document_title: Supreme Court of India

question_text: how many members in supreme court of india

text: Supreme Court of India

text: History[edit]

text: In 1861 the Indian High Courts Act 1861 was enacted to create High Courts for various provinces and abolished Supreme Courts at Calcutta, Madras and Bombay and also the Sadar Adalats in Presidency towns which had acted as the highest court in their respective regions. These new High Courts had the distinction of being the highest Courts for all cases till the creation of Federal Court of India under the Government of India Act 1935. The Federal Court had jurisdiction to solve disputes between provinces and federal states and hear appeal against judgements of the High Courts. The first CJI of India was Shri. Manak Goel. [2]

text: The Supreme Court of India came into being on 28 January 1950.[3] It replaced both the Federal Court of India and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council which were then at the apex of the Indian court system.

text: Supreme Court initially had its seat at Chamber of Princes in the Parliament building where the previous Federal Court of India sat from 1937 to 1950. The first Chief Justice of India was Sir H J Kania. In 1958, the Supreme Court moved to its present premises.[3] Originally, Constitution of India envisaged a Supreme Court with a Chief Justice and seven Judges; leaving it to Parliament to increase this number.[4] In formative years, the Supreme Court met from 10 to 12 in the morning and then 2 to 4 in the afternoon for 28 days in a month.[5]

text: Court building architecture[edit]

text: The building is shaped to symbolize scales of justice with its centre-beam being the Central Wing of the building comprising the Chief Justice’s court, the largest of the courtrooms, with two court halls on either side. The Right Wing of the structure has the bar - room, the offices of the Attorney General of India and other law officers and the library of the court. The Left Wing has the offices of the court. In all, there are 15 courtrooms in the various wings of the building.[2][3][6]

text: The foundation stone of the supreme court's building was laid on 29 October 1954 by Rajendra Prasad, the first President of India. The main block of the building has been built on a triangular plot of 17 acres and has been designed in an Indo-British style by the chief architect Ganesh Bhikaji Deolalikar, the first Indian to head the Central Public Works Department. The Court moved into the building in 1958. In 1979, two new wings - the East Wing and the West Wing - were added to the complex. 1994 saw the last extension.[3]

text: Mother and Child Sculpture[edit]

text: On 20 February 1980, a black bronze sculpture of 210-centimeter height was installed in the lawn of the Supreme Court. It portrays Mother India in the form of the figure of a lady, sheltering the young Republic of India represented by the symbol of a child, who is upholding the laws of land symbolically shown in the form of an open book. On the book, a balance beam is shown, which represents dispensation of equal justice to all. The sculpture was made by the renowned artist Chintamoni Kar. The sculpture is just behind the idol of Mahatma Gandhi.

text: Seal[edit]

text: The design of the Court's seal is reproduced from the wheel that appears on the abacus of the Sarnath Lion capital of Asoka with 24 spokes. The inscription in Sanskrit "yatodharmastato jayah"(यतो धर्मस्ततो जयः) means "whence law (dharma), thence victory". It is also referred to - as the wheel of righteousness, encompassing truth, goodness and equity.[2]

text: Constitution of the court[edit]

text: Registry[edit]

text: The registry of the Supreme Court is headed by the Secretary-General who is assisted by 8 registrars, several additional and deputy registrars, etc., with 1770 employees in all (221 gazetted officers, 805 non-gazetted and 744 Class IV employees)[7] Article 146 of the Constitution deals with the appointments of officers and servants of the Supreme Court registry.[8][9]

text: Supreme Court advocates[edit]

text: Supreme Court Rules, 2013[10] entitle only those advocates who are registered with the supreme court, called 'Advocates-on-Record' to appear, act and plead for a party in the court. Those advocates who are designated as 'Senior Advocates' by the Supreme Court or any of the High Courts can appear for clients along with an Advocate-on-Record. Any other advocate can appear for a party along with or under instructions from an Advocate-on-Record.

text: Composition[edit]

text: Size of the court[edit]

text: As originally enacted, the Constitution of India provided for a Supreme Court with a Chief Justice and 7 judges. In the early years, a full bench of the Supreme Court sat together to hear the cases presented before them. As the work of the Court increased and cases began to accumulate, Parliament increased the number of judges from the original 8 in 1950 to 10 in 1956, 13 in 1960, 17 in 1977, 26 in 1986 and 31 in 2008 (current strength). As the number of the judges has increased, they sit in smaller benches of two or three (referred to as a division bench) [11]— coming together in larger benches of five or more (referred to as a constitution bench) when required to settle fundamental questions of law. A bench may refer a case before it to a larger bench, should the need arise.[12]

text: Eligibility[edit]

text: A citizen of India[13] who has been

text:
a judge of one high court or more (continuously), for at least five years,[13] or
an advocate there, for at least ten years,[13] or
a distinguished jurist,[13] in the opinion of the president,

text: is eligible to be recommended for appointment, a judge of the supreme court.

text: Court demographics[edit]

text:
I am proud to be an Indian. India is the only country where a member of the minority Parsi community with a population of 1,67,000, like myself, can aspire to attain the post of the Chief Justice of India. These things do not happen in our neighbouring countries.

