Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He had already received a foreclosure notice from the bank. When he did, he moved his family out and that was the end of it. The bank decided after a few months they didn't want to sell the house nor bother with the property upkeep, so THEY PUT THE HOUSE BACK IN THE OWNER'S NAME AND DID NOT NOTIFY HIM!
Incorrect.
The bank did not "Put the house back in the owner's name". The house never was out of the owner's name. It belonged to the owner throughout. The bank simply never foreclosed. They posted notice that they were GOING to do so, but never did. A notice of an impending foreclosure does not mean the bank took the house back.
The owner should have checked to make sure the house actually did foreclose. They continue to be responsible as long as the house is still in their name, and it still was.
I can't blame the homeowner for not knowing to check in the first place, as most people assume that if the bank says they are about to foreclose, that they do. He actually did the "morally right" thing by moving out when he got the notice, and not making the bank evict him, but in this case, he jumped the gun, and it didn't turn out to be the "legally right" thing to do. Can't really blame him for that part.
But I can 100% blame them for either failing to place a forward request on their mail, or ignoring mail about the house for 2 years if he did have his mail forwarded! If they didn't put in a forward mail request, that is their own fault. If they had, they would have continued to receive mortgage statements, tax bills, notices from the city/HOA regarding the condition, etc, and should have had an inkling much much sooner than 2 years after the fact, which should have prompted a phone call.
At this point, the article says he has known for over 2 years that he still owns the house, and yet he has done nothing about it. The article doesn't say he's tried to do a deed in lieu, or a short sale, or even that he had ever placed a single phone call to the lender. I feel bad that the ownership of the house is stopping him from getting the medical assistance he needs, but really, 2 years is plenty of time to contact an agent and do a short sale, or contact an attorney and do a deed in lieu. He is taking a "head in the sand" approach, and learning exactly how well that works.
The bank did not "Put the house back in the owner's name". The house never was out of the owner's name. It belonged to the owner throughout. The bank simply never foreclosed. They posted notice that they were GOING to do so, but never did. A notice of an impending foreclosure does not mean the bank took the house back.
The owner should have checked to make sure the house actually did foreclose. They continue to be responsible as long as the house is still in their name, and it still was.
I can't blame the homeowner for not knowing to check in the first place, as most people assume that if the bank says they are about to foreclose, that they do. He actually did the "morally right" thing by moving out when he got the notice, and not making the bank evict him, but in this case, he jumped the gun, and it didn't turn out to be the "legally right" thing to do. Can't really blame him for that part.
But I can 100% blame them for either failing to place a forward request on their mail, or ignoring mail about the house for 2 years if he did have his mail forwarded! If they didn't put in a forward mail request, that is their own fault. If they had, they would have continued to receive mortgage statements, tax bills, notices from the city/HOA regarding the condition, etc, and should have had an inkling much much sooner than 2 years after the fact, which should have prompted a phone call.
At this point, the article says he has known for over 2 years that he still owns the house, and yet he has done nothing about it. The article doesn't say he's tried to do a deed in lieu, or a short sale, or even that he had ever placed a single phone call to the lender. I feel bad that the ownership of the house is stopping him from getting the medical assistance he needs, but really, 2 years is plenty of time to contact an agent and do a short sale, or contact an attorney and do a deed in lieu. He is taking a "head in the sand" approach, and learning exactly how well that works.
He can't do any of those things until he comes into compliance.
Did you read the ENTIRE article or just what I posted?
I never heard about this zombie title crap and neither have the people who it has happened to.
He had to leave the house, because he was told it was going to be foreclosed on. What was he supposed to do? Wait until the Marshalls came to put him out??
Also, the bank never tried to contact him in the first place. He was getting notices from the state.
He can't do any of those things until he comes into compliance.
Did you read the ENTIRE article or just what I posted?
I never heard about this zombie title crap and neither have the people who it has happened to.
He had to leave the house, because he was told it was going to be foreclosed on. What was he supposed to do? Wait until the Marshalls came to put him out??
Also, the bank never tried to contact him in the first place. He was getting notices from the state.
