Frustrated Owner Bulldozes Home Ahead Of Foreclosure

The bank had its chance to be repaid its "debt", but instead they chose to drag this out for years trying to make huge profits. And that is the problem with the banking industry, using government agencies like the IRS to further their profits or as an excuse to go after a citezen's property.

JohnnyR

You have a TV. You sell it to person A and you get $50. You sell it to person B and you get $55. Obviously, you'd sell it to person B.

The bank has land. It sells to person A in the news article and gets $170,000. It sells it in foreclosure and makes more. Obviously, the bank chooses to sell it in foreclosure.

Banks aren't a charity. They're not your friend lending you $50. They're a business making a mutual agreement with you as a business partner. When you make a business contract, you take risks and fully expect the other party to act in their own self-interest. This was a risk for person A in the news article that he took when he signed the contract. If he didn't want to take the risk then he shouldn't have signed the contract.

Had the risk worked in his favor, I doubt people would be crying about the potential money lost by the bank in opportunity cost (= foreclosure value - 170k).

This is like person A in the original parable getting mad that person B is getting the TV and getting revenge by destroying the TV. Then people start calling the TV salesman an evil guy for denying person A a TV because of his evil profit motive and his actions that serve his own interest.

That sounds completely irrational. However, 'bank' is a buzz word in some people like 'terrorism', 'flag', 'patriotism', and 'racism' are in some, possibly other, people. Buzz words make people think and act irrationally.


[edit on 2/20/10 by RedDragon]

Just to clarify:

Several people seem to be saying that one does NOT own one's home if someone else holds the mortgage

...that there really is no significant difference between renting and buying.

Meaning we all are subject to the "droite de seigneur"?

Droit de seigneur is often interpreted today as a synonym for ius primae noctis, although it originally referred to a number of other rights as well, including hunting, taxation, and farming.

en.wikipedia.org...

...and that's right and good?

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by LoneGunMan

 

Now now.. two wrongs don't make a right do they?

And fractional reserve banking wouldn't exist without the GREED OF THE CONSUMER. I bought a new car.. and I'm getting ready to buy a new house .. I'm going to be using fractional reserve banking to further my quality of life, even though I absolutely HATE banks, and their processes, and what our government did.. but here I am, a greedy individual perpetuating the cycle.

Seriously.. unless you are loan free, and never accepted a loan like a mortgage or a car loan .. you fed the beast.

Damn the banks. Damn us too.

Ah, now on this point we very much agree. I have reached an interesting point in my life. I am working my way out of the credit mill. I really don't care what my credit score is. I am working to pay off all of my debts. I refuse to ever finance another car (which leaves me in a particular pickle when it comes to my current lease that is about to expire, but that is another story).

The best way to kill the beast is to starve it to death. Stop borrowing for a mortgage, live WAY below your standard of living (working on that myself) and save your money. I know it is easier said than done. I can't do it yet, myself, but I am working on it.

Originally posted by GreenBicMan


Let me ask you, what do you think it should cost them to loan money? And what are the risks?

Do you think they should loan you $200,000 free? This is totally about speculation in a market that can crash like anything else. Unfortunately most people are linked to equity lines of credit on their homes. Or they got burnt when they tried to get a 2nd home and defaulted when we were at our peak. I know quite a few that ended up like that here in FL.

[edit on 20-2-2010 by GreenBicMan]

Why pay the bank all that $200,000 in interest, when the house only cost $100,000? Technically, I think there should be a cap on interest the banks can collect. That should be only a half or less of what the original loan amount is worth. The mortgage holders wouldn't be so burdened by their bank loans.

The only speculation in the real estate market is if you buy a house near the value of what it is worth, and then hope and pray the value will go up in the next few years. That is the riskiest thing a person can do in the real estate market.

Just as with anything else, you buy low and sell high. As my husband's mentor said, you make your money when you buy the house, not when you sell it. Meaning that you buy the house for less than what it is worth. Yes it is possible for various reasons. Then you sell the house for more than what you bought it, but less than what it is worth usually to another investor who wants to sell retail or rent it out. You already know your profit margin. As the mentor said, you will already have cash buyers lined up.

