Banks Breaking Into Occupied Homes In Foreclosure To Change Locks

Banks Breaking Into Occupied Homes In Foreclosure To Change Locks

www.huffingtonpost.com

In their zeal to complete foreclosure proceedings, some banks send representatives to change the locks on properties in foreclosure, even as they remain occupied. The incidents of lock-changing pile further skepticism on a process recently plagued by scandal.

A contractor for JPMorgan Chase changed the front door lock on a woman's home in Orange County, Florida, as she hid out of fear in her bathroom, Eyewitness News reports

(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Allegations Of Fraud - Major Banks Suspend Over 56,000 Foreclosures

Wow, heads up. This homeowner was not even in foreclosure proceedings.

The woman homeowner was inside her home when she heard someone attempt to enter her home. She locked herself in the bathroom, and called 911.

It is illegal for a bank to change locks on an occupied home! So now the banks are breaking in, breaking the law, and ignoring the due process of law!

This news comes as many major banks have been accused of fraudulent practices, and were basically forced to suspend over 56,000 forclosures!

Watch the video, and pass it on!

www.huffingtonpost.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

These banks are criminal as is...it's no surprise they are doing everything they can to foreclose on everybody they possibly can because they are so greedy they could care less if they had to kill you just to get your money

reply to post by here4awhile


Yes, I could not agree more. Seriously some people who have paid cash, who are not even behind have recieved foreclosure proceedings. Crikeys, its illegal! I guess the banks reallly dont even care. Imagine, what if someone was to think the "lock changer" was a burgler? This is going to have a ban turn of events I see it. Greed!

So is the bank gonna be liable when this happens and someone ends up dead....
Man, the things they try and get away with.......

Oddly enough i see this a good news for some mortgage hlders who are in foreclosure now.
The banks have been lowballing the world for too long now.
The possibility is uplifting that the forclosers may not be able to take possession of as many as a third or more of the homes they loaned money on.
The "Chain of title "like a "chain of evidence" cannot be broken.
Aparently the bundling of all these mortgages into securities, has muddied the waters of ownership.
By doing this they broke the chain of ownership or title.
It remains to be seen by legal precedents now as to who really owns the disputed properties.
The tactics used by the lenders will perforce have to become a sort of homegrown terror tactic.
One in which the banks harrass the mortgagee(property holder-ie resident)till they vacate.
If people can stay in their homes despite these goon squad tactics,(and perhaps catch the banks doing such things )the courts may be far more apt to look favourably upon the poor victimized landholders.
As indeed they are the ones who have been raped repeatedly by the whole scenario created by big business in the first place, and now losing their homes because of something totally out of their control.
This is especially applicable to situations where the buyers of the securities are foriegn banks and persons .
It is difficult for them to show any title or ownership claim on paper to the actual land they wish to foreclose on.
A little ray of legalistic sunshne for much beleaguered mortgagees.

Florida is a castle doctrine state. I wonder if a homeowner shoots one of these locksmiths, illegally entering their home, would the homeowner be charged with anything? I always taught my wife and mother, if someone is trying to break in, shoot through the door. We'll handle the legal crap later.

reply to post by adifferentbreed


Thats a really good question! I was wondering that myself.
They do not even have the law on their side!

reply to post by stirling


Thanks for that post, and I do agree with you. In the long run, this could work to the homeowners advantage,
if they tough it out. I dont know what would stop the homeowner from changing the locks again?
But it is seriously scary that this happened to a single woman. Do you suppose the banks are targeting some people, thinking they can be intimidated? I think they would do that, sure.

I dare them to do this to my house. I will be in fear for my life just as the woman in the story was, and I can guarantee there will be serious consequences! I will call 911, but only after the fact because the police are only there to clean up anyway.

I fail to see the problem if the occupants are there illegally, and have been given the proper, legal amount of time to vacate the property.

I personally used to work in a Bankruptcy/Foreclosure/Evictions law firm, and worked directly with Realtors and the Sheriffs Department to evict occupants, and change locks.

I tend to agree that if the foreclosure papers have been served, and the occupants refused to leave, then the banks have every right to change the locks, whether occupants are there or not.

Occupying a home that has been foreclosed on should be a criminal act, like squatting.

The lady was hiding from the people changing her locks? Probably because she knew she was supposed to leave before this happened.

I appreciate people's situations and that they probably have nowhere to go, but this is the nature of foreclosure in the first place. If people hadn't lived way beyond their means for years or right up to the margin and then had a sole source of income wiped out, they wouldn't be in this mess.

Even when that source of income was wiped out, people need to take steps as soon as they lose their jobs to deal with their situation, not when their TWO YEARS of unemployment runs out. People have to realize that if their job is gone, they can't continue to live the way they did before. I've lost a job 6 times in the last 15 years, and each time, gave up a little (and quite often, a lot) in order to readjust to my situation. I've had to downsize and sell homes at a loss, move to other Provinces, move to another country, move away from family to find work. People need to realize that they have to do what it takes.

