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 think it is only morally wrong if you take it and leave a gaping hole there when being foreclosed on.
If you have to get tools out to remove the appliance it is considered to be attached and something that should convey with the house(stove). If you can just unplug it and take it it is yours to take(refrigerator).
I think your post exemplifies part of the problem. Everyone has a different moral standard and view. Did Jean Valjean deserve 20 years hard labor for stealing bread to feed his sisters starving child? Is a homeowner who is being foreclosed upon by some tragic circumstance wrong for stripping things out of the home to sell so that they have the money to put down to secure a rental? At least in the case of Valjean we have a clear cut case of him breaking the law, not so with our home owner.
As for the last part, this seems like one of those things realtors say as if it was a universal truth. One can remove an electric stove by unplugging it, no tools required, does it now make it something I can take? If a dishwasher had quick disconnect lines, but was otherwise "built-in" to the cabinets, can it now be removed? A washer and dryer require tools to disconnect, does that mean they should be conveyed?
I think your post exemplifies part of the problem. Everyone has a different moral standard and view. Did Jean Valjean deserve 20 years hard labor for stealing bread to feed his sisters starving child? Is a homeowner who is being foreclosed upon by some tragic circumstance wrong for stripping things out of the home to sell so that they have the money to put down to secure a rental? At least in the case of Valjean we have a clear cut case of him breaking the law, not so with our home owner.
As for the last part, this seems like one of those things realtors say as if it was a universal truth. One can remove an electric stove by unplugging it, no tools required, does it now make it something I can take? If a dishwasher had quick disconnect lines, but was otherwise "built-in" to the cabinets, can it now be removed? A washer and dryer require tools to disconnect, does that mean they should be conveyed?
The bank lends based on the contract the buyer has signed.
If items are listed as "fixtures," they are appraised as such.
Blinds, range, builtin dishwashers or refrigerators, trash compactors, wall ovens, cooktops, wall-wall carpet, hardwood floors, light fixtures, garage door openers, would all be fixtures in a typical NCAR contract.
Regular refrigerators, washer and dryer, lawn mowers, area rugs would be personal property and would not be appraised as bringing value to the property.
Les Miz is not a factor in the transaction. Valjean, an honorable man, doesn't care about fannie or freddie. Nor should he.
It would seem that the banks are overwhelmed regarding removal of fixtures, and that costs to replace or repair are being absorbed rather than passed on to the borrower.
The bank lends based on the contract the buyer has signed.
If items are listed as "fixtures," they are appraised as such.
Blinds, range, builtin dishwashers or refrigerators, trash compactors, wall ovens, cooktops, wall-wall carpet, hardwood floors, light fixtures, garage door openers, would all be fixtures in a typical NCAR contract.
Regular refrigerators, washer and dryer, lawn mowers, area rugs would be personal property and would not be appraised as bringing value to the property.
Les Miz is not a factor in the transaction. Valjean, an honorable man, doesn't care about fannie or freddie. Nor should he.
It would seem that the banks are overwhelmed regarding removal of fixtures, and that costs to replace or repair are being absorbed rather than passed on to the borrower.
No, Les Miz has nothing to do with it and either does morality in general, this is a business deal. Yet some find people who engage in this behavior as being morally questionable to the point of wanting to see them face criminal charges for doing it. However, it would appear that there is no illegality in the behavior assuming that ownership has not been legally transferred to the bank.
The "duty to repair" clause you referenced earlier is simply a mechanism whereby a bank can foreclose if the asset that is being used as collateral is left to deteriorate. It gives the bank no right to pursue financial damages beyond anything that would be involved in a normal foreclosure.
You are chalking it up to the "banks being overwhelmed", but appear to have not considered the apparent fact that there is nothing the banks can do to these people as they have violated no law assuming the property was still legally in their possession at the time it happened. The only thing the bank can do is pursue a claim against the homeowners policy (assuming one was in effect) and then it would be up to the insurance company to attempt to pursue the loss assuming there was anyway to prove it or that the coverage would even apply. For instance, I have read of cases where the insurance company would not pay because the damages were caused by the owner. There is no legal language that says I can't pour quikset concrete down my toilet or take the wiring out of my house to sell for scrap if I so choose.
That is really the crux of the matter and what got me interested in this thread. Are these people really breaking the law? As much as some people want to claim they are, I have yet to see anything that conclusively states that what they are doing is illegal, though it is possible they could be held financially liable by their insurance company if they pay a claim.
Even more ironic, IMO, is the state of disrepair that homes are allowed to fall into once the banks have taken possession. Here we are arguing about what the former home owners are doing before they leave, but it's not as if the banks are doing a bang up job maintaining and/or restoring these properties either.
I think your post exemplifies part of the problem. Everyone has a different moral standard and view. Did Jean Valjean deserve 20 years hard labor for stealing bread to feed his sisters starving child? Is a homeowner who is being foreclosed upon by some tragic circumstance wrong for stripping things out of the home to sell so that they have the money to put down to secure a rental? At least in the case of Valjean we have a clear cut case of him breaking the law, not so with our home owner.
As for the last part, this seems like one of those things realtors say as if it was a universal truth. One can remove an electric stove by unplugging it, no tools required, does it now make it something I can take? If a dishwasher had quick disconnect lines, but was otherwise "built-in" to the cabinets, can it now be removed? A washer and dryer require tools to disconnect, does that mean they should be conveyed?
A dishwasher usually conveys with the house also. There really is no absolute way this happens with every house. The best way to handle all of this is to spell it out in the contract what goes and what stays as far as appliances. In some states it is already in the contract that a free standing stove etc. is included so that would have to be changed if it is not. It should be clear to both sides in the transaction. That is really all that matters.
A dishwasher usually conveys with the house also. There really is no absolute way this happens with every house. The best way to handle all of this is to spell it out in the contract what goes and what stays as far as appliances. In some states it is already in the contract that a free standing stove etc. is included so that would have to be changed if it is not. It should be clear to both sides in the transaction. That is really all that matters.
We're not talking about a transaction, we're talking about a foreclosure. While real property is defined as included and part of the appraised asset at the time of the transaction, that has very little bearing on what the bank can expect to be conveyed back to them as collateral during a foreclosure or at the very least the bank has no legal recourse if those items are not conveyed.
We're not talking about a transaction, we're talking about a foreclosure. While real property is defined as included and part of the appraised asset at the time of the transaction, that has very little bearing on what the bank can expect to be conveyed back to them as collateral during a foreclosure or at the very least the bank has no legal recourse if those items are not conveyed.
I agree. I don't think they can do much about it, but I don't think trashing a house and ripping things out is ever morally right.
I agree. I don't think they can do much about it, but I don't think trashing a house and ripping things out is ever morally right.
Well, that would all be based on the cicumstances, hence the quip about old Jean Valjean and his loaf of bread. Though I do agree that intentionally trashing a house is morally wrong, even if it is legally fine.
What is law anymore, its what a lawyer can convince a judge of, or pay the judge off. Why do you think banks can get away with deficiancy judgements, that was certianly not something passed by the people. No average citizen would ever agree to such a law.
What is law anymore, its what a lawyer can convince a judge of, or pay the judge off. Why do you think banks can get away with deficiancy judgements, that was certianly not something passed by the people. No average citizen would ever agree to such a law.
Seriously? If a lawyer convinces a judge that the law is on the side of his/her client, the judge is mandated to find in favor of that client. I have never heard of a lawyer "paying off" a judge in a foreclosure case. It sounds as if you are grasping at straws in an attempt to validate your victim status.
I am an attorney. I understand contract law. I analyze the statutes and appellate opinions and understand the reasoning behind the judge's opinions. In general, contract law is dry reading, because it is void of the emotional drama inherent in tort law, family law, etc. There are few gray areas in contract law where the terms of the contract are unambiguous.
Even though I absolutely agree that homeowners can ethically breach their contract (it truly is a business transaction) the "average citizen" agrees to a deficiency judgment when he/she signs the contract. There are some states that have passed laws that prohibit deficiency judgments. If the "average citizens" of your state decide that they desire such a law, they are free to petition their legislators to pass such a law. Such is life.
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.
