Is It Wrong To Strip Everything From Your House In Revenge Against Your Bank?

[newbitech]

This is exactly like if someone takes their credit card out and runs up a twenty thousand dollar bill on all kinds of toys. Guess what they can't pay their bill but they put sand and rocks in the boxes and takes the toy boxes back to the stores and get refunds. "Them toys were my toys I paid for them I can do whatever I want with them while I have them. HA, HA! Got them exploiting toy stores. Can you believe the usery prices they want for them toys!" Gad! Ha! Ha!

no.. because that would be fraud. But to use your analogy, this IS like the bank saying that the box of toys that YOU OWN is worth 50,000K and they say hey I will give you 50,000k for that box if you pay me back my 50,000k plus interest. Then you say, well what if I don't pay you back? And the bank says, well then I get to keep everything in the box. So you say deal..

5 years later after all of your children have played with toys and destroyed them, you realize that the economy is going to shit and you are going to have a tough time making that payment to the bank.

So you call up the bank and say hey listen, that payment I am making to you might be a little much for me right now, can we work something out? The bank says nope we NEED that payment to survive. Then you say, well yeah but uh I NEED that payment to survive too. Then the bank says, well hey, why don't you sell that 50k box of toys you have and pay us back in full? And you say, well that 50k box of toys aint really worth 50k any more. Bank says oh yes it is.... You say ohhh no its not... Bank Yes it is..... You.... noo noo its really not.
Bank OHH YES IT ISSSS, You nooo man really, it wasn't worth 50k when we made the deal, but I didn't think the economy was going to crash so hard.... BANK YESS IT ISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS.

You ok, look, no its not, and even if it was I just need a few more months because the guy on CNBC said the economy is gonna be alright soon. So can't we work it out?

Bank.... OH YESSSSSS IT ISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

You, are you not hearing me? I only need a few more months, I have some really good prospects on the horizon. Look once I get back on my feet, I will be willing to pay a little more a month until things smooth out...

Bank OH YESSSSS IT ISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSs

You, what the fuck? Are you not hearing me? You really think this box of toys is still worth 50k? Morons!!!1

Bank GIVE US YOUR HOUSE! DIE SCUMBAG RENTERS!!! GET A JOB YOU BUMB!!! PAY YOUR BILLS!!! FULFILL YOUR OBLIGATIONS!!!! WE DON'T CARE IF WE LOSE MONEY IN THE LONG RUN!!! SEND US THE KEYS IN THE MAIL AND LEAVEE!!!!

You, ok fuck these people... Honey where is my hammer.. FUCK THIS BOX OF TOYS AND FUCK THIS BANK...!!11

You to bank- here is your box of toys,,, take it... suckers...

Bank - what the fuck! This box of toys isn't worth 10kkk We got screwed WAH WAH.... bail us out cause we are idiots....pleasee...

 

[Dr.3D]

Well, the biggest difference is that when you have a home with a mortgage, you own it. This means the property on that square is yours. Not the banks. That is all I am saying. Most people who would even consider doing something like this are not the spiteful liberty hating jerks that this thread is making them out to be.

This house has been in my family for 3 generations now. We knew what we were getting into. It has been saved from foreclosure before, and it will again. But honestly if it came down to hard times like it is coming down to now, I am going to make sure that the bank understands that I might need more than 90 days to recover from the devastation in the economy.

If the bank is going to be so eager to come in and take over the property, then they will need to understand that it might not be worth as much as they think it is. We don't have one of these stupid mortgages. The banks did try to lie to us about the value of our home. We knew better. We only got the loan for things we could afford. Like a roof, plumbing, electrical, and flooring repairs. We also consolidated higher interest bearing debts. The bank told us we had 200,000 in equity. Bullshit.

So why didn't we save the 100,000 that we used? Cause it would have taken 10 years. We needed a roof NOW. We needed updated plumbing and electric NOW. The bank considered NONE of this when the did their little "appraisal". That's their own dumb ass fault not mine.

