The National Academies Press

Currently Skimming:

Pages 40-44

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.

From page 40... ... 40 loss. They should not be left bankrupt and unable to purchase a comparable home. Read the entire page →
From page 41... ... 41 under the URA is to assist homeowner-occupants bridge the "gap between the just compensation they are constitutionally entitled to receive for the acquisition of their property and the additional costs they may incur to obtain a comparable replacement property."473 The amount of the payment may not exceed $22,500 and is calculated as provided in Sections 24.401(b) Read the entire page →
From page 42... ... 42 Right-of-Way Manual, will apply to the use of the waiver;" and "[e] nsure that a homeowneroccupant with negative equity has not received and has not applied to receive mortgage debt relief or mortgage reduction to ensure that a windfall is not realized as a result of a negative equity waiver negotiated settlement."483 The waiver has positive and negative aspects. Read the entire page →
From page 43... ... 43 C The Use of Eminent Domain to Take Underwater Mortgages 1. Read the entire page →
From page 44... ... 44 irreparably harmed financially; thus, they sought declaratory and injunctive relief. The plaintiffs' complaint alleges that the Richmond Plan violates the United States and California Constitutions because the takings would not be for a public use, would violate the prohibition against extraterritorial seizures, and would not provide the plaintiffs with just compensation.506 It is alleged that the Richmond Plan has no public purpose, because it would seize property from private entities, the plaintiffs, and transfer it to MRP and its private investors, thereby conferring "private benefits on a select set of individuals."507 The plaintiffs claim that the seizures of the mortgages would be extra- territorial, because the mortgages and the underlying notes are held in trusts outside the city of Richmond and because "the situs of a debt for eminent domain is deemed to be the location of the creditor."508 The plaintiffs argue that the Richmond Plan would violate the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, because the plan would have the effect of regulating the national residential mortgage-backed securities market and cause substantial losses to trusts holding the loans around the nation.509 The plaintiffs contend that the city's plan violates the Contracts Clause of the federal Constitution, because the program would nullify the trusts' rights to obtain the payments they bargained for and the trusts would have to accept significantly lower payments instead. Read the entire page →

From page 40...

... 40 loss. They should not be left bankrupt and unable to purchase a comparable home.

Read the entire page →

From page 41...

... 41 under the URA is to assist homeowner-occupants bridge the "gap between the just compensation they are constitutionally entitled to receive for the acquisition of their property and the additional costs they may incur to obtain a comparable replacement property."473 The amount of the payment may not exceed $22,500 and is calculated as provided in Sections 24.401(b)

Read the entire page →

From page 42...

... 42 Right-of-Way Manual, will apply to the use of the waiver;" and "[e] nsure that a homeowneroccupant with negative equity has not received and has not applied to receive mortgage debt relief or mortgage reduction to ensure that a windfall is not realized as a result of a negative equity waiver negotiated settlement."483 The waiver has positive and negative aspects.

Read the entire page →

From page 43...

... 43 C The Use of Eminent Domain to Take Underwater Mortgages 1.

Read the entire page →

From page 44...

... 44 irreparably harmed financially; thus, they sought declaratory and injunctive relief. The plaintiffs' complaint alleges that the Richmond Plan violates the United States and California Constitutions because the takings would not be for a public use, would violate the prohibition against extraterritorial seizures, and would not provide the plaintiffs with just compensation.506 It is alleged that the Richmond Plan has no public purpose, because it would seize property from private entities, the plaintiffs, and transfer it to MRP and its private investors, thereby conferring "private benefits on a select set of individuals."507 The plaintiffs claim that the seizures of the mortgages would be extra- territorial, because the mortgages and the underlying notes are held in trusts outside the city of Richmond and because "the situs of a debt for eminent domain is deemed to be the location of the creditor."508 The plaintiffs argue that the Richmond Plan would violate the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, because the plan would have the effect of regulating the national residential mortgage-backed securities market and cause substantial losses to trusts holding the loans around the nation.509 The plaintiffs contend that the city's plan violates the Contracts Clause of the federal Constitution, because the program would nullify the trusts' rights to obtain the payments they bargained for and the trusts would have to accept significantly lower payments instead.

Read the entire page →

Key Terms

← Previous Chapter Skim

Next Chapter Skim →

This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.