I bet they will be doing the same thing in condos and that creates a real problem for the remaining owners. Once more than 20% are in foreclosure there will be no financing available to buy any of the others. It seems like an evil spiral for the remaining owners.

Hell yes - let us let everyone who bought a house beyond their means to continue to live in it ..while the few of us that bought within our means countinue to foot the bill for them.

Sure - great!

Welcome to Obama land - where those that work get taxed to death and watch as their savings become worthless - and those who did not achieve, did not study at school, partied - dropped out, screwed around on their jobs, bought beyond thier means, ran up their credit cards get everything handed to them and get off scott free.

Yes..ain't it good to be living in United Social States of American

The foreclosure, however, failed to go through after the California-based lender decided it didn't want the gutted house.

You are right, that is cruel. What is a house that has been gutted worth?

Its a way to drag the borrower back into an endless no-win property tax battle.

Obama land?

More like Reaganland!

How's California doin'?

foshaffer,

you are an idiot...this has nothing to do with Obama considering these sub prime loans were going on long before he took the white house and unless you are illiterate you would have read that it is the lenders that are fucking us again...

you are an idiot...this has nothing to do with Obama considering these sub prime loans were going on long before he took the white house and unless you are illiterate you would have read that it is the lenders that are fucking us again...

#6 | Posted by richardspirit at 2009-07-14 10:52 AM

Welcome to Obama land - where those that work get taxed to death and watch as their savings become worthless - and those who did not achieve, did not study at school, partied - dropped out, screwed around on their jobs, bought beyond thier means, ran up their credit cards get everything handed to them and get off scott free.

Yes..ain't it good to be living in United Social States of American

#2 | Posted by foshaffer

kind of makes you wonder why a bank would lend such undersirables money?

Live or Die,

And what exactly would you like Obama to do? Pass a law forcing the lenders to continue the process? Pass a law to go after the borrowers who have no money to begin with? Send them to jail if they don't comply? With little or no money on each side it would amount to wasting more taxpayers money with no real results.

I just hope someone takes the initiative to identify these lenders and make their company names public.

And what exactly would you like Obama to do?

force the banks for continue with a foreclosure proceeding if they begin it.

Welcome to Obama land

Actually Bush land. he's the guy, with a big old assist from McCain/Palin who bailed the banks out.

"This is just the meanest and nastiest thing (lenders) could do"

Yeah, how mean of them to attempt to collect on a debt owed to them. How nasty of them for not wanting to pay sky-high property taxes in Milwaukee on a house that's probably worth about two years' worth of those taxes. They should have just the borrower have the house for free and never tried to collect anything.

Yeah, how mean of them to attempt to collect on a debt owed to them. How nasty of them for not wanting to pay sky-high property taxes in Milwaukee on a house that's probably worth about two years' worth of those taxes.

I don't care about the property tax revenue and I don't care about the borrower who defaulted necessarily.

I do care about the neighbors who have a property near them that is in shambles because the process has stopped. Either the banks or the borrower need to accept responsiblity. The borrower has already proven unable to take responsibility and the bank has already chosen to take legal action.......they need to finish what they started.

Actually Bush land. he's the guy, with a big old assist from McCain/Palin who bailed the banks out.

go back to playing with your own shit.

If there is anyone to hold accountable, it is Congress (although not just them).

As for the money, it has gone to money heaven, and we'll never see it again.

The stupid borrowers have no money and in many cases never did. You CAN'T get money from them. The problem was loaning money to them in the first place.

The banks, while undeniably stupid, can at least point to laws passed by Congress that pretty much required them to exercise affirmative action in lending.

Coupled with that, deregulation, while normally a good thing, made banks into their own oversight. With money on the line, this was very bad move. Seperation of power applies to banks as well as it does to political power, for similar reasons.

So....

#1
Scrap any affirmative action style lending laws.

#2
Even some modest oversight of lending practices, and oversight NOT controlled by the banks (seperation of power), would do a world of good.

#3
Stop whining, and get on with our lives. The money is gone, NOT stolen, NOT hoarded somewhere. It is simply dead and gone. It cannot be 'recovered'. (but hard workers that actualy produce wealth can create new wealth, if we let them....)

deal with it.

