[governance] tangential - US - More Market State In Action: Consumers Treated Differently Under the Law Than Businesses
Riaz K Tayob
riaz.tayob at gmail.com
Fri May 31 08:40:38 EDT 2013
Pursuant to previous discussions:
- At one level this is normal, on another it implies somewhat a lack of
equality in the law, pointing to intimate association of Firms and State
in the US, relevant on contracting (particularly shrink wrap for eg) and
consumer liberty, vs corporate liberty as raised by Gurstein on this
list with the related Ralph Nader article. This is the ecology in which
Multistakeholderism will operate and consideration of how to balance
public interest with corporate ones is important.
- this points to the credibility/legitimacy/plausibility of the
internationalisation positions of Mueller as well McTim; raising the
question of why should anyone outside the US be happy with US control
over key elements of the CIR.
- Legitimacy of both libertarian and market friendly views - if the
terrain is unequal and there is differential treatment what is to
preclude the marginalisation of foreign interests in similar cases if
ICANN were to mess up for instance on its Intellectual Property
decisions regarding new domains?
- this raises the serious question of third world countries that seek to
promote their large firms, which start from a bigger disadvantage, may
be more ruthless and opportunistic than more established rich country
firms... I guess no predictive value here, as it also all depends...
Riaz
Friday, May 31, 2013
More Market State In Action: Consumers Treated Differently Under
the Law Than Businesses
<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/05/more-market-state-in-action-consumers-treated-differently-under-the-law-than-businesses.html>
You thought corporate personhood was a bad thing? Think twice. You
should be so lucky as to be a corporate person. They don't just get
treated like you and me, they are increasingly being treated better than
you and me.
Bear with this very specific and for non-laywers, legally dense
illustration, that I received earlier in the week:
I am Michael Morgan, the pro se plaintiff in Morgan v. Ocwen Loan
Servicing, LLC, et al., 795 F.Supp.2d 1370 (N.D.Ga. 2011). This is
one of two extremely well-written decisions in which Judge Amy
Totenberg ruled that, in Georgia, a non-judicial foreclosure must be
brought by the secured creditor and that the identity of the secured
creditor must be revealed. The other case is Stubbs v. Bank of
America, 844 F.Supp.2d 1267 (N.D.Ga. 2012).
I was wondering if you have seen You et al. v. JP Morgan Chase Bank,
N.A., et al., Case No. S13Q0040, Georgia Supreme Court.
http://www.gasupreme.us/sc-op/pdf/s13q0040.pdf
In the You et al. case, the Georgia Supreme Court held that, in
Georgia, (a) the holder of a security deed could be considered a
secured creditor and could initiate a non-judicial foreclosure,
despite the fact that it did not hold the note or otherwise have any
beneficial interest in the debt underlying the security deed, and
(b) the identity of the secured creditor did not need to be revealed
in the foreclosure notice. In so holding, the Georgia Supreme Court
was interpreting O.C.G.A. Section 44-14-162.2(a), which requires
that the foreclosure notice be sent by the secured creditor. See
also O.C.G.A. Section 44-14-162, which requires that the security
instrument or an assignment thereof vesting title in the secured
creditor be filed in the real estate records of the appropriate
county prior to the foreclosure sale.
While not expressing it in precisely this manner, the Georgia
Supreme Court held, in effect, that the relevant provisions of the
Georgia Uniform Commercial Code, O.C.G.A. Section 11-1-101, et seq.,
yield to and are superseded by O.C.G.A. 44-14-64(b). This code
section provides that the transfer of a security deed is sufficient
to transfer the indebtedness, even when the indebtedness is
evidenced by a note.
N.B. O.C.G.A. 11-10-103 requires precisely the opposite result;
i.e., this code section specifically provides that provisions
included in Article 3 of Chapter 14 of Title 44 (which includes
O.C.G.A. Section 44-14-64(b)) yield to and are superseded by the
Georgia UCC. (Appellants' counsel did not refer to O.C.G.A. Section
11-10-103 in either of the two briefs which he submitted to the
Court. I have not yet confirmed that there is no reference to this
code section in any of the six other briefs submitted in the case,
but I do not expect to find such a reference.)
If it makes any difference, pursuant to O.C.G.A. Section 1-1-9, the
effective date of both the current version of the Georgia UCC and
O.C.G.A. Section 44-14-64(b) was November 1, 1982. Appellees
apparently argued that O.C.G.A. Section 44-14-64(b) prevailed over
the Georgia UCC, because the corresponding provision in the 1933
Georgia Code (Section 67-1305.1) was adopted after Georgia first
adopted its version of the UCC. (With limited exceptions, the 1933
Georgia Code has been repealed in its entirety.)
I believe that it is readily apparent that the effect of the ruling
in You et al. could wreak havoc in commercial markets, if the
decision is taken seriously in contexts other than non-judicial
foreclosures. Warehousing lenders, e.g., have relied upon possession
of the original note as security, and the security deed is never
assigned to them. However, under the rationale of You et al., an
assignment of a Georgia security deed to a third party, while the
warehousing lender held the corresponding note, would transfer the
indebtedness to that third party. Many other scenarios can be
envisioned in which this rationale would have devastating effects
upon commerce.
I here am only trying to inform you about this decision, in the
event that you are not aware of it. It does not yet seem to be
receiving the attention that it deserves.
I ran this message by Georgetown law professor Adam Levitin, who is
arguably the top US expert on mortgage securitizations. He gave the
ruling a quick read and said it did appear that there appeared to be an
inconsistency, that the Georgia court found that the note follows the
mortgage, rather than the mortgage follows the note. They failed to
reconcile the statute that says note follows the mortgage with the UCC
Article 9 provision that says the opposite. Oops.
But this is where it gets interesting, and ugly. It's clear that the
conclusion the court reached in the consumer case would be untenable if
you had two banks dealing with each other. Levitin speculated that what
would happen in Georgia was not that some later court would come down
one way or the other on this rather basic question. Instead, he
anticipated that the law would be applied one way for consumers when
banks want to foreclose and the opposite way for warehouse lending.
The implications of this are very serious. The basic premise of the law
has for a very long time been that justice is blind, that judges will
rule without reference to who is making the argument, unless the party
gives reason for that to be made an issue (for instance, one of the
parties has a history of bad faith behavior). Of course, any black
person will tell you that's nonsense, that blacks are found guilty and
get far more severe punishments in similar fact sets than whites. But
that's seen by most commentators as symptomatic of how deep seated
prejudice is in American society as much as a serious shortcoming of our
legal system (studies continue to find ample evidence of discrimination
in hiring, promotion, treatment by salesmen, etc). Similarly, small fry
who go up against people with better, meaner lawyers usually fare badly
in court, but again, the outcome is a result of their access to
resources, not to their demographics.
By contrast, this sort of outcome that Levitin anticipates in Georgia
illustrates a serious erosion in the role of the judiciary, that the law
has become pliable and will be twisted in knots if that's what it takes
to serve commerce. Contract law has for some time been moving in a
direction that gives businesses the upper hand. IN consumer cases, take
it or leave it contracts ("adhesion contracts") are treated in
litigation as if the consumer had bargained over terms, while in a
business to business case, the court would typically look to see if the
parties really had negotiated terms in making a ruling. Another example
is binding mandatory arbitration. That gets forced on consumers all the
time as a way to prevent class action litigation and to stack the deck
overwhelmingly in their favor when disputes arise
<http://www.afj.org/assets/resources/connect-with-the-issues/mandatory_binding_arbitration.pdf>.
What good is having a contract when it is certain to be interpreted in a
one-sided manner?
I've used the term "market state" for this practice, but as Lambert
flagged in his earlier discussions, it's not clear if this expression is
adequate. One of the problems is that we are struggling for terminology
to describe our new social/political order. The old frames don't fit
well. Even "neofeudalism" is too generous, since peasants weren't
subject to a surveillance state and the nobles actually were expected to
fight. By contrast, one of the salient characteristics of our emerging
social order is covert coercion. There are all sorts of things you can't
do if you refuse to have a credit card, or a broadband account (and the
surveillance that goes with it) or a cell phone (ditto). You mark
yourself a weirdo and hurt your employability. Most people don't think
about what they submit to in participating in modern life, and that's
because, for many, they can't function and earn an income otherwise.
I'd very much welcome reader input on both more examples of this
phenomenon and better ways to describe it.
Topics: Legal <http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/category/legal>, Politics
<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/category/politics>, Real estate
<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/category/real-estate>, Social policy
<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/category/social-policy>, Social values
<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/category/social-values>, The destruction
of the middle class
<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/category/the-destruction-of-the-middle-class>
Email This Post
<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/05/more-market-state-in-action-consumers-treated-differently-under-the-law-than-businesses.html/email/>
Email This Post
<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/05/more-market-state-in-action-consumers-treated-differently-under-the-law-than-businesses.html/email/>
Posted by Yves Smith at 3:15 am
<http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/05/more-market-state-in-action-consumers-treated-differently-under-the-law-than-businesses.html>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130531/8ce553e4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: email.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 1065 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130531/8ce553e4/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
For all other list information and functions, see:
http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
http://www.igcaucus.org/
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
More information about the Governance
mailing list