This article may be confusing or unclear to readers. Please help clarify the article; suggestions may be found on the talk page. (February 2012)

The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page. (December 2010)

House in Salinas, California under foreclosure, following the popping of the U.S. real estate bubble.

Foreclosure is a specific legal process in which a lender attempts to recover the balance of a loan from a borrower who has stopped making payments to the lender by forcing the sale of the asset used as the collateral for the loan.^[1]

This article uses bare URLs for citations. Please consider adding full citations so that the article remains verifiable. Several templates and the Reflinks tool are available to assist in formatting. (Reflinks documentation) (April 2012)

Formally, a mortgage lender (mortgagee), or other lien holder, obtains a termination of a mortgage borrower (mortgagor)'s equitable right of redemption, either by court order or by operation of law (after following a specific statutory procedure).^[2]

Usually a lender obtains a security interest from a borrower who mortgages or pledges an asset like a house to secure the loan. If the borrower defaults and the lender tries to repossess the property, courts of equity can grant the borrower the equitable right of redemption if the borrower repays the debt. While this equitable right exists, it is a cloud on title and the lender cannot be sure that (s)he can successfully repossess the property.^[3] Therefore, through the process of foreclosure, the lender seeks to foreclose the equitable right of redemption and take both legal and equitable title to the property in fee simple.^[4] Other lien holders can also foreclose the owner's right of redemption for other debts, such as for overdue taxes, unpaid contractors' bills or overdue homeowners' association dues or assessments.

The foreclosure process as applied to residential mortgage loans is a bank or other secured creditor selling or repossessing a parcel of real property (immovable property) after the owner has failed to comply with an agreement between the lender and borrower called a "mortgage" or "deed of trust." Commonly, the violation of the mortgage is a default in payment of a promissory note, secured by a lien on the property. When the process is complete, the lender can sell the property and keep the proceeds to pay off its mortgage and any legal costs, and it is typically said that "the lender has foreclosed its mortgage or lien." If the promissory note was made with a recourse clause then if the sale does not bring enough to pay the existing balance of principal and fees the mortgagee can file a claim for a deficiency judgment.

Types of foreclosure[link]

The mortgage holder can usually initiate foreclosure at a time specified in the mortgage documents, typically some period of time after a default condition occurs. Within the United States, Canada and many other countries, several types of foreclosure exist. In the U.S., two of them – namely, by judicial sale and by power of sale – are widely used, but other modes of foreclosure are also possible in a few states.

Foreclosure by judicial sale, more commonly known as judicial foreclosure, which is available in every state (and required in many), involves the sale of the mortgaged property under the supervision of a court, with the proceeds going first to satisfy the mortgage; then other lien holders; and, finally, the mortgagor/borrower if any proceeds are left. Under this system, the lender initiates foreclosure by filing a lawsuit against the borrower. As with all other legal actions, all parties must be notified of the foreclosure, but notification requirements vary significantly from state to state. A judicial decision is announced after the exchange of pleadings at a (usually short) hearing in a state or local court. In some rather rare instances, foreclosures are filed in federal courts.

Foreclosure by power of sale, also known as nonjudicial foreclosure, is authorized by many states if a power of sale clause is included in the mortgage or if a deed of trust with such a clause was used, instead of an actual mortgage. In some states, like California, nearly all so-called mortgages are actually deeds of trust. This process involves the sale of the property by the mortgage holder without court supervision (as elaborated upon below). This process is generally much faster and cheaper than foreclosure by judicial sale. As in judicial sale, the mortgage holder and other lien holders are respectively first and second claimants to the proceeds from the sale.

Other types of foreclosure are considered minor because of their limited availability. Under strict foreclosure, which is available in a few states including Connecticut, New Hampshire and Vermont, suit is brought by the mortgagee and if successful, a court orders the defaulted mortgagor to pay the mortgage within a specified period of time. Should the mortgagor fail to do so, the mortgage holder gains the title to the property with no obligation to sell it. This type of foreclosure is generally available only when the value of the property is less than the debt ("under water"). Historically, strict foreclosure was the original method of foreclosure.

Acceleration[link]

The concept of acceleration is used to determine the amount owed under foreclosure. Acceleration allows the mortgage holder to declare the entire debt of a defaulted mortgagor due and payable, when a term in the mortgage has been broken. If a mortgage is taken, for instance, on a $100,000 property and monthly payments are required, the mortgage holder can demand the mortgagor make good on the entire $100,000 if the mortgagor fails to make one or more of those payments. The mortgage holder will also include any unpaid property taxes and delinquent payments in this amount, so if the borrower does not have significant equity they will owe more than the original amount of the mortgage.

Lenders may also accelerate a loan if there is a transfer clause, obligating the mortgagor to notify the lender of any transfer, whether; a lease-option, lease-hold of 3 years or more, land contracts, agreement for deed, transfer of title or interest in the property.

The vast majority (but not all) of mortgages today have acceleration clauses. The holder of a mortgage without this clause has only two options: either to wait until all of the payments come due or convince a court to compel a sale of some parts of the property in lieu of the past due payments. Alternatively, the court may order the property sold subject to the mortgage, with the proceeds from the sale going to the payments owed the mortgage holder.

Process[link]

The process of foreclosure can be rapid or lengthy and varies from state to state. Other options such as refinancing, a short sale, alternate financing, temporary arrangements with the lender, or even bankruptcy may present homeowners with ways to avoid foreclosure. Websites which can connect individual borrowers and homeowners to lenders are increasingly offered as mechanisms to bypass traditional lenders while meeting payment obligations for mortgage providers. Although there are slight differences between the states, the foreclosure process generally follows a timeline beginning with initial missed payments, moving to a sale being scheduled and finally a redemption period (if available).^{[citation needed]}

Strict foreclosure/judicial foreclosure[link]

In the United States, there are two types of foreclosure in most common law states. Using a "deed in lieu of foreclosure," or "strict foreclosure", the noteholder claims the title and possession of the property back in full satisfaction of a debt, usually on contract.

In the proceeding simply known as foreclosure (or, perhaps, distinguished as "judicial foreclosure"), the lender must sue the defaulting borrower in state court. Upon final judgment (usually summary judgment) in the lender's favor, the property is subject to auction by the county sheriff or some other officer of the court. Many states require this sort of proceeding in some or all cases of foreclosure to protect any equity the debtor may have in the property, in case the value of the debt being foreclosed on is substantially less than the market value of the real property (this also discourages strategic foreclosure). In this foreclosure, the sheriff then issues a deed to the winning bidder at auction. Banks and other institutional lenders may bid in the amount of the owed debt at the sale but there are a number of other factors that may influence the bid, and if no other buyers step forward the lender receives title to the real property in return.