Ah yes. Blame it on the Lenders. Ignore the reality?

"I do care about the neighbors who have a property near them that is in shambles because the process has stopped."

If they care so much, they can buy it and fix it themselves. It's not the bank's fault that their former neighbor was a deadbeat who left a house looking like shit.

Something should be done to force the banks to at least decide what they are going to do before the house deteriorates beyond repair. That way the city could auction the house and collect some of the back taxes or the bank would go ahead with the foreclosure and sell it in whatever is the quickest way. Right now the banks are just letting properties all over just sit idle and they don't even list them for sale (at least this is what I have heard) because with the numbers of properties the glut would eliminate what little value many still have so they only sell selected ones.
It was bad enough that the banks made so many bad loans but now they compound the problem by leaving so many properties in limbo.

It's not the bank's fault that their former neighbor was a deadbeat who left a house looking like shit.

Wouldn't the bank, as the owner of the house now, have some legal obligation to the community if the property is a rat's nest for example? I know I would be subject to lawsuits by my neighbors if I let my house become a threat to the area.

There is a house in my neighborhood that has been left alone for 4 years now. It was in decent shape when the owners were kicked out, but now is boarded up and overgrown. The bank should maintain the house.

In 2006, Chambers refinanced the 100-year-old frame house for the second time in four years. She received a $68,800 adjustable-rate mortgage through BWM Mortgage, a now-defunct Wauwatosa mortgage banker. The loan was for nearly $30,000 more than the property's assessed value.

The property's assessed value? How about the appraised value? How about her income? How about her debt to income ratio? How about her credit score? The assessed value doesn't mean spit when applying for a mortgage. That example alone proves the article and author are bullshit.

What the fuck is the deal with blaming the banks? They are the ones who lent the money and are being hosed. They can do a foreclosure or not - their call. If the property is a gutted piece of shit, why would they take on the liability of owning it, and then have to clean it up to boot to avoid liability?

The mortgage is just one avenue available to a money lender to try to realize some of the money they lent out. If they don't want to pursue it because it is not economical - they can do it.

The banks are the ones being screwed in this. Ya, the neighborhood hurts too, but the banks are not in business to own and fix up homes. Wake up people.

"Wouldn't the bank, as the owner of the house now, have some legal obligation to the community if the property is a rat's nest for example?"

The bank isn't the new owner. They never took title to the home. And they shouldn't be required to if it means paying property taxes on a shitheap they have to rebuild if they ever want someone to buy it. If, in the middle of litigation, a bank decides to pursue a money judgment against the debtor and refrain from taking title to a home, that's their prerogative. If the neighbors care, let them buy the house.

" In other words, borrowers should never sign papers for a loan they do not understand or have the ability to repay."

True, but then why is it called loan approval?

The experts at the bank are supposed to know who is credit-worthy and who isn't. For centuries, they could lend to folks who couldn't pay back, but they simply knew better. They're the ones reaping the reward, they're the ones who should be taking the risk. Instead, they reap the reward, and we take the risk.

Add to that the fact this author completely ignores leveraging. History and sense have usually kept that number around 8-1 or 9-1. Compare that with the 30-1, 50-1, and the 100-1 leverage the likes of Lehman Brothers were doing, and you'll find the real culprits.

If they care so much, they can buy it and fix it themselves. It's not the bank's fault that their former neighbor was a deadbeat who left a house looking like shit.

They can buy it but you are forcing neighbors to buy a property (out of foreclosure.....not always easy) to remedy this problem.

I don't know about this guy specifically in the article but a foreclosure is a process where you sue someone and force them to vacate isn't it??

I'm not stumping for this guy but if you force him out and sue him then how is he supposed to give a shit about the property anymore.

In any case, none of this is the fault of the neighbors...and they are the ones paying the price IMO.

I'm not saying that you have to force the banks for foreclose but rather if they start the proceeding then they simply need to finish.

gotta go....check back later.

The bank isn't the new owner. They never took title to the home.

I think they are. My friend's mother just lost her home and the bank is the title holder now and is the one selling the property. As of last Wednesday, the bank owns the property.

"The banks are the ones being screwed in this."

Actually not in many cases because the banks have long since bundled and sold the mortgages. Also, what about the banks we bailed out, don't they then have some responsibility back to tax payers???

