SB 1259 | Did Arizona Rep Michele Reagan “Compromise” on Foreclosure Bill?



From the Ticker…

The original sponsor of this bill, Ms. Michele Reagan, was sued in 2010 by her lender over her mortgage when she tried to find out who actually owned it.  It appears that in order for a “Striker” amendment to be passed in Arizona the sponsor of the bill must concur.  Therefore, the obvious questions arise: Is Ms. Reagan still being sued, was the case previously settled, and is there a quid-pro-quo – or perhaps even something more overt – going on here? 

From Mandelman…

Beth Findsen is a foreclosure defense and consumer lawyer whose been a reader of mine for some time now, and I like her a great deal.  Her husband is an ex-Wall Street type… not a banker per se, but more an financial advisor kind of guy I think.

Beth answered her cell phone when I called, having arrived in Phoenix the night before… and she confirmed that although she couldn’t comment on every aspect of Michelle Reagan’s bill as a result of attorney-client privilege issues, she could confirm my that it had vanished into thin air.  It had happened over the weekend just prior to it landing in the House for the vote.

I asked Beth to meet me with Don Loeb and I for drinks and appetizers at the Flemming’s restaurant in Scottsdale and she said she’d absolutely try.  She and her husband were already there when I walked into the bar and sat down about an hour later.  It was what it looked like… and all she could really say was that she had been told that compromises were required at times.

Now I wonder what those compromises were…

There is more to this. Who wants to help me find it?

I think I found the compromise here…


10 Responses to “SB 1259 | Did Arizona Rep Michele Reagan “Compromise” on Foreclosure Bill?”
  1. Wayne says:

    I want answers in the worse way. The attorney general is getting called in the morning.

  2. Foreigner says:

    Isn’t this the kind of situation for which the RICO act was put in place in the USA, when criminals orgs infiltrate and suborn govt officials?

  3. Fury says:

    Recall McLain!

  4. l vent says:

    This pretender lender decided they would terrorize this State rep into continuing to pay the fake mortgage loan by sueing her for her daring to ask for something she has every legal right to ask for? What a farce. She looks like a corrupt coward and the pretender lender looks like a terrorist.

    • leapfrog says:

      A poster on market ticker posted the PACER results of Reagan’s suit – case closed 3/31. The poster was wondering timeframe that the legislation was gutted. “Coincidence”? Maybe since Reagan “got hers” she doesn’t care that the little people will never “get theirs”. I had corresponded with Reagan in the past and thought her a decent person and would like to give her the benefit of the doubt, but actions speak louder than words…she is silent on what happened.

    • Bobbi Swann says:

      Has anyone done the research on the case with Michelle Reagan as to its current status? Was it dropped? Is it still pending? Can anyone prove that quid pro quo took place?

Leave a Reply