Nonjudicial foreclosure[link]

Historically, the vast majority of judicial foreclosures have been unopposed, since most defaulting borrowers have no money with which to hire counsel. Therefore, the U.S. financial services industry has lobbied since the mid-19th century for faster foreclosure procedures that would not clog up state courts with uncontested cases, and would lower the cost of credit (because it must always have the cost of recovering collateral built-in).^{[citation needed]} Lenders have also argued that taking foreclosures out of the courts is actually kinder and less traumatic to defaulting borrowers, as it avoids the in terrorem effects of being sued.^{[citation needed]}

In response, a slight majority of U.S. states have adopted nonjudicial foreclosure procedures in which the mortgagee (or more commonly the mortgagee's servicer's attorney, designated agent, or trustee) gives the debtor a notice of default (NOD) and the mortgagee's intent to sell the real property in a form prescribed by state statute; the NOD in some states must also be recorded against the property. This type of foreclosure is commonly referred to as "statutory" or "nonjudicial" foreclosure, as opposed to "judicial", because the mortgagee does not need to file an actual lawsuit to initiate the foreclosure. A few states impose additional procedural requirements such as having documents stamped by a court clerk; Colorado requires the use of a county "public trustee," a government official, rather than a private trustee specializing in carrying out foreclosures. However, in most states, the only government official involved in a nonjudicial foreclosure is the county recorder, who merely records any pre-sale notices and the trustee's deed upon sale.

In this "power-of-sale" type of foreclosure, if the debtor fails to cure the default, or use other lawful means (such as filing for bankruptcy to temporarily stay the foreclosure) to stop the sale, the mortgagee or its representative conduct a public auction in a manner similar to the sheriff's auction. Notably, the lender itself can bid for the property at the auction, and is the only bidder that can make a "credit bid" (a bid based on the outstanding debt itself) while all other bidders must be able to immediately present the auctioneer with cash or a cash equivalent like a cashier's check. In May 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court, resolved uncertainty surrounding a secured creditor's right to credit bid in a sale under a Chapter 11 bankruptcy plan. ^[5] In RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, 566 U.S. ______ (2012), the Court found it was obligated to interpret the bankruptcy code “clearly and predictably using well established principles of statutory construction” resolving the lingering uncertainties related to credit bidding under a chapter 11 plan and upholding secured creditors’ rights.^[6]

The highest bidder at the auction becomes the owner of the real property, free and clear of interest of the former owner, but possibly encumbered by liens superior to the foreclosed mortgage (e.g., a senior mortgage or unpaid property taxes). Further legal action, such as an eviction, may be necessary to obtain possession of the premises if the former occupant fails to voluntarily vacate.

Defenses[link]

In some states, particularly those where only judicial foreclosure is available, the constitutional issue of due process has affected the ability of some lenders to foreclose. In Ohio, the federal district court for the Northern District of Ohio has dismissed numerous foreclosure actions by lenders because of the inability of the alleged lender to prove that they are the real party in interest.^[7] In June 2008, a Colorado district court judge also dismissed a foreclosure action because of failure of the alleged lender to prove they were the real party in interest.^[8][9]

In contrast, in six federal judicial circuits and the majority of nonjudicial foreclosure states (like California), due process has already been judicially determined to be a frivolous defense.^[10] The entire point of nonjudicial foreclosure is that there is no state actor (i.e., a court) involved.^[11] The constitutional right of due process protects people only from violations of their civil rights by state actors, not private actors. A further rationale is that under the principle of freedom of contract, if debtors wish to enjoy the additional protection of the formalities of judicial foreclosure, it is their burden to find a lender willing to provide a loan secured by a traditional conventional mortgage instead of a deed of trust with a power of sale. The difficulty in finding such a lender in nonjudicial foreclosure states is not the state's problem. Courts have also rejected as frivolous the argument that the mere legislative act of authorizing the nonjudicial foreclosure process thereby transforms the process itself into state action.^[11]

In turn, since there is no right to due process in nonjudicial foreclosure, it has been held that it is irrelevant whether the borrower had actual notice (i.e., subjective awareness) of the foreclosure, as long as the foreclosure trustee performed the tasks prescribed by statute in an attempt to give notice.^[12]

Equitable foreclosure[link]

"Strict foreclosure" is an equitable right available in some states. The strict foreclosure period arises after the foreclosure sale has taken place and is available to the foreclosure sale purchaser. The foreclosure sale purchaser must petition a court for a decree that cuts off any junior lien holder's rights to redeem the senior debt. If the junior lien holder fails to object within the judicially established time frame, his lien is canceled and the purchaser's title is cleared. This effect is the same as the strict foreclosure that occurred at common law in England's courts of equity as a response to the development of the equity of redemption.

Title search and tax lien issues[link]

In most jurisdictions it is customary for the foreclosing lender to obtain a title search of the real property and to notify all other persons who may have liens on the property, whether by judgment, by contract, or by statute or other law, so that they may appear and assert their interest in the foreclosure litigation. This is accomplished through the filing of a lis pendens as part of the lawsuit and recordation of it in order to provide public notice of the pendency of the foreclosure action. In all U.S. jurisdictions a lender who conducts a foreclosure sale of real property which is the subject of a federal tax lien must give 25 days' notice of the sale to the Internal Revenue Service: failure to give notice to the IRS results in the lien remaining attached to the real property after the sale. Therefore, it is imperative the lender search local federal tax liens so if parties involved in the foreclosure have a federal tax lien filed against them, the proper notice to the IRS is given. A detailed explanation by the IRS of the federal tax lien process can be found.^[13][14]

Contesting a foreclosure[link]

Because the right of redemption is an equitable right, foreclosure is an action in equity. To keep the right of redemption, the debtor may be able to petition the court for an injunction. If repossession is imminent the debtor must seek a temporary restraining order. However, the debtor may have to post a bond in the amount of the debt. This protects the creditor if the attempt to stop foreclosure is simply an attempt to escape the debt.

A debtor may also challenge the validity of the debt in a claim against the bank to stop the foreclosure and sue for damages. In a foreclosure proceeding, the lender also bears the burden of proving they have standing to foreclose.

