- Find a Real Estate Professional
- Realtors®
- Mortgage Lenders
- Home Improvement Pros
- Other Real Estate Services
- Review an Agent, Lender or Pro
- Marketing on Zillow
- Real Estate Agent Advertising
- Join the Professional Directory
- Popular
- Real Estate Market Reports
- More
Replies (15)
- Terri Linnell, "DebtsNMesses"
- Contributions:6728
NO replies? NO opinions? Fellow zillowites, you are letting me down! lol
- Pasadenan
- Contributions:21450
If the borrowers refused to pay their mortgages for over 6 months, they should be kicked out. And of couse the tax liability still belongs to them until the property is liquidated; they are still on the title.
As for the banks holding on to the property; that is not only their prerogative, it is also prudent. They have to sell at a even pace, or risk losing the value of a whole lot of other assets, and having even more borrowers walk out.
There is no "legislation" that can solve it. The government needs to just sit back and let the banks do themselves in.
As for the banks holding on to the property; that is not only their prerogative, it is also prudent. They have to sell at a even pace, or risk losing the value of a whole lot of other assets, and having even more borrowers walk out.
There is no "legislation" that can solve it. The government needs to just sit back and let the banks do themselves in.
- droopyd
- Contributions:403
If the banks kick out the (former) owners, then they are effectively taking title and should be responsible for taxes and upkeep.
- Pasadenan
- Contributions:21450
They should be responsible for the upkeep, as otherwise they lose their investment. And the local cities can hold them responsible for the upkeep and safety issues.
As for taxes, the back taxes just become liens against the property, so it doesn't really matter. Of course, at some point, the county may be tempted to sell the property to collect the taxes. At that point, it is prudent for the bank to pay the taxes to prevent loosing their investment, but otherwise, I see no benifit in them doing so. They certainly aren't receiving county or state services for any taxes they pay on unoccupied homes (except perhaps some police patroling and fire department standby).
As for title transfer; the bank has no authority to transfer title until after the auction, and the borrower still has the ability by law to reclaim their property up to the last minute at the action by bringing the amount owed. Transfering title early without a quit-claim deed from the "owner" would be in violation of the owner's rights.
As for taxes, the back taxes just become liens against the property, so it doesn't really matter. Of course, at some point, the county may be tempted to sell the property to collect the taxes. At that point, it is prudent for the bank to pay the taxes to prevent loosing their investment, but otherwise, I see no benifit in them doing so. They certainly aren't receiving county or state services for any taxes they pay on unoccupied homes (except perhaps some police patroling and fire department standby).
As for title transfer; the bank has no authority to transfer title until after the auction, and the borrower still has the ability by law to reclaim their property up to the last minute at the action by bringing the amount owed. Transfering title early without a quit-claim deed from the "owner" would be in violation of the owner's rights.
- Sylvester Jackson, "syljackson22"
- Contributions:17
The owners should file a class action to give all these homeowners back their homes with no loan.
I do not think the previous replies understood that the banks evicted the owners, started foreclosure, and then abandoned the homes without completing the foreclosure (auction). Thus, the owners are stuck with all the taxes and fines that accrue even after they have left.
At a minimum, if a bank went so far as to evict, they should be forced to complete the foreclosure effective the day of eviction and they should have to do upkeep and pay fines from eviction day.
I do not think the previous replies understood that the banks evicted the owners, started foreclosure, and then abandoned the homes without completing the foreclosure (auction). Thus, the owners are stuck with all the taxes and fines that accrue even after they have left.
At a minimum, if a bank went so far as to evict, they should be forced to complete the foreclosure effective the day of eviction and they should have to do upkeep and pay fines from eviction day.
- Lady Chattel
- Contributions:3110
I agree that once the bank has kicked you out then you are effectively no longer an owner. This is a bank practice that is quite shady especially when it puts a person in a position of potentially being fined/imprisoned for such fines/back taxes. It would seem to be that a person should be able to show the eviction notice to the county and be released and the county sadly would be able to take over the property so they could then beg someone to live in it.
- HousePoorAmerica
- Contributions:117
Could the HOA's impose fees to the bank for violating the CCNR's? Dead lawns ect.....