So if this bank doesn't want to work it out. If they think they are going to get more in the short run by taking the property, rather than working out a deal that takes the true status of the risk into consideration rather than all of their ridiculously failed mathematical models, then I won't have to worry about taking what is mine from this property. But if they decided its better to take the property now, then they need to go ahead and realize that its not going to work out for them going that route as much as they might think it is.

That's is the reality. That is what is going on. Its not a threat because I own. They too have a choice, and that choice is to work out a better deal. If the bank wants to strictly enforce their rights and act like they are losing something they never had, well then its their own damn fault if the property they take over is not in the condition they thought it was.

I think just the threat of that should be enough for banks to recalculate the value of the loans they have. This helps everyone because it puts homes back to what their real value should be and FORCES banks to realize that the value isn't as high as they might think it is. They gives banks more of an incentive to rework the deal and realize a PROFIT and allows the homeowner to stay in their homes rather than being displaced to THE STREET. Or if you like, the banks can go ahead and foreclose for a LOSS and create more havoc in the economy by creating HOMELESS PEOPLE.

Take your pick. But I have thought for a long time that home prices were overvalued, and guess what these homeowners AND BANKS are starting to realize? They are! And people destroying THEIR OWN PROPERTY rather than paying for it proves this. Nothing wrong with that IMO.. When the bank decided to foreclose they decided to take the loss. That's the banks problem.. too bad so sad for the bank.. maybe they might want to think about working out a better deal and come up with ways to MAKE MONEY rather than LOSE IT. I thought that was the point of being in business. Most of these big banks that carry mortgages failed A LONG TIME AGO.. They decided to take the default route, not the homeowner.. No one wants to go broke, except maybe in this economy the banks do... tough titties for them..

Oh for sure I know what you are talking about.

Here is an interesting story.....

I bought a house using a Veterans Administration loan. When I sold the house to move to a different one, the person who assumed the loan was supposed to be the one responsible for making the payments. When that person defaulted on the loan and the house was sold at auction, guess who got the bill for the remainder of the loss to the bank? Yep, that's right... I did! I had to hire some attorneys and have them explain to the bank I had nothing to do with that house. It took around a month but finally the bank agreed and ate the loss.

One would think the bank would know how it works when someone assumes a loan. I guess it never occurred to them that someone else could be responsible for paying for a house I no longer had an interest in.

 

[JXL78]

If we didn't live with a system that steals from the people through the evil fractional reserve banking scheme funded by a federal reserve system I would say stripping is wrong for people to do.

But since that isn't the case. I say strip away. Fuck the system.

 

[micahnelson]

If we didn't live with a system that steals from the people through the evil fractional reserve banking scheme funded by a federal reserve system I would say stripping is wrong for people to do.

But since that isn't the case. I say strip away. Fuck the system.

I like your style.

 

[youngbuck]

My opinion is that it is wrong. It's an emotional response to something that you should've made contingency plans for. That is, losing your job, or whatever else might interfere with your ability to make payments. It's called being responsible.

However, I'm not perfect, and won't sit here and say that I'd never do it. Depending on the situation, I might strip away, but that doesn't make it right. It's basically revenge, that's all, and I don't see it being righteous revenge.

 

[dannno]

A bank "gives" you money by creating it out of thin air, charges you interest for this imaginary money (which must be paid back before principal) and takes the house from you if you run into trouble.

Yeah, those evil bastards - how dare they raise a finger against the righteous banks.

+1

 

[foofighter20x]

Well, it's not your house till it's paid for. The house belongs to the bank till then.

Incorrect.

The mortgagee owns the home, hence why the mortgagee, and not the bank, pays the property taxes on it.

The home itself is simply the collateral for the principle of the loan. It the mortgagee defaults on the loan, then the bank forecloses and takes title to the home.

Now, it may be a stipulation in the mortgage contract they not undertake any major "renovations" to the home (to include tearing out shit) without the bank's consent, but such contractual clauses are between the mortgagee and the bank.