Former Chief Justice of India, S. H. Kapadia[14][15]

tag: div

text: In practice, judges of the supreme court have been selected so far, mostly from amongst judges of the high courts. Barely six - Justices S. M. Sikri, S. Chandra Roy, Kuldip Singh, Santosh Hegde, R. F. Nariman, U. U. Lalit and L. Nageshwara Rao have been appointed to the supreme court directly from the bar (i.e. who were practising advocates).[16][17]

text: The supreme court saw its first woman judge when Justice M. Fathima Beevi was sworn into office in 1989.[18] The sixth and the most recent woman judge in the court is Justice R. Banumathi.[19][20] In 1968, Justice Mohammad Hidayatullah became the first Muslim Chief Justice of India. In 2000, Justice K. G. Balakrishnan became the first judge from the dalit community. In 2007 he also became the first dalit Chief Justice of India. In 2010, Justice S. H. Kapadia coming from a Parsi minority community became the Chief Justice of India.[14][21] In 2017, Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar became the first Sikh Chief Justice of India.

text: Judicial independence[edit]

text: The Constitution seeks to ensure the independence of Supreme Court Judges in various ways.

text: Appointments and the Collegium[edit]

text: As per the Constitution, as held by the court in the Three Judges' Cases - (1982, 1993, 1998), a judge is appointed to the Supreme Court by the President of India on the recommendation of the collegium  — a closed group of the Chief Justice of India, the four most senior judges of the court and the senior-most judge hailing from the high court of a prospective appointee.[22] This has resulted in a Memorandum of Procedure being followed, for the appointments.

text: Judges used to be appointed by the President on the advice of the Union Cabinet. After 1993 (the Second Judges' Case), no minister, or even the executive collectively, can suggest any names to the President,[23][24] who ultimately decides on appointing them from a list of names recommended only by the collegium of the judiciary. Simultaneously, as held in that judgment, the executive was given the power to reject a recommended name. However, according to some, the executive has not been diligent in using this power to reject the names of bad candidates recommended by the judiciary.[25][26][27]

text: The collegium system has come under a fair amount of criticism.[24] In 2015, the Parliament passed a law to replace the collegium with a National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC). This was struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, in the Fourth Judges' Case, as the new system would undermine the independence of the judiciary.[28] Putting the old system of the collegium back, the court invited suggestions, even from the general public, on how to improve the collegium system, broadly along the lines of - setting up an eligibility criteria for appointments, a permanent secretariat to help the collegium sift through material on potential candidates, infusing more transparency into the selection process, grievance redressal and any other suggestion not in these four categories, like transfer of judges.[29] This resulted in the court asking the government and the collegium to finalize the Memorandum of Procedure incorporating the above.[30]

text: Once, in 2009, the recommendation for the appointment of a judge of a high court made by the collegium of that court, had come to be challenged in the supreme court. The court held that who could become a judge was a matter of fact, and any person had a right to question it. But who should become a judge was a matter of opinion and could not be questioned. As long as an effective consultation took place within a collegium in arriving at that opinion, the content or material placed before it to form the opinion could not be called for scrutiny in court.[31]

text: Tenure[edit]

text: Supreme Court judges retire at the age of 65. However, there have been suggestions from the judges of the Supreme Court of India to provide for a fixed term for the judges including the Chief Justice of India.[32]

text: Salary[edit]

text: Article 125 of the Indian Constitution leaves it to the Indian Parliament to determine the salary, other allowances, leave of absence, pension, etc. of the Supreme Court judges. However, the Parliament cannot alter any of these privileges and rights to the judge's disadvantage after his/her appointment.[33] A judge gets ₹90,000 (US$1,400) per month, the Chief Justice earns an additional ₹10,000 (US$160).[34]

text: Removal[edit]

text: A judge of the Supreme Court can be removed under the Constitution only on grounds of proven misconduct or incapacity and by an order of the President of India, after a notice signed by at least 100 members of the Lok Sabha (House of the People) or 50 members of the Rajya Sabha (Council of the States) is passed by a two-third majority in each House of the Parliament.[35][36]

text: Post-retirement[edit]

text: A Person who has retired as a Judge of the Supreme Court is debarred from practicing in any court of law or before any other authority in India.

text: Review petition[edit]

text: Article 137 of the Constitution of India lays down provision for the power of the Supreme Court to review its own judgements. As per this Article, subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or any rules made under Article 145, the Supreme Court shall have power to review any judgment pronounced or order made by it.[37]

text: Under Order XL of the Supreme Court Rules, that have been framed under its powers under Article 145 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court may review its judgment or order but no application for review is to be entertained in a civil proceeding except on the grounds mentioned in Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

text: Powers to punish for contempt[edit]

text: Under Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution the Supreme Court has been vested with power to punish anyone for contempt of any court in India including itself. The Supreme Court performed an unprecedented action when it directed a sitting Minister of the state of Maharashtra, Swaroop Singh Naik,[38] to be jailed for 1-month on a charge of contempt of court on 12 May 2006. This was the first time that a serving Minister was ever jailed.[39][40]

text: Rules[edit]

text: The Constitution of India under Article 145 empowers the Supreme Court to frame its own rules for regulating the practice and procedure of the Court as and when required (with the approval of the President of India). Accordingly, "Supreme Court Rules, 1950" were framed. The 1950 Rules were replaced by the Supreme Court Rules, 1966.

text: [41] In 2014, Supreme Court notified the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 replacing the 1966 Rules effective from 19 August 2014.[10]

text: Reporting and citation[edit]

text: Supreme Court Reports is the official journal of Reportable Supreme Court Decisions. It is published under the authority of the Supreme Court of India by the Controller of Publications, Government of India, Delhi.[42] In addition, there are many other reputed private journals that report Supreme Court decisions. Some of these other important journals are: SCR (The Supreme Court Reports), SCC(Supreme Court Cases), AIR (All India Reporter), SCALE, etc.

text: Facilities on the campus[edit]

text: Legal-aid,[43][44][45] court-fee vendors, first-aid post, dental clinic, physiotherapy unit and pathology lab; rail-reservation counter, canteen, post office and a branch and 3 ATMs of UCO Bank, Supreme Court Museum[7] can be availed by litigants and visitors.

text: Landmark judgments[edit]

text: Land reform[edit]

text: After some of the courts overturned state laws for redistributing land from zamindar (landlord) estates on the ground that the laws violated the zamindars' fundamental rights, the Parliament passed the 1st amendment to the Constitution in 1951, followed by the 4th amendment in 1955, to uphold its authority to redistribute land. The Supreme Court countered these amendments in 1967 when it ruled in Golaknath v. State of Punjab[46] that the Parliament did not have the power to abrogate fundamental rights, including the provisions on private property. The 25th amendment to the Constitution in 1971 curtailed the right of a citizen to property as a fundamental right and gave authority to the government to infringe private property, which led to a furor amongst the zamindars.