Actually Bush land. he's the guy, with a big old assist from McCain/Palin who bailed the banks out.

#12 | Posted by northguy3 at 2009-07-14 11:32 AM

For the record, I am only asking questions here and not making statements. I honestly do not understand this enough so I am trying to learn.

"I think they are. My friend's mother just lost her home and the bank is the title holder now and is the one selling the property"

Read the article. A judgment of foreclosure is just one first step in the process. Just because you know someone who lost their house does not mean that every bank that forecloses on the house takes the steps that were taken in your friend's situation.

And what exactly would you like Obama to do?
#9 | Posted by richardspirit at 2009-07-14 11:01 AM

Pass a law forcing the lenders to continue the process? Pass a law to go after the borrowers who have no money to begin with? Send them to jail if they don't comply? With little or no money on each side it would amount to wasting more taxpayers money with no real results.

#9 | Posted by richardspirit at 2009-07-14 11:01 AM

Seems like the people who made the decisions at banks to not check credit, income, etc. are the ones who are really responsible for the mess. If they were doctors or lawyers they would be sued for malpractice. Isn't banking a profession too???
These people made huge amounts approving bad loans, there should be some responsibility for them. For some reason though banking seems to do what it wants and never face consequences.

Kanrei, I think in the article, the bank stopped the process and never went to the foreclosure "sale." They don't have to, and can abandon the process - even when the deal reaches the courthouse steps. Sounds like you friends mother's lender went through the foreclosure sale. The lender probably got title through a credit bid process. The previous owner will probably be contacted by the bank to get out. She'll either face an unlawful detainer, or, perhaps she'll get "cash for keys" to the house.

In article, the bank decided that it wasn't worth getting. Banks can't turn gutted homes because loan guidelines won't allow a home loan on a gutted or stripped house. So, someone with cash (in a bad neighborhood, good luck) needs to come around, or the bank sits on it for 10 years and hopes the economy heals up.

"They can buy it but you are forcing neighbors to buy a property (out of foreclosure.....not always easy) to remedy this problem."

I'm not forcing anyone to do anything. They are the ones complaining in your hypothetical. They are the ones who can and should do something about it if it matters so much to them.

"I don't know about this guy specifically in the article but a foreclosure is a process where you sue someone and force them to vacate isn't it??"

Typically a foreclosure complaint also involves breach of contract, breach of guarantee, etc. If the bank determines that they only want to pursue those other counts, they are within their rights to do so.

#34 | Posted by somoco at 2009-07-14 12:02 PM

Thank you. I actually learned here =D

These people made huge amounts approving bad loans, there should be some responsibility for them. For some reason though banking seems to do what it wants and never face consequences.

#33 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2009-07-14 12:01 PM | REPLY | FLAG

Ya, we'll call it the Negligent Infliction Of Money. It'll be the new, most moronic cause of action in history. The deposition would be great:

Q: So, on your application, it says you make $200K per year, was that true?

A: No.

Q: So you lied?

A: Yes.

Q: You lived in the house for a year during which you failed to pay any mortgage payments, correct?

A: Yes.

Q: Were you paying property taxes or insurance as required under your deed of trust?

A: No.

Q: The bank lend you $250,000 for that home, correct?

A: Yes.

Q: Of that amount, how much did you pay back?

A: Well, it was a negative amortized loan, so the loan balance is really $270,000.00 now, but I paid at least $10,000 in interest payments.

Ya, great case.

SOMOCO I've been following the failure of Bank United here in Florida. It was the largest bank headquartered in Florida. The president of the bank put great pressure on bank officers to approve as many loans as possible, told them to do the no-doc loans, etc. Make a long story short the bank failed leaving billions to be picked up by FDIC. Now, you don't think the president of that bank, who pocketed millions over the years owes anything back to the tax payers who are bailing out his bank because of his greed???

#38. If there was fraud, then these people should go to jail, no question about it. The mortgage brokers who assisted in fraud - criminal penalties, perhaps jail. Any appraisers who cooked the books fraudulently to get a loan passed - criminal penalties, perhaps jail. Borrowers who lied on applications to get loans to begin with - criminal penalties, perhaps jail.

