Frustrated Owner Bulldozes Home Ahead Of Foreclosure

[uscitizen]

Paulie,
Business must be impartial to customers or you have prejudices mixing with business start to pop up.

 

[Paulie]

Paulie,
Business must be impartial to customers or you have prejudices mixing with business start to pop up.

A customer can make contact with a creditor and make a request. It happens all the time. There's no reason why a creditor can't appease a debtor and accept their request.

The bank simply chose to be greedy rather than work with a customer on his issues.

He had a sale lined up. There's no reason why the bank couldn't have considered accepting the sale, especially considering they'd be repaid on the loan.

I wouldn't be surprised if someone who worked at the bank really loved the house and wanted to buy it themselves, so the bank declined the man's sale.

 

[Ravi]

Paulie,
Business must be impartial to customers or you have prejudices mixing with business start to pop up.

A customer can make contact with a creditor and make a request. It happens all the time. There's no reason why a creditor can't appease a debtor and accept their request.

The bank simply chose to be greedy rather than work with a customer on his issues.

He had a sale lined up. There's no reason why the bank couldn't have considered accepting the sale, especially considering they'd be repaid on the loan.

I wouldn't be surprised if someone who worked at the bank really loved the house and wanted to buy it themselves, so the bank declined the man's sale.

Pauli, it sounds more like the man owes more than his mortgage. He used his house for collateral, that implies he borrowed more from the bank...probably for his business. There is no telling how much he borrowed...but it also sounds like he's not paying his taxes if the IRS has put a lien on his property.

Do you think we should dispense with laws altogether and let people destroy things that they don't own and not be punished?

 

[Paulie]

Paulie,
Business must be impartial to customers or you have prejudices mixing with business start to pop up.

A customer can make contact with a creditor and make a request. It happens all the time. There's no reason why a creditor can't appease a debtor and accept their request.

The bank simply chose to be greedy rather than work with a customer on his issues.

He had a sale lined up. There's no reason why the bank couldn't have considered accepting the sale, especially considering they'd be repaid on the loan.

I wouldn't be surprised if someone who worked at the bank really loved the house and wanted to buy it themselves, so the bank declined the man's sale.

Pauli, it sounds more like the man owes more than his mortgage. He used his house for collateral, that implies he borrowed more from the bank...probably for his business. There is no telling how much he borrowed...but it also sounds like he's not paying his taxes if the IRS has put a lien on his property.

Do you think we should dispense with laws altogether and let people destroy things that they don't own and not be punished?

Of course not.

I don't advocate anyone break any law or rule, which in doing so would violate someone else's rights.

In this case, the bank owns the house, so they have a right to the property as it was at the time of foreclosure.

We don't know all the details here though, so there's still only speculation as to why they wouldn't allow him to execute a prospective sale he had lined up.

 

[Ravi]

A customer can make contact with a creditor and make a request. It happens all the time. There's no reason why a creditor can't appease a debtor and accept their request.

The bank simply chose to be greedy rather than work with a customer on his issues.

He had a sale lined up. There's no reason why the bank couldn't have considered accepting the sale, especially considering they'd be repaid on the loan.

I wouldn't be surprised if someone who worked at the bank really loved the house and wanted to buy it themselves, so the bank declined the man's sale.

Pauli, it sounds more like the man owes more than his mortgage. He used his house for collateral, that implies he borrowed more from the bank...probably for his business. There is no telling how much he borrowed...but it also sounds like he's not paying his taxes if the IRS has put a lien on his property.

Do you think we should dispense with laws altogether and let people destroy things that they don't own and not be punished?

Of course not.

I don't advocate anyone break any law or rule, which in doing so would violate someone else's rights.

In this case, the bank owns the house, so they have a right to the property as it was at the time of foreclosure.

We don't know all the details here though, so there's still only speculation as to why they wouldn't allow him to execute a prospective sale he had lined up.

We only have his word for it and he sounds like he has a few screws loose...bulldozing the house and all.

 

[Paulie]

I don't know, you can't always chalk actions like that up to someone being crazy.

Human beings can only take so much before they snap. Everyone has their breaking point. For some, it's a lot more than it is for others. For all we know the guy is clean, and is being railroaded from multiple angles and finally hit his point.

I tend to think something like that is specific enough, in the he had some kind of REASON for not wanting the bank to be able to take possession of the house.

I certainly could be wrong, and he could just be a nut case.

 

[uscitizen]

Paulie,
Business must be impartial to customers or you have prejudices mixing with business start to pop up.

A customer can make contact with a creditor and make a request. It happens all the time. There's no reason why a creditor can't appease a debtor and accept their request.

The bank simply chose to be greedy rather than work with a customer on his issues.

