ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

Being a science teacher in Reading must have been confusing . . .

Multiple votes with respectful internal disagreement about who to select? - - maybe - - but somehow I see the process a little differently: http://www.moviefanatic.com/quotes/when-we-finish-this-meal-you-little-rodent-were-gonna-go-out-in/ "SDS has a soft spot for runaways, derelicts, vagrant types - - but you can't be any geek off the street. Ya gotta be handy with the steel, if you know what I mean - - earn your keep."

1. Like I said, Darryl ain't too bright - - note that in the post above, 4.375 - 3.25 = 1.125% (not 1.25%). Oops. Maybe he did the math while an American guy was making his luge run. 2. If you think you might want to contact a lawyer about this, stop waiting. If the bank was gonna fix it based on your own inquiries, they would have done so by now. It probably takes time to find a lawyer you are comfortable with, and if he/she is any good he/she is already busy. You want to leave the lawyer some time to try to work out a resolution before the 1 year clock expires. If it turns out you do have good grounds for a lawsuit on a legal theory that has a 1 year statute of limitations, you will 100% lose the lawsuit and get nothing if the suit is filed even 1 day later than a year after the date of the aborted closing - - at least that's what Darryl thinks. Some legal theories have statutes of limitations longer than 1 year. Until you consult with a lawyer with expertise in consumer suits against banks, you have no way of knowing whether you will lose any right to recover that you might otherwise have, if you wait more than 1 year to file suit. Why risk it?

You may be right, or you may be wrong, but you ain't alone: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/us/a-utah-law-prohibiting-polygamy-is-weakened.html

As I mentioned upthread Darryl's a bit of a moron, but he's no fan of banks. He's been cogitatin' on this from time to time (mainly during luge runs in the Olympics), and based on the fact that he once knew a guy whose neighbor's third cousin dated a gal that worked down the street from a guy who once sold office supplies to a law firm, Darryl wanted me to pass along the following thoughts: 1. The comments upthread about evaluating whether a suit is worth your time and expense are spot on. But you may have an argument for somewhat bigger damages than some here are giving you credit for. In most circumstances, somebody who suffers an economic loss caused by wrongful conduct of others has a responsibility to take any reasonably available steps to reduce the amount of damage incurred. The fancy legal mumbo jumbo term for that concept is called "mitigation of damages." If you were to sue your bank, you can expect them to argue that even if the bank wrongfully caused you to be paying a higher rate than the 3.25% they promised you, you presumably could have refinanced with some other lender at 3.5%, effectively allowing you to reduce your losses to 3.5 -3.25 = 0.25%. 2. But Darryl thinks you've got a strong counter argument. The fact that your bank has repeatedly CONTINUED to represent that they are going to make things right by giving you the originally promised 3.25% rate may prevent the bank from simultaneously arguing that you could have minimized your losses by refinancing at 3.5% elsewhere. If you reasonably relied on the bank's promises and actually expected the bank to make things right, your failure to refinance elsewhere at 3.5% was reasonable, even though your existing mortgage is at 4.375%. In fancy legal mumbo jumbo terms, the bank is arguably "estopped" from raising the failure to mitigate damages issue by their own continued promises that they would still give you the 3.25% rate. 3. Your best case scenario for claiming monetary damages would be if you could show that the bank was continually promising to still give you the 3.25 % rate, while market rates rose from the 3.25% you were originally promised until they reached the 4.375% you have been paying on your existing loan. Isn't 4.375% about the current market rate if you were first applying for the refi today? If so, that would make your potential damages 4.375 - 3.25 = 1.25% of the remaining (and declining) principal balance every year for the remaining life of your existing mortgage (assuming you have no plans to sell the house). Depending on your existing loan balance on the date of the aborted closing and the remaining term of your existing loan, that could be a sum you are willing to fight about. 4. If you want to pursue a potential legal claim, you shouldn't delay finding a lawyer who handles consumer claims, preferably with some experience in disputes with lenders. Some types of legal claims have statutes of limitations as short as 1 year (and in uncommon situations even less) - - and the clock probably starts to run from the date of the aborted closing for most types of claims you could bring. 5. The NY statutory version of the federal deceptive trade practices act may not provide a private right of action for monetary damages, but it may allow you to bring a claim for "rescission." That's a fancy legal mumbo jumbo term for putting both you and the bank back in the positions you were both in just before you applied for the refi mortgage. That could get you back anything you paid out of pocket during the refi process, even if it leaves you stuck with your existing 4.375% loan. 6. Sometimes a demand letter from a law firm spurs action, so even if you don't want to invest the time and effort to file suit, paying a lawyer a small sum to simply write a stern demand letter might get you something. If you take that approach, ask your lawyer to include a request that the bank put a "litigation hold" on all email messages (including any stored on computer backups) that relate to your refi loan application and/or aborted closing. It's amazing how many people will make incriminating statements in internal company emails that they would't dream of putting in a letter - - requesting a litigation hold should prevent anything like that from disappearing. Whatever you decide to do, good luck! If you have time, let us know how it turns out, and I'll pass the word on to Darryl.

"The Foreign Correspondents' Club of Japan (Est. 1945) vigorously denies that Hiroshima and Nagasaki had any lasting impact on the gene pool of Japanese citizens."

More about (1) comparative tax burdens in all 50 states and DC, and (2) making fun of the famous last name of a guy who happens to be Indian. Deal with it, Cochise.

I s**t you not: http://cfo.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ocfo/publication/attachments/2012%20Tax%20Rates%20and%20Tax%20Burdens_NATIONWIDE.pdf War, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing. Mahatma said war is not the answer, in other words, Natwar. Wait, what?

