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.
I would think that in most states, a lienholder has legal rights and can prevent you from destroying the value of the property on which they have a lien. Not sure if it's criminal, but there would absolutely be civil penalties for destroying the value of the house.
As someone else stated, this just shows the childish immaturity of some people. It's not surprising, just disappointing.
I know in my mortgage docs it specifically addresses damage to the property. I would imagine that if most people read the fine print they will realize that they would be liable for causing damage to a property that has a lien on it...
That 1099 issue is dead. Congress passed a law late last year forgiving the income tax owed on the delta (between the balance on the debit and the amount the bank actually receives when the home sells) specifically for foreclosures. These folks are just getting off with a mark on their credit report and a spoonful of shame... it's hard to feel sorry for them, living without paying a dime for rent or mortgage or taxes for 12 - 18 months or more. But we're America. And we forgive and let ya start over in this country - it's awful if you're the person not getting paid back but thank goodness for a little forgiveness if you're the one who's not able to make it work and need another chance to get it right...
But back to those vandal's
The verbiage probably differs depending on whether you're in a lien state or a title state. I'm in Florida, we're a lien state which means that the borrower "owns" the home and the lender has a lien against it until the loan is satisfied and the lien is removed. In a title state, the lender holds the title until the note is paid and then the borrower receives the title (much like cars and boats etc...)
My remaining comments refer specifically to lien states but I'm confident they are similar to title states.
You sign a lot of documents at closing. You know that thick one (mortgage) that's 20 to 35 pages? The one everyone quickly just initials through each page of as they are laughing with the closing agent, agents and the mortgage lender in the conference room? Well somewhere in those 20 to 35 pages are a number of paragraphs that specifically address overt issues of destruction committed or permitted by the home owner. Yes, the lender in many instances can press criminal charges against an owner for allowing vandalizing of their property - it serves as collateral for the money that was lent to the borrowers/buyers and has a value at the time the loan was tendered. The borrower has some control over certain conditions of the property and they are expected to care for it. For circumstances that are beyond the control of the home owner, there is insurance - which borrowers are required to carry.
One of these homes is in my neighborhood and now that it's been foreclosed on its the neighborhood problem. The condition of the home however is not lend able so it will require a cash sale or a special loan that is hard to get that will provide for some improvements to the property after closing. In any case, the sale value will be lower because of the destruction of the borrower. This affects MY property value. The home was foreclosed on last week and I'm actually preparing a petition for my neighborhood to sign asking the lender to file charges against the foreclosed borrower - for two reasons. One is to discourage other distressed property owner's in my neighborhood from damaging their homes prior to abandoning their distressed property, the other is to try to gain some restitution for the lost value.
That 1099 issue is dead. Congress passed a law late last year forgiving the income tax owed on the delta (between the balance on the debit and the amount the bank actually receives when the home sells) specifically for foreclosures. These folks are just getting off with a mark on their credit report and a spoonful of shame... it's hard to feel sorry for them, living without paying a dime for rent or mortgage or taxes for 12 - 18 months or more. But we're America. And we forgive and let ya start over in this country - it's awful if you're the person not getting paid back but thank goodness for a little forgiveness if you're the one who's not able to make it work and need another chance to get it right...
But back to those vandal's
The verbiage probably differs depending on whether you're in a lien state or a title state. I'm in Florida, we're a lien state which means that the borrower "owns" the home and the lender has a lien against it until the loan is satisfied and the lien is removed. In a title state, the lender holds the title until the note is paid and then the borrower receives the title (much like cars and boats etc...)
My remaining comments refer specifically to lien states but I'm confident they are similar to title states.
You sign a lot of documents at closing. You know that thick one (mortgage) that's 20 to 35 pages? The one everyone quickly just initials through each page of as they are laughing with the closing agent, agents and the mortgage lender in the conference room? Well somewhere in those 20 to 35 pages are a number of paragraphs that specifically address overt issues of destruction committed or permitted by the home owner. Yes, the lender in many instances can press criminal charges against an owner for allowing vandalizing of their property - it serves as collateral for the money that was lent to the borrowers/buyers and has a value at the time the loan was tendered. The borrower has some control over certain conditions of the property and they are expected to care for it. For circumstances that are beyond the control of the home owner, there is insurance - which borrowers are required to carry.
One of these homes is in my neighborhood and now that it's been foreclosed on its the neighborhood problem. The condition of the home however is not lend able so it will require a cash sale or a special loan that is hard to get that will provide for some improvements to the property after closing. In any case, the sale value will be lower because of the destruction of the borrower. This affects MY property value. The home was foreclosed on last week and I'm actually preparing a petition for my neighborhood to sign asking the lender to file charges against the foreclosed borrower - for two reasons. One is to discourage other distressed property owner's in my neighborhood from damaging their homes prior to abandoning their distressed property, the other is to try to gain some restitution for the lost value.
I'll let you know how it turns out...
YOu might all get together and sue the bank for $5,000 each. You might even win. Claim damage to the property value of your houses by the banks failure to maintain its property.
If nothing else you get the Banks attention and will likely get the place cleaned up.
The tactic was used against a university professor in So California who maintains a derelict, junk ridden home. They actually forced her out.
Recently I read, but can't remember where I saw it, that a man gutted his 2mil home that was being foreclosed on, and the bank sued him for the damage he caused and won.
Sorry I can't remember where that was, but maybe someone else will have seen it also.
Recently I read, but can't remember where I saw it, that a man gutted his 2mil home that was being foreclosed on, and the bank sued him for the damage he caused and won.
Sorry I can't remember where that was, but maybe someone else will have seen it also.
Actually I think that a certain outcome. Collecting is the problem. Do you sue if the defendant has no assets? There is the rub.
A few months ago, Cramer, tongue in cheek, suggested that the U.S. Goverment bull doze homes, in foreclosure. His point was that if the Government was going to bail everyone out, why not do it the right way and eliminate the excess inventory.
The more I think about this, the more value I see in this crazy idea.
I would love to see that... I want to buy the land the houses are sitting on but paying for the house only to bulldoze it later seemed like a waste of my money if I can find a place to buy a piece of land without a house... I think there were cases of arson where the homeowner burned down their house before they left... I think they are sitting it jail... maybe its illegal with just the method of destruction... oh well... I heard someone took a chainsaw and "saw" the home in half, I believe its condemned now..
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.
Ah yes, the fine print...
