Governor Patrick understood the problems with Senate 1987 and refused to sign it. He reviewed this legislation which would have cut homeowners rights from the historic 20 years to sue to regain their home after it was surreptitiously reduced to one year for folks who were already foreclosed. Governor Patrick listened to the thousands who have been touched by foreclosure who called his office. Governor Patrick reinserted an amendment shortening the window from 20 to only 10 years as activists had fought hard for.
Governor Patrick came to understand that this was a protectionist bill. A bill for those who had destroyed not only the ownership of those foreclosed, but the clarity of the ownership of hundreds of thousands of more property owners. Governor Patrick understood that a one year window for the 65,000 plus households already foreclosed meant a massive attempt at stripping homeowners of their rights, particularly communities of color and women who had been targeted for the now illegal subprime loans. These are the people who got foreclosed early in the crisis; the people who had some of the most egregious problems with their loans would have been the first to lose their rights.
Martha Coakley, however, masked her support for the most destructive, industry-driven piece of legislation throughout this entire foreclosure crisis. Martha Coakley gave the bill the false appearance of helping homeowners. This bill did not clear titles to properties for those foreclosed, nor for any future purchasers. Martha Coakley supported taking property rights that we have had since we were subjects of the King of England The press release when Senate bill 1987 first passed the state Senate, reported:
“Attorney General Martha Coakley said the bill is intended to provide predictability for property owners and additional consumer protections to those whose property may have been wrongfully foreclosed on.”
It has taken years for our state courts to become educated on foreclosures; since foreclosures in our state don’t require a day in court, judges hadn’t seen any litigation related to foreclosures in at least a decade and a half. As more and more industry procedures are exposed, we now know that a huge percentage of those foreclosures were illegal. The press release quoted above publicly recognized the widespread illegalities including by Coakley’s own admission.
Yet our top law enforcement officer, the “people’s lawyer” as present candidates refer to the office, piled on the band wagon to say that the appropriate response to thousands and thousands of illegal foreclosures was to almost completely slam the window on homeowners right to regain their home!
The industry that wrote this bill and lobbied for it were title insurers. This bill would save them on paying for titles that they should never have insured. Governor Patrick saw this as a win for the industry and no one else.
As Martha Coakley leaves the office having built her early fame on pro-active legal action on behalf of foreclosed homeowners, it is amazing that one of her final acts will have been to support legislation that would strip people of their property rights.
Christopher says
…that Coakley went to bat for homeowners to keep them in their homes and out of foreclosure. Can someone verify this or tell me what I’m missing?
chrisahorton says
It gripes me that everyone still thinks Coakley’s so good on foreclosures. The settlements she settled for were pathetic – $500 compensation for having had your home stolen was typical. Or money for a loan modification program which did nothing to address the problem that the banks weren’t negotiating in good faith.
She has repeatedly dodged providing any kind of support for or coordination with the organized homeowners and former homeowners fighting the banks. And now this.
When I challenged her on her failure to work with groups like MAAPL and City Life she said she couldn’t give then any special treatment above all the other agencies working on foreclosures, she was working with them all. She was unable to answer the question: what is the difference between an agency and a movement?
Her explanation for supporting the terrible S1987, which would have cut off most of the people foreclosed early in the crisis from suing, now that enough cases have been won and facts brought out to make it possible: she doesn’t consider their concerns more important than those of the real estate investors and speculators who are buying and flipping these stolen properties.
Charlie Baker has only one hope of winning the Governorship, and her name is Martha. She totally doesn’t get the class issue, and this is one of the many places it shows.
petr says
…Four days prior to the primary somebody– breathlessy. and I’m certain selflessly– logs onto BMG to warn us unsuspecting simpletons of our impending mistake…
Thanks, Mr Kent, whatever would we do without you?!?!?
striker57 says
oh yes, and the middle east crisis, and ISOS, and the 2008 stock market crash. These stupid voters just don’t understand.
paulsimmons says
From the State House News Service (August 12, 2014):
striker57 says
Ah yes the press release exists and if you want to pretend that the one paragraph in the press release of August 12, 2014 – concerning a statement made in 7 months earlier – tells the whole story you are welcome to your delusion.
The Bill was origional filed by State Senator Michael Moore and then adopted by the Senate Ways & Means Committee. AG Coakley was neither a filer nor sponsor of the bill. S1987 passed the State Senate 38-0 – take a look at the roll call for the Bill:
S. 1987 — Question on passing the bill to be engrossed Senate — Roll Call #239
Barrett, Michael J. Brewer, Stephen M. Brownsberger, William N. Candaras, Gale D. Chandler, Harriette L. Chang-Diaz, Sonia Creem, Cynthia Stone DiDomenico, Sal N. Donnelly, Kenneth J. Donoghue, Eileen M. Downing, Benjamin B. Eldridge, James B. Finegold, Barry R. Flanagan, Jennifer L. Forry, Linda Dorcena Hedlund, Robert L. Humason, Donald F., Jr. Jehlen, Patricia D.
Joyce, Brian A.
Keenan, John F. Kennedy, Thomas P. Lovely, Joan B.
