Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Frustrated Owner Bulldozes Home Ahead Of Foreclosure

page: 4
53
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by crawgator406
i have a mortgage and when my wife and got the itimized final payment . i will have payed 158,000 dollars for a house we bought for 54,500 dollars. so there is some justice to be had in the man dozeing his house. it one thing to charge intrest but when a person pays 3x the asking price for somthing that is only going to go up in value, the actoin would be very appropreate.

Agreed, this is my point exactly.
MrXYZ, I have no sympathy for anyone who defaults on a loan just cause they simply don't want to pay it any more.
But their Are many Americans that have busted butt to have a home and when a banks greed becomes the issue, then the hell with the banks intrest.

[edit on 19-2-2010 by Lil Drummerboy]




posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


I for one think the people that took out mortgages they could not afford, and the banks that gave mortgages to these people knowing they could not afford them deserve each other. It is like a white trash wedding of sorts. They should be locked in a room to figure things out amongst themselves with no outside intervention.



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 02:08 PM
link   
I am currently in similar situation..

My wife and I bought a house in the eastern Panhanlde of WV. We struggled and budgeted and made every payment on time. We made it work and it felt completely worth it...

Then the Obama home-owner refi plan came to light. This was a joke. I wish I could have the hours back I spent on the phone with Bank of America trying to see if we "qualified." We never did because we paid on time, were not deadbeats, and we had an 80/20 Mortgage..and most of all because our Mortgage wasn't owned by "Freddy or Fanny."

All we wanted was a simple refi. We just wanted a smaller mortgage for some more financial breathing room. It never came to light.

So then my wife get's laid off...and didn't qualify for unemployement.
I find out a week later that my job is relocating...To Minneapolis. And i'd be laid off too if I didn't move.

Be unemployed- Lose the house
Move to MSP- Lose the house.
In both equations, the house wasn't in the picture.


So we contacted a realtor, set up a short sale on the house, took the company moving package, and now have a beautiful rental townhome in Minneapolis (I F'n love this city!). Along with setting up the short sale, we contacted both banks and gave them a verbal, and written "letter of hardship," explaining that we are not deadbeats, but life took a crazy turn for us and we must abruptly sell this house...

In 2005, purchased for 180k- Appraised for 215k

In 2008, Appraised for 125

2010- On the market for 95k.

We haven't made any payments on it since we packed up and moved. Our realtor is trying desperately to get it sold. If someone offers 95k, will the banks accept it? I say it's doubtful. They've already stated they cannot give us a number until an offer is made (so much for pre-planning)

In the meantime, if it forecloses due to lack of payments?
Hate to say it, but fine. I don't care. The banks have been extremely unwilling to help us. The 20 mortgage company was nice enough to send a letter saying that pretty much any short sale would be declined, no matter the offer.

Both my wife and I cannot stop smiling about our decision to move and start renting again. It was one of the best decisions we ever made. So if our credit get obliterated? I could give a rats ass, happyness > than a credit rating.

I feel for the people that are actually living in the homes that are in this situation. As for Mr. Bulldozer, I dont agree with what he did, but I totally 1000000000% understand. Makes me understand why the guy up the street threw a roadflare into the living room of his foreclosure.



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by kozmo
 


I was going to buy a house. It looked great when I drove past but when I went with the realtor it was a shock. They removed the porch roof and flooring outside, all the bushes, and left all the water running inside and out. The inside of the house was floating.



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 


Same goes for the bank, like the poster underneath you stated. Banks hand out loans which have no money to back it up, yet the goverment goes in and helps them out, but its ok, to say that if a guy buys a home then he should get what is coming to him for doing that.
Yea im sure your not a fan of the banks.

Peace!



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 02:21 PM
link   
this would be good if everybody being foreclosed on would do this or damage the house so bad it would cost the bank money to fix it



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lil Drummerboy

Originally posted by crawgator406
i have a mortgage and when my wife and got the itimized final payment . i will have payed 158,000 dollars for a house we bought for 54,500 dollars. so there is some justice to be had in the man dozeing his house. it one thing to charge intrest but when a person pays 3x the asking price for somthing that is only going to go up in value, the actoin would be very appropreate.

Agreed, this is my point exactly.
MrXYZ, I have no sympathy for anyone who defaults on a loan just cause they simply don't want to pay it any more.
But their Are many Americans that have busted butt to have a home and when a banks greed becomes the issue, then the hell with the banks intrest.

[edit on 19-2-2010 by Lil Drummerboy]


Debt is all about accepting risk. If you were the one giving out the loan, you wouldn't care about why they can't/won't pay...all you care about is your money. Yes it sucks to lose your job, but you accepted the risks when you took the loan.

After all, you got to live in a home you otherwise wouldn't have been able to afford. Living above your means is risky, and if you cannot accept that risk (for any reasons), you shouldn't take a loan.

The "why" doesn't matter really, not for the creditor anyhow. If I lend someone money, I want it back eventually...and I shouldn't have to care about the "how". Yes I feel bad for people losing their job (I was there too once), but I also see the point of the banks or whoever loans money.

