Posted on 02/20/2010 7:53:25 PM PST by Talkradio03
"When I see I owe $160,000 on a home valued at $350,000, and someone decides they want to take it – no, I wasn't going to stand for that, so I took it down," ..."Hopefully from this people will stand up and call their bank and tell them -hey listen, I'm not gonna let you do this to me" (Before and After photos)
(Excerpt) Read more at hotairpundit.blogspot.com ...
The guy signed on the dotted line to get a loan for his house. It is a contract. I agree with the above poster that he is responsible for his actions.
Regarding the banks I remember Frank, Dodd, Clinton, Acorn and others pressuring the banks to make loans to people who would not otherwise qualify.
When the court system gets through with him he will think otherwise next time.
“What prevents him from reorganizing unter Chaper 11 or 9? People go bankrupt all of the time and they do not go to jail.”
That probably won’t stop a foreclosure, especially with the IRS involved.
I especially note the ‘investment bankers’ who ran the hedge funds and who levereged the “too-large-to-fail” up to 100 times value and sold this country down the river...even the future of their own children, not to mention you and your kids. We didn’t get to vote on that. But that is what they did and that is what they continue to do. If the public ever comes to understand their country, their freedom, their childrens futures were stolen, there will be hell to pay. Bankers...like the songwriter said, “are workin for the devil, and the devil works for him.”
It is only “cross-collaterol” if he signed paper STATING that it was!
Otherwise, tell the bank FO!
ya......rent until you’re 65 of have saved enough Post-Toasties box tops to pay cash for a house...../sarc
wait I thought it was ALL due to those loans Congress forced banks to make.
Never mind banks coulda cared less if a person could actually pay a loan back.
I wonder if we got a list of those “Structured Vehicle Investments” (derivitives) which were bought by the investment bankers, and were turned into cr*p, and 5 thousand or 10 thousand bulldozers stood ready, if someone might take notice. When a guy has nothing left to lose, he might do anything.
So.....the bank was fearful that the Feds would seize the property so they decided to take it from the mortgage holder who was current on all of his payments?
Seems to me that the bankers had a beef with the Federales and threw the little guy under the bus. What friendly neighborhood banker was this? Were they, by chance, affiliated with a financial institution that took TARP monies? Perhaps both the moneychangers and the Feds should be grateful the mortgage holder isn’t a pilot.
Better than flying his Cessna into the Bank.
What is BOL?
Overall it looks like the bank made the wrong decision. The bank is definitely going to take a loss on this one no matter what happens next.
That’s how I see it too, although I’m not a lawyer. How much different is it doing this vs. burning it down? We all know that arson is a crime. Maybe it felt good and evidently a lot of people on this thread think it was a fine idea, but I suspect this guy has just screwed up the rest of his life.
Making a point isn’t worth that.
Banks never take responsibility.
The moral side of the person LENDING is NEVER talked about.
And lets not even get into them paying the consequences for their behavior, they just get bailed out.
The worst thing we have done in my adult lifetime economically was to declare that financial institutions were too big to fail. They should have failed so the system could have purged itself of the crap, instead the crap just drags on and on and on.
“Making a point isn’t worth that.”
Oh, I don’t know. I’m sure he got great satisfaction doing it. David vs. Goliath. And his life was screwed anyway. May as well go down fighting. I like his style.
I don't recall seeing RiverHills Bank on the list of those institutions that received bailout money - so what do the bailouts have to do with this guy essentially stealing from a bank?
You put a piece of property up for collateral on another loan (regardless of the purpose - you chose to put that property up...), then don't make your payments on said loan, you lose the collateral - that is how it works and has for a very long time.
And lumping all banks and bankers into the same lump of the bailout pigs is an injustice. There are MANY very sound and good banks around this nation. I know of several that I have dealt with that have received no bailouts (didn't need them - they follow good practice in lending). They are very much up-front. Now - don't go looking for a loan if you have crappy credit. Don't go looking for a loan if you can't prove you are legally here, and have all verifiable income/employment and such.
The one at fault here certainly appears, from all available data, to be this "frustrated homeowner" who essentially has defrauded/robbed his lending institution. Other than the fact he didn't use fire, this isn't really any different than burning down the house.
I’m a bit more vindictive. I would have bulldozed the banker’s house too.
Caution! Stoopid, Senseless people at work destroying others property.
What if it was his dad who carried the mortgage? His inlaws? His cousins finance company? Or better yet ~ supposing he carried paper on my house and I bulldozed his capital?
well said.....
Everyone you need to listen/watch the video.
The IRS has a lean against his carpet store. So that led to the bank going after his house. He screwed himself up worse if the IRS still need to get paid.
“The moral side of the person LENDING is NEVER talked about”
I don’t think that the lending issues start with the bank. As a lender the bank can agree to lend you anything they want because they are taking you at your word that you’ll pay it back. Even if the bank knows you can’t, it is still your responsibility not to take the loan. Once you take the loan, the deal is made and you made the choice to pay it back or suffer the consequences. The bank never forced you to do anything. You made that choice.
If bankers are supposed to regulate your morale and fiscal responsibility then how can any products or services be sold anywhere? I mean really, if a store allowed a person to buy alcohol or a new tv, knowing full well that the person would not be able to pay rent later, is the store morally liable? I don’t think so. We are responsible for our own stupid actions.
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.