Several U.S. states, including California,^[15] Georgia,^[16] and Texas^[17] impose a "tender" condition precedent upon borrowers seeking to challenge a wrongful foreclosure, which is rooted in the maxim of equity that "he who seeks equity must first do equity," as well as the common law rule that the party seeking rescission of a contract must first return all benefits received under the contract.

In other words, to challenge an allegedly wrongful foreclosure, the borrower must make legal tender of the entire remaining balance of the debt prior to the foreclosure sale. California has one of the strictest forms of this rule, in that the funds must be received by the lender before the sale. One tender attempt was held inadequate when the check arrived via FedEx on a Monday, three days after the foreclosure sale had already occurred on Friday.^[18]

At least one textbook has attacked the paradox inherent in the tender rule—namely, if the borrower actually had enough cash to promptly pay the entire balance, they would have already paid it off and the lender would not be trying to foreclose upon them in the first place^[19]—but it continues to be the law in the aforementioned states.

Occasionally, borrowers have raised enough cash at the last minute (usually through desperate fire sales of other unencumbered assets) to offer good tender and have thereby avoided foreclosure or at least preserved their rights to challenge the foreclosure process. Courts have been unsympathetic to attempts by such borrowers to recover fire sale losses from foreclosing lenders.^[20]

One noteworthy but legally meaningless court case questions the legality of the foreclosure practice is sometimes cited as proof of various claims regarding lending. In the case First National Bank of Montgomery vs Jerome Daly Jerome Daly claimed that the bank didn't offer a legal form of consideration because the money loaned to him was created upon signing of the loan contract. The myth reports that Daly won, and the result was that he didn't have to repay the loan, and the bank couldn't repossess his property. In fact, the "ruling" (widely referred to as the "Credit River Decision") was ruled a nullity by the courts.^[21]

In a recent New York case, the Court rejected a lender's attempt to foreclose on summary judgment because the lender failed to submit proper affidavits and papers in support of its foreclosure action and also, the papers and affidavits that were submitted were not prepared in the ordinary course of business.^[22]

Foreclosure auction[link]

When the entity (in the US, typically a county sheriff or designee) auctions a foreclosed property the noteholder may set the starting price as the remaining balance on the mortgage loan. However, there are a number of issues that affect how pricing for properties is considered, including bankruptcy rulings. In a weak market the foreclosing party may set the starting price at a lower amount if it believes the real estate securing the loan is worth less than the remaining principal of the loan.

In the case where the remaining mortgage balance is higher than the actual home value the foreclosing party is unlikely to attract auction bids at this price level. A house that has gone through a foreclosure auction and failed to attract any acceptable bids may remain the property of the owner of the mortgage. That inventory is called REO (real estate owned). In these situations the owner/servicer tries to sell it through standard real estate channels.

Further borrower's obligations[link]

The mortgagor may be required to pay for Private Mortgage Insurance, or PMI, for as long as the principal of his primary mortgage is above 80% of the value of his property. In most situations, insurance requirements are sufficient to guarantee that the lender gets some pre-defined percentage of the loan value back, either from foreclosure auction proceeds or from PMI or a combination thereof.

Nevertheless, in an illiquid real estate market or following a significant drop in real estate prices, it may happen that the property being foreclosed is sold for less than the remaining balance on the primary mortgage loan, and there may be no insurance to cover the loss. In this case, the court overseeing the foreclosure process may enter a deficiency judgment against the mortgagor. Deficiency judgments can be used to place a lien on the borrower's other property that obligates the mortgagor to repay the difference. It gives lender a legal right to collect the remainder of debt out of mortgagor's other assets (if any).

There are exceptions to this rule, however. If the mortgage is a non-recourse debt (which is often the case with owner-occupied residential mortgages in the U.S.), lender may not go after borrower's assets to recoup his losses. Lender's ability to pursue deficiency judgment may be restricted by state laws. In California and some other states, original mortgages (the ones taken out at the time of purchase) are typically non-recourse loans; however, refinanced loans and home equity lines of credit aren't.

If the lender chooses not to pursue deficiency judgment—or can't because the mortgage is non-recourse—and writes off the loss, the borrower may have to pay income taxes on the unrepaid amount if it can be considered "forgiven debt." However, recent changes in tax laws may change the way these amounts are reported.^{[citation needed]}

Any liens resulting from other loans taken out against the property being foreclosed (second mortgages, HELOCs) are "wiped out" by foreclosure, but the borrower is still obligated to pay those loans off if they are not paid out of the foreclosure auction's proceeds.

Renegotiation alternative[link]

In the wake of the United States housing bubble and the subsequent subprime mortgage crisis there has been increased interest in renegotiation or modification of the mortgage loans rather than foreclosure, and some commentators have speculated that the crisis was exacerbated by the "unwillingness of lenders to renegotiate mortgages".^[23] Several policies, including the U.S. Treasury sponsored Hope Now initiative and the 2009 "Making Home Affordable" plan have offered incentives to renegotiate mortgages. Renegotiations can include lowering the principal due or temporarily reducing the interest rate. A 2009 study by Federal Reserve economists found that even using a broad definition of renegotiation, only 3% of "seriously delinquent borrowers" received a modification. The leading theory attributes the lack of renegotiation to securitization and a large number of claimants with security interest in the mortgage. There is some support behind this theory, but an analysis of the data found that renegotiation rates were similar among unsecuritized and securitized mortgages. The authors of the analysis argue that banks don't typically renegotiate because they expect to make more money with a foreclosure, as renegotiation imposes "self-cure" and "redefault" risks.^[23]

Experiences of Households Post-Foreclosure[link]

A 2011 research paper by the Federal Reserve Board, “The Post-Foreclosure Experience of U.S. Households,” used credit reports from more than 37 million individuals between 1999 to 2010 to measure post-foreclosure behavior, especially in regard to future borrowing and housing consumption. The study found that: 1) On average 23% of people experiencing foreclosure had moved within a year of the foreclosure process starting. In the same time, a control group (not facing foreclosure) had only a 12% migration rate; 2) Only 30% of post-foreclosure borrowers moved to neighborhoods with median income at least 25% lower than their previous neighborhood; 3) The majority of post-foreclosure migrants do not end up in substantially less-desirable neighborhoods or more crowded living conditions; 4) There was no significant difference in household size between the post-foreclosure and control groups. However, only 17% of the post-foreclosure individuals had the same number and composition of household members after a foreclosure than before. By comparison, the control group maintained the same household companions in 46% of cases; and, 5) Only about 20% of post-foreclosure individuals chose to live in households where one person maintained a mortgage. Overall, the authors conclude that it is “difficult to say whether this small effect is because the shock that leads to foreclosure is not long-lasting, because the credit constraints imposed by having a foreclosure on one’s credit report are not large, or because housing services are more inelastic than other forms of consumption."^[24]

