posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 12:01 PM
Originally posted by DOADOA
Originally posted by OZtracized
Wouldn't the bank sell his $350 000 home (for less of course for a quick sale), take the $160 000 he owes, plus the usual fees and charges then give
him the rest? He would have been left with say $150 000 but a bulldozed house is only worth the land it once stood on which probably about equals the
Seems like a silly move.
*laugh* *laugh* in a perfect world yes.
That is actually correct. By law, if the forclosed is auctioned off for more than what was owed, the owner is entitled to that money.
I know lawyers who actually make money hanging out at auctions, looking for this exact scenario, then going to the former owner and offering to get
their money for them.....for a percentage of course.
edit to add:
There is also the opposite scenario, in which the house auctioned for less than what was owed, where the bank can then sue the owner.
So yes, if this guy's house would've sold for more than he owed at the auction then he would've profited and been happy he didn't bulldoze his
house. But there is no guararentee that it would've sold for a profit.
[edit on 2/19/2010 by yadda333]