This is business, nothing personal. If you don't agree with this basic sentiment, then the only alternative is communism...and we all know how that ends


Having said that, the bailouts were horrible imo. The thing is, if they hadn't bailed out those companies, hundreds of thousands of more jobs would have been lost...and hundreds of thousands of more people would have lost their homes when their bust companies would have laid them off. The bailouts prevented that at least to some extent...sadly it's only a short term fix if those companies don't adapt and change how they operate.

The companies and lobbyists are trying everything they can to not having to change...every effort that is made to force them to stick to given standards is fought over by lobbyists. In the end, this will hurt the people a lot more than any bailout could ever have.

[edit on 19-2-2010 by MrXYZ]



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Armour For Victor
 


I am certainly not a fan of banks, more so after financial crisis and bailouts offered, but think, where does the money in the bank comes from?

It came from our savings and our parents hard earned monies. Destroying the bank or limited its earnings in this bulldozer manner is to hurt ourselves eventually in the end. If the banks declare bankrupcies, there goes the commone people's money.

No, there must be a better and peaceful alternate way to prevent their excesses and yet a win win situation for all, at least for the responsible public, and not the greed filled bank biz owners and its lap dog greedy rich customers.



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 02:35 PM
link   
There IS a better way - it's called "Socialism with a conscience".

In that world, the banks would NOT be able to simply evict people from a house due to GENUINE financial hardship.

What they WOULD be able to do, FOR EXAMPLE, is to take legal ownership of the Property and then charge the ex-owners rent, a rent that is GENUINELY suited to the level of income that the Householders were currently receiving.

I know that about, umm, 100% of all Yank readers will start foaming at the mouth due to your right wing adherance to Capitalist TO THE HILT, but if thats the case then WHY post this thread in the first place.

I would suspect that the notmal cry from Yanks in this story would be somtthing along the lines of "well, he made his bed now he can lay in it" or some such other uneducated, ignorant PAP.

Byee!!



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by drink2forget
I am currently in similar situation..

My wife and I bought a house in the eastern Panhanlde of WV. We struggled and budgeted and made every payment on time. We made it work and it felt completely worth it...

Then the Obama home-owner refi plan came to light. This was a joke. I wish I could have the hours back I spent on the phone with Bank of America trying to see if we "qualified." We never did because we paid on time, were not deadbeats, and we had an 80/20 Mortgage..and most of all because our Mortgage wasn't owned by "Freddy or Fanny."

All we wanted was a simple refi. We just wanted a smaller mortgage for some more financial breathing room. It never came to light.




Same thing happened to a friend of mine! He was making all his payments on time. He owned two homes, one of which he was renting out. He tried to save both his homes, or at least one, but the bank turned him down and wouldn't refinance his loans. The woman at the bank told him that had he missed a few payments before coming to them, she could have done something for him. How $%^*## up is that??? This man was making all his payments on time, wanted to continue paying them off, just needed a little help and they wouldn't give it to him, because apparently he was too responsible.



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 03:00 PM
link   
I live not too far from the guy with the bulldozer, bully for him! Anyway, in our little town, there are a lot of foreclosed homes, sitting empty. Crack makers are moving in them, and they sit there, rotting down. The banks don't want them, but won't rent them out, or sell them either. I think TPTB are saving them for something. Any ideas why?



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2manyquestions

Originally posted by drink2forget
I am currently in similar situation..

My wife and I bought a house in the eastern Panhanlde of WV. We struggled and budgeted and made every payment on time. We made it work and it felt completely worth it...

Then the Obama home-owner refi plan came to light. This was a joke. I wish I could have the hours back I spent on the phone with Bank of America trying to see if we "qualified." We never did because we paid on time, were not deadbeats, and we had an 80/20 Mortgage..and most of all because our Mortgage wasn't owned by "Freddy or Fanny."

All we wanted was a simple refi. We just wanted a smaller mortgage for some more financial breathing room. It never came to light.




Same thing happened to a friend of mine! He was making all his payments on time. He owned two homes, one of which he was renting out. He tried to save both his homes, or at least one, but the bank turned him down and wouldn't refinance his loans. The woman at the bank told him that had he missed a few payments before coming to them, she could have done something for him. How $%^*## up is that??? This man was making all his payments on time, wanted to continue paying them off, just needed a little help and they wouldn't give it to him, because apparently he was too responsible.



We heard that too....

"I'm going to be late, so what can you do for me?"

"Well sir, you are not late yet, so I can't tell you."

"....but i'm going to be..."

"We wont know until you are late. Then we might be able to refi..."

"So let me get this straight, I can get rewarded for being a deadbeat by missing a few payments and getting a troubled homeowner refi?"

"Essentially, yes."


They certainly didn't make this process easy. I actually dont know anyone that was helped by it. We got ourselves in this mess, and we are trying to get out of it the right way. Sadly they are making it impossible. It's pretty damn frustrating.