If buying a second house the key is to buy the house without a loan. Yes it can be done. If you have been conditioned this can't be done, then so be it. I know people who went bankrupt, and basically were broke make their fortune in real estate. How can you buy real estate without money? You need to know what you are doing, and the best way is to find someone willing to mentor you who is already in there and doing it. That is why my husband got a mentor this year. We are basically broke, and the banks wouldn't touch us now. He already came close to doing his first wholesale deal. I'm looking forward to when he does.

Later on, when we are a more advanced in real estate investing, I'll be looking into buying houses without loans to do lease options and then owner financing them if the person keeps up their lease options payments and still wants the house after three years.



[edit on 20-2-2010 by Mystery_Lady]

reply to post by Rockpuck


Maybe I didn't make myself clear. I never said I wanted free money for my house. Why do I have to pay twice in interest to the bank what the house is worth? I looked at my mortgage, and that is basically what I'm paying after 30 years.

Also, if you own a house free and clear of all mortgages, which can be done. Then why not become the bank yourself? What is stopping you from owner financing your own home and collecting all the interest the banks would have if they gave the loan to the buyers? It is just a matter of who gives the mortgage to the buyer. You or the bank? Which is it going to be?

Originally posted by Rockpuck
On a side note, while doing some research .. the only loophole I found where you borrow money for a house but cannot be foreclosed on: Buy land and build a house. You don't get a deed for a house, you get it for the land (except Condo's) .. so you buy land, then build a house. there's no transaction of a deed, so if you stopped paying your land cannot be foreclosed (unless in the mortgage you sign over the land for the money.. which some do) .. yay for loopholes! (However, the construction company can sue you till you bleed and the courts liquidate your assets)

What if the construction company was already paid off? Then how could they sue you till you bleed and the courts liquidate your assets?

reply to post by GreenBicMan


You will never totally own a house out right, because you will always have to pay property taxes. If you can own a house without a mortgage, then you are better off.

Originally posted by Tom_Proctor
The only question left is... how did he get his massive balls in the wrecker?

Because he formed a business partnership with his brother, which ended up leaving himself and his personal assets unprotected. His brother sued, and his personal house is being used as collateral. If he obtained the correct business entity that would have protected him, then he wouldn't have had all the extra leans on the house.

From what I'm seeing, that is where his problem started.

Originally posted by Muckster
reply to post by Dynamitrios

 

It could backfire, of course, but some things in life are worth getting a criminal record for...

Trust me i know

How's it going man? I read something a few month's ago that family an there neighbours all stud across the street an blocked the Banks tugs an Police from taking over a house! apparenetly they backed off!

well played Terry Hoskins 10/10

What would have happened if an owner bulldozed a property that had been preexisting before their purchase.
Would that person be guilty of willful destruction?

I only ask in case someone take Terry's example and ends up in Jail.

reply to post by rogerstigers


I applaud your efforts! I have worked very hard to clear off all debts of my own, of which the only one left is 1 car (with 13k more to go ) .. but after that I swore to my self at the very least I will probably never buy a brand new car ever again. Unfortunately unless I want to rent for the rest of my life, I HAVE to have a mortgage, it's the only way to significantly increase your wealth.. one day I hope I can own my land free and clear, but as it is I am looking for an investment so I will feed the machine so to speak. Those in my generation (early 20's) have to come into a housing market is disarray, and are essentially forced to sell their souls for property. I don't blame the banks, I blame my parents generation and the generation after that, personally.

reply to post by Mystery_Lady


You don't HAVE to have a 30yr mortgage.. many take 15year options, or even 5year.. the less years = less mortgage. And your not entirely paying the interest either, interest paid on a home loan is tax deductible, meaning for the first few years nearly your entire house payment is tax deductible..

Not a bad deal, honestly.

Also, big banks are not the only ones who loan money, I have known many real estate investors that offer their own financing on their properties, and I know of several small loaning companies in my region as well.

