Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Frustrated Owner Bulldozes Home Ahead Of Foreclosure

page: 6
53
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Yes but doesn't the bank loan out 9 times the amount that is deposited? Fractional Reserve Banking? Meaning they "create out of thin air" 90% of the money they loan?




posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
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.


Silly goose, money comes from thin air, at least in Amerika. See if our money was backed by anything, anything it would come from the value of the backing material. No the private banking cabal known as the Federal Reserve just prints what they want, need and are told to print.

Money comes from savings? Really, no, no Really? Do some research on this topic and you'll see why our system needs ever increasing amount of debt and will eventually become unsustainable. Which as far as I can tell from the horror stories cropping up from around the nation is approaching quickly.

Is your money really yours to do with what you will? Sounds like a simple question right, well wrong. If you carry more than 10k on you you can have the money confiscated and be arrested for your crime. So I ask you again is it?

"They" are willing to take centuries to get the world the way they want. Just read Agenda 21. Things will go as fast as we let them go, or we can stop them. But...



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 06:11 PM
link   
First off, my initial exhuberance about what this guy did has faded over the day, but I don't view what he did as wrong, just stupid.

1) I agree, he destroyed whatever leverage he had left. He had other avenues he could have taken. If you read up on banks walking away from foreclosures, you'll realize that he still controls the property until the sheriff auction occurs.

2) Banks lend mortgages under complex interest concepts. This, in a nutshell means you pay that wonderful 5%-9% interest repetitively on the same dollar. By the time the loan is done, you have, in actuallity, paid 300+% interest. This may be accepted practice, but how many people actually understand that they are paying one million-ish dollars for a $350K home?

3) When you mortgage a home, YOU OWN IT. You are not renting from the bank and the bank does not own it. THe bank has a lein on it. That's all. It is not the same in principal, it is not the same it theory. If you did not own you home, you could not sell it.

In the end, yes, a contract is a contract. When you sign a contract saying you will borrow $300K and pay back $900K, you should do everything in your power to hold true to your word. If you cannot do that, then you should be prepared to give up something. I feel for the guy and the others out there that are in this plight. I am in a similar plight with a car lease that I foolishly got suckered into. I would love it if someone ran a red light and totalled my car (assuming noone got hurt), but I am willing to accept the fact that I will end up paying $40K more than the car is worth just because I signed something I didn't understand.

Still, I do not feel sorry for the banks who are targetted by these sorts of things. In this case, especially, they already got back 100% of the money they loaned out. All they are losing out on is the interest they would have gotten in the future.



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 07:32 PM
link   
Whats wrong here is that we now live in a society where we are practically forced to use the usury banking system in order to buy homes or cars. Historically it was not unreasonable for a person or family to save up and buy a home, but now its practically impossible to do with cash, so we MUST take loans through the system, and the banks are allowed to rake in ridiculous amounts of profit for it.



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 07:40 PM
link   
I think some people are missing the point, this guy has already lost everything in his eyes, so he doesn't give a # about the mortgage, second if he destroys the house, the bank can't turn around and sell, the land sure, but not for the amount they would have got for the house. Some people do things that others can't understand or cannot relate to, no matter what you think there no telling what people will do under the right amount of stress.

There are good and bad sides to, bad he has no home but still the debt, on the good side he sending a strong message to the banks and all the little guys standing around are watching and taking notes, I wanna see what happens now and the retaliation the TPTB take out on him.



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by rogerstigers
 


Wrong. The bank owns the home. There are laws in place that make the relationship of owner and occupier to benefit (for the most part) the mortgagee.

The BANK holds the Deed.

The BANK pays the taxes (you pay, but it's in escrow, if you didn't pay, the bank would still have to. The Bank employees people to pay taxes, managing the escrow accounts)

The BANK receives ALL funds from insurance. Even though you pay it, it's their house. When you have a disaster and an insurance claim is made, if over 10k dollars usually, the bank puts the funds in escrow. They will then send investigators at every step of repair to make sure the repairs are done to THEIR standards. I have seen homeowners very pleased with repairs to their homes, and expect the rest of the insurance funds to be released. Surprise. Bank says no, tear it all done and start a new.

The mortgagee is basically in a rent to own position .. it's very different from a traditional Lien position, like a Second mortgagee would be, or a contractor.

It wasn't his house to destroy. Simple as that.

When someone puts 3.5% down on a home, they don't own it. And the banks, I can tell you from personal experience, don't give a damn about you or your belief in "rights of ownership" until you are 50%+ better on LTV.


