Louisiana Is Getting Ready To Settle With The Ftc Whether The La. Board Likes It Or Not

[Meandering]

This should be an open and shut flip the script case.

Here is the range of appraisers who provided the same or similar service,
here is the range of fees paid to them.
Here is the list of equally qualified appraisers in the same areas, who could not receive any work for their base fee requirement.

Yup, it aint rocket science.

Oh and how about,

reviewing all those records of excess fees returned to borrowers, when appraisers negotiated discounted fees to AMCs based on volume of work.

Now, that there, is what the FTC should be concerned about.

.

.

.

 

[Eli]

This should be an open and shut flip the script case.

Here is the range of appraisers who provided the same or similar service,
here is the range of fees paid to them.
Here is the list of equally qualified appraisers in the same areas, who could not receive any work for their base fee requirement.

Yup, it aint rocket science.

Oh and how about,

reviewing all those records of excess fees returned to borrowers, when appraisers negotiated discounted fees to AMCs based on volume of work.

Now, that there, is what the FTC should be concerned about.

.

.

.

Who cares about Truth in Lending? You know I am kidding a little. LA cares. Lol

I can't see how anybody thinks this is not tied to truth in lending.

I didn't see it then on non-separation of fees and C&R and I don't see it now!!!

Evidently, NJ agrees with me!

 

[Evincere]

Have we moved away from another presumption - the presumption of innocence?

I was under the impression that in the U.S. it was the accuser who had to prove the case. I have heard of countries where an accused had to prove innocence, but did not realize that we had gone that way.

Whose innocence? Coesters?

 

[Eli]

Back when all this started, things were way different relative to Antitrust and truth in lending. It's gonna be deep.

Don't blame a particular appraisal organization and say what they stand for either because LA have some heavy hitters behind them that belong to organizations.

 

[peturner]

A lot of loud mouths got quiet all of a sudden??

 

[DWiley]

Whose innocence? Coesters?

I was speaking in general terms, not of any particular case or defendant.

There was a post suggesting that an accused would have to prove his/her/its innocence, - I was simply pointing out that as I understand things in the United States, the accused, no matter who they are, begin with the presumption of innocence, and the burden is on the accuser/plaintiff to prove guilt. Is that not the case?

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

Is that not the case?

Only in a real court...

 

[djd09]

Presumed innocent. That is funny. Tell the feds that and their appointed administrative judges.

 

[Meandering]

I was speaking in general terms, not of any particular case or defendant.

There was a post suggesting that an accused would have to prove his/her/its innocence, - I was simply pointing out that as I understand things in the United States, the accused, no matter who they are, begin with the presumption of innocence, and the burden is on the accuser/plaintiff to prove guilt. Is that not the case?

No such post exists.

The post says that an AMC only qualifies to be "presumed" to pay C&R so long as they don't do those things each presumption says they can't do.

'Cause if they do those things, they don't qualify for a presumption.

It has nothing to do with guilty or innocent.
it has to do with qualifying to be "presumed" to comply.



Too many like to skip over those "qualifier" parts.


.

 

[Meandering]

I was speaking in general terms, not of any particular case or defendant.

There was a post suggesting that an accused would have to prove his/her/its innocence, - I was simply pointing out that as I understand things in the United States, the accused, no matter who they are, begin with the presumption of innocence, and the burden is on the accuser/plaintiff to prove guilt. Is that not the case?

See the other part is,

AMCs could just pay C&R and then they don't have to worry about what anyone is "presuming" about them.

See? Easy.

No presumption necessary.

Fast, easy, and much cheaper than proving every single appraiser fee paid qualified for a presumption that it was a C&R fee.




.