 

[newbitech]

My opinion is that it is wrong. It's an emotional response to something that you should've made contingency plans for. That is, losing your job, or whatever else might interfere with your ability to make payments. It's called being responsible.

However, I'm not perfect, and won't sit here and say that I'd never do it. Depending on the situation, I might strip away, but that doesn't make it right. It's basically revenge, that's all, and I don't see it being righteous revenge.

what if your contingency plans fail? Does that mean you are being irresponsible? Do you pay a mortgage? Have you ever had to decide to pay a mortgage or pay for an unexpected calamity?

I just detect a wiff of arrogance in your statement "its called being responsible". Sounds like something a bill collector would say to someone out of frustration because no one is paying on a Sunday at 10am.

Anyways, yeah being responsible is important and it works both ways. The bank has more ways to work with someone who is behind on their mortgage than threaten default and taking the property. But for whatever reason, the banks act like the house is worth more vacant. Maybe if more people started proving to the bank that the collateral is not worth as much as THE BANK SAID it was when they offered the "money", it would force these big mortgage lenders to realize how much of a loss it truly is. So much more than paper money.

Of course it is an emotional response. One often provoked by heartless collectors doing every thing they can to make sure THEY aren't the ones being forced into "contingency" plans.

I laugh at collectors who tell me that I am irresponsible because some bill is a couple months late. I ask them who they are kidding? I remind them that it if it weren't for me being a couple months late on my bill, they might have to find a real job. This usually pisses them off and provokes an emotional response. It satisfies me for the moment knowing that part of my bill when I do decide to pay it will go to keep these clowns employed and keep me laughing in rough times. It also keeps me from wanting to destroy the shit they are holding over my head as collateral because now I can vent my anger on someone who gets paid to let me vent. Great system we have here isn't it?

 

[amy31416]

Ha. This is a bit off-topic, and I'm on cold medicine, so take it for what it's worth--but I'll be damned if I'm going to play by the rules when my opponent won't.

 

[bobbyw24]

Are broke homeowners desperate enough to burn down their own homes?

http://current.com/items/88867527_are-broke-homeowners-desperate-enough-to-burn-down-their-own-homes.htm

 

[klamath]

no.. because that would be fraud. But to use your analogy, this IS like the bank saying that the box of toys that YOU OWN is worth 50,000K and they say hey I will give you 50,000k for that box if you pay me back my 50,000k plus interest. Then you say, well what if I don't pay you back? And the bank says, well then I get to keep everything in the box. So you say deal..

5 years later after all of your children have played with toys and destroyed them, you realize that the economy is going to shit and you are going to have a tough time making that payment to the bank.

So you call up the bank and say hey listen, that payment I am making to you might be a little much for me right now, can we work something out? The bank says nope we NEED that payment to survive. Then you say, well yeah but uh I NEED that payment to survive too. Then the bank says, well hey, why don't you sell that 50k box of toys you have and pay us back in full? And you say, well that 50k box of toys aint really worth 50k any more. Bank says oh yes it is.... You say ohhh no its not... Bank Yes it is..... You.... noo noo its really not.
Bank OHH YES IT ISSSS, You nooo man really, it wasn't worth 50k when we made the deal, but I didn't think the economy was going to crash so hard.... BANK YESS IT ISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS.

You ok, look, no its not, and even if it was I just need a few more months because the guy on CNBC said the economy is gonna be alright soon. So can't we work it out?

Bank.... OH YESSSSSS IT ISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

You, are you not hearing me? I only need a few more months, I have some really good prospects on the horizon. Look once I get back on my feet, I will be willing to pay a little more a month until things smooth out...

Bank OH YESSSSS IT ISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSs

You, what the fuck? Are you not hearing me? You really think this box of toys is still worth 50k? Morons!!!1

Bank GIVE US YOUR HOUSE! DIE SCUMBAG RENTERS!!! GET A JOB YOU BUMB!!! PAY YOUR BILLS!!! FULFILL YOUR OBLIGATIONS!!!! WE DON'T CARE IF WE LOSE MONEY IN THE LONG RUN!!! SEND US THE KEYS IN THE MAIL AND LEAVEE!!!!

You, ok fuck these people... Honey where is my hammer.. FUCK THIS BOX OF TOYS AND FUCK THIS BANK...!!11

You to bank- here is your box of toys,,, take it... suckers...

Bank - what the fuck! This box of toys isn't worth 10kkk We got screwed WAH WAH.... bail us out cause we are idiots....pleasee...

No the bank would have found out that the toys weren't worth 50k anymore and that would have been their loss because of their stupidity for loaning 50k on something that was over priced. When they can't sell it but for 20K they will be the one facing the bank closing men. You lost because you took a loan out and bought something that wasn't really worth what you paid for it.
Doing 10K worth of damage with a hammer knowing full well you are destroying the value is fraud.
If the bank took a bailout that would be wrong just as it would be wrong for the homeowner to take morgage help from the government. Then it is not the people that made the wrong choices that pay but the people that didn't make wrong choices through higher taxes and inflation. Socialism.

 

[newbitech]

No the bank would have found out that the toys weren't worth 50k anymore and that would have been their loss because of their stupidity for loaning 50k on something that was over priced. When they can't sell it but for 20K they will be the one facing the bank closing men. You lost because you took a loan out and bought something that wasn't really worth what you paid for it.
Doing 10K worth of damage with a hammer knowing full well you are destroying the value is fraud.
If the bank took a bailout that would be wrong just as it would be wrong for the homeowner to take morgage help from the government. Then it is not the people that made the wrong choices that pay but the people that didn't make wrong choices through higher taxes and inflation. Socialism.

really? do you think that is what is going on now? Banks willing taking losses and marking down these foreclosed assets? Noo..... its not. The overvaluations that the BANKS imposed on the housing market is not evidence of stupidity because of the level and shear quantity of these "mistakes". There is systemic fraud occurring in these overvaluations and that responsibility falls square on the banks shoulders.

If I smash up my house with a hammer then you are right I am destroying its value. But its not fraud. I never misrepresented the value of my property. The bank did. I am simply using my property the way I choose to use it. Whats the difference of me smashing up my property and my kids doing it for me?

And lol at it being wrong to take mortgage help from the government. How exactly does one do this? Through the banks? Yeah, that's what I thought.

As far as people who didn't make wrong choices paying the burden. Whatever. This problem that we are facing with housing has very little to do with homeowners making the wrong choices regardless if they can afford their home.

If those people who are comfortable paying inflated prices that still have jobs would realize that their home was overvalued by banks, then the person who lost their job wouldn't have to struggle as much to convince the banks that they fucked up when they put an inflated price on the home and offered to take on the risk!!!

Not blaming people with jobs, but the reality is, the banks led EVERYONE to believe that homes were worth WAYYY more than they actually are. People who that, according to you, made the right decisions are still, STILL willing to accept the inflated value of their homes. Instead of getting pissy and moaning at the struggling homeowner who lost a job through NO FAULT of their own, these "good decision" makers ought to wake up and realize that its the BANKS fault and ONLY the banks fault for the losses we are seeing in the system.

No homeowner who is struggling to pay their mortgage begged for a bailout. Most of them are only asking for a little more time to work out a solution because in this fucked up economy, 90 days clearly isn't enough time. Anyways, if I decided to drill holes into the footers of my house, you'd make a good case that I knowingly created a deadly situation for the next owner. But if I decided to rip out all the copper plumbing and copper electrical wires and sell it for scrap, that isn't going to cause a deadly situation for anyone.

I don't think anyone is talking about causing permanent and deadly destruction to the structural integrity of the homes. I think people are talking about getting what they can out of it before they are forced off, and maybe taking out a little frustration on the dry wall. Its not their responsibility to make sure the bank profits on a bad investment, and in fact, the bank gives them an incentive to make sure the bank realizes as big as loss as possible without causing permanent and deadly damage.

