• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Frustrated Owner Bulldozes Home Ahead Of Foreclosure

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Adrenaline said:
I must not get it as I have been away for over a week celebrating Mardi Gras in parts of Louisiana ending with New Orleans for Tuesday fun.
Click to expand...

moran.jpg
 
Guys, read the article. It doesn't sound like he had any trouble paying his mortgage, the bank seized the home because of the money he owed due to being sued regarding his business.

I'd have done the same thing. The bank got greedy. Some offered the bank MORE than he had left on his home, and they refused citing the fact that they could make more if they foreclosed it.

Haha. I say good on him. At least he sticks to his principles.
 
i don't understand how they can refuse the amount owed on their note, more even, and then take the house to sell for a larger profit

that seems like theft to me, how is that legal?
 
quakefiend420 said:
i don't understand how they can refuse the amount owed on their note, more even, and then take the house to sell for a larger profit

that seems like theft to me, how is that legal?
Click to expand...

Yeah. I'm sure he's in some legal trouble, but I hope he's able to stick it to them in whatever way possible(more than he already has).
 
Eli said:
Guys, read the article. It doesn't sound like he had any trouble paying his mortgage, the bank seized the home because of the money he owed due to being sued regarding his business.

I'd have done the same thing. The bank got greedy. Some offered the bank MORE than he had left on his home, and they refused citing the fact that they could make more if they foreclosed it.

Haha. I say good on him. At least he sticks to his principles.
Click to expand...

I read the article, and it appears that the home was collateral on a loan he had for his business. They foreclosed because of that loan. He offered to cover the mortgage + $10k, which probably wouldn't put a dent in the business loan.

If the house was truly worth $350k and he had someone who was going to pay $170k for it, he was probably trying to do something shady to get the house extricated from the business loan. Why WOULD the bank take less when they could get more and they were owed more? Why SHOULD they? If they recovered more than they were owed he would have gotten the difference - they were just looking to break even.

Unfortunately this guy's trouble will probably end with bankruptcy. He really deserves much worse.
 
techs said:
"Well, to probably make banks think twice before they try to take someone's home, and if they are going to take it wrongly, the end result will be them tearing their house down like I did mine," Hoskins said.

No you moron. I am not one to ever side with the banks, but you are a moron. And I hope the bank sues you. I am sure somewhere in the mortgage agreement YOU SIGNED it prohibits you from demolishing the house because then you would be destroying the asset you have for the mortgage.
Click to expand...

So you admit that a signed mortgage is a binding contract? Thank you, this is most helpful.
 
Awesome! Unless there's some fine print somewhere, I can't see how this is illegal either. He does own the house. if I want to, I can tear down my house and rebuild it, or do something else with the land. I still have to pay the mortgage, but if the bank is taking it away from me, then they have to try to sell a 300k piece of rubble.

Hilarious. Given his side of the story I am on his side. IF he had the money to pay then the bank has no reason to try to foreclose his house.
 
RedSquirrel said:
Awesome! Unless there's some fine print somewhere, I can't see how this is illegal either. He does own the house. if I want to, I can tear down my house and rebuild it, or do something else with the land. I still have to pay the mortgage, but if the bank is taking it away from me, then they have to try to sell a 300k piece of rubble.

Hilarious. Given his side of the story I am on his side. IF he had the money to pay then the bank has no reason to try to foreclose his house.
Click to expand...

There's plenty of reason they can foreclose. If the judge was letting it go through they had reason.

I highly doubt a bank will allow him to dismiss the deficiency judgement the bank will inevitably get. The moron will be paying them back the rest of his life.

What's sad is that this "faceless" bank has its own creditors, who he just fucked because he couldn't pay for his obligations.

There was once upon a time that real men honored their contracts. Now whiny bitches rule this country.
 
LegendKiller said:
There's plenty of reason they can foreclose. If the judge was letting it go through they had reason.

I highly doubt a bank will allow him to dismiss the deficiency judgement the bank will inevitably get. The moron will be paying them back the rest of his life.

What's sad is that this "faceless" bank has its own creditors, who he just fucked because he couldn't pay for his obligations.

There was once upon a time that real men honored their contracts. Now whiny bitches rule this country.
Click to expand...

That's pretty sad really. Shows this world is run by lawyers. :/

I have a feeling he will lose at the end, but I really hope he wins, and that this screws over the bank big time.
 
mugs said:
I read the article, and it appears that the home was collateral on a loan he had for his business. They foreclosed because of that loan. He offered to cover the mortgage + $10k, which probably wouldn't put a dent in the business loan.

If the house was truly worth $350k and he had someone who was going to pay $170k for it, he was probably trying to do something shady to get the house extricated from the business loan. Why WOULD the bank take less when they could get more and they were owed more? Why SHOULD they? If they recovered more than they were owed he would have gotten the difference - they were just looking to break even.

Unfortunately this guy's trouble will probably end with bankruptcy. He really deserves much worse.
Click to expand...

now that makes more sense
 
RedSquirrel said:
That's pretty sad really. Shows this world is run by lawyers. :/

I have a feeling he will lose at the end, but I really hope he wins, and that this screws over the bank big time.
Click to expand...

Who do you think the bank is?

As I said before, contracts used to be settled by handshakes, without lawyers. What's really sad is that he couldn't be true enough to himself to honor is contract.

Liars and deadbeat debtors shouldn't be revered.

I know it's all cool and stuff to be a populist doof. However, this costs people real money. A bank is owned by other people, often times, small investors. This costs them money, all because this guy was a loser.

Gotta love internet anarchists.
 
RedSquirrel said:
Awesome! Unless there's some fine print somewhere, I can't see how this is illegal either. He does own the house. if I want to, I can tear down my house and rebuild it, or do something else with the land. I still have to pay the mortgage, but if the bank is taking it away from me, then they have to try to sell a 300k piece of rubble.

Hilarious. Given his side of the story I am on his side. IF he had the money to pay then the bank has no reason to try to foreclose his house.
Click to expand...
The money's pretty useless to the bank if it's in his possession though.
I doubt the electric company will leave me alone if I don't pay the next bill, but instead just tell them, "I have the money right here."

Sounds more like he was stupid with his money, and then criminally stupid with what was still partially the bank's property.
 
I can't believe anyone would condone this douchebags actions. Remind me not to loan you money.
 
LegendKiller said:
Who do you think the bank is?

As I said before, contracts used to be settled by handshakes, without lawyers. What's really sad is that he couldn't be true enough to himself to honor is contract.

Liars and deadbeat debtors shouldn't be revered.

I know it's all cool and stuff to be a populist doof. However, this costs people real money. A bank is owned by other people, often times, small investors. This costs them money, all because this guy was a loser.

Gotta love internet anarchists.
Click to expand...

Most people like the idea of "sticking it to the man", and will happily do so.

Would be an interesting psychological study, actually.
 
Ns1 said:
I can't believe anyone would condone this douchebags actions. Remind me not to loan you money.
Click to expand...

This is really what I don't get. I guess nobody lends each other money here, nor do they pay their debts. It's easy to side with the debtor if you have no morals, no obligations, and no money to lend.
 
Eli said:
Most people like the idea of "sticking it to the man", and will happily do so.

Would be an interesting psychological study, actually.
Click to expand...

I would wonder if they invest, or even borrow, money. If they do either (or both), they are really just sticking it to themselves.

I really wonder what's going through their minds, like Red Squirrel. Personally, with such narrow minded, short-sighted, and obviously ignorant viewpoints, I see him as a 17 year old living at home with his parents without a job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top