to be fair, the mortgagor appeals, the appeal court delivers a ruling, one way or the other.

Either way, the appeal court's judgment (unless further appealed and reversed) will constitute a precedent binding the lower courts. Precedents are signficant here, because so many mortgages are document on standard terms; once the terms has been found to be fair (or unfair) in one mortgage then, in the absence of unusual circumstances, it's likely to be fair in all the other mortgage documents in which it appears.

It'll be available in the usual online and printed resources that carry the judgments of the superior courts, among them this one and this one and this one.

Claw Hammer

Claw Hammer wrote: »

It would only go back to the lower court on appeal from a judicial Review. Max Barrett has been frequently overturned and it would be a novel approach to say that in an inter partes hearing the Court can't assume that a matter not raised by either of the parties as being in dispute that it should examine the issue of its own motion.

Barrett's judgment is either moot or obiter in Counihan.

4ensic15

Deleted User wrote: »

Barrett's judgment is either moot or obiter in Counihan.

Which is it. Moot or obiter?

4ensic15

4ensic15 wrote: »

Which is it. Moot or obiter?

I say obiter.

Forbearance

Claw Hammer wrote: »

It would only go back to the lower court on appeal from a judicial Review. Max Barrett has been frequently overturned and it would be a novel approach to say that in an inter partes hearing the Court can't assume that a matter not raised by either of the parties as being in dispute that it should examine the issue of its own motion.

Claw hammer, look up ECJ case 243/08 and revert. I was wondering how long it would take for the legal eagles in this banana republic, including the Dept of Finance to get caught with their pants around their ankles. Do not forget, this judgment was given way back in 2009, so far from novel. The ramifications regarding State liability to all those poor unfortunates who lost their homes via County Court Registrars granting possession orders to date, is immense.

Here's a cut and paste of the judgment:-


On those grounds, the Court (Fourth Chamber) hereby rules:

1. Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993, on unfair terms in consumer contracts, must be interpreted as meaning that an unfair contract term is not binding on the consumer, and it is not necessary, in that regard, for that consumer to have successfully contested the validity of such a term beforehand.

2. The national court is required to examine, of its own motion, the unfairness of a contractual term where it has available to it the legal and factual elements necessary for that task. Where it considers such a term to be unfair, it must not apply it, except if the consumer opposes that non-application. That duty is also incumbent on the national court when it is ascertaining its own territorial jurisdiction.

3. It is for the national court to determine whether a contractual term, such as that which is the subject-matter of the dispute in the main proceedings, satisfies the criteria to be categorised as unfair within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13. In so doing, the national court must take account of the fact that a term, contained in a contract concluded between a consumer and a seller or supplier, which has been included without being individually negotiated and which confers exclusive jurisdiction on the court in the territorial jurisdiction of which the seller or supplier has his principal place of business may be considered to be unfair.

cobhguy28

Forbearance wrote: »

Claw hammer, look up ECJ case 243/08 and revert. I was wondering how long it would take for the legal eagles in this banana republic, including the Dept of Finance to get caught with their pants around their ankles. Do not forget, this judgment was given way back in 2009, so far from novel. The ramifications regarding State liability to all those poor unfortunates who lost their homes via County Court Registrars granting possession orders to date, is immense.

Here's a cut and paste of the judgment:-


On those grounds, the Court (Fourth Chamber) hereby rules:

1. Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993, on unfair terms in consumer contracts, must be interpreted as meaning that an unfair contract term is not binding on the consumer, and it is not necessary, in that regard, for that consumer to have successfully contested the validity of such a term beforehand.

2. The national court is required to examine, of its own motion, the unfairness of a contractual term where it has available to it the legal and factual elements necessary for that task. Where it considers such a term to be unfair, it must not apply it, except if the consumer opposes that non-application. That duty is also incumbent on the national court when it is ascertaining its own territorial jurisdiction.

3. It is for the national court to determine whether a contractual term, such as that which is the subject-matter of the dispute in the main proceedings, satisfies the criteria to be categorised as unfair within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13. In so doing, the national court must take account of the fact that a term, contained in a contract concluded between a consumer and a seller or supplier, which has been included without being individually negotiated and which confers exclusive jurisdiction on the court in the territorial jurisdiction of which the seller or supplier has his principal place of business may be considered to be unfair.