I did read the whole article. The person you posted about was the one I was addressing in my response, though. My office actually dealt with one of these about 2 years ago. I work the front desk in a real estate office, and about 2 years ago, my boss got a call from someone who had had exactly this same thing happen. They got notice that the house was foreclosing, so they packed up and moved to Florida. A year later, the bank started calling them. We helped them list and sell the house as a short sale. So I don't know what you think they need to get in compliance with first. You can do a short sale when you are behind on your payments. We've dealt with EXACTLY this situation, and helped the person move past it and move on with their lives. This person has made no effort to do that. I stand by my "head in the sand" statement. He is ignoring the problem, and expecting it to fix itself.
He did not need to leave the house until it was no longer his house. He chose to leave before knowing the fate of the foreclosure. They get postponed A LOT. Odds were extremely high that the foreclosure would not happen as scheduled. He should have consulted with an attorney before moving out to find out his rights and risks. He was under NO obligation to move out prior to the auction. He still owned the house. After the house foreclosed, THEN the bank gives you notice to vacate. That never happened, because the bank never foreclosed. Nowhere in the article did I see anything that said he received notice to vacate. He just received notice the house would be foreclosing and he chose to vacate early.
I did read the whole article. The person you posted about was the one I was addressing in my response, though. My office actually dealt with one of these about 2 years ago. I work the front desk in a real estate office, and about 2 years ago, my boss got a call from someone who had had exactly this same thing happen. They got notice that the house was foreclosing, so they packed up and moved to Florida. A year later, the bank started calling them. We helped them list and sell the house as a short sale. So I don't know what you think they need to get in compliance with first. You can do a short sale when you are behind on your payments. We've dealt with EXACTLY this situation, and helped the person move past it and move on with their lives. This person has made no effort to do that. I stand by my "head in the sand" statement. He is ignoring the problem, and expecting it to fix itself.
Okay, I get where you're coming from now, because luckily for YOUR client, the bank DID call him, but the article says the banks are NOT LEGALLY REQUIRED TO and many don't. This is the case with the two subjects in the article.
By the time they got the info on their homes, it was too late. They had been ransacked and a total shell of what they once were. Also, I don't believe you can sell a home when you have pending fines on it, can you? I'm not sure.
Quote:
He did not need to leave the house until it was no longer his house. He chose to leave before knowing the fate of the foreclosure. They get postponed A LOT. Odds were extremely high that the foreclosure would not happen as scheduled. He should have consulted with an attorney before moving out to find out his rights and risks. He was under NO obligation to move out prior to the auction. He still owned the house. After the house foreclosed, THEN the bank gives you notice to vacate. That never happened, because the bank never foreclosed. Nowhere in the article did I see anything that said he received notice to vacate. He just received notice the house would be foreclosing and he chose to vacate early.
See? Many people don't know this. I didn't. I'm going to re-read the article again and search for more info on this.
This is good to know, but to say he was "irresponsible" isn't fair, because this isn't widespread knowledge. I also agree that folks should consult a lawyer first, but what if they don't have any money?
Okay, I get where you're coming from now, because luckily for YOUR client, the bank DID call him, but the article says the banks are NOT LEGALLY REQUIRED TO and many don't. This is the case with the two subjects in the article.
By the time they got the info on their homes, it was too late. They had been ransacked and a total shell of what they once were. Also, I don't believe you can sell a home when you have pending fines on it, can you? I'm not sure.
See? Many people don't know this. I didn't. I'm going to re-read the article again and search for more info on this.
This is good to know, but to say he was "irresponsible" isn't fair, because this isn't widespread knowledge. I also agree that folks should consult a lawyer first, but what if they don't have any money?
It's still a messed up situation regardless.
I didn't say he was irresponsible for what he did at the time. I actually said I didn't blame him, as most people don't know what to do, and how to handle it, and that he did what he felt was morally right by moving before someone had to go through the courts to evict him, and that it unfortunately did not turn out to be the legally correct thing to do.
I do think he has been irresponsible in the time since he found out he had an issue though. He's known for 2 years and the article doesn't mention a single action he has taken to even try to resolve the issue. No phone call or letter to the bank, no call to an attorney, accountant or real estate agent to find out his options, nothing. THAT is what I have issue with. Problems like this do not just magically go away on their own. Now, maybe he has done those things, and the article just didn't mention them, but since it was a "woe is me, the whole system is against me" type of article, I would assume if he had done those things and failed to resolve the problem, the article would have mentioned that.
