>> 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
Well, I can’t argue against speculation.
What you “know” apparently trumps facts.
Have you ever hear of a blanket mortgage? When a loan is secured by multiple properties.
He may have only owed $160K, but creditors hire out appraisers and realtors to provide a Broker Price Opinion (BPO) to ascertain the ‘as-is’ value and/or repaired value.
When they know they’re sitting on possible equity, they’re not going to approve a sale for $170K when they can get $350K on the open market.
And you’re right about the fine print in the Deed of Trust or Mortgage. You have to maintain the property.
Destroying it makes him legally liable. His trouble aren’t over by a long shot.