It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by DancedWithWolves
reply to post by solomons path
edit: oops, I thought you meant you had put it above in that post. I found the link in the thread and will follow it. Thanks again.
second edit: while I am still reading, do you have any examples of this decision being interpreted and enforced in a way that releases homeowners from this debt without credit repercussions? I question whether the spin applied to its meaning is carried out anywhere that can be used as an example. While it may exist on the books, if it isn't enforced because of technicalities, it isn't law which could be cited right now to help people in their present situations could it? It is an interesting read...I will continue through it.
[edit on 8-10-2008 by DancedWithWolves]
Originally posted by Blaine91555
Originally posted by amatrine
How can he do that if the bank owns the property?
He can't do that. He is just campaigning to hold his office. The first Judge who looks at this will stop him and in the mean time he gets great publicity for his campaign. Anyone who thinks differently is fooling themselves.
Originally posted by Maxmars
The goal of the bank is not complex - MAXIMIZE PROFIT.
They don't want to finagle around with the 'occupants' because it costs money to do so.
They would rather the property lay fallow and unused and the structure on it fell to the ground. Isn't that interesting?