text: Emergency (1975-1977)[edit]

text: The independence of judiciary was severely curtailed[47] during the Indian Emergency (1975-1977) of Indira Gandhi. The constitutional rights of imprisoned persons were restricted under Preventive detention laws passed by the parliament. In the case of Shiva Kant Shukla Additional District Magistrate of Jabalpur v. Shiv Kant Shukla, popularly known as the Habeas Corpus case, a bench of five seniormost judges of Supreme court ruled in favour of state's right for unrestricted powers of detention during the emergency. Justices A.N. Ray, P. N. Bhagwati, Y. V. Chandrachud, and M.H. Beg, stated in the majority decision:[48]

text: The only dissenting opinion was from Justice H. R. Khanna, who stated:

text: It is believed that before delivering his dissenting opinion, Justice Khanna had mentioned to his sister: "I have prepared my judgment, which is going to cost me the Chief Justice-ship of India."[49] In January 1977, Justice Khanna was superseded despite being the most senior judge at the time and thereby Government broke the convention of appointing only the senior most judge to the position of Chief Justice of India. Justice Khanna remains a legendary figure among the legal fraternity in India for this decision.

text: The New York Times, wrote of this opinion: "The submission of an independent judiciary to absolutist government is virtually the last step in the destruction of a democratic society; and the Indian Supreme Court's decision appears close to utter surrender."

text: During the emergency period, the government also passed the 39th amendment, which sought to limit judicial review for the election of the Prime Minister; only a body constituted by Parliament could review this election.[50] Subsequently, the parliament, with most opposition members in jail during the emergency, passed the 42nd Amendment which prevented any court from reviewing any amendment to the constitution with the exception of procedural issues concerning ratification. A few years after the emergency, however, the Supreme court rejected the absoluteness of the 42nd amendment and reaffirmed its power of judicial review in the Minerva Mills case (1980).

text: Post-1980: an assertive court[edit]

text: After Indira Gandhi lost elections in 1977, the new government of Morarji Desai, and especially law minister Shanti Bhushan (who had earlier argued for the detenues in the Habeas Corpus case), introduced a number of amendments making it more difficult to declare and sustain an emergency, and reinstated much of the power to the Supreme Court. It is said that the Basic Structure doctrine, created in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, was strengthened in Indira Gandhi's case and set in stone in [Minerva Mills v. Union of India].[51]

text: The Supreme Court's creative and expansive interpretations of Article 21 (Life and Personal Liberty), primarily after the Emergency period, have given rise to a new jurisprudence of public interest litigation that has vigorously promoted many important economic and social rights (constitutionally protected but not enforceable) including, but not restricted to, the rights to free education, livelihood, a clean environment,[52] food and many others. Civil and political rights (traditionally protected in the Fundamental Rights chapter of the Indian Constitution) have also been expanded and more fiercely protected. These new interpretations have opened the avenue for litigation on a number of important issues.

text: Recent important cases[edit]

text: Among the important pronouncements of the Supreme Court post 2000 is the Coelho case [I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (Judgment of 11 January 2007)]. A unanimous Bench of 9 judges reaffirmed the basic structure doctrine. It held that a constitutional amendment which entails violation of any fundamental rights which the Court regards as forming part of the basic structure of the Constitution, then the same can be struck down depending upon its impact and consequences. The judgment clearly imposes further limitations on the constituent power of Parliament with respect to the principles underlying certain fundamental rights. The judgment in Coelho has in effect restored the decision in Golak Nath regarding non-amendability of the Constitution on account of infraction of fundamental rights, contrary to the judgment in the Kesavananda Bharati case.

text: Another important decision was of the five-judge Bench in Ashoka Kumara Thakur v. Union of India; where the constitutional validity of Central Educational Institutions (Reservations in Admissions) Act, 2006 was upheld, subject to the "creamy layer" criteria. Importantly, the Court refused to follow the 'strict scrutiny' standards of review followed by the United States Supreme Court. At the same time, the Court has applied the strict scrutiny standards in Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of India (2007) ([1])

text: 2G spectrum scam[edit]

text: The Supreme Court declared allotment of spectrum as "unconstitutional and arbitrary" and quashed all the 122 licenses issued in 2008 during tenure of A. Raja (then minister for communications & IT), the main official accused in the 2G scam case.[53]

text: Black money[edit]

text: The government refused to disclose details of about 18 Indians holding accounts in LGT Bank, Liechtenstein, evoking a sharp response from a Bench comprising Justices B Sudershan Reddy and S S Nijjar. The court ordered Special investigation team (SIT) to probe the matter.[54][55] Lack of enthusiasm made the court create a special investigative team (SIT).[56]

text: Minority reservations[edit]

text: The Supreme Court refused to stay the Andhra Pradesh High Court judgement quashing 4.5% sub-quota for minorities under OBC reservation quota of 27%.[57]

text: Online/postal ballot for Indian citizen living abroad (NRIs)[edit]

text: Three judge bench presided by Honorable Chief Justice Altamas Kabir issued notice to the Centre and the Election Commission of India (EC) on the PIL filed by a group of NRIs for online/postal ballot for the Indian citizens living abroad.[58][59]

text: Recognition of transgender as 'third gender' in law[edit]

text: In April 2014, Justice KS Radhakrishnan declared transgender to be the 'third gender' in Indian law, in a case brought by the National Legal Services Authority (Nalsa) against Union of India and others.[60][61][62] The ruling said:[63]

text: Seldom, our society realises or cares to realise the trauma, agony and pain which the members of Transgender community undergo, nor appreciates the innate feelings of the members of the Transgender community, especially of those whose mind and body disown their biological sex. Our society often ridicules and abuses the Transgender community and in public places like railway stations, bus stands, schools, workplaces, malls, theatres, hospitals, they are sidelined and treated as untouchables, forgetting the fact that the moral failure lies in the society's unwillingness to contain or embrace different gender identities and expressions, a mindset which we have to change.

