Ibanez: Why the Banks Fought all the way to the Supreme Court to Steal this House


From Jan Van Eck:

In case anyone was ever curious as to the actual bricks-and-mortar house that everyone was fighting over in the Ibanez case, here it is in all its glory:

Keep in mind that it is in the Puerto Rican migrant section of Springfield, MA, a city so poor that it ended up in receivership. On a really really good day, before the "crisis," it was maybe worth $50,000 if you could finance with dubious papers. Today, zero. 

What on earth was US Bank thinking?  


U.S. Bank litigated all the way to the Massachusetts Supreme Court to steal this house and lost!


The Answer From Deadly Clear:


It’s the securitization scheme they are fighting for... see the patent (one of thousands) posted on DeadlyClear last night. Behind the curtain is a casino, trading every bit of debt they can seize. Debt is the commodity – if the homeowners win – they are dead. The bank has to fight. They need the property to create more debt to continue trading... even if it remains stagnant like the house in the photo – it gets repackaged and resold, swapped... even among themselves... a façade. 

FYI – the Bloomberg shots the UH guys have been running for the last 2 weeks are very telling... all of these trusts we are looking at are less than half active – meaning the banks are winding them down and most the tranches are being paid off. These are half or less full of the amount of active loans and value. I imagine this is why Obama thinks foreclosures are good for the economy – because they’ll empty all the trusts and then it will be okay to start all over again.


If U.S. Bank had won the case, this would have been their prize?  From Deadly Clear's explanation above

and the picture below, you can now understand why the "litigation to the death" is never about the house.