Who Is Affected?[link]

Recent housing studies indicate that minority households disproportionately experience foreclosures. Other overly represented groups include African Americans, renter households, households with children, and foreign-born homeowners. For example, statistics show that African American buyers are 3.3 times more likely than white buyers to be in foreclosure, while Latino and Asian buyers are 2.5 and 1.6 times more likely, respectively. As another statistical example, over 60 per cent of the foreclosures that occurred in New York City in 2007 involved rental properties. Twenty per cent of the foreclosures nationwide were from rental properties. One reason for this is that the majority of these people have borrowed with risky subprime loans. There is a major lack of research done in this area posing problems for three reasons. One, not being able to describe who experiences foreclosure makes it challenging to develop policies and programs that can prevent/reduce this trend for the future. Second, researchers cannot tell the extent to which recent foreclosures have reversed the advances in homeownership that some groups, historically lacking equal access, have made. Third, research is focused too much on community-level effects even though it is the individual households that are most strongly affected.^[25] Many people cite their own or their family members medical conditions as the primary reason for undergoing a foreclosure. Many do not have health insurance and are unable to adequately provide for their medical needs. This again points to the fact that foreclosures affects already vulnerable populations.^[26]

Recent Trends[link]

In 2009 the United States Congress tried to rescue the economy with a $700 billion bailout for the financial industry, however there was a growing consensus that the deepening collapse of the housing market was at the heart of the country’s acute economic downturn. After spending billions of dollars rescuing financial institutions only to see the economy spiral even deeper into crisis, both liberal and conservative economists and lawmakers pushed to redirect an economic stimulus bill to what they saw as the core problem: the housing market. But beneath the consensus over helping the housing market, there were huge differences over who should benefit under the competing plans. Democrats wanted to aim money directly at people in the greatest distress; and Republicans wanted to aim money at almost all homebuyers, on the theory that a rising tide would eventually lift all boats.^[27]

In 2010 there was a 14% increase in the number of homes receiving a default notice between July and September. In that year one in every 45 homes received a foreclosure filing and the problem has become more widespread with the increasing rates of unemployment across the nation. Banks have become extremely aggressive without much patience for those who have fallen behind on their mortgage payments, and there are more families entering the foreclosure process sooner than ever. This year, 2011, banks are on track to repossess over 800,000 homes.^[28] In 2010, the highest rates of foreclosure filings were in Las Vegas, Nevada; Fort Myers, Florida; Modesto, California; Scottsdale, Arizona; Miami, Florida; and Ontario, California. The geographic diversity of these cities is made up for by the fact they these are all relatively metropolitan areas. Big cities like Houston, Texas saw a 26% increase in 2010, 23% in Seattle, Washington and 21% in Atlanta, Georgia. On the opposite end of the spectrum, the cities with the lowest rates of foreclosure were Rome, NY; South Burlington, VT; Charleston, WV; Bryan, TX; and Tuscaloosa, AL.^[29] Not surprisingly, these areas had some of the lowest nationwide rates of unemployment, helping to further demonstrate this correlation. A quote from RealtyTrac CEO James Saccacio summarizes the recent trends:

“Foreclosure floodwaters receded somewhat in 2010 in the nation’s hardest-hit housing markets. Even so, foreclosure levels remained five to 10 times higher than historic norms in most of those hard-hit markets, where deep fault-lines of risk remain and could potentially trigger more waves of foreclosure activity in 2011 and beyond.”

^[25]

Impact of Foreclosure[link]

The impact of foreclosure goes beyond just homeowners but also expands to towns and neighborhoods as a whole. Cities with high foreclosure rates often experience more crime and thefts with abandoned houses being broken in to, garbage collecting on lawns, and an increase in prostitution.^[30] Foreclosures also impact neighboring housing sales on two levels—space and time. For any given time frame, foreclosures have a greater negative impact when they are closer to the property attempting to be sold. The conventional view suggested is that the increase in foreclosures will cause declines in the sales value of neighboring properties, which, in turn, will lead to an extension of the housing crisis.^[31] Another significant impact from increased foreclosure rates is the effect it has on school mobility of children. In general, research suggests that switching schools is damaging for children, although this does significantly depend on the quality origin and destination schools. A study done in New York City revealed that students who changed schools most often entered a school with lower, on average, test scores and overall school performance. The effect of these moves on academic performance for individual students is something needing further research.^[32] Foreclosures also have an emotional and physical effect on people. In one particular study of 250 recruited participants who had experience foreclosure, 36,7% met screening criteria for major depression.^[26]

Countries other than the USA[link]