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Interesting, it looks like he is going to be screwed for doing this. I suppose it is the principal of the matter, but either way he could have gotten out of this without much financial harm, instead he is going to probably go to prison.

He may as well have gone and leveled the CEO of the bank's house.



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 03:37 PM
link   
He borrowed money to buy something he couldn't afford anymore.

He didn't make arrangements to protect himself or his investment.

I would say he has acted irrationally and selfishly.

Since when is a bank a charity?

Why don't you have laws that allow the person being foreclosed on to sell? Effectively moving the mortgage to someone who can pay.

In a capitalist system, banks are not charities to be used like housing welfare.

Seriously, what does it take to satisfy america? Friggin bridezilla she is.



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by djusdjus
He borrowed money to buy something he couldn't afford anymore.

He didn't make arrangements to protect himself or his investment.

I would say he has acted irrationally and selfishly.

Since when is a bank a charity?

Why don't you have laws that allow the person being foreclosed on to sell? Effectively moving the mortgage to someone who can pay.

In a capitalist system, banks are not charities to be used like housing welfare.

Seriously, what does it take to satisfy america? Friggin bridezilla she is.




What does it take?


Guns and Beer.



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
Brilliant! I love reading stories about the "little guy" getting one over on the banks.


Why? The banks just loaned out money to a contract the little guy agreed to. They didn't force him to agree to anything; they made a mutually agreed upon business transaction.

So, somehow it's cool to destroy property when you can't meet your side of the contract you agreed to? Somehow the banks are evil here?

This is like loaning your friend $5, then he can't pay you back. Then he never pays you back and you're the bad guy for giving him $5.



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by autowrench
I live not too far from the guy with the bulldozer, bully for him! Anyway, in our little town, there are a lot of foreclosed homes, sitting empty. Crack makers are moving in them, and they sit there, rotting down. The banks don't want them, but won't rent them out, or sell them either. I think TPTB are saving them for something. Any ideas why?


loaning would put liabilities on their balance sheet and thus increase their leverage when during this crisis companies have had to deleverage to maintain their credit ratings.

no conspiracy man. there's not a conspiracy in everything that happens in which you don't know the cause.

seriously, don't say ' the powers that be...' mysterious!!! just say bank.



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by djusdjus


In a capitalist system, banks are not charities to be used like housing welfare.



I read that and actually burst out laughing
... You're kidding right?...It doesn't get more charitable, or more like welfare than the huge HUGE bailouts the banks have just had. Ooooo, the delicious irony in your post!

I know it's not what you intended.. but thank you for the best laugh I've had all week.


As to why people are so pissed off with banks, and why they deserve everything they get.... Read this:

www.rollingstone.com...

If anyone reads that Rolling Stone article, and are still rooting for the banks afterwards, there's something SERIOUSLY wrong with them! ... or they work in one!



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Sorry, but mega banks are predatory and scandolous. They have policies specifically set up to get as much money as possible for doing nothing, most often from those who can least afford it. It is their intent to wring as much money from their depositors as they can.

Is it morally wrong to charge interest to loan money? Maybe not a small nominal fee. But 30%??!! Mobsters used to go to jail for this when it was called USURY!! And the wording on loans is made to be so confusing that most people dont realize they wind up paying 3X the cost of the house they are buying. Is THIS morally wrong? HELL YES. They intentionally make the lettering of their contracts confusing so you dont realize how much you will truly be paying. Similarly in credit cards, they intentionally sneak in added charges or price hikes on page 5 or 6, that you must "call in to decline" so people dont notice.

Until 25 years ago or so, national banks were illegal, and for a reason. Local banks had to be much more responsible to their clientelle. Now its out of control with companies like bank of america and chase charging people massive amounts for almost nothing. Damnit, i had a bank charge me $35.50 for a 50 cent pack of gum because of an overdraft, thats abolutely rediculous. I never told them they could make me overdraft, in fact i told them i wanted my card to decline when my account was out of money the way it used to. They told me they cant do that anymore. Their credit card can! But their check card cant. What defines if something is morally wrong or not is intent, and it is obvious from their actions that these banks only intent is to take money from you for doing nothing. If someone provides me a service that i dont want, and then charges me for it against my will....i consider that theft.



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 03:54 PM
link   
if im reading this right, this guy didn't think this out too well:

"Hoskins said he'd gotten a $170,000 offer from someone to pay off the house, but the bank refused, saying they could get more from selling it in foreclosure.

Hoskins told News 5's Courtis Fuller that he issued the bank an ultimatum.

"I'll tear it down before I let you take it," Hoskins told them.

And that's exactly what Hoskins did.
"

So, now that the house is destroyed, wouldn't that mean that the bank would make less profit by foreclosure than collecting on the $170,000 that Hoskins owes?

So, now it's in the bank's favor to just take Hoskin's 170k.

Before, he would have been down a house. Now, he's down a house and 170k.

Maybe I'm reading this wrong?





new topics

top topics



 
53
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join