McGee, Thomas M. Montigny, Mark C. Moore, Michael O. Moore, Richard T. O’Connor Ives, Kathleen Pacheco, Marc R. Petruccelli, Anthony Rodrigues, Michael J. Rosenberg, Stanley C. Ross, Richard J.
Rush, Michael F. Spilka, Karen E. Tarr, Bruce E. Timilty, James E. Welch, James T. Wolf, Daniel A. − 38.
YEAS.
NAYS − 0.
https://malegislature.gov/Document/RollCall/188/Senate/239.pdf
Seems every progressive State Senator in the Commonwealth voted in favor. Including a candidate for State Treasurer – yet none were mentioned by someone posting for the first time on BMG. How odd.
The Legislature attempted to deal with an issue facing homeowners who purchased foreclosed properties. I don’t think they handled it very well and I believe Governor Patrick was correct in sending the bill back with a 10-year window. Congrats to the advocates who worked so hard to oppose the bill.
However, if AG Coakley is somehow responsible for a bill she never filed or voted on than just imagine how responsible the State Senators who voted 38-0 in favor of the bill are. Note that this was a recorded roll call so each knew they were on the record. Imagine Senators Chang-Diaz and Dorcena Forry intent to pass a bill that is “directed against ethnic minority communities”.
Attorney General Coakley’s record taking on banks, the finance industry and predatory lenders is well documented and intact. This post is nothing more than a last minute smear attempt.
judy-meredith says
Advocates for foreclosure protections were very very disappointed with so many “progressive” legislators who got suckered in by the lending industry and very relieved when the Governor intervened.
Thanks go the dozens of anti foreclosure groups all over the state who never gave up.
fenway49 says
Striker’s main goal of exonerating Coakley falls short. Others may merit blame, even more blame perhaps. It may have been posted by a political opponent’s supporters. She’s still on the wrong side of the issue. That she’s not alone is a partial defense at best.
bob-gardner says
I’m willing to accept Striker’s excuse that Coakley got her name associated with a bill than she neither filed or voted for, and apparently didn’t understand. It’s not the worst thing a politician has ever done.
Still, I’m grateful that it was Governor Patrick, and not Governor Coakley who had the last word.
Meanwhile, the “progressive” legislators who voted for this bill owe us an explanation, don’t you think? What mixture of laziness, stupidity and corruption led them to cozy up to the banking industry, and to ignore advocates like Charles Ogletree?
striker57 says
I was reacting to an attempt to falsely hang this entire situation around AG Coakley’s neck a few days out from the primary. The headline of the post was that AG Coakley had failed in an attempt to deny homeowners rights – that was clearly false. Even a small amount of google research showed Coakley made a statement about the bill after it passed the Senate and 7 months before it reached the Governor’s desk. She neither filed it, sponsored it nor (at least that I can find) publically commented on it as it went through the legislative process.
As a strong Coakley supporter I believe she was wrong in January 2014 on this bill. I don’t think advocates really began the push back until after the Senate vote and I suspect that a great many Legislators are rethinking their votes after Governor Patrick’s action. My point about the roll call was not the “everyones doing it” defense – it was about the attempt to place all the blame squarely on one individual as a campaign ploy. It was a dishonest post, plain and simple.
As for how “Governor Coakley” might have reacted to the bill hitting her desk, perhaps 7 months of active lobbying might have moved her initial position. I do know I couldn’t find any documentation of Coakley pushing the bill after that January statement.
I’ve never met a candidate or elected official I agreed with 100%. Policy has shades of gray, it’s not all black and white. I look for the candidates that have a good heart and whose impluse is to be on the right side a vast majority of the time.
As for the progressive elected officials who voted for S1987, they have the opportunity to correct that by pushing for the Governor’s 10 year amendment.
And I do need to give a shout out to State Rep. Denise Provost who filed and won the vote to amend the House version to 10 years. I couldn’t find a roll call on her amendment, so I can only tip my hat to Rep. Provost for standing up for homeowners.
judy-meredith says
They sure are — once again thanks to the advocates who failed to convince the progressives to stop the bill, were able to convince Deval to offer a correcting amendment. Here’s the Globe story.
Say “Thank you Grace”
SomervilleTom says
I met Ms. Provost for the first time while we were both picketing a restaurant in Davis Square that refused to pay its workers. I was happily amazed and astonished to discover in a getting-to-know-each-other conversation that this sign-carrying fellow demonstrator was my state rep.
I can’t think of a single one of her votes that I’ve disagreed with.
jconway says
And Pat Jehlen is an awesome State Senator-very happy to have her roe resent my old corner of Cambridge.
Christopher says
….that a more or less unanimous Senate and the Governor can all be wrong. When the vote is that overwhelming I’m inclined to give the benefit of any doubt.
fenway49 says
We’re not on the same page, though. The Senate bill would have frozen out homeowners wrongly foreclosed upon after one year.the Governor’s amendment changes that to 10 years, a big deal.
Haven’t we seen that our legislature has a lot of near-unanimous votes once leadership settles on a position? They’re not all good bills.
fenway49 says
“WERE not on the same page.” No apostrophe intended. Stupid auto-correct.
striker57 says
included the 10 year amendment. It was dropped in conference it seems. The House and Governoe were on one side and the Senate on the other.