You bet. I thought you were suggesting that homeowners who got foreclosed (thrust of article) should somehow be able to sue banks like an attorney or doctor could be sued for malpractice. I do think that there are cases against mortgage brokers who put people in worse loans than they were in before just to turn a fee.

btw, I also think the FBI and state real estate departments should look at the foreclosure trends to identify brokers who were involved in high percentage foreclosure areas to clean out any rats and strip them of their licenses.

The president of the bank put great pressure on bank officers to approve as many loans as possible, told them to do the no-doc loans, etc

NO doc loans? Do you even have the slightest clue what is required to get a no doc loan? They are the highest priced, heavily underwritten loans. LTV's, credit score, assets, income etc. must all meet a higher criteria and are scrutinized and verified. Not to mention the various costs Lenders charge. Some as high as five points. In 15 years I did one no doc loan.

It's a shame there is no mechanism to secure property subject to foreclosure so that the property is not "gutted." In the short term, other than untended lawn and landscaping, the properties don't rapidly devolve on their own.

We are watching a house across the street that eventually will succumb to this process. The family bought at the top of the market and now cannot afford the payments. At one time there were three families sharing the house; but, the county paid them a visit regarding the limits allowed in the local occupancy ordinance. They anticipate moving to another nearby community where they will either rent or share. They evidently have access to something because they have been removing much of the landscape shrubs and stones; doubt they are sellng them but may be relocating them with friends or relatives. Seriously considering notifying the county if we see fixtures or materials being removed; although, if they technically own the home they may be within their rights to gut it themselves. Suppose it depends on what requirements exist in their mortgage agreement to properly maintain the property. Fortunately, this is the only property in an otherwise desirable the neighborhood and for now it doesn't stand out from the rest of the block.

California has 12% of the nation's population yet California is also home to 30% of those in the nation who are currently on welfare.

#38. The other thing to keep in mind is that the government itself set the wrong incentives through CRA. So Barney Frank and others could tout the huge increase in minority home ownership. Well, put those incentives in place, and it's kinda easy to see why the bank president (who may have even been getting threats from ACORN), would be so aggressive in getting loans sold.

"NO doc loans?"

I'm no expert on mortgages, I just thought it meant no documents. If not, hey, shoot me. I was just trying to describe the loans that were made without the proper checks on income, etc.

"and it's kinda easy to see why the bank president (who may have even been getting threats from ACORN), would be so aggressive in getting loans sold."

Not according to the stories that have been coming out...he was just anxious to get all the business he could and didn't thing the bubble would ever burst. Employees say he put tremendous pressure on them to approve loans they knew were irresponsible.

btw, I also think the FBI and state real estate departments should look at the foreclosure trends to identify brokers who were involved in high percentage foreclosure areas to clean out any rats and strip them of their licenses.

Brokers in the Mortgage Industry are no different than Insurance Brokers. They are the middleman and follow the guidelines set up by the Lenders and Banks who obtain the loan. They all have electronic underwriting approval and must meet certain criteria and conditions established by the likes of fannie mae and freddie mac. A Broker ususally shops the loan to get the best return. Regardless of who they submit the loan through, they(Banks and Lenders)all drink from the same well. Not to say Brokers don't falsify or overcharge and shouldn't be punished. Lenders have their own rules when it comes to defaults or early payoffs. Such as returning rebates and fees back to those who did the loan.

sounds like noone is responsible

yet here we are

thanks supposed free market economy.

And there you have it: the value of Lexicon.

No one is Responsible, but plenty are to blame.

Not to say Brokers don't falsify or overcharge and shouldn't be punished. Lenders have their own rules when it comes to defaults or early payoffs. Such as returning rebates and fees back to those who did the loan.

#47 | POSTED BY CRISPEE_OC AT 2009-07-14 12:31 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Totally agree. Nothing wrong with brokers lending when they follow guidelines. But, there are those who falsify and overcharge, etc.

Kanrei, I think Congress is to blame for not putting the brakes on CRA. Bush and McCain are to blame for not pushing harder to put the brakes on when they knew trouble was brewing over this years ago.

While there was fraud, the system in place - with government approval and encouragement - is to blame. If redlining was still allowed (and I'm not saying it should be), and if the risk of a loan was born in full by banks and not secondary markets, this would not have happened. There'd have been a lot fewer homeowners, homes being built, less money in the economy - but this wouldn't have happened.