Personally, I'm renting and living frugally until I have enough to buy a house for cash, and won't have to deal with the banks, ever. If more people saved and got the big ticket items when they had enough money, rather than keep upgrading for more and more consumer junk on more and more debt, the world economy wouldn't be in the mess it's in.

reply to post by babybunnies

If only the rest of the world was as rational and level headed as you.

The banks are losing huge amounts of capital by foreclosing. I find it hard to believe it could be to their advantage to foreclose. The only rational reason I can find is that Obama gave them the difference in cash so it does not financially hurt the bank.

In other words, without the Obama money to the banks, the banks might have wanted to deal a little more sensitively with the homeowners who are in a bad position.

Let's take an example. Joe and Mary have a home that has a loan against it of $450,000. However, today the home is only worth $250,000. Normally, to take this home the bank would lose $200,000. However, since Obama paid the bank billions, the bank can write off the $200,000 loss. If the bank had to face the $200,000 loss on each foreclosure, it would have some serious problems. With the Obama plan, the bank doesn't have a problem, the homeowner has a problem.

Your taxes threw you out of your home. Your Congressman threw you out of your home. Your President threw you out of your home. Surprised?

Looking at it financially, if you are the homeowner: the bank proposes to keep you in your home. They offer you an adjusted mortgage. Here's the offer. You take half the mortgage and put it at the end of 40 years. You pay on the other half, with only a 2% interest. Now, your payments drop to around $1000 to $1200 a month, down from $3000. Sounds like a good idea, right? Well, take a look. The home is still mortgaged at $450,000. If you choose to try to sell the home, you have to pay off the $450,000. What will you do if the home is only worth $250,000 in ten years? Can you sell it? Nope. You're stuck. You may not live long enough to see it reach the $450,000 value again. It could take 20 years. Meanwhile, the bank has not lost a dime. It also reserves the right to add to your monthly payment, to a limit.

Originally posted by inivux
I fail to see the problem if the occupants are there illegally, and have been given the proper, legal amount of time to vacate the property

And if you followed the story, you would have heard them say, she was never notified by the bank of any foreclosure on her house, and it was never put in foreclosure from the start, so yes, what they did was illegal as hell,...........that sir, is the problem.

I personally used to work in a Bankruptcy/Foreclosure/Evictions law firm, and worked directly with Realtors and the Sheriffs Department to evict occupants, and change locks.

edit on 7-10-2010 by inivux because: (no reason given)

And I personally own seven guitars and play in a local band, but that doesn`t make me an expert in the field of music.

Now if the people have been served eviction notices and are staying there, then yes the bank does have the right to change the locks.

I believe the reason for the uptick in foreclosures are firms trying to balance out gains made in other areas by adding bad loans losses to the other side. They have to mark down the loss from the loan amount to the properties present value. That's just my opinion. I'm not an accountant or anything but we all know banks are ruthless and I'm sure this is the reason for the spike in Foreclosures over the summer.

Originally posted by babybunnies
I tend to agree that if the foreclosure papers have been served, and the occupants refused to leave, then the banks have every right to change the locks, whether occupants are there or not.

Occupying a home that has been foreclosed on should be a criminal act, like squatting.

The lady was hiding from the people changing her locks? Probably because she knew she was supposed to leave before this happened.

I appreciate people's situations and that they probably have nowhere to go, but this is the nature of foreclosure in the first place. If people hadn't lived way beyond their means for years or right up to the margin and then had a sole source of income wiped out, they wouldn't be in this mess.

Even when that source of income was wiped out, people need to take steps as soon as they lose their jobs to deal with their situation, not when their TWO YEARS of unemployment runs out. People have to realize that if their job is gone, they can't continue to live the way they did before. I've lost a job 6 times in the last 15 years, and each time, gave up a little (and quite often, a lot) in order to readjust to my situation. I've had to downsize and sell homes at a loss, move to other Provinces, move to another country, move away from family to find work. People need to realize that they have to do what it takes.

Personally, I'm renting and living frugally until I have enough to buy a house for cash, and won't have to deal with the banks, ever. If more people saved and got the big ticket items when they had enough money, rather than keep upgrading for more and more consumer junk on more and more debt, the world economy wouldn't be in the mess it's in.

I`ll tell you like I told inivux. If you read the story from the start, you would know that the house was not in foreclosure at all, and no paperwork was ever started for a foreclosure on it. Even the bank stated that it was in the wrong. But, that doesn`t mean that breaking into the place was the right thing for them to do before ANY paper work was even filed, am i right? Or in this case, are banks not held accountable these days for breaking and entering like everyone else is when they ARE IN THE WRONG?

reply to post by inivux


reply to post by babybunnies


Your scenerio is altogether different than the one in the Op though.
This woman was not in foreclosure. The bank had not served her with papers, and they
even apologized afterwards.

The lady should press breaking and entering charges on the people that entered her home illegally. This type of behavior should not be tolerated by any company.

This is interesting... Considering i saw an ad on tv that said they were helping people in foreclosure to get out of it..

So either they are or they are not.. which is it?

I cant find the add on the internet.. so I cant show you but they talk about how they are working or have worked with people to not foreclose on thier homes.. In this case however I would have to say thier add on tv is bunk..

Oh well, We reap what we sew.. Good work Amerika.