Law Commons^™

Mortgage Wars Episode V - The Empiricist Strikes Back (Or Out): A Reply To Professor Levitin's Response , Mark S. Scarberry

Pepperdine Law Review

Professor Adam Levitin has responded to my recent symposium article critiquing proposed congressional legislation that would allow modification (including strip down) of home mortgages in Chapter 13 bankruptcy. A portion of my Critique criticized his empirical studies concerning the likely effect of the proposed legislation on mortgage interest rates and availability, and also criticized the arguments he has made in support of the proposed legislation. The Critique did note, however, that the insight involved in conceiving of such empirical studies was impressive. Surprisingly, Professor Levitin’s Response fails to deal with the substantial case authority discussed in my Critique. He treats …

Back To The Future With Chapter 13: A Response To Professor Scarberry, Adam J. Levitin

Pepperdine Law Review

Professor Mark Scarberry has put forth a formidable critique of my empirical study of mortgage market sensitivity to bankruptcy modification risk. As this response shows, however, his critique does not hold up under scrutiny. Professor Scarberry argues that my study design is invalid because, as he reads the current state of the law, cramdown is virtually impossible. Therefore, he contends, we should not expect markets to exhibit sensitivity to cramdown risk, so no policy conclusions can be derived from my finding of market insensitivity. Regrettably, Professor Scarberry overreads the state of the law. The law is in fact unsettled, and …

Misbehavior And Mistake In Bankruptcy Mortgage Claims: Some Caveats Regarding The Porter Study, Gregory S. Crespi

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

This Article reviews the comprehensive empirical study of the bankruptcy mortgage foreclosure process conducted by Professor Katherine Porter and subsequently published in 2008 in the Texas Law Review. The results of her study, which analyzed 1,768 proof of claim submissions filed in a sample of 1,733 Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings, strongly suggest that there is a pervasive failure on the part of mortgage creditors to meet all of the formal documentation requirements for filing such bankruptcy claims. This documentation failure arguably impedes many mortgage debtors or bankruptcy trustees from reviewing these claims for their accuracy.

Porter's conclusion that the itemization …