MBF

posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 08:05 PM
link   
I have a yearly payment. I haven't paid in over a year and have been threatened with foreclosure. My reason is that an employee was stealing my money to pay a man to go to jail in his place for a drug trafficking charge. The drug task force knows all about this, but he is a government employee. I've been fighting this for 10 years and just last month, the man was removed from his position as the result of an audit that I finally caused to happen. His actions have caused me to lose about $1.5M and I feel like they should compensate me for my losses.



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Nothing like good ol' American individualism !!
Reminds me of the guy that wrote the IRS a check on the back of his shirt and mailed it.




posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 08:33 PM
link   
Why do you all think this is ok?????????

If you cant afford something, dont buy it! Its not the banks fault you lost your job... And if you where dumb enough to take out a ARM loan without reading the fine print then you are the dumb ass!!!

Hooray for the irresponsible!!!!! that is the true reason we are in the mess we are today... every one wanted what they couldnt have... and now we salute the guy who pissed in his own bed by destroying something he could nt afford..

good god you selfish retards!!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dynamitrios
This could backfire.

If the bank employs a devilish lawyer, they could argue that it was their house (the bank that is) all along since he hadnt paid it off, and by bulldozing it destroying their property.
He could be charged with malicious injury of property


You are correct. There is a clause in most mortgages that stipulates that you must take reasonable care of the home and not purposely destroy the property. Also, in some states, the lender can still sue for the money that was not collected to pay off the note in either a short sale or a foreclosure.

He sure has done what many are probably wishing they had the guts to do!
I still have to tip me hat to him!



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 08:37 PM
link   
[edit on 19-2-2010 by pittsburgher]



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by brainwrek
 


This is just about as stupid as Andrew Joseph Stack III.

Andrew Joseph Stack III : A Hopeful for the Darwin Awards

The man bulldozing his own house now has zero recourse for this now.

Before, he might have tied up the bank for years in court, if he had tried.

Now, not only can they sue him, he could face jail time for destruction of private property.

If he owed the bank money it was not his property to destroy, period.

I find his act one of stupidty because now he's not only lost all legal rights in regards to the house, now if he was to win in court, he has nothing.

What Bizzarro world are we living in that anyone actually think this man is smart?

Desperate times call for desperate measure but this is lunacy.



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by rogerstigers
 


Wrong. The bank owns the home. There are laws in place that make the relationship of owner and occupier to benefit (for the most part) the mortgagee.


I respectfully disagree, but I will admit that this may be a state level differance. I am unsure how it works outside of Texas. My answers regarding your points below...



The BANK holds the Deed.


In reality, the deed is held in trust. The trustee, at least in my case, is a third party title company that has no ownership relationship with my lender.



The BANK pays the taxes (you pay, but it's in escrow, if you didn't pay, the bank would still have to. The Bank employees people to pay taxes, managing the escrow accounts)


This is incorrect for my situation as well. My taxes are funded through escrow. If the taxes are not paid by the bank, for whatever reason, the tax authorities come after me, not the bank. It is always my responsibility to see that those taxes are paid. This is evidence also by the fact that Texas will very quickly foreclose on a property that is delinquent on property taxes.



The BANK receives ALL funds from insurance. Even though you pay it, it's their house. When you have a disaster and an insurance claim is made, if over 10k dollars usually, the bank puts the funds in escrow. They will then send investigators at every step of repair to make sure the repairs are done to THEIR standards. I have seen homeowners very pleased with repairs to their homes, and expect the rest of the insurance funds to be released. Surprise. Bank says no, tear it all done and start a new.


Actually, I can speak very well to this. I had a fire recently (12/10) and not only did my mortgage company did not get any of the insurance distribution, they really didn't even care when I told them. The only thing they needed to know was that I would continue making my monthly payment.



The mortgagee is basically in a rent to own position .. it's very different from a traditional Lien position, like a Second mortgagee would be, or a contractor.

It wasn't his house to destroy. Simple as that.

When someone puts 3.5% down on a home, they don't own it. And the banks, I can tell you from personal experience, don't give a damn about you or your belief in "rights of ownership" until you are 50%+ better on LTV.


[edit on 2-19-2010 by rogerstigers]



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by OZtracized
 


If there is a profit the bank would have to pay him, but he may also owe back taxes and they would be paid before the homeowner....have the feeling that he does owe back taxes and he is still responsible for those. Wonder why he didn't try to sell...if I had $160,000 in equity that would be my move.



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


You seem like you may be one of the many ATS teens on this board, because you have not lived long enough to understand what a scam the banking system is.

