Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.
- 121
- 1
What is this place?
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
If in doubt, please post it!
Rules
- Courtesy
- Content
- Engagement
- When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
- Proactively provide evidence in proportion to how partisan and inflammatory your claim might be.
- Accept temporary bans as a time-out, and don't attempt to rejoin the conversation until it's lifted.
- Don't attempt to build consensus or enforce ideological conformity.
- Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
- The Wildcard Rule
- The Metarule
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Court opinion:
A person lives on a property that sits directly on top of the line between Trimble County and Carroll County in Kentucky. Most of the house is in Carroll County, but the driveway and part of the house are in Trimble County. The property's deed, and two mortgages on the property, are recorded with the Carroll County clerk, and the property tax is paid to Carroll County. However, the person's driver license states that he resides in Trimble County, and he has voted in Trimble County in the four most recent elections.
The person buys on credit, registers, and titles a semi-truck in Trimble County. Accordingly, the creditor files a lien on the truck with the Trimble County clerk. However, when the person files for bankruptcy, he argues in bankruptcy court: he actually resides in Carroll County; since the lien was not filed in his county of residence, it is invalid under state law; and, therefore, the lien must be "avoided" (deleted) in the federal bankruptcy.
The bankruptcy judge agrees with the debtor and avoids the lien. A slight majority of the property is in Carroll County, so the deed was recorded in Carroll County, and that is conclusive proof of the debtor's county of residence under state law. State law incorporates "a policy of certainty in the recording of mortgages on both real and personal property", and allowing a person to pick and choose which of two counties is his county of residence would frustrate that policy. The debtor cannot be faulted for giving the wrong county of residence in the credit application, as (1) the application was only attested, not sworn, before a notary, and (2), if the application was not sworn, then under state law it was the creditor's responsibility to check the county of residence before filing the lien.
This is the sort of rules-lawyering I'm never in favor of, even when it helps out "the common man". IMO the creditor "deserves" to take the truck, morally. The man falsely declared his county of residence, and checking his license (which I assume is the main way a dealer would confirm that information) would have backed that up. They should be allowed to re-file the lien in the proper county if it's that big a deal and reclaim the truck.
Agreed that the creditor should be able to refile. I don’t know the terminology well enough to say if that is true.
But that doesn’t mean this was an unjust verdict! He lives in a weird edge case where the codified law says one thing and the title paperwork say another. He shouldn’t be held responsible for a mistake on the county’s forms.
Just to be clear, the creditor can't refile. Once the debtor files for bankruptcy, any collection actions for existing debts are automatically stayed, barring a court order to lift the stay. These orders are usually only granted if there is a secured debt, e.g. a mortgage or car loan. A judge is never going to lift the stay to allow an unsecured creditor to file a lien against the debtor. Doing this would completely subvert the intention of the bankruptcy code, since bankruptcy, with certain rare exceptions, can't remove any liens that exist at the time of filing. If they were allowed to do this then every unsecured creditor would sue the debtor and get a judgment against them, converting the unsecured debt to a secured debt, making discharge impossible. As I explained below, the debtor gains nothing from the banks error, and possibly even suffers a bit himself. The bank is supposed to be the sophisticated party here but they fucked up because they didn't comply with the relatively straightforward safe harbor provisions. I don't have much sympathy for them.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link