On a completely anecdotal note, I have personally noticed an increase in large trucks traffic in Tempe for the last month.  I have rarely seen a concrete truck, or a grading truck, or any other form of construction related truck for the last couple of years.  I believe it has actually been since around mid-2007 that I saw these trucks on the road on a regular basis near Tempe or Mesa or Chandler or even Phoenix.  However, in the last few months, I have noticed a marked increase in truck traffic.

I view this as being a substantial development in the economy of Phoenix and Tempe.  As most locals are aware, Phoenix’s and Tempe’s economy is largely based on the construction and development markets.  Spotting more construction traffic means that there is more construction work being done.  I can only hope that this continues and is a sign of the start of the recovery of Tempe’s and Phoenix’s economy.

Thank you for taking the time to read this article by Tempe based Bankruptcy Lawyer, Glenn Roethler, partner at Greeves, Price & Roethler, PLC.

It appears that SAAB will be the next recognizable car manufacturer finding it necessary to file bankruptcy.  SAAB is owned by Spyker Cars, a Dutch company.  Just today, Lars Holmqvist, President off the European Association of Automotive Suppliers, stated in an article by Radio Netherlands world wide:  “It is a great burden for Spyker boss Victor Muller to solve Saab’s problems. They seem too big.”

I take this news to be just another example of how poorly the economic recovery is going worldwide.  Everywhere you turn in the news media, the economy is in recovery and things are getting better.  Unfortunately, I do not see this as being the case.  Maybe I have a more cynical view of the state of the economy due to my profession as a bankruptcy lawyer, however, I believe my position provides me a realistic view of the economy for the normal person.

It may be true that the economy is improving for the financial markets and large companies.  However, it seems that improvement is at the expense of the majority of actual human Americans.

Thank you for taking the time to read this article.  The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of Tempe Bankruptcy Lawyer Glenn Roethler and are not endorsed or believed by Greeves, Price & Roethler, PLC.

In an interesting article regarding home foreclosure, the LA Times reports that the banks and regulators have reached an agreement as to the appropriate remedy for the errors in the banks’ foreclosure process.

I understand that there isl unfairness regarding the foreclosure process that needed to be addressed, however, I doubt that these agreements will resolve the major problems with most foreclosures on people’s homes.  This article seems to be sidestepping the most pressing question on home foreclosures:  Where is the promissory note?

This issue has been confounding me to a high degree.  One of the most fundamental aspects of real estate law is to prove your ownership and mortgage rights with original documents.  This is to prevent the bank (by virtue of being a bank, they are inherently untrustworthy . . .), or some other untrustworthy person,  from claiming a right to a property with copies of documents.  It also used to be required to produce the original note prior to foreclosing on someone’s home.  This apparently is no longer the case.

I have had clients whose signatures were forged on loan documents by the bank.  I have had clients whose documents at the recorder’s office show that someone else own’s the property other than the foreclosing bank.  I have had clients who have had their house wrongfully foreclosed on because the bank was foreclosing on the wrong house.  All of these instances were to be prevented by requiring the original documents, rather than copies, to foreclose on a property.

I find it hard to believe, and yet it is true, that there does not appear to be a remedy for this situation other than allowing the foreclosure to go forward.  You would think some Judge here in Arizona would take a stand against the banks and force them to prove their ownership interest in the property with the original note, but it appears that is not the case.  Instead, the mere possibility of causing a bank hardship for failure to follow the law has more validity than protecting Arizonan’s homes.

I do not believe that these people should get their homes for free for the bank’s failure to prove the note, but I do believe that the banks should be required to follow the same laws as everyone else.

Thank you for taking the time to read this article.  This article is solely the opinion and beliefs of Tempe based Bankruptcy and Foreclosure lawyer Glenn W. Roethler.  This is not the opinion of all members of Greeves Price and Roethler, PLC.

In an article posted by Reuters, here, the Kansas City Federal Reserve Chairman, Thomas Hoenig, makes a strong argument that the banks that received TARP money during the 2008 financial crisis exist as government-sponsored entities and should be regulated more stringently.

It is difficult to argue with Mr. Hoenig’s analysis.  It is obvious that these banks are “too big to fail.”  Because of this, the government clearly has taken the position that these large banks are to be backed by the federal reserve.  Therefore, it only makes sense that these banks should have regulations imposed on them to prevent them from going to the federal reserve, hat in hand, and begging for more money due to risky investments that they made on the financial markets.

I, personally, am not a fan of the government supporting any business.  However, I suppose, if the government and the tax payers are going to be required to back the large banks then the large banks have chosen to lose their independence and should, therefore, be required to be forced to follow regulation by the government to prevent the banks from taking unreasonable risks.

Another concerning issue regarding this development is the possibility that these banks will receive preferential treatment under the bankruptcy code.  As many are aware, most student loans are non-dischargeable no matter what bank you received the loan from, so long as it is backed by federal money.  It is not a large stretch to go from that statutory analysis to also conclude that, because the banks are backed by federal money, none of their debts should be discharged by filing for bankruptcy.

The views contained in this article are only the views of Glenn W. Roethler and not that of the firm, Greeves, Price & Roethler, PLC.  Thank you for taking the time to read this article by Tempe, Arizona based attorney and lawyer Glenn W. Roethler.