This is no different than arson, and I am sure there will criminal charges. He destroyed the Banks property, not his. Go throw a a molotov cocktail through the window of your car in broad daylight in front of witnesses and see how that goes if there is a bank loan on it. No different, you would be going to jail or charged with fraud.
Well, putting aside the obvious fact that you would be charged for reckless endangerment...
But no, it was not the banks property as the bank had not foreclosed yet. He has every right to demolish his house or do whatever he wants with it. The end result is that he still owes the bank $160k, but bankruptcy will no doubt take care of that.
The Following User Says Thank You to Resolute 14 For This Useful Post:
What an idiot. If you are having problems paying your mortgage for a decade, obviously the guy has some money management issues. What doesn't make sense, if the place was worth 350K he could have fire saled the thing for 220, and at least walked away with 60K or so. He could have emailed me and I would have bought it if that was the actual value, and flipped it for a quick 20 or 30K. Now that he destroyed the home, when the bank auctions the property, all the buyer will get is the land, and he will probably end up owing the bank as opposed to getting a forclosure settlement if it sells for more than the 160K. What a dumb, emotional, childlish response. If the guy thinks he's screwed now, wait till the bank sues him for the loss after foreclosure is completed.
I don't know the rules but if the bank was only entitled to $160K, why would it have cared what the property sold for in excess of that? The fact that they prevented the $170K sale suggests to me that they wanted more and, to do that, they had to foreclose.
Well, putting aside the obvious fact that you would be charged for reckless endangerment...
But no, it was not the banks property as the bank had not foreclosed yet. He has every right to demolish his house or do whatever he wants with it. The end result is that he still owes the bank $160k, but bankruptcy will no doubt take care of that.
The bank secures a loan based on the value of the property, and you can't knowingly destroy the collateral as the loan was based on the value of the home. If it burns to the ground, insurance covers it outside of arson. If this cat was smart, the home would have mysteriously burned to the ground, and he may have got away with it, and got appraised value. The way he did it, and admitted to it, will not only screw him up financially for life, but he will also more than likely be charged with a crime.
I work as a finance manager at a car dealership, and people who are against leasing say they would like to "buy" the car on a standard bank loan because they would like to "own" the car. Miss 3 payments on the loan, and tell me if you still own it. When a car goes to auction, if it is trashed or neglected, and it auctions for less than the remaining loan balance, the customer is charged for the deficit. Even if it is pristine, the customer is still responsible for any shortfall, but usually the banks are unable to collect since a repo usually leads to bankruptcy. If the customer knowingly trashed the car, and it was proven, like it is with CPT. Bulldozer, the bank would have grounds to file criminal charges for damages as their asset knowingly vandalized to devalue it. Any time you have a lien on any property, be it a car or a house you only have limited title, and the basic translation is.... the Bank owns it more than you do until the loan is paid out and released.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to pylon For This Useful Post:
Well, putting aside the obvious fact that you would be charged for reckless endangerment...
But no, it was not the banks property as the bank had not foreclosed yet. He has every right to demolish his house or do whatever he wants with it. The end result is that he still owes the bank $160k, but bankruptcy will no doubt take care of that.
Usually there is something along these lines in the Mortgage terms one signs in Alberta:
Quote:
You agree as follows:
(i) You will keep the Property in good condition and repair and you will not do anything
that will diminish the value of the Property.
(ii) You will not change the use of the Property.
(iii) You will pay Mortgagee on demand the reasonable Costs of those inspections,
investigations, assessments, studies and testing concerning the Property.
(iv) You will promptly, at your own cost, comply with all Laws concerning the Property.
(v) At your own cost you will make all Improvements or alterations to the Property that
may be required at any time by any Law.
(vi) You will notify Mortgagee forthwith of any substantial Improvements or damage to
the Property.
That being said I have no idea whatsoever what Mortgage documents look like in Ohio.
I get tired of people that sign into an agreement in good faith and then when it goes wrong for them they throw a temper tantrum.
He didn't have to get the mortgage, he didn't need to secure loans against his house. It not like this guy is some moron with an IQ of 6, he's a grown man.
