The Truth, The Whole Truth, and Nothing but the Truth: Fulfilling the Promise of Truth in Lending

Evaluating the cost of credit and comparison shopping in the modern credit environment can be a daunting task, even for the most sophisticated shoppers. Lenders increasingly unbundle the costs of their loans from the interest rate into an array offees, outsource their overhead to third parties who add to consumers\u27 costs, and unveil amazingly complex loan products that dazzle and confuse borrowers. At the same time, the preemption of state usury and consumer protection laws by Congress and the federal banking agencies has spurred deregulation at the state level. Today, the consumer credit marketplace is governed almost exclusively by disclosure rules. The subprime mortgage crisis of 2007 resulted from allowing the market to police itself and from the failure of disclosure to curb abuses

Property Title Trouble in Non-Judicial Foreclosure States: The Ibanez Time Bomb?

The economic crisis gripping the United States began when large numbers of homeowners defaulted on poorly underwritten subprime mortgage loans. Demand from Wall Street seduced mortgage lenders, brokers, and other players to churn out mortgage loans in extraordinary numbers. Securitization, the process of utilizing mortgage loans to back investment instruments, fanned the fire. The resulting volume also caused the parties to these deals to often handle and transfer the legally important documents that secure the resulting investments—the loan notes and mortgages—in a careless and sometimes fraudulent manner. The consequences of this behavior are now becoming evident. All over the country, courts are scrutinizing whether the parties initiating foreclosures against homeowners have the right to take this action when the authority to enforce the note and mortgage is absent. Without this right, foreclosure sales can be reversed. This concern is most acute in the majority of states, such as Massachusetts, where foreclosures occur with little or no judicial oversight before the sale. Due to the recent decision in U.S. National Bank Association v. Ibanez, in which the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court voided two foreclosure sales because the foreclosing parties did not hold the mortgage, Massachusetts is the focal jurisdiction where an important conflict is unfolding. This Article explores the extent to which the Ibanez ruling may influence the jurisprudence in other non-judicial foreclosure states and the likelihood that clear title to foreclosed properties is jeopardized by the shoddy handling of notes and mortgages. This Article focuses on Arizona, California, Georgia, and Nevada because they permit non-judicial foreclosures and they are experiencing high “seriously delinquent” and foreclosure rates. After comparing the law in these states to that of Massachusetts, the Article concludes that Ibanez may have little effect in Arizona and California, unless the state’s highest court intervenes in this latter state, but should be influential in Georgia and Nevada. This Article also provides a roadmap for others to assess the extent to which title to properties purchased at foreclosure sales or from lenders’ REO inventories might be defective in other states. Finally, the Article addresses the potential consequences of reversing foreclosure sales and responds to the securitization industry’s worry about homeowners getting free houses

Property Title Trouble in Non-Judicial Foreclosure States: The Ibanez Time Bomb?

The economic crisis gripping the United States began when large numbers of homeowners defaulted on poorly underwritten subprime mortgage loans. Demand from Wall Street seduced mortgage lenders, brokers, and other players to churn out mortgage loans in extraordinary numbers. Securitization, the process of utilizing mortgage loans to back investment instruments, fanned the fire. The resulting volume also caused the parties to these deals to often handle and transfer the legally important documents that secure the resulting investments—the loan notes and mortgages—in a careless and sometimes fraudulent manner. The consequences of this behavior are now becoming evident. All over the country, courts are scrutinizing whether the parties initiating foreclosures against homeowners have the right to take this action when the authority to enforce the note and mortgage is absent. Without this right, foreclosure sales can be reversed. This concern is most acute in the majority of states, such as Massachusetts, where foreclosures occur with little or no judicial oversight before the sale. Due to the recent decision in U.S. National Bank Association v. Ibanez, in which the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court voided two foreclosure sales because the foreclosing parties did not hold the mortgage, Massachusetts is the focal jurisdiction where an important conflict is unfolding. This Article explores the extent to which the Ibanez ruling may influence the jurisprudence in other non-judicial foreclosure states and the likelihood that clear title to foreclosed properties is jeopardized by the shoddy handling of notes and mortgages. This Article focuses on Arizona, California, Georgia, and Nevada because they permit non-judicial foreclosures and they are experiencing high “seriously delinquent” and foreclosure rates. After comparing the law in these states to that of Massachusetts, the Article concludes that Ibanez may have little effect in Arizona and California, unless the state’s highest court intervenes in this latter state, but should be influential in Georgia and Nevada. This Article also provides a roadmap for others to assess the extent to which title to properties purchased at foreclosure sales or from lenders’ REO inventories might be defective in other states. Finally, the Article addresses the potential consequences of reversing foreclosure sales and responds to the securitization industry’s worry about homeowners getting free houses

Microbiology of Urinary Tract Infections in Gaborone, Botswana

Objective The microbiology and epidemiology of UTI pathogens are largely unknown in Botswana, a high prevalence HIV setting. Using laboratory data from the largest referral hospital and a private hospital, we describe the major pathogens causing UTI and their antimicrobial resistance patterns. Methods This retrospective study examined antimicrobial susceptibility data for urine samples collected at Princess Marina Hospital (PMH), Bokamoso Private Hospital (BPH), or one of their affiliated outpatient clinics. A urine sample was included in our dataset if it demonstrated pure growth of a single organism and accompanying antimicrobial susceptibility and subject demographic data were available. Results A total of 744 samples were included. Greater than 10% resistance was observed for amoxicillin, co-trimoxazole, amoxicillin-clavulanate, and ciprofloxacin. Resistance of E. coli isolates to ampicillin and co-trimoxazole was greater than 60% in all settings. HIV status did not significantly impact the microbiology of UTIs, but did impact antimicrobial resistance to co-trimoxazole. Conclusions Data suggests that antimicrobial resistance has already emerged to most oral antibiotics, making empiric management of outpatient UTIs challenging. Ampicillin, co-trimoxazole, and ciprofloxacin should not be used as empiric treatment for UTI in this context. Nitrofurantoin could be used for simple cystitis; aminoglycosides for uncomplicated UTI in inpatients