Greenspan was the originator of the problem. He held interest rates so low that it made it possible to flip houses because the payments were so low for the first few years. If interest rates were higher even the first year's payments would have been too high to flip houses. If y'all remember, the bubble burst when Bernanke raised interest rates. Remember Cramer's crazy rant about interest rates, calling Bernanke crazy at the time. Most of the rest of the culprits could never have done what they did without the low rates which he held until after the 2004 election to make sure Bush won. If he had raised them sooner Bush would not have had a second term, Bush's daddy blamed him for not lowering rates when he was running against Clinton and attributed his loss to Greenspan.

Q: So, on your application, it says you make $200K per year, was that true?

A: No.

Q: So you lied?

A: Yes.

#37 | Posted by somoco

Shouldn't the bank have had an obligation to its investors, under good business practice, to attempt verification that the information from the potential borrower is correct? I wouldn't even take the word of my best friend, when loaning money. Do you see how that entire deposition falls apart on the first question?

Whatsleft,

was in response to suggestion that homeowners have a suit against the bank. Sure banks have obligation to its shareholders to maximize profits. That would be a different, perhaps good suit.

The Feds lowered teh interest rates to inspire people to borrow money and spend.

The banks were eager to make these loans assuming most people would be able to repay them and the profits would have been big enough to cover teh few that didn't.

The average person, eager to keep up with the Jones', borrowed money they knew they couldn't afford in hopes their investments would grow to allow them to repay the loans.

This is the end result of everyone using everyone else's greed to make a quick profit, or, that is how I see it.

Actually, I have heard about banks themselves being sued by borrowers because loans granted were the most profitable for the bank though the customer qualified for a much better loan. That is also what is coming out about many of the loans that went to black people, they were actually qualified for reasonable, fixed rate loans but were sold the variable interest loans that got the people into trouble. I don't think it is reasonable to expect average people to understand all the ins and outs of mortgages.

Kanrei,

2 good, quick reads on this subject:

The Trillion Dollar Melt-down

The Housing Boom and Bust

Between the 2 books you'll get just about every angle covered.

Would you say my #54 is right, close, or way off base?

"The Feds lowered teh interest rates to inspire people to borrow money and spend."

Also known as "that great Bush economy" we used to hear about almost every single day right here on DR.
Some of the biggest whiners about the bad loans were the loudest cheer leaders for "that great Bush economy." And when they were told the money was just borrowed they didn't see anything wrong with it because the price of homes would just continue rising forever. And then....we all woke up from that dream world and were thrust back into reality.

Danni,

What you are lamenting against IS true - valid criticism. However, it's not the ONLY spoke in the wheel.

"The average person, eager to keep up with the Jones', borrowed money they knew they couldn't afford in hopes their investments would grow to allow them to repay the loans."

Consider this scenario instead...

I am a poor person with little skills and bad credit. I spend much of my time dodging bills I can't pay and trying to maintain enough for basic necessities.

Along comes mister lender and says here have a house I don't care if you don't have stable work history or good credit history you can have anyway and even no money down.

I'm thinking to myself.."I know I can't pay for it but it would be a new house for at least a little while we can feel like we are a part of the American Dream."

In the end I am no worse position after losing the house than I was before buying the house so really what have I got to lose.

The lender on the hand bundles the loan sells it to somebody else so he doesn't really care if I can pay or not because now it is own by another bank who will in turn sell it to someone else.

Richard,
I would say it is a 1:1 ratio between my scenario and yours.

"However, it's not the ONLY spoke in the wheel."

That spoke though was the one that mattered. I don't believe Greenspan now when he says he was surprised by the bubble economy. I think it was a political calculation and the results were just far worse than intended though there was intent to leave an economy in turmoil...as in "starving the beast."
I still say, let's hang Greenspan.

"However, it's not the ONLY spoke in the wheel."

That spoke though was the one that mattered. I don't believe Greenspan now when he says he was surprised by the bubble economy. I think it was a political calculation and the results were just far worse than intended though there was intent to leave an economy in turmoil...as in "starving the beast."
I still say, let's hang Greenspan.

That spoke did matter, but it wasn't the only spoke that mattered.