text: Justice Radhakrishnan said that transgender people should be treated consistently with other minorities under the law, enabling them to access jobs, healthcare and education.[64] He framed the issue as one of human rights, saying that, "These TGs, even though insignificant in numbers, are still human beings and therefore they have every right to enjoy their human rights", concluding by declaring that:[63]

text: (1) Hijras, eunuchs, apart from binary gender, be treated as "third gender" for the purpose of safeguarding their rights under Part III of our Constitution and the laws made by the Parliament and the State Legislature.

text: (2) Transgender persons' right to decide their self-identified gender is also upheld and the Centre and State Governments are directed to grant legal recognition of their gender identity such as male, female or as third gender.

text: Relief to over 35,000 public servants[edit]

text: In B.Prabhakara Rao vs. State of A.P. involved sudden reduction in age of superannuation from 58 years to 55 years of over 35,000 public servants of State Government, public sector undertakings, statutory bodies, educational institutions and Tirupathi-Tirumalai Devasthanams (TTD). They lost first round of litigation in the Supreme Court. Realising the mistake, fresh legislation was brought restoring the original age of superannuation of 58 years but providing that the benefit of new legislation would not extend to those whose reduction of age of superannuation had been upheld. In challenge to this law, Subodh Markandeya argued that all that was required was to strike down naughty “not” – which found favour with the Supreme Court bringing relief to over 35,000 public servants.[65][66]

text: Criticism[edit]

text: 2008 saw the Supreme Court embroiled in several controversies, from serious allegations of corruption at the highest level of the judiciary,[67] expensive private holidays at the tax payers expense,[68] refusal to divulge details of judges' assets to the public,[69] secrecy in the appointments of judges',[70] to refusal to make information public under the Right to Information Act.[71] The Chief Justice K. G. Balakrishnan invited a lot of criticism for his comments on his post not being that of a public servant, but that of a constitutional authority.[72] He later went back on this stand.[73] The judiciary has come in for serious criticisms from former Presidents of India Pratibha Patil and A. P. J. Abdul Kalam for failure in handling its duties.[74] Former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, has stated that corruption is one of the major challenges facing the judiciary, and suggested that there is an urgent need to eradicate this menace.[75]

text: The Cabinet Secretary of the Indian government introduced the Judges Inquiry (Amendment) Bill 2008 in Parliament for setting up of a panel called the National Judicial Council, headed by the Chief Justice of India, that will probe into allegations of corruption and misconduct by High Court and Supreme Court judges.[76][77]

text: According to Supreme Court newsletter, there are 58,519 cases pending in the Supreme Court, out of which 37,385 are pending for more than a year, at the end of 2011. Excluding connected cases, there are still 33,892 pending cases.[78] As per the latest pendency data made available by the Supreme Court, the total number of pending cases in the Supreme Court as on 1 April 2014 is 64,330, which includes 34,144 Admission matters (miscellaneous) and 30,186 Regular Hearing matters.[79] In May, 2014, former Chief Justice of India, Justice R.M. Lodha, proposed to make Indian judiciary work throughout the year (instead of the present system of having long vacations, specially in the higher courts) in order to reduce pendency of cases in Indian courts; however, as per this proposal there is not going to be any increase in the number of working days or working hours of any of the judges and it only meant that different judges would be going on vacation during different periods of the year as per their choice; but, the Bar Council of India rejected this proposal mainly because it would have inconvenienced the advocates who would have to work throughout the year.[80]


document_title: Terrace House: Opening New Doors

question_text: when is terrace house opening new doors part 3

root

text: Terrace House: Opening New Doors

text: Cast[edit]

text: Main cast[edit]

text:
№

Name

Occupation

Birth date

Age*

Appearance

English

Japanese

Nickname

Eps

#

01

Ami Komuro

小室安未

Ami

university student

January 19, 1997

21

01 - 17

17

02

Yuudai Arai

新井雄大

Yuudai

aspiring chef

April 8, 1998

20

01 - 09

9

03

Mizuki Haruta

治田みずき

Mizuki

freelance writer / interpreter

June 30, 1991

26

01 - 09

9

04

Takayuki Nakamura

中村貴之

Taka

professional snowboarder

May 25, 1986

31

01 - 34

34

05

Tsubasa Sato

佐藤つば冴

Tsubasa

ice hockey player

September 28, 1993

24

01 - 21

21

06

Shion Okamoto

岡本至恩

Shion

model

January 13, 1995

22

01 - 21

21

07

Shohei Uemura

上村翔平

Shohei

musician / vocalist

July 16, 1989

28

10 - 31

22

08

Seina Shimabukuro

島袋聖南

Seina

model

April 4, 1987

30

10 - 34

25

09

Mayu Koseta

小瀬田麻由

Mayu

gravure model

November 12, 1994

23

17 - 26

10

10

Yui Tanaka

田中優衣

Yui

university student

December 24, 1996

21

22 -

11

Noah Ishikura

石倉ノア

Noah

aspiring pilot

November 19, 1996

21

22 - 34

13

12

Aya Matarai

又来綾

Aya

university student

December 29, 1997

20

26 -

13

Shunsuke Ikezoe

池添俊亮

Shunsuke

aspiring hair & makeup artist

April 27, 1997

21

32 -

14

Kaito Nakata

中田海斗

Kaito

pro skateboarder

September 12, 1997

20

35 -

15

Maya Kisanuki

木佐貫まや

Maya

student

August 16, 1998

19

35 -

16

Sota Kono

河野聡太

Sota

company employee

November 5, 1992

25

35 -

tag: table

text: *Age when they first joined Terrace House.

tag: p

text: Timeline[edit]

text: Guest appearances[edit]

text:
Name
Japanese
Cast member

Episode(s)