Hard to tell if you were being sarcastic. You realize that you may not be in the clear just because nobody else happened to be in your office looking at your monitor, right?

The birds that crap facing north like dogs do can sense the earth's magnetic field and migrate. The birds that randomly crap everywhere (like pigeons) are not magnetic and don't migrate. You can test this theory by holding a magnet next to a pigeon - - there's no attraction.

They could give Monty Python a run for their money - - maybe they were inspired by watching the "Twit Olympics" but were out of pistols:

Antarctica - - First we find extraterrestrial neutrinos there, and now a massive hole (bigger than the Grand Canyon) is discovered beneath the ice. http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampentland/2014/01/15/massive-hole-discovered-under-antarctica-bigger-than-the-grand-canyon/ Who knows what's hiding down there? Run North!

This is fairly old but may have some useful basic info anyway: http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/mtg/20020124a.asp My oldest brother Darryl suggests that somebody might be able to give you better guidance if you posted answers to the following questions: 1. What state are you in? 2. Did you get a written Good Faith Estimate ("GFE") from the bank? 3. Did you sign a written rate lock agreement? 4. If you signed a written rate lock agreement, did the bank then give you a revised GFE? 5. If you signed a written rate lock agreement, how many days did the agreement lock the promised rate? 6. Did you ever actually pay a fee to the bank in return for the bank's promise to lock the rate for a specific length of time? 7. Did the aborted closing occur before or after the written rate lock expired? 8. Do you have copies of any of the closing documents that were presented to you at the aborted closing? 9. Did you sign any documents at the aborted closing before you got to the one(s) with the wrong interest rate? 10. What was the name of the lender on the aborted closing documents, and was it the exact same name as the name of the bank that employed the person who admitted the "mistake?" 11. Are you certain that the bank employee is sick, and not gone because he or she was fired for incompetence or some other reason? Darryl's a bit of a moron, so you shouldn't rely on anything he says or suggests. But even a blind giraffe finds an acorn now and then. Darryl found this: https://www.aba.com/aba/documents/abaworks/ABAWorksonRESPA.pdf [excerpt below from page 12] [more at the link] and at page 14:

Simultaneous announcements may be a stretch, but Toronto's interest in getting an NFL team is pretty well documented.

I have previously read that the existing design of the Rogers Centre prevents the installation of a natural grass field to replace the current artificial turf if the field continues to be used for both baseball and football. At a recent meeting to discuss the State of the [blue Jays] Franchise, team CEO Paul Beeston said that the field would be converted to natural grass when the Argos lease expires after the 2017 season, but that installation of the grass field would be expedited if the Argos left sooner (perhaps for an expanded and remodeled BMO Field where the Toronto MLS soccer team now plays). http://blogs.thescore.com/djf/2014/01/27/assorted-weekend-thoughts-012714/ The Blue Jays are owned by Rogers Communications. Interesting that Beeston made no mention about the need to keep the turf field for the Bills-In-Toronto-Series. Is this a hint that the Bills and Rogers have already decided to end the annual Toronto game? Wonder if they time an announcement of the end of the Bills-In-Toronto-Series to coincide with announcements that (i) MLSE and/or Larry Tanenbaum is buying the Argos and moving them to BMO field, and (ii) Rogers will be installing natural grass in Rogers Centre making it unsuitable for football? This would cause great joy in Bills land while the Canadians simultaneously design a new NFL stadium and try to buy the team outright when Ralph passes. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/football/livin-on-a-prayer-buying-bills-building-new-toronto-stadium-would-be-a-2-billion-play/article15581107/ Devious, eh?

Not sure if this was posted around the time of the Bon Jovi news a few months ago, but if so, it has details about Toronto stadium planning that I missed: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/football/livin-on-a-prayer-buying-bills-building-new-toronto-stadium-would-be-a-2-billion-play/article15581107/

Not sure how accurate it is, because it's just from a recent CFL message board post, but FWIW: http://www.lionbackers.com/bc_lions/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=27450&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=15 I have not tried to confirm the part about "an American stadium contractor," but other parts seem consistent with some of the claims in this late 11/2013 article from around the time of the Bon Jovi news (no attributed quotes, though): http://sports.nationalpost.com/2013/11/25/wheels-quietly-in-motion-to-move-buffalo-bills-to-toronto/

On an old subcompact that needed a little body work: "No, I Didn't Sell My Soul To Satan, But We Worked Out A Rent-To-Own Deal"

So you're saying that if the OP puts his wife in a harness it won't be a quick fix for his mechanical problem?

1. Don't shoot the messenger. 2. Larry Tanenbaum and MLSE may be working on a solution to the "Argos problem" with respect to any potential future NFL bid: http://www.tsn.ca/cfl/story/?id=442375 3. MLSE is planning to spend $120 million to expand the existing Toronto soccer stadium to give the CFL Argos a home when their lease at Rogers Center expires in 2017: http://www.thestar.com/sports/2014/01/28/leiweke_hints_mlse_may_buy_argonauts_with_eyes_on_future_nfl_team.html 4. Don't shoot the messenger.

The old guy should have said "Who's your daddy?" at the end.

FYI: http://www.ag.ny.gov/consumer-frauds/new-car-lemon-law-fact-sheet http://www.ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/pdfs/publications/New_Car_Lemon_Law_2011.pdf

Wonder if the Predator will be used as a weapon next time? Lest we forget: http://www.justice.gov/opr/readingroom/rubyreportcover_39.pdf

Some details: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-28/northwestern-university-football-players-seeking-to-form-union.html http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304691904579349403107728532 http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2014/01/northwestern_football_players.html