"because now it is own by another bank who will in turn sell it to someone else."

It's like a game of musical chairs, where you don't want to be caught holding the note when the music stops.

Turns out the American taxpayers were the ones caught without a chair.

Danni,

Greenspan manipulated rates to keep things afloat and, in the process, punted the problem down the road.

However, in doing so, he made the eventual crash even bigger that it otherwise would have been.

That is also what is coming out about many of the loans that went to black people, they were actually qualified for reasonable, fixed rate loans but were sold the variable interest loans that got the people into trouble. - DUMMI

WTF? Are you saying that black people were more suceptable to subterfuge than other races?

Quick question DUMMI - what action is the average American responsible for? You would have the gubment dictate what we eat, what we drive, what doctor we see and when, how we invest our money, how we plan our retirement, how we raise our kids -What the hell is a person responsible for?

You need to let people make mistakes and take some responsibility for their actions - read the fine print before you sign the mortgage papers - go to more than one bank. You and the other libtards on the DR think that business is out to screw the average American - in reality, libtards have trained the average American to make uninformed decisions because the "nanny" state will swoop in to take care of them. My guess is that you were breast fed until 18. Would explain a lot.

"Greenspan manipulated rates to keep things afloat"

While the Republicans bragged about low unemployment, rising rate of home ownership, etc.
It was a dishonest scam and I said so at the time.

It was a dishonest scam and I said so at the time.

Well, take some solice in the fact that you are vindicated - you were right. Before the bust I viewed numerous comments from you warning about what was going to happen. Ditto for Ray.

solace.

JeffJ,

It is kind of funny cause I kind of think most of us here said the same thing over and over and most on the right just bragged up this great economy.

Now that obama is using all of bush advisors you think we are going to get any better.......not on your life. Just another new scam.

"Now that obama is using all of bush advisors you think we are going to get any better......."

That is one thing that is beginning to bother me.
What the hell is going on, he also left in place most of the Bush Federal Prosecutors.
I have to wonder if Bush's eavesdropping on American's phone conversations hasn't supplied the neocons of ways of controlling government even when they are out of power.

I have to wonder if Bush's eavesdropping on American's phone conversations hasn't supplied the neocons of ways of controlling government even when they are out of power.

Or perhaps McCain was saddled with Palin because Obama and Bush were more alike than anyone thought and they had to guarantee an Obama victory to keep things on the same path.

"Or perhaps McCain was saddled with Palin"

I thought McCain chose her himself. No?

I don't believe he did, but we would need one of our Republican posters to answer that for certain.

There is nothing illegal about a property owner starting a remodeling project. As, a matter of fact, they don't have to pull a building permit in many cases if they are not moving or manipulating load bearing wallsm working on the electrical, HVAC, or plumbing systems. The fact that they are in foreclosure will more than likely mean that they may run out of money before the project is completed. The bank will be left with a gutted home.

FLGATOR

...There is nothing illegal about a property owner starting a remodeling project. As, a matter of fact, they don't have to pull a building permit in many cases if they are not moving or manipulating load bearing wallsm working on the electrical, HVAC, or plumbing systems...

My town here in California no longer allows any new homes to be built. So what's been happening is people will buy a house, tear it down to the foundation, and literally build up an entire new house on top of the one they tore down. That way they can call it "remodeling" and don't have to get all the permits, etc., usually required to build a new home.

And I figure as long as no new homes are allowed to be built here, it just makes the property my house sits on all the more valuable. Supply and demand.

The hourly paid employee of the bank...who made bonuses based on the number of deals they wrote in a given period, the appraisor who over valued the home values to keep their foot in the door with the bank to get the business are all to blame.
Banks are licenced in their respective states. Appraisors are licenced as professionals. Consumers are not licensed professionals. The banks have a fiducial responsibility to the State and Federal Regualtors, the depositors, the stockholders, etc. The appraisor has a professional responsibility to the State, the bank and the homeowner to provide a legitimate valuation of the subject property. I charge the banks and the appraisors with collusion. The banks and their employees were making big bucks, along with the appraisors. I know of loan officers who would find a Comp for an appraisal and tell the appraisor to make it happen. Where is the Federal Trade Commission? Where is the Department of Banking and Finance ofr the respctive State? Where is the Department of Professional Regulation for the respective State? They are hiding because they are letting the Feds sort it out until someone forces them to do their jobs that they haven;t been doing. With regard to vacant homes sitting for years? There are laws on the books to allow for abatement, where a municipality has the authortiy to bulldoze a building and send the owner a bill and if not paid, get a judgement against them. With regard to people not paying property taxes? They sell at auction annually tax deeds and after 3 years you own the property free and clear.