This only becomes relevant if a term is found to go against the unfair terms and only if that term once found unfair would of been able to stop a repossession been giving. the recent case that this discussion is based on aib v counihan, found that it did not offend Europe regulations

"The judge made the comments even though he accepted the position put by Mr Fitzgerald, for the Counihans, that there were no terms in the couple’s AIB contract that offended the EU regulations."

Forbearance

European Directive 93/13/EEC has finally reared it's head in relation to determinations by Irish Courts, my concern is in relation to the possible State's liability in relation to repossession orders already granted by Registrars when such examinations have not occurred on their own motion. The legal action in this type of case would be for unlawful eviction! Breach of Constitutional rights, ECHR etc. if these orders have been executed. The Dept of Justice appeared to be at sea in it's response to Catherine Martin TD question and shows itself not to have a clue about the application of the said directive. See below and in particular the paragraph referring to County Registrars:-


The urgent need to consider a moratorium on family home repossessions in light of the High Court decision in AIB v Counihan of 21st December 2016 so that County Registrars can be fully informed of their obligations under EU Law to apply the terms of the Unfair Contract Terms Directive in repossession proceedings for family homes, and to address the urgent State liability thereto　

REVISED TEXT - Application of the unfair terms directive in repossessions of family homes　

Catherine Martin TD　

Response by Minister of State Dara Murphy TD on behalf of the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality, Frances Fitzgerald TD　

On behalf of the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality, I wish to thank the Deputy for raising the matter and the Tánaiste appreciates the Deputy’s interest in the current developments. The Tánaiste is aware of the High Court decision referenced and wishes to reassure the Deputy that this is currently being examined by the Department of Justice & Equality and the matter will be kept under review in terms of any definitive additional obligations which may arise and how they will be dealt with. 　

I would like to start by reiterating the Programme for Government commitment to “keep families in their homes and avoid repossessions insofar as possible”. In October the Government launched the new national mortgage arrears resolution service, Abhaile and further aspects of the handling of repossession cases in the Courts are being considered based on the Programme for Government. 　

As the Deputy will be aware, the courts are, subject only to the constitution and the law, independent in the exercise of their judicial functions and in the management and conduct of cases which come before them and the Tánaiste has no role in the matter.　

County Registrars are officers of the court and are independent in the exercise of their functions and duties under statute and rules of court and, as matter of law, may only make an order for possession of any land in cases where no defence to an action for possession has been delivered by the defendant or no appearance has been entered by the defendant. Therefore, the power of a County Registrar as regards making possession orders is extremely limited and where any defence is raised by the defendant, including any defence in relation to the nature or terms of the mortgage contract between the borrower and lender, the matter must, when it is in order for hearing, be transferred by the County Registrar to the judge’s list at the first opportunity. At that point it would be a matter for the judge to consider any such issues raised, including, if applicable, issues in relation to the EU Directive on Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts which was given effect to in Ireland by Regulations in 1995 and amending Regulations in 2000 and in 2013. In addition, all orders of a County Registrar are subject to appeal to the Circuit Court. 　

The Directive and Regulations are a matter for the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, and it is understood that the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission has supervisory powers to ensure compliance with the legislation.　

The raising of this issue, in relation to the matters for consideration by the Court in a possession case, underlines the critical importance of people who are in mortgage arrears on their homes and who have been issued with legal proceedings, engaging with their lender and with the court processes and entering a defence for the consideration of the court where they believe that they have a defence. 　

If they engage with the court processes they will be afforded the various forms of statutory and non-statutory protection provided for in the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2013 and the Personal Insolvency (Amendment) Act 2015. In addition, they will also have the possibility of availing of the free legal and financial advice services provided for under the Government’s Abhaile service launched in October 2016.　

This new initiative ensures that people who are in danger of losing their home have access to free professional advice, including advice from a Personal Insolvency Practitioner. Under this Scheme, home owners who are in arrears on their home mortgage and at risk of losing their homes are provided with access to free independent expert financial and legal advice and assistance, so that a solution can be put in place that will deal with their debt and keep them in their home, where that is a sustainable option.　

