Foreclosuregate

[Zyngawf]

Originally Posted by Tightwad

All very true. However, unless the bank give the former homeowner written permission to stay then the former homeowner is starting the clock on Adverse Possession.

Where I am you have to occupy the property and pay the property taxes for a period of five years before you can claim adverse possession. How many years where you are? Considering this how often can adverse possession really happen?

[Grandpa Pipes]

Originally Posted by Nocontengencies

Where I am you have to occupy the property and pay the property taxes for a period of five years before you can claim adverse possession. How many years where you are? Considering this how often can adverse possession really happen?

This law is so old that it's hard to say what the rules are from place to place so I spoke only in generalities.

[Mathguy]

Why should I be worried about this?

This website is MUCH more believable than the "economic collapse blog".

2012 End of the World Predictions, Planet X, Mayan Calendar, Two Suns, 2012 End Times Theory

Enjoy your remaining time on earth folks, we have less than 800 days before the end of the world.

[nightbird47]

Originally Posted by Nocontengencies

I don't think so. Squatters have nothing to lose. I don't think you can trust them to maintain a house.

You have to consider all the factors. A major problem with abandoned houses is that the druggies move in. They rip out walls and steal the wiring and leave the place unliveable. They don't have any utilities and don't bother to make it look lived in. The idea is to not.

Even if the care is not pristine, someone who keeps the utilities on is going to keep the basics in place. They are not going to live in a house without water or electric or gas. Cities are getting impatient with streets of empty houses and some require the full maintaince or the city will take them away. And those who are not being forclosed on have neighbors. The likelyhood of a house being sold is better if it isn't 2/3 empty.

I have a relative who lost his job and ended up after several goes at a loan mod, (refused by the bank) and being told to stop paying so the loan mod could go through, (they were scrimping to pay it) being in forclosure. The bank took it to a certain point and then stopped. They hadn't completed the process so there was not judgement. But they did keep it up. Since it was kept up the bank ended up agreeing to a short sale. But there were a number of places in their block vacant and they were being wrecked by weather and neglect and trandients.

I wonder how many people who are staying in the home are at a point where the bank has "frozen" things, doesn't expect payment (probably doesn't want it either), and they are in an extended freeze. This means the house is not listed as a loss on the books since nothing is official.

[RiverBird]

Originally Posted by cyrano

Query about moral hazard to those who have raised it-- why is it immoral not to pay your mortgage (or any other debt)? Is it equally immoral if, say, the Mortgage Bankers Association lets the mortgage on their headquarters building go into default? And can a corporation, or a voluntary association like the MBA, even act morally, or is it's overriding principle self-preservation? And where is it stated as a MORAL principle that financial debts must be repaid? I'd like to see what the thought process is here.

As I used to teach kids in my classes, there is moral, ethical, and legal. Morals and ethics are not the same thing. Legally and ethically one should pay her debts. "Morally" is open to debate, I'm sure religious folks will way in on that one.