My point remains that we shouldn't force banks to foreclose on properties. However, if they start the process then they should complete the process.

If our govt want to actually help in this problem then don't allow a run down piece of property to go unmaintained because nobody (seemingly) has responsibility for it. By allowing this I don't think the public interest is being served.

Who I care most about in this scenario are the neighbors who pay their bills.

Not the borrower who doesn't pay bills.
Not the bank who made a shitty loan.

In any case, if the bank property assessed this risk by charging PMI for these mortgages then this exposure would be accounted for.

the properties don't rapidly devolve on their own.

Turn the electricity off on a home is Florida and you can watch the mold grow on the the "modern" drywall. Then you have a HazMat remediation issue. That ain't cheap.
Banks are better off letting the owner stay in the home to keep it safe rather than let it sit abandoned. It it is an ugly situation.
One major California bank has over 125k homes in foreclosure in 6 S.E. states. The files are maintained in three large rooms in Bankers Boxes and are piling up in the poor guy's office who runs the unit. They don't have enough employees to keep up with the work load. It costs a bank approx. $50k to foreclose and then they sell it for 30 to 40 cents on the dollar. The smart thing for the banks to do would be to reduce the note of what it wolud cost them to foreclose and value the home at its current value and reset the note on the mortgage accordingly and most of this would all go away overnight. The stupid thing is that they will foreclose, sell it for cents on the dollar to an investor and the same people will rent it from their new landlord for what the reset mortgage would have costs. It is just more insanity from the FED.

"Banks are better off letting the owner stay in the home to keep it safe rather than let it sit abandoned."

Yep, and the neighborhood is better off too.

Or perhaps McCain was saddled with Palin

#73 | Posted by kanrei at 2009-07-14 02:11 PM | Reply | Flag: Thanks for the visual *sarc off*

The local municipalities should enforce the abatement laws and bulldoze.

the lenders that are fucking us again...

#6 | Posted by richardspirit

Because they don't want to take back a house that has been gutted? You are nucking futs.

Interesting to note I am in a similar situation. I am behind on my payments the bank started talking foreclosure and then I made a token effort to catch up and since then we are at a holding ground. The bank does not want to forclose they would loose about half the value if they do, not counting their cost to foreclose. I do not want them to foreclose and am working with the bank to prevent it. However my efforts are not enough but the bank keeps things in the same holding pattern so they can keep the value of the loan on the books and have me maintain the property when the economy turns I suspect they will not be so generous however by then my income which relys on the building industry will increse so the bank will have no reason to forclose.

In the meantime selling the house and renting is not an options since rents are about 2x my mortage. So if I can't keep up the mortage how could I keep up the rent.

It's fucked up when I bought the house I bought UNDER what I could afford and thank god, it has keep the ammount I am behind lower.

Hope it all works out for you TAo.

The local municipalities should enforce the abatement laws and bulldoze.
#83 | Posted by FLGator

Yeah, that won't compound the problems of the remaining homeowners.

"I have to wonder if Bush's eavesdropping on American's phone conversations hasn't supplied the neocons of ways of controlling government even when they are out of power."

You're well into JeffnDenmark territory there.

Better yet, A Citizen's group should file suit against the municipality to force them to enfore the abatement law; hold them accountable to the taxpayers. Sue for damages (loss of property value, public endangerment and public nuisance due to the municipalities neglect of not upholding the laws that they are paid to enfore in place on the books.
Code enforcement is the place to go in the building department.

Tao,

Tao,

There is a good reason for this legal manuver called "Produce The Note".
Back in the old days of this country. When someone borrowed money against a home or farm, the Banker would tear the note in half and the bank kept one half and the borrower kept the other half. If there ever was a dispute or when the note was paid off they could simply match up the two halves to prove that the two halves were the "ORIGINAL" note due to their unique tear mark on the paper.