What if the construction company was already paid off? Then how could they sue you till you bleed and the courts liquidate your assets?

Then it wouldn't matter, because you would own your land and your home. Only the Government can take your home for any variety of reasons at that point.

reply to post by brainwrek


It would be interesting to see what the "raw material cost" was in proportion to what he had already paid off. The appraised value is ALWAYS going to be more than the raw material of the building. So as a fallback, he could always say that he was unhappy with the quality of materials and decided to divest himself of the materials. Since he already paid for the raw materials which the house was made from and the labor used to build the house was "intangible" goods AND ties to the fact that INCOME TAX which the labor workers provided to the government is ILLEGITIMATE due to the fact that the workers were paid a WAGE and not INCOME! Wage is equal pay for equal work. Work does not equal goods, goods which can/should be taxed when being imported to a country/port. So, Material Cost=nyet! Labor=nyet! Land Cost=the only legitimate value still existing. Long Story Short--Bulldozer=1, Bankersters/Guvmint=0.

Originally posted by endisnighe
Okay, I am going to agree with both sides on this and give the endisnighe perspective.

Once upon a time, you bought something, you owned it.

Welcome to today.

Welcome to the crux of ownership of anything unless you paid cold hard currency.

I prefer to purchase my possessions with hard currency.

Credit Cards, mortgages, and loans be damned.

While it was no house, I purchased a 41 inch plasma-screen television, with cash.

I saved for two years, it's called delayed gratification, and not many practice it.

Again, while not a house, the object lesson can be done for a home as well.

Saving for two years, I set aside $3,000, this was many years back.

I went into Ciruit City looking to spend that saved $3,000 and found a deal.

I found the display model, for $1,300, and it is still working years later.

Originally posted by endisnighe
The government taxes things to such an extent that to own something, means you pay for the rest of your life for it.

Now if you are paying a loan off plus the MAFIA based government system, you had better be getting MAFIA wages.

Does NOT ANYONE UNDERSTAND YET! You are NOT here to live, you are here to sustain your government and banking system.

If you cannot give the bank and gov your MAFIA protection money, YOU ARE GONE.

I disagree, endisnighe, you are here to live, if you know the rules.

Delayed gratification works, saving money works, and setting it aside works.

I set aside money by working two, three, and four jobs, simultaneously.

People often only work when they have to, not when they have the opportunity.

Originally posted by endisnighe

I applaud the man SKL because he is at the same point as 25% of the country is. We HAVE nothing left to lose. What difference does it make now?

Yes, I can concur, Andrew Joseph Stack III was where 25% of us are.

Notice, I said was, he is not now, he's cold and dead in the ground.

This set of circumstances was set forth via the Bush Administration and is being finished by Obama and his cronies, because they can, not because they have to.

Delayed gratification, it works, most people think a 30 year mortgage is good.

However, I do not, and will not get wrapped up in this crap.

An ex-girlfriend of mine ten years ago after our break up told her best friend, after getting a thirty year mortgage on a house, that she wished I could do something great like her, and our mutual friend told her I had.

She asked what I did because she was surprised that I did anything.

Our mutual friend told her I had written a check for $10,000 and put it into a pre-I.P.O., or pre-Initial Public Offering, and her mouth dropped agape.

Her house was repossessed after playing the dancing game with the mortgage company.

About four years ago, prior to our current national situation, because she was not frugal.

While I can see Andrew Joseph Stack III may have seen his circumstances as dire, he did not realize the fundamental truth, that he still had his life, and his health, unless his health was in question and I do not know.

The same goes for this man who bulldozed his house and his set of circumstances.

Our perspective is selective to those sets of ideals we hold onto.

Sometimes, we have to shift and change our ideas, or else we're backed into a corner.

With zero hope of recovery and that is more dangerous itself because once we give up hope, the end is here, and there is no turning back, and I will never give up hope.

Who Moved My Cheese? An Amazing Way to Deal with Change in Your Work and in Your Life

Amazon Review :

Who Moved My Cheese? is an amusing and enlightening story of four characters who live in a maze and look for cheese to nourish them and make them happy.

