I am not a landlord, but I would be an awesome one… at least I thought I would be, until I read this. I really do not want my wife to call me Mr. Roper.
The article recognizes the downturn in law school applications and acknowledges employment issues once students obtain a JD. The cost of a legal education, however, poses the greatest obstacle.
At my alma mater, Hastings College of the Law, it costs $56,634 just for annual tuition and fees.
Students still need to live in the San Francisco area for three years on top of that. With job prospects down and the student loan burden from the undergraduate years increasing, it is very difficult to make an economic case for practicing law as the cost only makes sense for the independently wealthy or those who are certain of obtaining a highly-paid entry level job at a large firm. For those interested in serving the public interest, it just does not make sense.
Lueras v. BAC Home Loans Servicing involved a borrower in default. Bank of America told the borrower that it would work with him on a modification. The bank later stated in writing that he was not at risk for foreclosure even though the bank had recorded a notice of default and that any sale would be postponed. The bank foreclosed 13 days later.
The trial court dismissed the case without permitting the borrower to amend his complaint. The appellate court did not reverse the decision on the motion, but did order the lower court to allow an amended complaint.
Most published decisions on foreclosures have supported the lender, recognizing, as did a dissenting opinion in Lueras, that there is an interest in promoting certainty for lenders in the California residential mortgage market. No court, however, should support an express misrepresentation from a lender regarding its intention to foreclose.