Posted on 05/26/2023 6:51:01 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
“This left Tyler on the hook for a $50,000 mortgage and $12,000 in condo fees.”
Lucky last?
She was underwater on her house but came out $25k ahead!
It would just take a court case to drive it home.
Your concern should be that she actually was on the hook.
Obviously, the government didn’t clear that debt, or it wouldn’t be in the court case.
I find this statement puzzling, insofar as it seems to imply that the Plaintiff still being burdened with a mortgage and lien somehow excludes her from being "harmed."
Regards,
Property Taxes: One of the most egregious forms of taxation ever invented. A system that FUNCTIONALLY makes NO-ONE an actual property OWNER - no matter the price you pay, you are simply paying for occupancy/use. The state/county/municipality owns it. You buy the revocable right to use the property - so long as you pay your annual rent/extortion bill.
Don’t believe me? Just refuse to pay that property tax bill and then watch the County sell your property to the next renter - and give you nothing in return.
This isn’t actually accurate. There are many property (tax) auctions her in Arkansas - where they sell your property for not paying the taxes - and I’ve never known anyone to get any equity back.
This is why some people burn their houses the ground and then top off their private airplane with fuel and crash it into an IRS building.
Great. Now do property taxes itself.
If folks think home equity theft is bad, you should see what’s going on with land banks in state that allow home equity theft.
Hint, hint...
The implication of that statement is that the Plaintiff no longer owes the money to clear those liens since she no longer holds the title to the property. The government is claiming that she can’t demonstrate that she’s suffered any harm in the case because the debt was transferred to the government when they secured the title to the property. And since that debt exceeds the equity she had in the property, then the government basically did her a favor by taking the property away from her.
The county contended that Tyler was not actually harmed by the sale of her condo because she may have also had a mortgage for $49,000 on the property, as well as a $12,000 lien for unpaid homeowners’ association fees.
Are you now claiming that the actual meaning of this quote was:
The county contended that Tyler was not actually harmed by the sale of her condo because she may have also had a mortgage for $49,000 on the property, as well as a $12,000 lien for unpaid homeowners’ association fees - which mortgage and lien were simultaneously expunged when the property was confiscated.
I hate unclear writing!
Regards,
I don’t know how Minnesota law works, but I’d be very surprised if a property owner in default of a condo association debt that is secured by a lien on the property would still be on the hook for that debt after losing the property.
This article is poorly written on some of these points.
1. Were there actually mortgage and condo association liens on the property? The phrase “may have had” is baffling. Either the liens were there and the money for them is still owed, or they weren’t.
2. If the debts were still there, they would presumably be assumed by the new owner of the property — the government — after the title was transferred. I’m not saying they were “expunged,” though from her standpoint that would basically be what happened if they were transferred to the new owner.
A travesty; a huge SICK blow to those homeowners. Thanks for info.
I wonder how much money, in total, NYS is making off home equity theft and selling seized homes through land banks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.