| What do you think about what Terry Hoskins did? | ||
| Choice | Votes | Percentage of 10367 Votes |
| Good for him | 8042 |  78% |
| Not a good idea | 949 | 9% |
| He should be prosecuted | 1376 | 13% |
| Thanks for taking part in our survey. | ||
Posted on 02/19/2010 3:14:32 PM PST by Rodebrecht
MOSCOW, Ohio -- Like many people, Terry Hoskins has had troubles with his bank. But his solution to foreclosure might be unique.
Hoskins said he's been in a struggle with RiverHills Bank over his Clermont County home for nearly a decade, a struggle that was coming to an end as the bank began foreclosure proceedings on his $350,000 home.
"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," Hoskins said.
(Excerpt) Read more at wlwt.com ...
I see. The way the article was written had me confused, leaving out details and so on.
If they foreclose, they get paid by the government at the original purchase price minus the sale price. That's only if they foreclose.
If they settle for a short sale, I believe that that's all they get.
Therefore, all the bank has to do is produce the original note and they can claim all the difference as compensable by the government.
Why sell short when you can get 100 % of the original price plus whatever they buyer paid over the years plus legal costs.
The definition of "valued at $350,000" is that someone will pay you $350,000 for it. Mark it down to $260,000, sell it quickly, give the bank their $160,000 and keep the rest... If you can't sell it for more than $160,000, then it is not "valued at $350,000" by anyone.
What he did was ugly, but not a crime.
The bank could sue him for their loss, but the fool probably doesn’t have any assets.
Why was he not allowed to sell it and pay off the loan? Seem to me that is an illegal activity by the bank? I hope this bank goes under!
I disagree. The man was willing to pay off the loan by selling his home, but the bank refused to let him sell. Why? Because once they got the deed to the property, they could sell it for more money. Seems illegal to me what the bank was doing.
| What do you think about what Terry Hoskins did? | ||
| Choice | Votes | Percentage of 10367 Votes |
| Good for him | 8042 | 78% |
| Not a good idea | 949 | 9% |
| He should be prosecuted | 1376 | 13% |
| Thanks for taking part in our survey. | ||
He thinks he’s mad at the bank now? Wait till the bank files a form with the IRS showing the amount of the foreclosure as income for 2010.
If it’s a primary residence, I don’t believe it will be reported as debt forgiveness. I believe that has been repealed for a period of time. The bank should establish the market value and go after him in court. The judgement will follow him a lot longer than a foreclosure IIRC.
Years ago I knew a fellow who made a lot of money in a short tine in the construction business. His wife liked horses so he bought her some horses and built her a nice barn and training facility. He also hired a trainer and provided a house for him.
After awhile the wife and the trainer were fooling around in the house. He waited until he knew they were in the bedroom and then drove a bulldozer right through the bedroom.
Fortunately, no one was hurt but the wife and trainer were gone immediately.
In this particular case, I’m not sure that law applies. Check it out and see what you think:
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=174034,00.html
Here’s the part that needs more fleshing out before we can know for sure:
“The exclusion doesn’t apply if the discharge is due to services performed for the lender or any other reason not directly related to a decline in the home’s value or the taxpayer’s financial condition.”
From the article:
“Hoskins said the Internal Revenue Service placed liens on his carpet store and commercial property on state Route 125 after his brother, a one-time business partner, sued him.
“The bank claimed his home as collateral, Hoskins said, and went after both his residential and commercial properties.”
See what I mean?
I read that if it is based upon a decline in the value it is covered. Specifically the law was passed to give an exemption on primary residences during short sales or foreclosures. It does not stop someone from placing a lien if the home has been used as collateral for commercial properties.
Could be, but even if it is, the bank will probably still send him a 1099-C. He’ll have to go through the mess of filling out the appropriate form and sending it in to the IRS, then waiting for the IRS to process and approve it.
The house is still there, its just in jig saw pieces..let the bank put it back together again...
I don’t believe banks are submitting 1099s for primary residents. That’s what the regulations are all about.
Now, that’s funny!
“Did you feel the earth move, baby ?”
You’re probably right, but since the law doesn’t provide a blanket exclusion, I would think banks HAVE to send 1099-C forms.
Not corect, if he had the money to pay the loan there would not have been a foreclosure.
This guy was a loser, scum, self indulgent and a total A-Hole. The only thing that would keep this guy from jail would be how cash scrapped the city and banks are. Don't know if they have the money to prosecute this vermin.
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.