• Australia and New Zealand: Foreclosures are generally referred to as Mortgagee sales or Mortgagee auctions. In those cases, the bank or lender ("Mortgagee") sells under the terms of the mortgage. In both of these countries statutory reform has altered the manner in which real property dealings are conducted. What is termed a "mortgage" is a charge that is registered against the title of the property. Since in both countries, the Torrens title system of land registration is used, being registered as proprietor or as a mortgagee creates an indefeasible interest (unless the acquisition of the registration was by land transfer fraud). The mortgagee therefore never holds any title documents, and there is a statutory process for initiating and conducting a mortgagee sale in the event that the mortgagor defaults. In New Zealand, the land title database is now electronic so there are no paper "title documents".
• United Kingdom: Foreclosure is a little used remedy which vests the property in the mortgagee with the mortgagor having no right to any surplus from the sale. Because this remedy can be harsh, courts almost never allow it. Instead, they usually grant an order for possession and an order for sale, which mitigates some of the harshness of the repossession by allowing the sale.
• Ireland: Foreclosure has been abolished by the Land and Conveyancing Reform Act 2009^[33] but Chapter 4 of Part 9 of the National Asset Management Agency Act 2009 provides for vesting orders that are equivalent to foreclosure but may only be used by NAMA.^[34]
• Switzerland: Foreclosure takes place as a form of debt enforcement proceedings under Swiss insolvency law.
• People's Republic of China: Foreclosure takes place as a form of debt enforcement proceedings under strict judicial foreclosure, which is only allowed by law of guarantee and law of property right.
• Philippines: There are two modes of foreclosure in the Philippines. A mortgagee may foreclose either judicially or extrajudicially, as governed by Rule 68 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure and Act. No. 3135, respectively. A judicial foreclosure is done by filing a complaint in the Regional Trial Court of the place where the property is located.^[35] The judge renders judgment, ordering the mortgagor to pay the debt within a period of 90–120 days. If the debt is not paid within the said period, a foreclosure sale satisfies the judgment.^[36] In an extrajudicial foreclosure, the mortgagee need not initiate an action in court but may simply file an application before the Clerk of Court to secure attendance of the Sheriff who conducts the public sale.^[37] This is done pursuant to a power of sale. Note that these two modes specifically apply to real estate mortgages. Foreclosure of chattel mortgages (mortgage of movable property) are governed by Sec. 14 of Act No. 1506, which gives the mortgagee the right to sell the chattel at a public sale. It has also been held that as regards chattel mortgages, the law does not prohibit that the foreclosure sale be done privately if it is agreed upon by the parties.^[38]
• South Africa: For a developing country, there is a high rate of foreclosures in South Africa^{[citation needed]} because of the privatisation of housing delivery.^{[neutrality is disputed]} One of the biggest opponents of foreclosures is the Western Cape Anti-Eviction Campaign which sees foreclosures as unconstitutional and a particular burden on vulnerable poor populations.^{[39][40][undue weight? – discuss]}
• Spain: Unlike in the United States, where a foreclosure means the end of the line, the foreclosure hearing in Spain is just the beginning of the homeowner’s troubles. They will have to work for the bank for many years and will be unable to ever own anything—even a car. Spanish mortgage holders are responsible for the full amount of the loan to the bank in addition to penalty interest charges, and court fees. Much of this can be attributed to Spain having the highest unemployment rate in the “euro zone.” Unlike in the US, bankruptcy is not an adequate solution since mortgage debt is specifically excluded. Unlike other European countries, you cannot go to the courts for any sort of debt relief. There has been much contention over these policies in the Spanish Parliament but the government is convinced that keeping these policies will prevent Spanish banks from ever experiencing something similar to the US mayhem.^[41]

See also[link]

• Deed in lieu of foreclosure
• Drive-by inspection
• Equity stripping
• Financial crisis of 2007–2010
• Forbearance
• HUD auction
• Loss mitigation
• Occupy Homes
• Repossession
• Real estate trends
• Short sale (real estate)
• Strategic default
• Tax taking - Tax Sales, Tax Auctions, Tax Foreclosures
• Vacant property

References[link]

Further reading[link]

• Trevor Rhodes. American Foreclosure: Everything U Need to Know about Preventing and Buying. 348 pages. McGraw-Hill, April, 2008. ISBN 0-07-159058-7

Alan Grayson
Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Florida's 8th district
In office January 3, 2009 – January 3, 2011
Preceded by	Ric Keller
Succeeded by	Daniel Webster
Personal details
Born	Alan Mark Grayson (1958-03-13) March 13, 1958 (age 54) The Bronx, New York City, New York, U.S.
Political party	Democratic Party
Spouse(s)	Lolita Grayson
Children	5
Residence	Orlando, Florida, U.S.
Alma mater	Harvard University
Profession	Attorney
Religion	Judaism[1][2]
Website	Grayson for Congress

Alan Mark Grayson (born March 13, 1958) is a former U.S. Representative for Florida's 8th congressional district, serving from 2009 until 2011. He is a member of the Democratic Party. The district Grayson represented lies in central Florida and includes portions of Orange Lake, Marion, and Osceola Counties. Most of Orlando is in the district, including Walt Disney World. Grayson was defeated for re-election in 2010 by Republican Daniel Webster.^[3]

Early life and education[link]

Grayson was born in the Bronx, New York City, New York, United States, to a Jewish family, the son of Dorothy Ann (née Sabin) and Daniel Franklin Grayson.^[4][5] He graduated from Bronx High School of Science in 1975 and worked his way through Harvard College as a janitor and nightwatchman, graduating in 1978 in the top two percent of his class, summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa with an A.B. in economics.^[6][7] After working two years as an economist, he returned to Harvard for graduate studies.^[2] In 1983, he earned a J.D. magna cum laude from Harvard Law School and a Masters of Public Policy from the John F. Kennedy School of Government. Additionally, he completed the course work and passed the general exams for a PhD in government.^[6][8]

Grayson wrote his masters thesis on gerontology and in 1986, he helped found the non-profit Alliance for Aging Research (AAR) in Washington, D.C., and served as an officer of the organization for more than twenty years.^[9]

Law career[link]

Grayson was employed as a law clerk at the Colorado Supreme Court in 1983,^[10] and at the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals from 1984 to 1985, where he worked with two judges who later joined the U.S. Supreme Court: Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia.^[2] He was an associate at the Washington D.C. firm of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson for five years, where he specialized in contract law.

In 1991 he founded the law firm Grayson, Kubli which concentrated on government contract law. He was a lecturer at the George Washington University government contracts program and a frequent speaker on the topic.^[8] In the 2000s, he worked as a plaintiffs' attorney specializing in whistleblower fraud cases aimed at Iraq war contractors. One contractor, Custer Battles, employed individuals who were found guilty of making fraudulent statements and submitting fraudulent invoices on two contracts the company had with the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq.^[11][12] On behalf of his clients, Grayson filed suit under the False Claims Act and its qui tam provisions.^[11] The jury verdict was more than $13 million, which was upheld on appeal in April 2009. The case remains the only successful prosecution of those who profited illegally from the war in Iraq. The Iraq war contractor fraud case brought Grayson his first national attention.^[13] In 2006, a Wall Street Journal reporter described Grayson as "waging a one-man war against contractor fraud in Iraq" and as a "fierce critic of the war in Iraq" whose car displayed bumper stickers such as "Bush lied, people died".^[14]

President of IDT Corp.[link]

Grayson made his fortune as the first president of IDT Corporation (International Discount Telecom), which pioneered competition and discount pricing in the long-distance telecommunications industry and became a $2-billion-a-year Fortune 1000 company.^[9][15]

U.S. House of Representatives[link]