- Pasadenan
- Contributions:21450
The courts, judges, and juries would never go for giving people homes for free just because their foreclosure auction hadn't occured yet but they were already evicted.
Besides, why would they move out prior to the auction anyway? Is there a legal mandate for them to do so? Was the auction date actually set? I know someone that supposedly lost their 2nd home in December, but the auction still hasn't occured and they are still not out.
As for "fines"; no one gets a fine nor are jailed for not paying property tax. A lien is just placed on the property, and if they don't pay in a reasonable time period, the county sells the property to collect the taxes.
Sure, the city may issue citations for code violations; but they won't jail anyone for it. And how do they deliver it? Typically mailing to the address of record, which is the abandoned house. The code enforcement people can see that nothing will get corrected if the letter only goes to an abandoned address. The correction letter typically states the person will be fined if not corrected within a given time frame; and often states that if not completed in a reasonable time after that, the city will pay to have the work done and put a lien on the property for the work.
So, if the owner is not there, the owner doesn't pay. Sure it affects their credit rating, but if they haven't been paying the mortgage for over 6 months; their credit rating is already about as low as it can go.
And even if such a person could be jailed for not correcting the violations (which they can't because you can't find the person), they would just provide evidence of eviction, and they would be let out, since they have the wrong party, and we don't have anything similar to a "debters prison" in the United States.
If the owner is really that concerned about being liable for taxes and code violations for a home they are walking away from, that party would issue a quit claim deed to the mortgage company and transfer the title. They probably would even file the papers with the county to make sure the ownership change was recorded.
I'm all for giving someone that is down on their luck the benifit of the doubt, but I'm not in favor of the government stealing assets from a lender (that consists of deposits from typical citizens) and just handing them over to someone that has no desire to pay for what they purchased.
So, again, why do they deserve free housing and free rent for as long as they want to live there? And what benifit is it to me as an account holder at a bank for the govenment to mandate the bank's assets just be handed over to someone who is substantually delinquent on their loan payments without them even attempting to work out a payment arrangement?
Besides, why would they move out prior to the auction anyway? Is there a legal mandate for them to do so? Was the auction date actually set? I know someone that supposedly lost their 2nd home in December, but the auction still hasn't occured and they are still not out.
As for "fines"; no one gets a fine nor are jailed for not paying property tax. A lien is just placed on the property, and if they don't pay in a reasonable time period, the county sells the property to collect the taxes.
Sure, the city may issue citations for code violations; but they won't jail anyone for it. And how do they deliver it? Typically mailing to the address of record, which is the abandoned house. The code enforcement people can see that nothing will get corrected if the letter only goes to an abandoned address. The correction letter typically states the person will be fined if not corrected within a given time frame; and often states that if not completed in a reasonable time after that, the city will pay to have the work done and put a lien on the property for the work.
So, if the owner is not there, the owner doesn't pay. Sure it affects their credit rating, but if they haven't been paying the mortgage for over 6 months; their credit rating is already about as low as it can go.
And even if such a person could be jailed for not correcting the violations (which they can't because you can't find the person), they would just provide evidence of eviction, and they would be let out, since they have the wrong party, and we don't have anything similar to a "debters prison" in the United States.
If the owner is really that concerned about being liable for taxes and code violations for a home they are walking away from, that party would issue a quit claim deed to the mortgage company and transfer the title. They probably would even file the papers with the county to make sure the ownership change was recorded.
I'm all for giving someone that is down on their luck the benifit of the doubt, but I'm not in favor of the government stealing assets from a lender (that consists of deposits from typical citizens) and just handing them over to someone that has no desire to pay for what they purchased.
So, again, why do they deserve free housing and free rent for as long as they want to live there? And what benifit is it to me as an account holder at a bank for the govenment to mandate the bank's assets just be handed over to someone who is substantually delinquent on their loan payments without them even attempting to work out a payment arrangement?
- Hamp Yonce, "Zilluminati"
- Contributions:3463
Title Insurers?
- Sylvester Jackson, "syljackson22"
- Contributions:17
Because of all the absentee landlords, the city of Buffalo has people dedicated to finding the address of owners of vacant houses. Thus, they are served, fined, and warrants issued. Believe me, a house I bought has not had the deed recorded in all of Buffalo's depts yet and previous owner has a court date next month, with threat of warrant.