Hana Imai

今井華

Boys × Girls Next Door

Episode 14

text: Episodes[edit]

text:
No. in SeasonNo. in PartTitleNetflix Japan Release Date Fuji TV Air Date Length (mins)Part 1
11"Opening New Doors"December 19, 2017 (2017-12-19)January 22, 201842
Six strangers gather in a house in Karuizawa. Aged 19 to 31, they've got one thing in common: they'll be living together in a beautiful town.
22"A New Experience For Her"December 26, 2017 (2017-12-26)January 29, 201834
As everyone settles in, Yuudai shows off his cooking skills. When some members go out to lunch, he seems to hit it off with one girl in particular.
33"Captain Tsubasa"January 2, 2018 (2018-01-02)February 5, 201832
In the midst of discussing their dreams for the future, Shion gives Ami some advice. Then a group visits Tsubasa's father's restaurant.
44"The Reason She Cried"January 9, 2018 (2018-01-09)February 12, 201836
Yuudai wants to be independent, but he's struggling. Later, Ami starts crying when Yuudai asks her bluntly what she wants to do with her life.
55"Cocky Kid"January 23, 2018 (2018-01-23)February 19, 201840
Mizuki grows increasingly skeptical of Yuudai, who keeps buying things using his father's credit card. Tsubasa and Shion head to Kusatsu Onsen.
66"First Snowfall"January 30, 2018 (2018-01-30)February 26, 201842
Yuudai vows to make changes and finds a restaurant to work at, while Ami makes some career decisions. The two of them go on a date in Karuizawa.
77"I Erased Him From My World"February 6, 2018 (2018-02-06)March 12, 201842
Ami and Yuudai both dissect their date with the other members. Yuudai is taken aback by Ami's attitude towards him the next day.
88"A Man with Different Values"February 13, 2018 (2018-02-13)April 9, 201838
Mizuki spends the night in Tokyo with her old boyfriend. Shut out by Ami, Yuudai reconnects with an old girlfriend too, while Takayuki tries to help.
Part 2
91"She's the MVP"February 27, 2018 (2018-02-27)April 16, 201844
Tsubasa and Shion visit a temple for good luck before her team's big game. Meanwhile, Mizuki makes a decision, and Yuudai cooks for a house party.
102"The Christmas Assassin"March 6, 2018 (2018-03-06)April 23, 201837
Takayuki takes Ami to a breathtaking cafe, while Tsubasa's confidence takes a hit after hearing about Shion's ex. On Christmas, new members arrive.
113"Best Actor in a Supporting Role"March 13, 2018 (2018-03-13)April 30, 201837
Seina and Takayuki take a stroll in Kyu-Karuizawa. When Ami hears about it, she invites Takayuki snowboarding. Then Shion and Tsubasa go ice-skating.
124"If Only You Were Five Years Younger"March 20, 2018 (2018-03-20)May 7, 201840
When Ami and Takayuki go snowboarding, she tells him something very intriguing. Shion answers a question about Tsubasa, and then it's New Year's.
135"She Asks Too Much For Love"April 3, 2018 (2018-04-03)May 14, 201840
Some of the members go snowboarding, but Ami and Takayuki only have eyes for each other. Tsubasa goes to Tokyo to buy Shion a birthday present.
146"The Birthday That Decided Their Fate"April 10, 2018 (2018-04-10)May 21, 201836
The members throw a birthday party for Ami and Shion, and Takayuki surprises everyone by shaving his mustache. Tsubasa gives Shion his gift privately.
157"The Mustache Tells the Story of Love"April 17, 2018 (2018-04-17)May 28, 201839
Shohei and Ami go out together, but there isn't really a spark. In the face of Ami's cold attitude, Takayuki starts to regrow his mustache.
168"Life is Just a Little Too Late"April 24, 2018 (2018-04-24)June 4, 201838
Takayuki tells Seina and Shohei that he no longer has feelings for Ami, but Shohei's feelings for her have grown. Ami, meanwhile, makes a choice.
Part 3
171"Sinful Cleavage"May 8, 2018 (2018-05-08)June 11, 201838
Just before Ami's schedule departure, Shohei meets her at the station for a surprise trip to the slopes -- and he's got a plan. A new member arrives.
182"Flower Bouquet for My Valentine"May 15, 2018 (2018-05-15)June 25, 201838
It's Valentine's Day, and Tsubasa is about to head to Nagoya for the national championship. Shion has something to tell her before she goes.
193"The Second Attempt"May 22, 2018 (2018-05-22)July 9, 201837
With the tournament over. Tsubasa has time to think about ther next steps -- including her reply to Shion. Shohei heads into the recording studio.
204"A Fairy on a Split Road"May 29, 2018 (2018-05-29)July 16, 201835
Tsubasa gives her answer. On a snowy day, Mayu and Takayuki talk about love, while Shohei and Seina continue spending time together.
215"Tune-Up"June 12, 2018 (2018-06-12)July 23, 201843
Seina returns from a trip to Korea looking somewhat different. Takayuki and Mayu go out to eat, and Tsubasa makes another decision.
226"Virgin"June 19, 2018 (2018-06-19)July 30, 201838
Two new members arrive: aspiring pilot Noah and Karuizawa native, Yui. Almost immediately, Noah and Mayu head out on a date.
237"Meccha Me Too"June 26, 2018 (2018-06-26)TBA40
Takayuki takes Noah to the yakitori place. Mayu really likes Noah, and she gets nervous when he and Yui plan to spend time together.
248"Kiss Out Of Nowhere"July 3, 2018 (2018-07-03)TBA36
Shohei takes Seina out on a birthday dinner. Awkwardness reigns when Mayu's time with Noah goes nowhere. Noah and Yui go on their planned outing.
Part 4
251"The Fallen Angel"July 17, 2018 (2018-07-17)TBA41
Yui keeps trying to patch things up with Mayu. Shohei prepares for an album release show in Shibuya, then ask Yui for some local tips.
262"Better Than You"July 24, 2018 (2018-07-24)TBA37
Mayu and Noah go on a hike, and when they get back, Mayu has an honest talk with Yui and makes a decision. A new member joins Terrace House
273"On the Night of Camp..."July 31, 2018 (2018-07-31)TBA40
New member Aya settles into the house, and the members make plans to go camping together. Seina responds surprisingly to Shohei's bold moves.
284"Declaration of War"August 7, 2018 (2018-08-07)TBA36
Aya and Takayuki head out on a date together.  Meanwhile, after a surprising conversation with Shohei, Noah hangs out with Yui once again
295"Confessing Love at the Chapel"August 21, 2018 (2018-08-21)TBA42
Yui talks to Shohei about Noah, and then tells Noah off the next day. Shohei makes plans to ask Seina to date him, and Aya asks Shohei for a favor.
306"A Farce"August 28, 2018 (2018-08-28)TBA34
After hearing from Shohei, Noah asks Seina out on a date. During Takayuki's birthday party, Aya talks with him one on one.
317"Rambling Rose"September 4, 2018 (2018-09-04)TBA43
Aya and Yui grow suspicious about Seina and Noah, and Yui tries to interrogate Seina about it. Shohei prepares an event for the other members.
328"The Last Love"September 11, 2018 (2018-09-11)October 23, 2018 (2018-10-23)34
Takayuki gives Aya a gift before he takes her skateboarding. Noah and Seina go on an extremely consequential date, and then a new member arrives.
Part 5
331"It's Someone Else"September 25, 2018 (2018-09-25)TBA32
Shun enters the bath with Noah. Who is worried? Takayuki is asked about his feelings for Aya. He confesses he does like someone. Who will it be?
342"Bye Bye, Miss Terrace House"October 2, 2018 (2018-10-02)TBA31
On the morning of Seina and Noah's departure, Takayuki shares a decision with the other member, then travels to Tokyo. Some familiar faces return.
353"Young Faces"October 9, 2018 (2018-10-09)TBA41
Three new members join the House: skateboarder Kaito, student Maya and company employee Sota. The next day, Yui and Kaito go grocery shopping.
364"Take Shelter from the Rain"October 16, 2018 (2018-10-16)TBA41
Maya and Kaito go out to a soba shop to try the Karuizawa specialty. Yui and Kaito make plans to go to a skate park so she can learn to skateboard.
375"First and Last Date"October 30, 2018 (2018-10-30)TBA36
Aya has a heart-to-heart about her future with Yui. After Sota and Shunsuke spend a day hanging out together, Shunsuke comes to a decision.