He had a sale lined up. There's no reason why the bank couldn't have considered accepting the sale, especially considering they'd be repaid on the loan.

I wouldn't be surprised if someone who worked at the bank really loved the house and wanted to buy it themselves, so the bank declined the man's sale.

do we know enough about the timeline of events to logically come to that kind of conclusion?

 

[California Girl]

I find it really very sad that anyone could become so desperate as to do this. I don't celebrate what he did but I do understand how people can be driven to such action.

What a fucking mess our government has made - we should be ashamed for having sat back for decades and let these people fuck our country up. (Note to left and right: I blame both equally)

 

[Zona]

It was still HIS property. It wasn't foreclosed. He still owned it.

When you own a home, you can bulldoze it if you want. That's not against the law.

Is that true? If he owned it straight up, why would he get foreclosed on? He still had a mortgage, so he didnt own it yet.


Right?

 

[Paulie]

It was still HIS property. It wasn't foreclosed. He still owned it.

When you own a home, you can bulldoze it if you want. That's not against the law.

Is that true? If he owned it straight up, why would he get foreclosed on? He still had a mortgage, so he didnt own it yet.


Right?

He didn't own it. It's a common misconception that because you are financing something (a house, a car, etc), you "own" it.

You don't own it until you've paid it off and you hold the title or deed.

 

[Ravi]

I find it really very sad that anyone could become so desperate as to do this. I don't celebrate what he did but I do understand how people can be driven to such action.

What a fucking mess our government has made - we should be ashamed for having sat back for decades and let these people fuck our country up. (Note to left and right: I blame both equally)

Really? Even though it clearly states that he used his house for collateral you think it is someone's fault but his own that he got in over his head?

I mean seriously, how is that the 'government's' fault?

 

[Toro]

I'm not a lawyer but I believe that if you put up any asset for collateral, if you destroy it, then you are liable.

 

[Modbert]

He didn't own it. It's a common misconception that because you are financing something (a house, a car, etc), you "own" it.

You don't own it until you've paid it off and you hold the title or deed.

The American Dream*

 

[Ravi]

I'm not a lawyer but I believe that if you put up any asset for collateral, if you destroy it, then you are liable.

I'm not either, but as someone that has put an asset up for collateral I realize that if I default, the bank takes my collateral and destroying it is a criminal act on my part.

 

[uscitizen]

He didn't own it. It's a common misconception that because you are financing something (a house, a car, etc), you "own" it.

You don't own it until you've paid it off and you hold the title or deed.

The American Dream*

The home dream that morphed into an Equity loan / investemnt dream.

 

[Modbert]

The home dream that morphed into an Equity loan / investemnt dream.

This post and the entire thread actually reminds me of this song:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOfkpu6749w]YouTube - John Mellencamp - Pink Houses[/ame]

 

[Wicked Jester]

It was still HIS property. It wasn't foreclosed. He still owned it.

When you own a home, you can bulldoze it if you want. That's not against the law.

Tell me she didn't just make this ridiculous statement.

Christ, there's some awfully stupid people out there!

 

[Wicked Jester]

I'm trying to understand where the bank had the right to deny him a prospective sale of the house, which would have fulfilled the remaining amount owed on the loan.

I'm not sure "because they could get more by foreclosing and selling it on their own" is necessarily LEGAL.

But I suppose you'd have to view the contract to be sure.

The IRS had a lien on the house. Of course the bank is going to say no to the sale until the lien is satisfied.
What this is, is a case of an idiot who got in over his head, and made a very stupid decision. Not only is the IRS going to go after his stupid ass, but the bank will have their say also. He's got no one to blame but himself. He certainly deserves no sympathy.

 

[Wicked Jester]

The problem is that the bank denied him a potential sale of the house that he had lined up, which would have fulfilled the remaining liability on the debt.

I'd probably fucking bulldoze the house TOO.

FUCK that shit.

Your obligation is to pay the loan off. He had that lined up, and the bank just said "no".

Considering the state of mind some people are in these days over the economy, and the actions of banks, the bank ought to consider themselves damn LUCKY that's ALL he did.

Well now he still has the loan to pay off and nothing to own but an empty lot. That showed them, right?

The bank is foreclosing. And in fact, they won't let him sell the house at a price he already got, because they think they can get a better price on their own.

So it doesn't appear as though he's going to be liable for anything. The worst that happens is he loses his house and his credit is fucked.

He's going to be liable for burning down THE BANKS HOUSE!

Face it, the dudes a fucking moron!

His ass should be sitting in jail on arson charges.

 

[Neubarth]

More supposedly outlandish behavior will become the norm as time goes bye. I really feel for this man, and can say with my black bretheren, "Burn, Baby Burn!" as we destroy the old world and create the new World.