The Abhaile service is in addition to the help already available from MABS to homeowners in mortgage arrears. This includes the presence of MABS court mentors at all Circuit Court repossession hearings across the country to provide information and assistance to unrepresented borrowers; and providing in-house dedicated Mortgage Arrears advisers (DMA advisers) in MABS offices across the country, specifically to assist and negotiate on behalf of borrowers in mortgage arrears.　

ReddySteady

Forbearance, I have been following your threads with great interest, you certainly seem to be onto something whether it upsets the status quo or not. I would like to draw your attention to the European Court of Justice case C-49/14 Finanmadrid which totally backs up your argument.

From this judgment, Court Registrars appear to be exceeding their legal authority by granting possession orders in any circumstances.

ReddySteady

For viewers, here is the judgment of the ECJ in Finanmadrid;

On those grounds, the Court (First Chamber) hereby rules:

Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts precludes national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which does not permit the court ruling on the enforcement of an order for payment to assess of its own motion whether a term in a contract concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer is unfair, when the authority hearing the application for an order for payment does not have the power to make such an assessment.

cobhguy28

ReddySteady wrote: »

For viewers, here is the judgment of the ECJ in Finanmadrid;

On those grounds, the Court (First Chamber) hereby rules:

Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts precludes national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which does not permit the court ruling on the enforcement of an order for payment to assess of its own motion whether a term in a contract concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer is unfair, when the authority hearing the application for an order for payment does not have the power to make such an assessment.

If the register thinks or defendant thinks a term is unfair they can say there is a legal defence and send the case to full hearing however in the irish case, the judge said even if there is a term that might be unfair, this could still be resolved on summary submissions without a full hearing

Forbearance

The number of cases in the Irish Court system that have been decided upon following a full plenary hearing, in relation to European Directive 93/13/eec, is nil. We are the only Member State in the European Union where this is the case. Strange that !

Forbearance

cobhguy28 wrote: »

If the register thinks or defendant thinks a term is unfair they can say there is a legal defence and send the case to full hearing however in the irish case, the judge said even if there is a term that might be unfair, this could still be resolved on summary submissions without a full hearing

Is a registrar in this state a competent official to determine whether any mortgage contract has an unfair term in it, whether prompted to do so or not. I think the answer to this question is in the negative. This creates a possible State liability in this regard.

ReddySteady

How can you fight a bank on the unfair terms directive?

chops018

Skimmed through some of the posts in this thread. I read enough to know that this is more, borderline, freemen stuff.

As sad as some of the situations are, why can some people not understand that if you enter an agreement with a bank for a loan of money to buy a house, using that house as security for said loan, and you agree to pay it back then they can exercise their power of sale right under the mortgage terms to repossess the house. Why should someone get off with not paying while the majority of other people have to keep paying?

Anyway, it doesn't work in such a harsh way that if you miss say 3 payments you're then turfed out within weeks. It takes well over a year after starting Court proceedings to get possession orders. Actually, banks cannot even begin possession proceedings on home loans under CCMA legislation before following procedures set out in the legislation, this means they have to contact the customer a lot over the course of several months after the customer goes into arrears, to try and get a resolution i.e. the customer goes in to do a Standard Financial Statement and try to enter into some sort of payment plan that's sustainable to the customer and the bank. This is all before Court proceedings even begin, they then get Solicitors warning letters even before Court proceedings begin, and even when Court proceedings do actually begin the bank will stop same if an arrangement is made with the customer. There is plenty of protection for a customer in place, if they are willing to engage with the bank to try sort it out. Unfortunately, there can be some sad situations where a customer literally is unable to financially make an agreement with the bank. These are the sad cases that we all hate to hear about. But my main point is that there is legislation to protect them being turfed out quickly, and again it would be very, very unfair to the majority who keep up their payments if the banks didn't go after those who continually refused to pay.

Also, the banks don't even want to repossess a house. Once they do it has to be managed, sold etc. and then there is usually shortfall, which the customer is responsible for, but the banks will usually never get this back. They would much prefer to restructure the loan rather than go through all the above.

Finally, I will agree that it is terrible how arrears can stack up very big, this shouldn't be allowed to go past a certain figure. I really am not trying to offend anyone with my above opinions, I am sure anyone on the brink of repossession is going through what could only be described as hell, but all being said, there is no little loop holes denying the bank enforcing their loan, maybe delays at best, but at the end of the day you enter into an agreement to pay something back then this can be enforced, as sad as it is.