"You're well into JeffnDenmark territory there."

I know but then I hear Gov. Don Siegelman is going to be back in court soon with the same Bush appointed prosecutor and judge. The prosecutor is the wife of his opponent in the governor's race.
And I seen Holder doing nothing. Makes me wonder about him.

The local municipalities should enforce the abatement laws and bulldoze.
#83 | Posted by FLGator

for their own greedy reasons they will be reluctant to do that. That is if they are still owed property tax on it.

"There is a good reason for this legal manuver called "Produce The Note"."

Habeas Notus?

"Banks are better off letting the owner stay in the home to keep it safe rather than let it sit abandoned."

Yep, and the neighborhood is better off too.

As in Tao's instance, if the bank is working with someone who is trying to cooperate then that is what they are doing. Everybody is better off when we allow the owner to remain in the house and take care of it. (if that is what they want to do)

Tao,

Next time you talk with your bank, tell them you aren't sure but, you might have chinese drywall in your home. That will scare the daylights out of them. That is like saying you think the house has the Bubonic Plague. They'll think twice about taking posession due to the remediation costs and liability involved.

Habeas Notus........Exactly Danforth.

This idea is so simple you could almost miss its total brilliance: homeowners seeking to stave off foreclosure are doing so by demanding that the foreclosing bank produce the mortgage documents. The dirty little secret about us lawyers is that while we have copies out the yin-yang of every important document in a case, the originals are often difficult to lay hands on even in the most anal-retentive of filing systems. For want of a note, the case was lost...

Thanks for the advice.

If the bank ever decides that my megar payments are now less than they could get from selling the property and moves forward I will do this.

The crash has both hurt and helped me though, if not for the crash I would have money to keep up with payments however because of the crash my place is not worth enough to the bank to aggresivly persue forecloseure at this point.

When these stupid fucks who should never have even been living in a house, let alone buying one abandons their house and the house is stripped and trashed, there will be "green shoots" growing between the cracks in the slab.

Thats what Barry means when he sees on economy improving, circa 2059.

FWTHOM. Come on now. The banks should be forced to fix these houses up, and NOT foreclose. If a person wants to sell, the banks should release their mortgages as well. How dare they think otherwise.

Charging people interest. Making them pay back their loans. Fuck, what next? Fees for returned checks?

...kind of makes you wonder why a bank would lend such undersirables money? -- #8 | Posted by truthhurts

Hey Truth,

I'm guessing that *you* know the answer to this, but it's surprising to see how many other people don't.

Hmmm . . . a mortgagor borrows too much, the city is owed a big pile of back taxes, and the bank that loaned the money doesn't want the house either. Everyone pointing fingers at everyone else, expecting to be paid.

Ah well. Good thing the Obamatons stand ready to bail out everyone involved. It would be a shame if the rest of us didn't have to pay for all these retards to be made whole.

If they refuse to foreclose and take action to collect, should the banks be denied the right to claim a loss?

If the person doesn't pay the monthly mortgage while the bank isn't trying to get the money nor foreclose, is that income?

Where's taxman?

Shouldn't the bank have had an obligation to its investors, under good business practice, to attempt verification that the information from the potential borrower is correct? I wouldn't even take the word of my best friend, when loaning money. Do you see how that entire deposition falls apart on the first question?

#52 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2009-07-14 01:07 PM | Reply |

They should have. Which is what drives greenspans comments about how he could have never seen this coming, because to do so would be inflicting massive self harm. And yet thats exactly what they did. Everyone except the investors got paid, and are now living the good life on those funds.

The banks or mortgage holders in most cases should be allowed to quickley evict deadbeats and put the home on the auction block. In many cases the amount bid will cover taxes and pay back some of the debt. Much better then letting whole amount go? Recover what we can, stabalize the market and never loan to deadbeats again. They shouldn't be allowed anything but the lowest of the low income housing and should be forced to file bankruptcy, or pay back. The low lifes need to be identified so we don't let them take advantage of us again. I am sick and tired of paying for dumb shits and idiots because some bleeding heart doesn't want to make them pay. You miss two payments, unless you have a good solid reason medically and the bank can work something out because they see "real" potential. Get your A** out!