The day and age of people getting screwed over by the man is pretty much over, we have enough intelligence to actually read documents and know what we're getting into. The bank didn't hold a gun to his head and put a pen in his hand.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
Good for him! It says right in the article he tried to sell so he could get something and the bank would not let him. The economy has hurt so many people and this guy was trying to at least recoup something out of it but the greedy ######s at the bank would have none of it. Even if they manage to charge him with something I am sure he will gladly accept it because this is about his dignity in his eyes. Let them sue, file bankruptcy. Let them charge him, in the end he is being charged for what he felt was justice and good for him!
The Following User Says Thank You to dissentowner For This Useful Post:
His argument the bank wouldnt accept the 160K is complete BS. There is more to this story.
Banks dont just say umm you owe me $160K but I think I can get more. How does that make sense to anyone.
__________________
MYK - Supports Arizona to democtratically pass laws for the state of Arizona
Rudy was the only hope in 08
2011 Election: Cons 40% - Nanos 38% Ekos 34%
The Following User Says Thank You to mykalberta For This Useful Post:
When a car goes to auction, if it is trashed or neglected, and it auctions for less than the remaining loan balance, the customer is charged for the deficit. Even if it is pristine, the customer is still responsible for any shortfall, but usually the banks are unable to collect since a repo usually leads to bankruptcy.
Exactly, he is still responsible for the remaining loan balance. I even said that outright in my post.
Quote:
If the customer knowingly trashed the car, and it was proven, like it is with CPT. Bulldozer, the bank would have grounds to file criminal charges for damages as their asset knowingly vandalized to devalue it. Any time you have a lien on any property, be it a car or a house you only have limited title, and the basic translation is.... the Bank owns it more than you do until the loan is paid out and released.
You are assuming that the bank put a lien on his house, but I see no evidence of that. The article says the bank put a lien on his commercial property, then tried to claim his house as collateral. Whether they had the right to do that, I can't say, but you are working off an unproven assumption here.
His argument the bank wouldnt accept the 160K is complete BS. There is more to this story.
Banks dont just say umm you owe me $160K but I think I can get more. How does that make sense to anyone.
It makes perfect sense. If they foreclose on his house they can sell it for much more then the $160k, then they pocket the profits. If they let him sell it for just what he owes then they lose the extra money. This about corporate greed and he shoved it up their arse. I think it's great he took a stand and damn the repercussions, not too many people have a set of balls that big.
It makes perfect sense. If they foreclose on his house they can sell it for much more then the $160k, then they pocket the profits. If they let him sell it for just what he owes then they lose the extra money. This about corporate greed and he shoved it up their arse. I think it's great he took a stand and damn the repercussions, not too many people have a set of balls that big.
Except if the bank forecloses and sells the house for more then you owe they pay you the difference if you don't owe anything else to the bank.
The concern for the bank is that this guy sells the house, pockets the money and declares bankruptsy. Or sells the house to a friend for a doller.
I wonder if he had more outstanding debt with this bank then he's letting on.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
No choice but to destroy his house? He had a choice, let the bank forclose, and let the proceeds take care of his business debts. Thats how an adult handles it, thats how it works when you sign something over as collateral. He had to have secured the business loan with his home consentually with the bank, the bank can't secure a loan without your signature, or a court order.
This is no different than arson, and I am sure there will criminal charges. He destroyed the Banks property, not his. Go throw a a molotov cocktail through the window of your car in broad daylight in front of witnesses and see how that goes if there is a bank loan on it. No different, you would be going to jail or charged with fraud.
This is not that far off of Austin Texas plane crasher guy. Sure they got screwed by a system that isn't percieved as fair, but their solutions are ignorant.
I think people are getting fed up with the system and are striking back.
I think people are getting fed up with the system and are striking back.
All empires fall...even the American one.
More along the lines that people don't take the time to understand how the system works and then cry about it or lash out about it when the system devours them.
The empire will fall because of the lazy stupidity of the citizentry.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
His argument the bank wouldnt accept the 160K is complete BS. There is more to this story.
Banks dont just say umm you owe me $160K but I think I can get more. How does that make sense to anyone.
He obviously owed the bank a lot more than $160,000.
Maybe he owed $160,000 on the house but I would bet my life that he has other outstanding debts with the bank and the house was the collateral against said debts.
What he wanted to do was pay off the $160,000 he owed on the house, keep the house free and clear, and let the bank whistle for the balance that he owed them.
The bank, of course, wouldn't accept that stupid deal.
The Following User Says Thank You to Rerun For This Useful Post:
