Posted on 02/19/2010 10:08:00 AM PST by AreaMan
Yeah. Selling land seized at foreclosure is a big profit area for banks. That is why they do it so much.
/sarcasm
I've never been to Ohio, except to change planes, but I can tell you that the general law is that the proceeds of a foreclosure sale are distributed like this:
Balance of loan
Costs of foreclosure
Distribution to borrower
Meaning that the bank doesn't get to keep the extra money if the land sells for more than the bank is owed, at he foreclosure sale. The bank has to pay it to the borrower. I would shocked if Oho law wasn't exactly that way.
Was the house the collateral, or was the land itself the collateral. The guy’s comments seem to indicate that the bank extended the loan on the land, and he built the house afterwards.
Right — but depending on what was actually put up as the collateral for the loan, any decline in the value of the land is the bank’s problem, not his.
What is the BALLAD of CARL DREGA about?
You may be right, but I don’t think a guy in that position really gives a damn about how much he owes to anyone.
Correct me if I'm wrong but a bank can't refuse a total payment of a debt if done before the final foreclosure date, so how could this bank have "turned down" the offer. I think someone is lying and his name is Hoskins.
>> Once again, unless you know otherwise I am basing my statement on what was provided. He owed 160 and was offered 170. Bank approval might be necessary if they had started legal proceedings. That is only a guess on my part and your part.
I know otherwise. If he was in legal proceedings for $160K, and sold for $170K ... he could just pay it off. If the bank seized the house and sold for $350K, and he owed $160K — he’d get a check for the difference ($190K). The bank cannot collect more than they are owed.
The account is wrong somewhere. If approval was required ... the dude owed more than was offered (whether the offer was less than $160K or he owed more than $170K is irrelevant).
>> Finally, yes, if the bank was screwing me on purpose to make a profit and harm me, then I would do exactly what the man did. The bank was owed the exact amount agreed to, not a penny more. If I thought the bank was going to make thirty or forty thousand or more, by holding the property while ensuring I lost it all, then I would have done what he did.
The bank CANNOT make more than you owe. If they sell for more than you owe — they must cut you a check for the rest.
If you owed the bank money, and intentionally destroyed the collateral property ... you’d likely be fined heavily, or headed to jail.
SnakeDoc
enviornmental degradation
except bank had a lien at that point so he couldn’t give a clear title.
I can't believe the level of ignorance about foreclosure law and loans. IF he only owed the bank 160,000 they can't get more than he owes out of it when they auction it off. He gets anything over the 160,000. Also, the bank can't keep him from paying off the loan, if he would get 170,000 for it and paid the bank their 160,000 they would have had to take it. They couldn't refuse. This guy is lying about something here and the MSM is playing it up because it fits in with their "private owned banks and businesses are bad, government run stuff is good" meme.
THUD (sound of a lawyer familiar with most FReeper sentiments falling off chair)
Paying off the loan with the proceeds of the sale will clear the title.
SnakeDoc
He probably won’t get jail time for this, but he certainly opened himself up to an enormous civil lawsuit from the lienholder(s) for destroying the asset that secured a financial instrument (or words to that effect).
He could very well be found liable for the amount of the loan anyway, since he chose to destroy the house. At the very least, he has sown the seeds for his own financial destruction, and the fallout from this life decision could well follow him around to his grave. A jury verdict against him would be far more damaging than a foreclosure would have been.
IRS lien takes priority over a mortgage.
People are angry. There’s a storm comin’.
Prison is a very nice alternative isn’t it dipsh*t...you borrowed the money...pay it back.
“... it appears he had some federal tax problems as well...”
Like most of Obama’s Cabinet...
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.