You can sell the home with pending fines, if the lender agrees to clear them in the sale (which does sometimes happen), or if the person who placed the fines agrees to waive them (also sometimes happens), or if the owner of the house agrees to pay them (any of the above, or any combination thereof). The problem is, he didn't even try to find out. You can also sell a trashed home, although it is more difficult. It would require a lot of photos of condition, and a letter of explanation to the lender about how they thought the house was foreclosed on, as it was scheduled to be, 5 years earlier, etc. But it can be sold. You can sell anything for the right price. We did a short sale just like that this year, where the bank thought the house was worth twice what it was actually worth based on condition. After sending photos and letters of explanation, we got the bank's approval and closed the house. It isn't a guarantee, but if you don't try, it is guaranteed not to happen.
And our client didn't get a call saying the house didn't sell. They got a collection call from Bank of America saying "Hey, you know that loan you had with Countrywide? Well we bought Countrywide (about the same week as the house was supposed to foreclose, which is how this particular one slipped through the cracks), and we want our money, start paying us". That is how they found out they still owned the house. I agree, the banks typically do not notify owners whether the forclosure got postponed or not. They just post a notice on the door when it DOES foreclose/sell at auction instructing the owner that they no longer own it and have x days to vacate.
I'm not saying this guy was some deadbeat who did everything wrong at the time. He obviously did what he thought was the right thing to do. I AM saying he has done everything wrong since learning about the problem. I also will take this opportunity to remind people to check their credit report at least once a year. That would have led him to see that the mortgage was still reporting every month, and should have prompted a phone call 4-5 years ago.
I just read this story and am becoming ill just thinking about this situation. And speaking of ill, according to the Reuters story, this poor guy is just a little bit more than ill and Social Security has denied him disability benefits, and it's because of the house that he supposedly owns.
Disgusting.
I feel the same way,,sick to my stomach.
All of it..
Did any of you who said he should have contacted the bank ever stop to think he couldn't because of his health problems?
Geez...
I feel the same way,,sick to my stomach.
All of it..
Did any of you who said he should have contacted the bank ever stop to think he couldn't because of his health problems?
Geez...
I'm sorry, but too sick to write a letter or to make a phone call, means too sick to have given an interview for the story, so no, that didn't occur to me.
My husband and I come across these type of properties all the time now when driving around looking for distressed property to buy and rehab. We only buy in the suburban areas and we were shocked to discover owners would just let a house go and never look back after getting a foreclosure NOTICE. The banks don't follow through with anything much these days without someone else calling them first, so the people have no clue they are still being taxed and fined for the building. And they have no clue that they can sell a home as long as the title is in their name. We purchased one home from a guy after noticing violation letters posted on a empty house. We found the guy on facebook and he thought the bank had taken over 3 years prior but they never finished the foreclosure. We bought the house, he paid the bank off and grabbed a few bucks in the end. He assumed he couldn't sell it because of being behind on taxes and mortgage. Had he tried to sell it before he left it he could have walked away with another 10k that he lost to taxes and late fees.
The one thing I have learned though talking to several of the owners we did come across, most should have never been homeowners to begin with. They did not have enough income to keep up with payments, taxes, insurance and unexpected repairs. And most are pretty irresponsible and take the run from it way out. One couple told us they stopped making payments because they needed a roof repaired and couldn't afford it. So they just left the house and got an apartment after friends told them no bank would give a loan on the place if they tried to sell it. It never occurred to them to get a realtor involved. Then when we made a cash offer, they asked for 25k more than the place was worth with all the water damage and mold from sitting 2 years with a bad roof. The house is still sitting empty and in their name. The craziest situation was when a couple had their RV with a for sale sign sitting next to their vacant property, they were trying to sell the RV but didn't even try to sell the house after we told them they could still legally sell the house. They sold the RV and just left the house a mess. An agent was trying to sell an updated well maintained house next door to the place and she couldn't get the bank to do anything with the house. And the owners don't want to "deal" with the problem and sell the place, we and several other people have offered cash deals for the property. There is no money to be taken from the deal so they just want to ignore it until it goes away. The poor family who want to sell their house next door and move out of town can't get a buyer because no one wants to live near an abandoned house. The house will be sold by the county after they fall 5 years behind in taxes.
And the banks are not putting the houses back into the original owners names, they never switched the titles to the banks name. Chase bank was involved with at least 10 of the houses we came across.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