Grayson is considered a progressive Democrat and he represented a district that was historically Republican. He supported Barack Obama in 2008. He was a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, of which he was vice-chairman.^[16]

Committee assignments[link]

• Committee on Financial Services
  • Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance, and Government-Sponsored Enterprises
• Committee on Science and Technology
  • Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight
  • Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics

Legislation head sponsored by Grayson[link]

• Pay for Performance Act (H.R. 1664)
• Public Option Act (H.R. 4789)
• War Is Making You Poor Act (H.R. 5353)
• Shareholder Protection Act (H.R. 4790)
• Paid Vacation Act of 2009 (H.R. 2564)

Political positions[link]

Federal Reserve transparency[link]

During his first term in office, Grayson supported Ron Paul's Audit the Fed legislation.^[17] Grayson gained attention for exchanges with Federal Reserve System Vice Chairman Donald Kohn and Inspector General Elizabeth A. Coleman.^[18] The 5-minute examination of Coleman in the House Financial Services Committee was posted on the Grayson's official YouTube page. As of December 2010, it has been viewed more than 4 million times.^[19]

Following the AIG bonus payments controversy, Grayson joined with fellow freshman Democrat Jim Himes of Connecticut to introduce the Grayson-Himes Pay for Performance Act, legislation to require that all bonuses paid by companies that had received funds under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 be "based on performance".^[20] The bill was co-sponsored by eight other members of the House. On March 26, the bill was approved by the House Financial Services Committee by a vote of 38–22 and on April 1, the bill was passed by the full House of Representatives by a vote of 247–171.^[21]

Grayson was a co-sponsor of the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009, which would provide additional provisions to audit the Federal Reserve, including removing several key exemptions.^[22]

Economic stimulus[link]

Grayson made it a priority to increase the amount of federal money coming back to the 8th Congressional District. He often said that people in the 8th District have been "exporting taxes and importing debt." During his first year in office, the amount of federal grant dollars returning to the district nearly doubled (98 percent increase).^[23][24] Grayson established a grant notification system that notifies subscribers immediately when a federal grant opportunity in their areas of interest becomes available. He also hired a full-time grants coordinator who focused solely on helping people navigate the federal grants process.

Grayson twice broke ranks with Democratic leadership and joined Republicans to oppose the raising of the federal debt limit (Roll no. 46, 2/4/10, Roll no. 988 12/16/09). He said at the time of the February vote, "We need to live within our means. We need to eliminate wasteful spending. If we did those two simple things, we would not need to raise the debt limit."^[25]

Grayson supported the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and has been outspoken in favor of extending unemployment benefits for Americans who have lost their jobs. Grayson argues that the government has never cut off unemployment insurance when the unemployment rate was higher than eight percent. Grayson also voted for the FDA Oversight of Tobacco Products, which gives the FDA power to regulate tobacco products.

On a September 2009 Alex Jones Show segment, Grayson criticized Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke's senior adviser Linda Robertson, saying "Here I am the only member of Congress who actually worked as an economist, this lobbyist, this K-Street whore, is trying to teach me about economics!"^[26][27] Robertson had previously worked as a lobbyist for Enron.^[28] Grayson's language was widely criticized as inappropriate,^[29] and Grayson apologized.^[28]

Health care reform[link]

In response to Republican arguments that the Obama administration's preferred health care bill was too long and complicated, Grayson on March 9, 2010, introduced H.R. 4789, the Public Option Act (sometimes called the Medicare You Can Buy Into Act), a short four-page bill which would allow all citizens and permanent residents of the United States to buy into the public Medicare program at cost.^[30] The bill attracted 82 co-sponsors and was referred to the Ways and Means Committee.

Grayson later voted for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act^[31] and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.^[32] He voted in support of Eliminating Adjustments of Medicare Rates of Payment. He also voted against Republican substitutes for the health care amendment and insurance law amendments.^[33]

Civil rights[link]

Grayson voted in support of the Hate Crimes Expansion Act, which expands the definition of hate crimes and strengthens enforcement of hate crime laws. He also voted for the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Grayson supported the Paycheck Fairness Act, a bill that allows victims of wage discrimination to sue for punitive damages.^[33]

Environment[link]

Grayson voted for the House's 2009 American Clean Energy and Security Act (also known as the Cap and Trade Bill). The bill would provide for a $50 million "Hurricane Research Center" in Central Florida, and Grayson claimed it would immediately generate new jobs.^[34] Grayson noted after the passage of the ACES Act his concern about our dependence on foreign oil, the need to promote green technologies and renewable energy sources, and the job creation from the bill (an estimated 95,000 jobs in Florida). "This bill unleashes American ingenuity to solve the energy crisis. It lets us solve our problems by being Americans and thinking our way out of it. We will become an international energy power," he said in a news release.

The BP Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico affected Florida's number one industry, which is tourism. The lack of a relief well prevented company officials from shutting down the leak immediately. Instead, it took months to drill a new relief well, while millions of gallons of oil gushed into the Gulf each week.^[35] In response, Grayson introduced the Emergency Relief Well Act (H.R. 5666). It requires that an emergency relief well be drilled at the same time as any new exploratory well.

Defense[link]

Grayson has been an outspoken critic of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In May 2010, he introduced the "War Is Making You Poor Act" (H.R. 5353). The bill requires the President to fund the wars from the Department of Defense's FY '11 base budget of $550 billion. It uses the $159 billion in "supplemental funding" to eliminate federal income taxes for everyone's first $35,000 a year. The bill does not necessitate an end to the wars or mandate a cut-off date. In addition to the tax cuts, the bill cuts the federal deficit by $15.9 billion.^[36]

Grayson has tried to combat wasteful spending by government defense contractors by introducing his "Gold Plating Amendment." The amendment requires that cost or price account for half of the evaluation of bids for defense contracts. The law at the time allowed for cost to account for only one percent of the evaluation. The amendment passed as part of the National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 2647) in June 2009. However, the language was stripped from the final bill during the conference committee between Senate and House leaders. Grayson worked successfully to get the amendment inserted into the IMPROVE Acquisition Act, which passed the U.S. House of Representatives on April 28, 2010.^[37]

Grayson voted for the 2009–2010 Defense Appropriations, which authorizes $681 billion of appropriations for the Department of Defense.^[38] He also supported the 2009–2010 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Authorizations, which provided $46.18 billion in appropriations for 2009–2010.^[39]

Combating federal waste, fraud, and abuse[link]

Grayson has worked to combat federal waste, fraud, and abuse. In the September 6, 2009 edition of The New York Times, columnist Gretchen Morgenson thanked Grayson for uncovering the fact that, due to the federal bailout of mortgage finance giant Fannie Mae, taxpayer money had been funding the legal defense fees for former top executives at the institution. Grayson requested information about these legal costs after a June 2009 hearing of the House Financial Services Committee. Grayson's work uncovered that, between September 6, 2008 and July 21, 2009, taxpayers spent $6.3 million defending Fannie Mae executives Franklin Raines, J. Timothy Howard, and Leanne Spencer. Taxpayers paid an additional $16.8 million to cover legal expenses of workers at the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, Fannie’s former regulator.^[40]

In September 2009, Grayson used a parliamentary maneuver called an “extension of remarks” to provide crucial instruction on H.R. 3221, the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009, a bill that, among other things, included a provision that prohibited funding for ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). Grayson’s extension of remarks directed that the legislation defund any organization that cheats the federal government, not just ACORN. The defunding measure passed the House with a final vote of 253–171.^[37] Grayson also encouraged the public to report companies covered by the bill and set up a method to report offending companies via his Congressional web site.^[41]

“Teach the Constitution Week”[link]

On September 14, 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives passed Grayson’s “Teach the Constitution Week” resolution (H.Res. 686). The bill urged high schools to spend one week each September teaching the United States Constitution to high school seniors and also encouraged students to petition the government on an issue of personal importance to them to demonstrate their understanding of their rights and responsibilities as citizens of the United States. The non-partisan resolution was passed by a voice vote and featured 222 co-sponsors.^[37][42][43]

New Frontier Congressional Gold Medal Act[link]

On the 40th anniversary of the historic Apollo 11 moon landing in 1969, the U.S. House of Representatives passed Grayson’s New Frontier Congressional Gold Medal Act of 2009 (H.R. 2245). The bill asked the President to present Congress’s highest civilian honor, the Congressional Gold Medal, to Apollo 11 astronauts Neil Armstrong, Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin Jr., and Michael Collins, as well as John Glenn, the first American to orbit the Earth. Only about 200 medals have ever been awarded in the country’s history. The New Frontier Congressional Gold Medal Act of 2009 passed the House unanimously on July 20, 2009.^[44][45]

Controversial public remarks[link]

Grayson quickly gained a reputation as an elected official who was "not shy about his opinions."^[46] He was unrestrained in his criticism of right-wing positions, politicians, and pundits, particularly those employed by and/or frequently appearing on Fox News Channel.^[13] His sharp characterizations in public remarks earned him national attention both positive and negative.

Health care[link]

In September 2009, during the debates leading to the passage of the Affordable Health Care for America Act by the House in November, Grayson summed up the "Republican health care plan" as "'Don't get sick, and if you do get sick, die quickly.'"^[47] His remarks were widely condemned by Republican politicians but, according to Grayson, were well received by his constituents. Grayson reported that his comments resulted in over 5,000 campaign contributions and that the positive emails he received outnumbered the negative ones by a four-to-one margin;^{[48][49][50][51]} the comments also generated funds from the Democratic National Committee towards his upcoming 2010 campaign race.^[51][52] Grayson raised $347,000 for his reelection campaign during the third quarter, much of it attributed to his remarks.^[53][54]

He defended his comment and in a House Floor speech stated, “I apologize to the dead and their families that we haven't voted sooner to end this holocaust in America." Grayson, who is Jewish, apologized to the Anti-defamation League for those offended by his generic use of "holocaust".^[55][56][57] He also maintained that Congressional Republicans have failed to offer a feasible plan.^[58][59] In October 2009 he launched www.NamesOfTheDead.com, a website to "memorialize Americans who die because they don’t have health insurance." He subsequently read stories of the dead submitted through the Names of the Dead site on the House floor.^[60]

Political campaigns[link]

Grayson is the second Democrat to represent this district since its formation after the 1970 census (it was the 5th District from 1973 to 1993 and has been the 8th District since 1993). The only other Democrat to represent this district, Bill Gunter, gave it up after only one term to run for the United States Senate in 1974.

2006[link]

In 2006, Grayson first entered into electoral politics, losing the 2006 Democratic primary for Florida's 8th Congressional District to Charlie Stuart, a prominent local businessman and center-right Democrat.^[61] Stuart went on to lose the general election to incumbent Republican Ric Keller.^[62] In late 2007, Grayson announced that he would run again for the 8th District seat, and again faced Stuart in the primary. During the primary, his campaign retained the services of Bill Hillsman.

2008[link]

In the August 26, 2008 Democratic primary, Grayson prevailed, receiving 48.5 percent of the vote. Stuart trailed with 27.5 percent, with three other candidates splitting the remaining 24 percent.^[63] During the general election campaign, Grayson maintained a consistent lead over Keller, who had barely eked out renomination in the Republican primary over attorney Todd Long. On Election Day, Grayson received 172,854 votes, or 52 percent, to Keller's 159,490 votes, or 48 percent.^[64] Although Keller won three out of four counties in the district, Grayson won by a margin of 55 percent to 45 percent in Orange County, home to Orlando and by far the largest county in the district. Grayson was also helped by a massive voter registration drive by the Democratic Party in the 8th District that gave Democrats a slight edge in registered voters.

2010[link]

Grayson was challenged by Republican nominee Daniel Webster, Florida TEA Party nominee Peg Dunmire, Independent candidate George Metcalfe, and write-in Florida Whig Party candidate Steve Gerritzen.^[65]

Grayson ran a September 2010, commercial calling Webster a "draft-dodger,"^[66] (Webster had received student deferments and a draft classification as medically unfit for service),^[67] and a later 30-second commercial calling Webster "Taliban Dan" and warning viewers that "Religious fanatics try to take away our freedom, in Afghanistan, in Iran and right here in Central Florida."^[68] Grayson's ads were criticized for editing video mid-sentence to make Webster appear to be saying things he did not say.^[69][70] Grayson released a toned-down version without the edited video or Taliban references in early October.^[71][72]

Grayson was targeted by conservatives and conservative groups in commercials and the media, and on the Internet. On Glenn Beck's radio show, Sarah Palin agreed with a co-host's remark, "It’s okay if the Republicans lose every seat in the Senate and the House except for one. As long as that one is Alan Grayson losing."^[73] Conservative Newsweek columnist George Will called Grayson "America's worst politician."^[74] Grayson was also heavily targeted in attack ads funded by groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the 60 Plus Association.^[75] The Chamber of Commerce ads were in turn criticized by Grayson and his supporters as "deeply dishonest".^{[citation needed]}

Grayson was endorsed by 8th District resident, former Congresswoman Patricia Schroeder (D-CO), who characterized Webster as having "13th-century views" on women's issues.^[76] Former DNC Chair and Vermont governor Howard Dean called Grayson a "healthcare hero."^[77] Grayson received more votes for "progressive hero" from Democracy for America than any other candidate in the country.^[78] Moveon.org, in an appeal to its members, termed Grayson "a populist hero who's never afraid to call out the pernicious corporate influence in Washington."^{[citation needed]}

Grayson conceded the race on the evening of November 2 after Webster showed a clear lead.^[79] Election results were: Grayson 38 percent Webster 56 percent^[80]

2012[link]

On the evening of July 11, 2011, Grayson announced in an e-mail to supporters that he planned to run once again for Congress.^[81] Grayson was the only Democrat running in a newly-created Democratic-oriented District (renumbered as the 9th) in Central Florida as of February 2012. The district's voters are 42% Hispanic and could favor a Hispanic Democrat if one sought the party's nomination.^[82] The new District, one of two newly created due to population growth, was designed for the Hispanic population of Central Florida.^[83]

Personal life[link]

Grayson was ranked as the 11th-wealthiest member of Congress in 2010, based on financial disclosure forms with a minimum net worth of $31.41 million, according to Roll Call.^[84] Grayson disclosed that his attorney fees and costs for the war contractor case had exceeded $4 million.^[12][14]

While pursuing the whistleblower cases, Grayson worked from a home office in Orlando, where he lives with his wife and five children.^[13]

Grayson reportedly ran a red light on his way to a fundraiser in downtown Orlando on March 10, 2012, entering cross traffic and striking a Lynx bus. Three passengers on the bus were hospitalized with minor injuries and Grayson's 2009 Mercedes Benz was severely damaged, but he and his passenger were not hurt. Police issued a citation to Grayson, who said he did not know what color the light was when he entered the intersection.^[85][86]

References[link]

External links[link]

Find more about Alan Grayson on Wikipedia's sister projects:
	Images and media from Commons
	Quotations from Wikiquote

• Alan Grayson for U.S. Congress official campaign site
• Biography at WhoRunsGov.com at The Washington Post
• Biography at the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress
• Voting record maintained by The Washington Post
• Biography, voting record, and interest group ratings at Project Vote Smart
• Congressional profile at GovTrack
• Issue positions and quotes at On the Issues
• Financial information at OpenSecrets.org
• Staff salaries, trips and personal finance at LegiStorm.com
• Campaign finance reports and data at the Federal Election Commission
• Appearances on C-SPAN programs
• Alan Grayson: "Bipartisanship Has Become Code Word for Appeasement" – video report by Democracy Now!

Matt Taibbi
Born	Matthew C. Taibbi (1970-03-02) March 2, 1970 (age 42)
Nationality	American
Occupation	Journalist, political writer, columnist
Relatives	Mike Taibbi (father)

Matthew C. "Matt" Taibbi (pronounced /taɪˈiːbi/; born March 2, 1970) is an American author and journalist reporting on politics, media, finance, and sports for Rolling Stone and Men's Journal, often in a polemical style.^[1] He has also edited and written for The eXile, the New York Press, and The Beast.

Early years[link]

Taibbi grew up in the Boston, Massachusetts suburbs. He attended Concord Academy in Concord, Massachusetts, and Bard College at Annandale-on-Hudson, New York, then spent a year abroad at Saint Petersburg Polytechnical University in Russia. His father is Mike Taibbi, an NBC television reporter.

Career[link]

Taibbi joined Mark Ames in 1997 to co-edit the controversial English-language Moscow-based, bi-weekly free newspaper, The eXile. Of Exile, Taibbi said, "We were out of the reach of American libel law, and we had a situation where we weren’t really accountable to our advertisers. We had total freedom."^{[citation needed]} In the U.S. media, Playboy magazine published pieces on Russia both by Taibbi and by Taibbi and Ames together during this time.

In 2002, he returned to the U.S. to start the satirical bi-weekly The Beast in Buffalo, New York, which he eventually left declaring that "Running a business and writing is too much." Taibbi continued as a freelancer for The Nation, Playboy, New York Press (where he wrote a regular political column for more than two years), Rolling Stone, and New York Sports Express (as Editor at Large). Taibbi said being a journalist was a "career failure. I wanted to be a novelist," he announced at an NYU lecture.

Taibbi left the New York Press in August 2005, shortly after his editor Jeff Koyen was forced to quit over issues raised by Taibbi's column "The 52 Funniest Things About The Upcoming Death of The Pope."^[2][3][4] "I have since learned that there would not have been an opportunity for me to stay anyway," Taibbi later wrote.^[5]

Taibbi became a Contributing Editor at Rolling Stone, penning feature-length articles on domestic and international affairs, along with a weekly political online column titled "The Low Post" for the magazine's website. Taibbi writes for the print edition of Rolling Stone, and contributes to their website in his current blog, "Taibblog". A later online column titled "Year of the Rat" was meant to document the 2008 election season, but it ended after only a few postings.^[6]

His July 2009 Rolling Stone article "The Great American Bubble Machine" described Goldman Sachs as "a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money."^[1][7]

Tackling the assistance to banks given in foreclosure courts, Taibbi traveled to Jacksonville, Florida to observe the "rocket docket" to process foreclosures without regard to the legality of the financial instruments being ruled upon, speeding-up the process to enable quick resale of the properties while obscuring the fraudulent and predatory nature of the loans, and a reluctance to allow public observance of the court proceedings.^[8] "Invasion of the Home Snatchers" was published in the November 25, 2010 issue of Rolling Stone.

Taibbi was also featured in Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura on an episode regarding Wall Street and its role in the 2008 financial collapse.

Taibbi covered the 2008 presidential campaign for Real Time with Bill Maher,^[9] and he has made several guest appearances on MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show^[10] to discuss the 2009 economic crisis. He also appears on Democracy Now!^[11] and serves as a contributor on Countdown with Keith Olbermann.^[12] Taibbi is an occasional guest on the Thom Hartmann radio and TV shows.