Cheese is a metaphor for what you want to have in life - whether it is a good job, a loving relationship, money or a possession, health or spirital peace of mind.

And the maze is where you look for what you want - the organisation you work in, or the family or community you live in.

This profound book from bestselling author, Spencer Johnson, will show you how to anticipate change, adapt to change quickly, enjoy change and be ready to change quickly again and again.

Discover the secret for yourself and learn how to deal with change, so that you suffer from less stress and enjoy more success in your work and in life.

Written for all ages, this story takes less than an hour to read, but its unique insights can last for a lifetime.

Someone merely moved the man's cheese and he did not see it.

Now his cheese is a pile of rubble when he could have just found a way to get out, now he is trapped via the law and potentially jail time, for destruction of private property.

Yes, I am aware of our nations dire circumstances, I am now homeless.

I still however have my life, a laptop computer, and just enough money to eat.

Now, the man who bulldozed his house has nothing, except a debt that is still there.

[edit on 20-2-2010 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

I would have thought that a house fire would have been less noticable than a bulldozer.

Obviously he had a point that he was trying to make.


[edit on 20-2-2010 by In nothing we trust]

reply to post by In nothing we trust


He will face operating machinery without a permit, probably some obscure law about demolition without a permit, and destruction of private property.

If he lit his house on fire.. then it would be Arson .. and the penalty is much worse.

reply to post by Dynamitrios

when u buy a house you own the house, u just have to repay the mortgage the bank lent u.

he should have burnt the house down and collect the insurance that would have covered the mortgage and would have left him with a profit. mafia 101.

In Arizona i worked for a landscaping company that worked on foreclosers. In on case a worker of ours was shot when he was trying to rekey a house that he was told was vaccant.

My neighbor was so frustrated with his bank that when his home forclosed he took all the appliances all the trees on the property, both ac units lol pretty much everything valuable.
Instead of arresting the bank managers of course the man who lost his home is in jail

I believe the man took a loan from the bank to buy the property that his home was built on. He built the home with his own money and it’s paid for. The bank will use the home as collateral against the property. So if he defaults on the property loan ( not the house, because it paid for ) the bank get the home and the property, even though the house is paid for.

The banks used to do these type of business in the 1960 and 1970’s. You put a down payment on the land, built the home yourself free and clear. The catch is the banks uses the home against the property loan as collateral ; not to mention everything and anything else on the property becomes the banks if you default the property loan. Cars, Furniture, etc.. It all goes to the bank.

There were many problems with these type of loans, this is one of them. ( no mortgage conversion ) The banks never loose on these type of loans. Some states have a ban on these type of loans, because it’s a very predatory practice at least It was in the 60’s and 70’s. The banks started abusing these type of loans. The consumer walk-away with nothing. I mean absolutely nothing. The bank sells everything on the property. It’s their property. They could sell the shirt off your back if they wanted too. I didn’t know banks still made these type of loans. ( Today there called short term construction loans ) I guess banks went back to the long term side of property \ home loans with no mortgage

Now, If the state law was changed on this type of lending practice, where the property is located. Then I assume that is what he was fighting the bank about for the last 10 years or so. The bank would be forced to change the property and home to a single mortgage under state law. The bank just might have decided to say F*$# the state where doing this our way, it better for the bank.

This is why he said he returned the property back to the way it was. The bank never owned the home. Just the property it was built on. So now there is no collateral. ( The home is plowed under. ) The bank just lost the collateral,but still owns property. I can see why he did not want the bank to get the home, because it was never the banks in the first place. The bank would stand loose Potential big time profit. when actually the bank lost nothing, only the consumer will lose everything.

This BS from banks has got to stop one way or another. It must stop.

Looks like he found a loop hole though.

There will be more creative people out there. Watch and see.



[edit on 21-2-2010 by SJE98]

LOL..arent bulldozers kinda expensive to rent or to buy if he owned it. I bet that money could have went to his late payments! On a side note isnt it the lot the bank owns not the house, so he would still owe regardless?