It seems like this would be challanged (sucessfully) in court since the laws when the contract was signed didnt allow modification. I can understand how they could mandate that future mortgages are capable of being modified but not those already written… seems kinda like ex post facto.
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, October 29th, 2008 at 3:05 pm and is filed under Bankruptcy Law.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.
October 31st, 2008 at 12:46 pm
I’m with you on this.
November 3rd, 2008 at 9:15 am
1. Ex post facto means that Congress is prohibited from making a law retroactively punitive. i.e. Congress couldn’t pass a law saying that drinking is illegal again and punish people who drank before the law went into effect. It affects criminal statutes only.
2. Congress is just being Congress. They know there is a large likelyhood that this can be overturned. They just want to tell peopl that they tried.
November 4th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Because the democrats currently in control of congress don’t believe we are smart enough to negotiate our own contracts. While that may be true in some cases, the courts shouldn’t be stepping in to alter them.