reply to post by rogerstigers
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...
Ah Texas. Texas and Washington are by far the most ludicrous when it comes to Mortgages (and renting for that matter) .. in the end, it's all red
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
In order to attain your deed, the mortgage contract must be fulfilled. If it is unfulfilled or you void the contract, the bank is the receiver of the
deed. This is different from a Lien, because in a Lien is the property is sold off due to you unable to collect debts (say a contractor you couldn't
pay, or a Home Equity Line of Credit) the funds used to pay off those Lien holders are primary, all secondary funds are given to you.
If you owe $10,000 on a home, and simply cannot make those payments, the bank takes your house and sells it for $250,000 .... you get nothing.
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.
No. You fail to understand. (I worked specifically with tax and insurance escrows fyi) a bank will pay in whole an entire municipalities property
tax, whether or not the escrow was appropriately funded. During the audit of the banks accounts, the bank will then flag all those who didn't pay,
some states will refund a banks tax and go after the resident, or force the bank to pay and either collect for the bank or have the bank collect (via
heavy fees). Depends on the contract. Almost always in this situation the homeowner simply isn't paying anything, and is probably going to be
foreclosed.. the bank still has to pay property tax on homes with no occupier. Also, in nearly all contracts the home owner agrees to furnish taxes
to the state in the event they cannot fund their own escrow, there is also a clause that allows the home owner to pay without the escrow, however
banks don't like that because the city can but in, they prefer to just pay off the city.
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
Once again, you are either wrong, or your total claim was below the banks threshold. MOST banks use $10,000 as a typical threshold, any damage
(structural) above that (even by a dollar) will have two or three (three if you have more than one mortgage with a different bank on the same
property) the BANK must sign off on the check.. you sign the check, send it to the bank, the bank signs it and A, sends it back and you cash it or B,
the bank puts it into an Escrow. Some areas are given special allowance, such as hurricane victims or flood victims have much higher thresholds, like
20-25K. any structural damage goes through a process of investigation, and usually a three stage release of funds. It's actually the most tedious
banking process I have ever witnessed. In your Mortgage contract there is a clause detailing the homeowner must pay for home owners insurance, and
that funds will be directed towards the bank, not the homeowner. Number one question I received when I worked for that department was "Show me where
it says the bank gets my insurance monies!" To which I politely point out a big paragraph in their Mortgage. That contract they never bothered to
read, but signed anyways.
Technicalities aside... and to stay on topic ..what the guy did, was still immature. It shouldn't be condoned.