ok.

Post #333,115 by beepster 9/25/10 2:22:57 PM Reply	ok. just destroying the entire concept of jurisprudence by having a government agency validate against a government record. Both public record. Maybe, instead, move that initial validation to the appraiser. Nope. Clerks are stupid and the information cannot be trusted. Oop. Lets just be hard on the banks and force them to do something...and we can trust them to make sure it happens. Ok. Your solution is better. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #333,116 by Another Scott 9/25/10 2:39:50 PM Reply	You've heard of "separation of powers" I assume? Earlier you tried to relate this thread to communications problems before 9/11. Those problems were between executive branch agencies (FBI/CIA) or between Federal and State/Local agencies (radio frequencies). Not between the Executive and the Courts. The courts have no business asking for information from an executive agency (and vice versa). That's not how courts work; that's not permitted under separation of powers. You should know this. It's not the job of the court to collect its own information. https://www.bcpasecu...d/InfoBroward.asp Our office makes every effort to produce and publish the most accurate and current information available. We change our ownership records based on deeds as recorded with the Broward County Recording Division. We are not an abstract company so we don't determine who has the better title to property if the public records conflict as to ownership. Most of our dimensions (building and land) are "adjusted" in a consistent and accurate manner for use in our appraisal system, but are not the same square footages that would be measured with a tape measure. For example, if our records show a lot as having 110 front feet, the lot may actually be 100 feet on the street with an extra depth factor. We are furnishing you this information without warranty, expressed or implied, of merchantability, fitness, for any particular purpose, or accuracy. [...] If you want the county Appraiser's Office to investigate the accuracy of information presented to them, be prepared to a lot pay for it. Even if they take on that role, the court has no business contacting them. Lets just be hard on the banks and force them to do something...and we can trust them to make sure it happens. What's so onerous about making a plaintiff present accurate information in court? Why are you continuing to be BoA's apologist here? Cheers, Scott.
Post #333,117 by beepster 9/25/10 2:44:09 PM Reply	not talking about the radio problem and, though they haven't been bought by everyone yet, even that issue has been solved. I was talking about inter-agency communication. I'm not apologizing for anyone. But you seem to be protecting the status quo, which currently even has the Courts favoring the banks. So while you certainly mean well, you are advocating changing nothing. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #333,120 by Another Scott 9/25/10 3:46:20 PM Reply	The system is pretty good. Courts and land record offices aren't on the same side of the fence. They've got no business talking directly, as I said before. Yes, the system favors the banks. The banks and their agents have the vast majority of the power in any dispute with a single homeowner. It's another example that illustrates we have a system that often tilts the burden away from those with economic power. That problem can be solved by enforcing existing rules about information presented in court. It's not unreasonable that the banks bringing an action, like any plaintiff, present correct information. That's been the standard for all civil cases for hundreds of years. You know, there's a slightly more sensible proposal if you're really worried about people losing their homes through court actions that they know nothing about. We could have a system where a court appoints a "public defender" for such people. You could at least argue that there are no separation of powers issues, no vast new data entry and keeping systems needed, no appeals for perfect data that eliminates mistakes, no shifting of responsibility to different entities. I would probably still disagree with it as over-reaching (what about car repossessions, evictions from apartments, contract disputes, etc., etc. - it would quickly balloon out of control and involve the state in paying for arguments between parties in private disputes), but it makes more sense than your proposal. Every system has corner cases and incorrect results on occasion. Film at 11:00. That doesn't mean the system needs a wholesale restructuring (as your proposal would entail). Your hypothetical system in which perfect online data is collected and verified by clerks with cost savings is a pipe dream. And - here's the important part - even if we accept that such a system could be built, that doesn't mean the burden of proof should be shifted to the courts or the recording offices. The court and those who manage the perfect database have no business being a party in a civil suit. The burden of proof belongs with those bringing the action - BoA and their agents. In a civil case, the court is there to decide between sides - not be an agent itself. Nobody, except you, is making categorical statements that the existing system cannot be improved. Some of us, though, think it can be done by (among other things) extracting significant sanctions from those who brought the mistaken action in the first place (BoA and the other bank and their agents in this thread) as the system provides. Maybe, if it costs them a few million dollars each time they get caught like this, they'll hire enough people to do the job properly. Cheers, Scott.

Welcome to IWETHEY!