ReddySteady

chops018 wrote: »

Skimmed through some of the posts in this thread. I read enough to know that this is more, borderline, freemen stuff.

As sad as some of the situations are, why can some people not understand that if you enter an agreement with a bank for a loan of money to buy a house, using that house as security for said loan, and you agree to pay it back then they can exercise their power of sale right under the mortgage terms to repossess the house. Why should someone get off with not paying while the majority of other people have to keep paying?

Anyway, it doesn't work in such a harsh way that if you miss say 3 payments you're then turfed out within weeks. It takes well over a year after starting Court proceedings to get possession orders. Actually, banks cannot even begin possession proceedings on home loans under CCMA legislation before following procedures set out in the legislation, this means they have to contact the customer a lot over the course of several months after the customer goes into arrears, to try and get a resolution i.e. the customer goes in to do a Standard Financial Statement and try to enter into some sort of payment plan that's sustainable to the customer and the bank. This is all before Court proceedings even begin, they then get Solicitors warning letters even before Court proceedings begin, and even when Court proceedings do actually begin the bank will stop same if an arrangement is made with the customer. There is plenty of protection for a customer in place, if they are willing to engage with the bank to try sort it out. Unfortunately, there can be some sad situations where a customer literally is unable to financially make an agreement with the bank. These are the sad cases that we all hate to hear about. But my main point is that there is legislation to protect them being turfed out quickly, and again it would be very, very unfair to the majority who keep up their payments if the banks didn't go after those who continually refused to pay.

Also, the banks don't even want to repossess a house. Once they do it has to be managed, sold etc. and then there is usually shortfall, which the customer is responsible for, but the banks will usually never get this back. They would much prefer to restructure the loan rather than go through all the above.

Finally, I will agree that it is terrible how arrears can stack up very big, this shouldn't be allowed to go past a certain figure. I really am not trying to offend anyone with my above opinions, I am sure anyone on the brink of repossession is going through what could only be described as hell, but all being said, there is no little loop holes denying the bank enforcing their loan, maybe delays at best, but at the end of the day you enter into an agreement to pay something back then this can be enforced, as sad as it is.

Nice try CHOPS018 to rubbish this thread, but I went from Tanager issuing me with a formal demand due to being in arrears, to Tanager offering me a substantial discount. When I refused the offered discount, they increased same. I am currently in negotiations with them so please do not ask how much of a discount suffice to say, that it exceeds 40%. The discount is now worth well over 200,000 euro of REAL money. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Freeman stuff my arse.

ohnonotgmail

ReddySteady wrote: »

Nice try CHOPS018 to rubbish this thread, but I went from Tanager issuing me with a formal demand due to being in arrears, to Tanager offering me a substantial discount. When I refused the offered discount, they increased same. I am currently in negotiations with them so please do not ask how much of a discount suffice to say, that it exceeds 40%. The discount is now worth well over 200,000 euro of REAL money. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Freeman stuff my arse.

How is the discount offered by Tanager related to your OP?

davo10

ReddySteady wrote: »

Nice try CHOPS018 to rubbish this thread, but I went from Tanager issuing me with a formal demand due to being in arrears, to Tanager offering me a substantial discount. When I refused the offered discount, they increased same. I am currently in negotiations with them so please do not ask how much of a discount suffice to say, that it exceeds 40%. The discount is now worth well over 200,000 euro of REAL money. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Freeman stuff my arse.

You got a 200k discount on a 500k mortgage? I'm surprised you were not in the newspaper, that is some negotiating, and really difficult to believe considering a lender would be able to sell a property in a rising market for more than 60% of the original price in most cases.

chops018

ReddySteady wrote: »

Nice try CHOPS018 to rubbish this thread, but I went from Tanager issuing me with a formal demand due to being in arrears, to Tanager offering me a substantial discount. When I refused the offered discount, they increased same. I am currently in negotiations with them so please do not ask how much of a discount suffice to say, that it exceeds 40%. The discount is now worth well over 200,000 euro of REAL money. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Freeman stuff my arse.