document_title: Foreclosure

question_text: if there is a default on a mortgage the mortgagor after the foreclosure sale has the right of

question_tokens: if there is a default on a mortgage the mortgagor after the foreclosure sale has the right of

text: Foreclosure

text: Types[edit]

text: This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (November 2013) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: 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. In 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 are possible in a few states.

text: Judicial[edit]

text: Foreclosure is by judicial sale, commonly called judicial foreclosure, involves the sale of the mortgaged property under the supervision of a court. The proceeds go first to satisfy the mortgage, then other lien holders, and finally the mortgagor/borrower if any proceeds are left. Judicial foreclosure is available in every US state and required in many. The lender initiates judicial 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.

text: Nonjudicial[edit]

text: Foreclosure by power of sale, also called nonjudicial foreclosure, and 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 US states, like California and Texas, 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.

text: Strict[edit]

text: 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, if the mortgagee wins the court case, the 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.

text: Acceleration[edit]

text: Acceleration is a clause that is usually found in Sections 16, 17, or 18 of a mortgage. Not all accelerations are the same for each mortgage, as it depends on the terms and conditions between lender and obligated mortgagor(s). When a term in the mortgage has been broken, the acceleration clause goes into effect. It can declare the entire payable debt to the lender if the borrower(s) were to transfer the title at a future date to a purchaser. The clause in the mortgage also instructs that a notice of acceleration must be served to the obligated mortgagor(s) who signed the Note. Each mortgage gives a time period for the debtor(s) to cure their loan. The most common time periods allot to debtor(s) is usually 30 days, but for commercial property it can be 10 days. The notice of acceleration is called a Demand and/or Breach Letter. In the letter it informs the Borrower(s) that they have 10 or 30 days from the date on the letter to reinstate their loan. Demand/Breach letters are sent out by Certified and Regular mail to all notable addresses of the Borrower(s). Also in the acceleration of the mortgage the lender must provide a payoff quote that is estimated 30 days from the date of the letter. This letter is called an FDCPA (Fair Debt Collections Practices Acts) letter and/or Initial Communication Letter. Once the Borrower(s) receives the two letters providing a time period to reinstate or pay off their loan the lender must wait until that time expires in to take further action. When the 10 or 30 days have passed that means that the acceleration has expired and the Lender can move forward with foreclosing on the property.

text: The lender 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.

text: 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.

text: 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.

text: Process[edit]

text: 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]

text: Strict and judicial[edit]

text: In the United States, there are two types of foreclosure in most states described by common law. 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.

text: 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 a strategic foreclosure by a lender who wants to obtain the property. 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.

text: Nonjudicial[edit]

text: Historically, the vast majority of judicial foreclosures have been unopposed, since most defaulting borrowers have no money 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]

text: 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 called "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.

text: 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 (or within a very short period of time) 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.[6] 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 of credit bidding under a chapter 11 plan and upholding secured creditors’ rights.[7]

text: 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, unpaid property taxes, weed/demolition liens). Further legal action, such as an eviction, may be necessary to obtain possession of the premises if the former occupant fails to voluntarily vacate.

text: Defenses[edit]

text: 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.[8] The same happened in a Colorado district court case in June 2008.[9][10]

text: 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.[11] The entire point of nonjudicial foreclosure is that there is no state actor (i.e., a court) involved.[12] The constitutional right of due process protects people only from violations of their civil rights by state actors, not private actors. (The involvement of the county clerk or recorder in recording the necessary documents has been held to be insufficient to invoke due process, since they are required by statute to record all documents presented that meet minimum formatting requirements and are denied the discretion to decide whether a particular foreclosure should proceed.)