And sure, a quit claim would work. but sometimes it is a year from eviction before the owner finds out the lender did not foreclose, so the fines and such continued to accumulate. For the owner, going through all (time and money) this could be avoided if lender had just followed through on foreclosure. The lender knows they are sticking it to the owner when they do this, they should have looked at the property before evicting and decided then if they really want to foreclose.
And sure, a quit claim would work. but sometimes it is a year from eviction before the owner finds out the lender did not foreclose, so the fines and such continued to accumulate. For the owner, going through all (time and money) this could be avoided if lender had just followed through on foreclosure. The lender knows they are sticking it to the owner when they do this, they should have looked at the property before evicting and decided then if they really want to foreclose.
- Pasadenan
- Contributions:21450
A warrant for not appearing in court when supenaed is understandable.
But let me get this straight, you personally know people that were evicted from their own home buy the sheriff, and the sheriff later came back and arrested them and locked them up because they were evicted?
Sounds like lender rumor scare tactics to me.
But let me get this straight, you personally know people that were evicted from their own home buy the sheriff, and the sheriff later came back and arrested them and locked them up because they were evicted?
Sounds like lender rumor scare tactics to me.
- Aldreth
- Contributions:4226
What are you talking about "owners"?
They never were "owners"
They RENT from the BANK until they PAY OFF THE LOAN. The BANK (or investor) is the OWNER. If they want to let the property decompose, that is their RIGHT.
It is the same if you OWN A HOUSE. You don't just rent it out to someone, have them fail to pay rent for a year and then LOSE IT IN COURT to the renter. I mean... come on...
The "RENTER" has zero right to the property. They never paid for it.
As far as the Bank abandoning the home, so what, Mr. Obama currently pays people $4500.00 just so he can CRUSH their perfectly fine used automobile.
You think they care about giving the vehicles to charity? LOL we like to crush things.... Screw the poor... They aren't good capitalists anyways.
They never were "owners"
They RENT from the BANK until they PAY OFF THE LOAN. The BANK (or investor) is the OWNER. If they want to let the property decompose, that is their RIGHT.
It is the same if you OWN A HOUSE. You don't just rent it out to someone, have them fail to pay rent for a year and then LOSE IT IN COURT to the renter. I mean... come on...
The "RENTER" has zero right to the property. They never paid for it.
As far as the Bank abandoning the home, so what, Mr. Obama currently pays people $4500.00 just so he can CRUSH their perfectly fine used automobile.
You think they care about giving the vehicles to charity? LOL we like to crush things.... Screw the poor... They aren't good capitalists anyways.
- Pasadenan
- Contributions:21450
Crush? More like fill the engine block with sodium silicate, then park the vehicle on a salvage lot for 6 years to be stripped for replacement parts for other vehicles.
They not only want to make sure there are no salvagable engine blocks for replacement of damaged units, but that there is no salvage for pistons, crank shafts, valves, or any other parts in the engine either.
Sure, they say the block will eventually be crushed and recycled, but do you believe that? With all that "sand" in "glass" form? Sure, it could be melted down and separated, but we don't even allow most steel forging to be done in the United States anymore due to EPA regulations. So, are we just shipping it to China to pretend to recycle, so that it can polute the environment as we do with plastic?
To offset the carbon footprint of manufacturing that new vehicle sold, with the 10 MPG improvement compared to the "trade in", it takes about 5 years, thus many will never be a benifit to the environment nor oil consumption. A better solution would be to impliment "work local, hire local" policies, reduced/consolidated trips, a HUGE gasoline tax, work at home/telecommuting policies & programs, and to mandate car-pools or public transit at full capacity.
We didn't need anywhere near the number of cars per capita in the 1950's; so why do we need them now? Same problem with housing units. Since demand is finite and supply is near infinite, we keep having advertisers trying to create artificial demand to meet the capitalist need to always have growth while the govenment pays to kill the people to reduce the population. (Thanks planned parenthood and the pentigon for brainwashing the public and stealing the resources).
They not only want to make sure there are no salvagable engine blocks for replacement of damaged units, but that there is no salvage for pistons, crank shafts, valves, or any other parts in the engine either.
Sure, they say the block will eventually be crushed and recycled, but do you believe that? With all that "sand" in "glass" form? Sure, it could be melted down and separated, but we don't even allow most steel forging to be done in the United States anymore due to EPA regulations. So, are we just shipping it to China to pretend to recycle, so that it can polute the environment as we do with plastic?
To offset the carbon footprint of manufacturing that new vehicle sold, with the 10 MPG improvement compared to the "trade in", it takes about 5 years, thus many will never be a benifit to the environment nor oil consumption. A better solution would be to impliment "work local, hire local" policies, reduced/consolidated trips, a HUGE gasoline tax, work at home/telecommuting policies & programs, and to mandate car-pools or public transit at full capacity.
We didn't need anywhere near the number of cars per capita in the 1950's; so why do we need them now? Same problem with housing units. Since demand is finite and supply is near infinite, we keep having advertisers trying to create artificial demand to meet the capitalist need to always have growth while the govenment pays to kill the people to reduce the population. (Thanks planned parenthood and the pentigon for brainwashing the public and stealing the resources).
- Aldreth
- Contributions:4226
To Quote......
* The program destroys many vehicles that are not even close to being defined as "clunkers" with years of remaining life and use.
* Destroyed vehicles are removed from the market forever, depriving consumers who seek to purchase a used vehicle or charities in need of donated vehicles.
* It hurts the aftermarket companies that manufacture, distribute, sell and install vehicle parts on used vehicles, and those who rebuild/remanufacture vehicle parts.
* Resources and energy use is multiplied when a vehicle is destroyed and a new one is built to replace it.
* The majority of vehicles being traded in are domestic, and the majority of new vehicles being sold are foreign.
* The program entices consumers to purchase a new car that they might not be able to afford and certainly to go further in debt, reminiscent to the sub-prime home mortgage debacle.
* The program is regressive since only those at higher income levels who can afford to purchase a new car will qualify for the $4,500 voucher, while destroying used cars that could be purchased by lower income families, most in need of assistance in obtaining transportation
---To summarize, screw the poor, they are bad capitalists anyways.
* The program destroys many vehicles that are not even close to being defined as "clunkers" with years of remaining life and use.
* Destroyed vehicles are removed from the market forever, depriving consumers who seek to purchase a used vehicle or charities in need of donated vehicles.
* It hurts the aftermarket companies that manufacture, distribute, sell and install vehicle parts on used vehicles, and those who rebuild/remanufacture vehicle parts.
* Resources and energy use is multiplied when a vehicle is destroyed and a new one is built to replace it.
* The majority of vehicles being traded in are domestic, and the majority of new vehicles being sold are foreign.
* The program entices consumers to purchase a new car that they might not be able to afford and certainly to go further in debt, reminiscent to the sub-prime home mortgage debacle.
* The program is regressive since only those at higher income levels who can afford to purchase a new car will qualify for the $4,500 voucher, while destroying used cars that could be purchased by lower income families, most in need of assistance in obtaining transportation
---To summarize, screw the poor, they are bad capitalists anyways.
- Terri Linnell, "DebtsNMesses"
- Contributions:6728
I agree with Aldreth, Jackson, and Droopy. The banks own the home, the banks asked the owners to move (action via written request), the owners moved (action), and the banks are now responsible, through the banks own actions.
Banks are Abandoning Homes!
Toxic Titles that banks don't want, yet the banks have already kicked the owners out. The owners are still liable for the taxes and fines. Crazy!
Do you think that the govt should fine the banks for gross negligence?
Do you think that the owners should file a class action to give all these homeowners back their homes with no loan?
Do you think the banks should be made responsible for these homes?
There are many ways the legislation can go... what do you think should be done?
Stating a discriminatory preference in an advertisement for housing is illegal. If you think this content is discriminatory or otherwise inappropriate and feel it should be removed from Zillow, please let us know by completing the information above.
We will review this content. Thanks for helping make the site more useful to everyone. To learn more, read Zillow's Good Neighbor Policy.