Why do you think that you should be allowed to not pay back a loan under the terms and conditions that you agreed to, yet so many other people struggle to pay back their loan (mortgage) every month?

As I said, some situations are very sad, and there should be more help for people in significant arrears before they are thrown out. But my point is, if you agree to a loan to buy a property and then consistently can't pay it, why should you get away with it? I'm not talking about people who miss a few months payments when going through a bad patch, I'm talking about people who refuse to pay anything over several years. Why should everyone else bother to pay?

Well done on the use of capitals for my username, it really grabbed my attention. Also, why tell me to "put that in my pipe and smoke it", I disagreed with some posts on this thread but not yours specifically just in general, so I don't know why that warrants the response you just gave, I am not against you personally, I just gave an opinion. Seems like you have some sense of satisfaction in telling me about your "discount". That's fair enough that you're dealing with this, and I truly hope it gets sorted. But you're not in Court, if they really wanted they would proceed to Court, and a Court wouldn't listen to your points on "fighting the bank" with what you said on this thread. Anyway, Tanager seem like a debt collection company, I assume they bought a loan book full of bad loans for pittance compared to what they were originally worth to the original lender, the original lender are more than likely cutting their losses, and now Tanager, despite offering this discount, are still going to make money from you if you agree to a deal and start paying them, I'd say they're delighted that you're "negotiating" with them.

Forbearance

Hello Chop018, maybe the question you should really ask yourself is this, why did the banks in this Country lend so recklessly? and when the **** hit the fan, they went cap in hand to the Government, who bailed them out, with our taxpayers money. Your grandchildren's children will be paying for this bailout whether in USC charges or some other direct income tax, this is fact. If the banks abided by their own criteria in relation to assessing solvency, they would all have been declared commercial basket cases and insolvent. If you own a factory, selling widgets and the price you charged for each widget is too high compared with your competitors, then you go bust, but this is not the case if you are an Irish bank. These banks flouted their own capital requirements as required by the ECB and lent themselves into insolvency, yet the people who made these decisions got golden pensions, running, individually,into many 100,000's of Euro per annum, again bailed out on the back of the ordinary Irish citizen who will pay for these transgressions for many generations to come. Why? Because the rich said so.

jimmycrackcorm

Forbearance wrote:

Hello Chop018, maybe the question you should really ask yourself is this, why did the banks in this Country lend so recklessly? and when the **** hit the fan, they went cap in hand to the Government, who bailed them out, with our taxpayers money. Your grandchildren children will be paying for this bailout whether in USC charges or some other direct income tax, this is fact.

Let's be clear about one thing. Our grandchildren will be paying this debt through taxation because of people who decided to spend 500k on a house that they couldn't afford.

It's like blaming obesity on the fact that shops have sweet counters.

Forbearance

Nonsense, it's more like having drug dealers owning all the chemists in Ireland and then complaining that Ireland has a prescription drug problem! By the way we are going somewhat off thread.

Forbearance

davo10 wrote: »

You got a 200k discount on a 500k mortgage? I'm surprised you were not in the newspaper, that is some negotiating, and really difficult to believe considering a lender would be able to sell a property in a rising market for more than 60% of the original price in most cases.

Why do you think this vulture fund is offering such a generous discount ( it is widely published that they are offering substantial discounts ), maybe this vulture fund is in fact philanthropic or maybe and more likely, they cannot sell the property ( title issues ). In any case we are somewhat off thread, can we please return to the subject matter of the thread.

Robbo

Forbearance wrote: »

Why do you think this vulture fund is offering such a generous discount ( it is widely published that they are offering substantial discounts ), maybe this vulture fund is in fact philanthropic or maybe and more likely, they cannot sell the property ( title issues ). In any case we are somewhat off thread, can we please return to the subject matter of the thread.

Less of the backseat modding please.

ohnonotgmail

Forbearance wrote: »

Why do you think this vulture fund is offering such a generous discount ( it is widely published that they are offering substantial discounts ), maybe this vulture fund is in fact philanthropic or maybe and more likely, they cannot sell the property ( title issues ). In any case we are somewhat off thread, can we please return to the subject matter of the thread.

because they purchased the loans at an even more substantial discount? Its pretty basic economics.