text: 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. (Obviously, any rational lender in such a state would be skeptical of the creditworthiness of a person expressly requesting such protection.) Courts have also rejected as frivolous the argument that the mere legislative act of authorizing or regulating the nonjudicial foreclosure process thereby transforms the process itself into state action.[12]

text: 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.[13]

text: Equitable foreclosure[edit]

text: "Strict foreclosure" available in some states is an equitable right of the foreclosure sale purchaser. The purchaser must petition a court for a decree that cancels any junior lien holder's rights to 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 in English common law of equity as a response to the development of the equity of redemption.

text: Title search and tax lien issues[edit]

text: 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 that has a federal tax lien must give 25 days notice of the sale to the Internal Revenue Service. Failure to give notice 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 that if parties to 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.[14][15]

text: Contesting a foreclosure[edit]

text: 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.

text: 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.

text: Several U.S. states, including California,[16] Georgia,[17] and Texas[18] impose a "tender" condition precedent upon borrowers seeking to challenge a wrongful foreclosure, which is rooted in the maxim of equity principle 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.

text: 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.[19]

text: 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[20]—but it continues to be the law in the aforementioned states.

text: 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 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.[21]

text: One noteworthy 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 v. Jerome Daly, Jerome Daly claimed that the bank did not offered 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, did not have to repay the loan, and the bank could not repossess his property. In fact, the "ruling" (widely referred to as the "Credit River Decision") was ruled a nullity by the courts.[22]

text: 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.[23]

text: Foreclosure auction[edit]

text: 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. Time from notice of foreclosures to actual property sales depends on many factors, such as the method of foreclosure (judicial or non-judicial).

text: When 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.

text: Further borrower's obligations[edit]

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

text: Nevertheless, in an illiquid real estate market or if real estate prices drop, the property being foreclosed could be 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).

text: There are exceptions to this rule. 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 US 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 are not.

text: If the lender chooses not to pursue deficiency judgment—or cannot because the mortgage is non-recourse—and accepts 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]

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

text: Renegotiation alternative[edit]

text: 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".[24] 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.[24] Government supported programs such as Home Affordable Refinance Program (HARP) may provide homeowners the ability to refinance their mortgages if they are unable to obtain a traditional refinance due to their declined home value.[25]

text: A dual-tracking process appeared to be in use by many lenders, however, where the lender would simultaneously talk to the borrower about a "loan modification", but also move ahead with a foreclosure sale of the borrower's property. Borrowers were heard to complain that they were misled by these practices and would often be "surprised" that their home had been sold at foreclosure auction, as they believed they were in a "loan modification process". California has enacted legislation to eliminate this type of "dual-tracking" - The Homeowner Bill of Rights - AB 278, SB 900, That went into effect on January 1, 2013.[26]

text: Experiences of households post-foreclosure[edit]

text: 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 and 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."[27]

text: Affected demographics[edit]

text: 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 percent 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.[28] 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.[29] Credit scores are greatly impacted after a foreclosure. The average number of points reduced when you are 30 days late on your mortgage payment is 40 - 110 points, 90 days late is 70 - 135 points, and a finalized foreclosure, short sale or deed-in-lieu is 85 - 160 points.[30]

text: Recent trends[edit]

text: 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.[31]

text: 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. In 2011, banks were on track to repossess over 800,000 homes.[32] 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. These cities had the lowest rates of unemployment. 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.[33] Not surprisingly, these areas had some of the highest nationwide rates of unemployment, helping to further demonstrate this correlation. A quote from RealtyTrac CEO James Saccacio summarizes the recent trends:

text: “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.”

text: As per the foreclosure data report of RealtyTrac for January 2014, 1 in every 1,058 homes in U.S received a foreclosure filing. This figure falls in the higher spectrum of foreclosure frequency. As of August 2014, the foreclosure rate was 33.7%, 1.7% up from the last year. The rise in foreclosure activity has been most significant in New York and New Jersey, the two most densely populated areas in U.S. Closely following them is Florida.[34]

text: Impact of foreclosure[edit]

text: 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 into, garbage collecting on lawns, and an increase in prostitution.[35] 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.[36] Another significant impact from increased foreclosure rates is on school mobility of children. In general, research suggests that switching schools is damaging for children, although this does significantly depend on the quality of the 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 requires further research.[37] Foreclosures also have an emotional and physical effect on people. In one particular study of 250 recruited participants who had experienced foreclosure, 36.7% met screening criteria for major depression.[29]

text: Other countries[edit]

text: Australia and New Zealand[edit]

text: This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2015) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: In Australia and New Zealand, foreclosure has been prohibited by law in New Zealand for well over a century. Instead the mortgagee realises the security through sale, the exercise of the power of sale also being regulated by statute.

text: 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 legal interest that is registered against the fee simple 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 the fee simple, and there is a statutory process for initiating and conducting a mortgagee sale in the event that the mortgagor defaults. In New Zealand, as in England, say, the land title database is now electronic so there are no paper "title documents".

text: Ireland[edit]

text: In Ireland, foreclosure has been abolished by the Land and Conveyancing Reform Act 2009[38] 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.[39]

text: People's Republic of China[edit]

text: Foreclosure in the People's Republic of China 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.

text: China amended the Constitution of the Peoples's Republic of China (adopted April 12, 1988), to allow transfer of land rights, from "granted land rights" to "allocated land rights" thus paving the way for private land ownership, allowing for the renting, leasing, and mortgage of land. The 1990 Regulations on Granting Land Use Rights dealt further with this followed by the Urban Real Estate Law (adopted July 5, 1994),[40] the "Security Law of the People's Republic of China" (adopted June 30, 1995), and then the "Urban Mortgage Measures" (issued May 9, 1997)[41] resulting in land privatization and mortgage lending practices.