It is called a fractional reserves system. If they have 10,000 dollars they can show electronically that they can loan another 90,000 that is not really there.

Only ten percent of the banks money is real.

Why in the world do you think they can take such losses when it comes to foreclosing?

Deny ignorance.



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by brainwrek

... I wasn't going to stand for that, so I took it down



He won.

No wait the bank will get taxpayer money for thier loss and they will sue him and ruin his credit, so they won.

No wait, wait he will likely hunt down the bankers and shoot them in the head, so he won.

No wait the government will hunt him down like a dog and kill him, so they won.

No, no the govenment extorts tax money out of him and so he won by dieing.

Wait, wait the government will just get the bank to pay thier salaries so the government won.

Wait, wait the government is owned by the communists so they won.




[edit on 19-2-2010 by In nothing we trust]



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


Learn how the mortgage system works, especially if you take a mortgage! It's not the bank's responsibility to educate the stupid.



I used to be a loan officer...care to educate me?


The majority of homes that have been foreclosed are because of an adjustable rate mortgage. the people that bought them had some decent credit but also had some problems or were trying to avoid a relocation loan.

The idea behind it was that you got a two to five year ARM. The way it was supposed to work is that the time you were paying for your loan in the preARM portion of the loan would increase you credit score so you cold then refi at a fixed rate. Nearly every client of mine had an ARM that the interest rate started out between 6-8% they werent cutting some fat hog in the ass or even getting a decent rate. They were trying o better themselves with pie in the sky promises from the banks salesman (loan officers) that this can happen.

It hardly ever did and the banking industry knew it. They would pay on time for two years only to be turned down when they tried to get a fixed rate. then when the rate went to 10-14% and the payment nearly doubled they then defaulted.

Because the banks work off of a fractional reserves system they never really lost any real money. The only losers were the families that are now homeless.

Again, deny ignorance.



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 11:51 PM
link   
My question is, is the original loan from the bank for the land, or the land and materials he used to build his home?

From my understand, this man built the house himself after he bought the land. In that case, there would have been no mortgage on the house itself. He would have been giving the bank back exactly what he bought.

The foreclosure on the house is only happening because his brother sued him, and the bank decided to use his house as collateral.

He might be making a statement destroying the house he built. There are some people who have the mentality if I can't then on one can. I'm not going to pass judgment on that.

If he was a smart business person, then he would not have formed a partnership with his brother that leaves himself and personal property open to numerous lawsuits and liability. He should have had a business structure set up in the first place that would have protected him and his personal property whether or not he partnered with his brother.

His stupidity comes in by not forming the proper business entity in order to protect himself and all of his personal possessions.

If he wasn't smart enough to pay his taxes, then what can I say?



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by LoneGunMan

The majority of homes that have been foreclosed are because of an adjustable rate mortgage. the people that bought them had some decent credit but also had some problems or were trying to avoid a relocation loan.



That is why I insisted buying my home with a fixed rate loan. If I knew then what I know now about real estate investing, I wouldn't have bought this house at the price I did. With every thing there is a learning curve.



posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


You seem like you may be one of the many ATS teens on this board, because you have not lived long enough to understand what a scam the banking system is.

It is called a fractional reserves system. If they have 10,000 dollars they can show electronically that they can loan another 90,000 that is not really there.

Only ten percent of the banks money is real.

Why in the world do you think they can take such losses when it comes to foreclosing?

Deny ignorance.


Further education. When you buy a house with a mortgage and pay it off, you are actually paying 2 to 3 times if not more for your home. If a person bought a house for 100,000 and sold it 30 years later for 130,000, that person actually believes they made 30,000 on the house.

In the mean time the banks are laughing their way to the bank, because they profited at least 200,000 in interest alone. Yes folks, you pay more in interest than you do for the house itself. I looked at my loan, and it was true. That doesn't include all the costs of repairs the house needed over the years either.

That 30,000 you paid doesn't even begin to cover what you really paid for it.

Guess what, that 200,000 that wasn't there in the first place, was created out of thin air by a little word called interest.

You want the type of money the banks make, then you have to become the bank yourself, if your willing to take the chance. Yes, you can buy and house, and sell it with owner financing. That is where you become the bank, and collect all the interest.

The only other way to make money with houses is to buy way below the house's value. Either fix it up and sell, or wholesale the house. You have seen the show flip this house? Just don't try to buy a house and sell it at an inflated price that was inflated by someone or several people you bribed or paid off to lie about the house.

Do every thing honestly and legal in your area, and you will have no problems. That is if you have the guts to try. Tip, getting a mentor in real estate investing is a must.






top topics



 
53
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join