Man Bulldozes Home So Bank Can Not reclaim It... Good For Him..

[drkaje]

You have absolutely ZERO clue as to what you're talking about and you and Hugo Chavez are once again proving that you're as uneducated and retarded as they come.

Are you incapable of actually refuting a point without linking some stupid article and then resulting to personal insults? Or is cognitive thinking a stretch for you, physics master?


Guy is losing his business as well. I'm guessing he has no grasp of finance and is yet another moron that willingly got in well over his head. Probably swimming in a mountain of debt that he knowingly took on.

I wonder how people would react if the very same bank bulldozed the house so he couldn't stay there for free during the foreclosure process. That process can take close to a year in some cases.

[240 is Back]

longer than a year sometimes... people can sue and squat for 2 or 3 years.

many people whose house is in foreclosure will repeatedly rent it out and keep the security deposits... lots of that happening here.  You sign a lease, move in, and suddenly you have the sheriff at your door telling you to get out in 48 hours.  The 'landlord' was gracious enough to give you a deal on the deposit cause you were willing to pay cash... hahaha...

[Soul Crusher]

something is missing from this story.

The guy said he only owed 160k on a 300k home and the bank was "taking it wrongly" as he put it

Most likely the home is not worth 300k and almost certainly whatever problem this guy is having it was the result of his own choices and he's too stupid to understand and deal with it.

I wouldn't be suprised if he's a teabagger too

Since you are the person who stated we all own our own homes and all have private property ownership, you are the last person who should have any problem with this. 



 

[Straw Man]

Since you are the person who stated we all own our own homes and all have private property ownership, you are the last person who should have any problem with this. 

I have no problem if the guy wants to bulldoze the dwelling but since Ohio appears to have judicial forclosure didn't this guy just ensure a much greater deficiency judgement by destroying the improvements?

[Soul Crusher]

I have no problem if the guy wants to bulldoze the dwelling but since Ohio appears to have judicial forclosure didn't this guy just ensure a much greater deficiency judgement by destroying the improvements?

That's his problem no? 

The bottom line is that you dont own shit, have no control over anything, and have the illusion of ownership to placate peoples' stupidity. 

Just like in Goodfellas:

Miss a few payments - FUCK YOU PAY ME.

Miss a tax payment - FUCK YOU PAY ME.

Oh you have a buyer to payoff the arrearage - FUCK YOU PAY ME. 

[Straw Man]

That's his problem no? 

The bottom line is that you dont own shit, have no control over anything, and have the illusion of ownership to placate peoples' stupidity. 

Just like in Goodfellas:

Miss a few payments - FUCK YOU PAY ME.

Miss a tax payment - FUCK YOU PAY ME.

Oh you have a buyer to payoff the arrearage - FUCK YOU PAY ME. 

I well aware it's his problem

is the statement correct or not?

[SAMSON123]

I wonder how people would react if the very same bank bulldozed the house so he couldn't stay there for free during the foreclosure process. That process can take close to a year in some cases.

That is what the banks used to do in america. There is a movie called GRAPES OF WRATH that addresses the same things that is going on in america and the world today. Crafty bank schemes, financial market games, people robbed of savings, investments, homes, land etc etc. In dealing with farmers...the banks which claimed the properties BULLDOZED THE HOUSES DOWN so the farmers could not live in them. It was a sad scene in the movie as the man behind the wheel of the bulldozer was a friend of the man who owned the house and farm...and despite the pleas of the farmer that he would have nothing an no where to go without the house, the "friend" who drove the buulldozer tore his house down anyway. The Grapes of wrath is an old black and white movie made in the 30s I believe and it shows how things have not changed...

[Soul Crusher]

I dont know Ohio law.  

If this guy were to have a buyer at 170k to pay off the principle of the loan, and they would not take it due to lawyers fees, late fees, etc, than good for him in burning the house to the ground.  

[Straw Man]

I dont know Ohio law.  

If this guy were to have a buyer at 170k to pay off the principle of the loan, and they would not take it due to lawyers fees, late fees, etc, than good for him in burning the house to the ground.  

Ohio is a judicial forclosure state.  Isn't NY the same ( I don't know which is why I am asking you)

1.   if the 170k was not sufficient to payoff the outstanding principal, past due interest payments, penalties, fees etc... then why should the bank not exercise their option to take the property and attempt to sell it on the open market to recoup those costs?

2.  Since Ohio is a judicial forclosure state wouldn't the owner have a potentially smaller deficiency if the bank sold for > 170K (depending of course on the additional cost incurred to sell the property)

[Migs]

How can the bank foreclose on a current mortgage? Now if he got behind and the bank figured foreclosure was more profitable that's another story. He'll probably get sued for destroying the bank's property.

Like Straw Man said. Something is missing from this story. This guy could have had an ARM, interest only, No-Doc, Low-Doc or just plain been going broke in the business and the bank wouldn't refinance the loan at an attractive rate.

agreed.  I am in real estate and have never heard of this.  Banks won't foreclose on a house unless siomething is wrong.  They rather have money in hand rather than risk having to shortsale the home in hopes to get more out of it.

[drkaje]

agreed.  I am in real estate and have never heard of this.  Banks won't foreclose on a house unless siomething is wrong.  They rather have money in hand rather than risk having to shortsale the home in hopes to get more out of it.

I disagree with the man's actions and we'll likely never know the full story.

That being said; do we really think the founding fathers intended an entity be created that could essentially crush America's citizens beyond all hope and repair? I'm not saying some level of taxation isn't necessary but people being driven to financial extremes that bankruptcy cannot cure seems excessive.

[Soul Crusher]

I disagree with the man's actions and we'll likely never know the full story.

That being said; do we really think the founding fathers intended an entity be created that could essentially crush America's citizens beyond all hope and repair? I'm not saying some level of taxation isn't necessary but people being driven to financial extremes that bankruptcy cannot cure seems excessive.

Good point.  The founders never wanted a leviathon govt like we have no since it sucks the life blood out of everything.  The original taxes were mostly tarrifs, duties, and stuff like that, not 24/7/365 tax on everything you can imagine.