text: Mortgages and foreclosure[edit]

text: Chinese law and mortgage practices have progressed with safeguards to prevent foreclosures as much as possible. These include mandatory secondary security, rescission (Chinese Contract Law), and maintaining accounts at the lending bank to cover any defaults without prior notice to the borrower.[42] A mortgagee may sue on a note without foreclosing, obtain a general judgment, and collect that judgment against other property of the mortgagor, without foreclosing. When all other avenues have failed a lender may seek a judgement of foreclosure. Under the "Civil Procedure Law", foreclosures should be finalized in a six-month time frame but this is dependent on several things including if the mortgager applies to the court for execution of the judgment.[43] Mortgages are formally foreclosed at auction by a licensed auction specialist.[44]

text: Philippines[edit]

text: 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.[45] 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.[46] 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.[47] 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.[48]

text: Spain[edit]

text: 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.[49] With repossessed real estate properties on their books worth about €100 billion the banks in Spain are eager to get rid of foreclosures.[50]

text: South Africa[edit]

text: 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.[51][52][undue weight? – discuss]

text: Switzerland[edit]

text: In Switzerland, foreclosure takes place as a form of debt enforcement which is served by the overlord of debt (currently Lord Overton Sheraton) proceedings under Swiss insolvency law.

text: United Kingdom[edit]

text: This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (December 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: In 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.

text: The United Kingdom foreclosure system is unique and true foreclosures are quite uncommon. More commonly, lenders pursue a process called mortgage possession (or alternatively, "repossession" in cases where the bank originally sold the property too).

text: Both mortgage possession/repossession and foreclosure are quite similar, with the main differential being the treatment of any funds that exceed the amount borrowed. In the case of mortgage possession or repossession, if the home is sold or auctioned for a price that exceeds the loan balance, those funds are returned to the consumer. In the case of foreclosure, the mortgage company retains all rights to proceeds from a sale or auction.

text: The UK foreclosure and mortgage possession/repossession system favors consumers over lenders, as the United Kingdom has some pre-action protocols in place. Mortgage companies are required to work with homeowners to arrive at a resolution and it is possible to delay court action (ultimately, enabling many to avoid the loss of their home) in situations where the borrower has enrolled in individual programs or if the borrower's income is about to improve significantly with a new job or other measures that would allow them to pay off the arrears.

text: There is no precise parallel to an American short sale, although the UK does have a process known as Assisted Voluntary Sale. An Assisted Voluntary Sale does have some negative credit impact for the consumer, but the adverse effect is less pronounced than one might suffer if the case were to proceed to the courts.


document_title: List of mayors of Nashville, Tennessee

question_text: who was the mayor of nashville in 1960

question_tokens: who was the mayor of nashville in 1960

text: List of mayors of Nashville, Tennessee

text: Mayors of the City of Nashville[edit]

text: The following is a list of the mayors of Nashville before it had a consolidated metropolitan government:

text:
Mayor

Term

Joseph Coleman

1806–1809

Benjamin J. Bradford

1809–1811

William Tait

1811–1814

Joseph Thorpe Elliston

1814–1817

Stephen Cantrell, Jr.

1817–1817

Jackson Baker

1818–1819

Felix Robertson

1818–1819

Thomas Crutcher

1819–1820

James Condon

1820–1821

John Patton Erwin

1821–1822

Robert Brownlee Currey

1822–1824

Randal McGavock

1824–1825

Wilkins F. Tannehill

1825–1827

Felix Robertson

1827–1829

William Armstrong

1829–1833

John Meredith Bass

1833–1834

John Patton Erwin

1834–1835

William Nichol

1835–1837

Henry Hollingsworth

1837–1839

Charles Clay Trabue

1839–1841

Samuel Van Dyke Stout

1841–1842

Thomas B. Coleman

1842–1843

Powhatan W. Maxey

1843–1845

John Hugh Smith

1845–1846

John A. Goodlett

1846–1847

Alexander Allison

1847–1849

John McCormick Lea

1849–1850

John Hugh Smith

1850–1853

Williamson Hartley Horn

1853–1854

William Booker Shapard

1854–1854

Robert Bell Castleman

1854–1856

Andrew Anderson

1856–1857

John A. McEwen

1857–1858

Randal William McGavock

1858–1859

Samuel N. Hollingsworth

1859–1860

Richard Boone Cheatham

1860–1862

John Hugh Smith

1862–1865

William Matt Brown

1865–1867

Augustus E. Alden

1867–1869

John Meredith Bass

1869–1869

Kindred Jenkins Morris

1869–1871

Thomas A. Kercheval

1871–1874

Morton Boyte Howell

1874–1875

Thomas A. Kercheval

1875–1883

Claiborne Hooper Phillips

1883–1886

Thomas A. Kercheval

1886–1888

Charles P. McCarver

1888–1890

William Litterer

1890–1891

George Blackmore Guild

1891–1895

William Marshall McCarthey

1895–1897

Richard Houston Dudley

1897–1900

James Marshall Head

1900–1904

Albert Smiley Williams

1904–1906

Thomas Owen Morris

1906–1908

James Stephens Brown

1908–1909

Hilary Ewing Howse

1909–1915

Robert Ewing

1915–1917

William Gupton

1917–1921

Felix Zollicoffer Wilson

1921–1922

William Percy Sharpe

1922–1924

Hilary Ewing Howse

1924–1938

Thomas L. Cummings, Sr.

1938–1951

Ben West

1951–1963

text: Mayors of Metropolitan Nashville[edit]

text: The following is a list of the mayors of Nashville after the consolidation of the municipal government with the government of Davidson County:

text:
Mayor

Term

Beverly Briley

1963–1975

Richard Fulton

1975–1987

Bill Boner

1987–1991

Phil Bredesen

1991–1999

Bill Purcell

1999–2007

Karl Dean

2007–2015

Megan Barry

2015–2018

David Briley

2018–present