 

[klamath]

That's a terrible metaphor. The previous owner of the home doesn't get the house back (the toy store), nor does the person who is losing the house get any money (the toy buyer). The person who bought the house isn't looking to burn the previous owner of the house either. He is looking to burn the bank, who got $30K out of his paycheck in bailout money, which cost him his job, which is why he can't pay the bills.

A more appropriate metaphor would be that someone went and bought a bunch of toys, got behind on their credit card bills, and sold the toys on the market before they could be repossessed. But then, normally things bought on credit cards aren't repossessed, so even that isn't a great metaphor.

I know it feels great to think you're better than someone because you were prudent with your money, and it's lots of fun to rub their faces in it, and to take the "
holier than thou" attitude while they fight to keep a roof over their heads, but it's not becoming. People aren't "stupid". People just followed the false economic signals sent out by the Fed, and it ruined them. BLAME THE FED, NOT THE PEOPLE. People, on the whole, act rationally. But when you create a system that feeds them lies, it becomes almost impossible to tell truth from lie. They follow the path that they think is in their best interest.

This is the government's fault, not the people's. There is a war on, whether you want to believe it or not. It's being fought with little green pieces of paper, and with ones and zeros. We have to fight back, and this is one way of doing it.

BLAME THE FED, NOT THE PEOPLE.

Not all banks got bailouts. Thousands are being closed down.
The homeowner is getting money out of it selling parts of it on Ebay or just keeping the material which is money.
The money is coming from somewhere whether it is the bank bailout money or the depositers in the bank. I scraped and earned a little nestegg that I had in the bank. That wasn't big bad bankers money. If my local bank goes broke because they have made bad loans, FDIC will bail me out which means everyone else is paying which shouldn't be. I should have to take the risk that that little interest I get is worth the risk of keeping my money there.
It is both the banks and the house purchaser's mistakes not everyone elses. If everyone else pays for those mistakes it is socialism and if that is the way we want it to be then we are going in the right direction. Why should someone have to pay for health care after all none of us want to see someone get destitute because they got sick whether it was their own fault or not. Let's all be compassionate.

 

[klamath]

really? do you think that is what is going on now? Banks willing taking losses and marking down these foreclosed assets? Noo..... its not. The overvaluations that the BANKS imposed on the housing market is not evidence of stupidity because of the level and shear quantity of these "mistakes". There is systemic fraud occurring in these overvaluations and that responsibility falls square on the banks shoulders.

If I smash up my house with a hammer then you are right I am destroying its value. But its not fraud. I never misrepresented the value of my property. The bank did. I am simply using my property the way I choose to use it. Whats the difference of me smashing up my property and my kids doing it for me?

And lol at it being wrong to take mortgage help from the government. How exactly does one do this? Through the banks? Yeah, that's what I thought.

As far as people who didn't make wrong choices paying the burden. Whatever. This problem that we are facing with housing has very little to do with homeowners making the wrong choices regardless if they can afford their home.

If those people who are comfortable paying inflated prices that still have jobs would realize that their home was overvalued by banks, then the person who lost their job wouldn't have to struggle as much to convince the banks that they fucked up when they put an inflated price on the home and offered to take on the risk!!!

Not blaming people with jobs, but the reality is, the banks led EVERYONE to believe that homes were worth WAYYY more than they actually are. People who that, according to you, made the right decisions are still, STILL willing to accept the inflated value of their homes. Instead of getting pissy and moaning at the struggling homeowner who lost a job through NO FAULT of their own, these "good decision" makers ought to wake up and realize that its the BANKS fault and ONLY the banks fault for the losses we are seeing in the system.

No homeowner who is struggling to pay their mortgage begged for a bailout. Most of them are only asking for a little more time to work out a solution because in this fucked up economy, 90 days clearly isn't enough time. Anyways, if I decided to drill holes into the footers of my house, you'd make a good case that I knowingly created a deadly situation for the next owner. But if I decided to rip out all the copper plumbing and copper electrical wires and sell it for scrap, that isn't going to cause a deadly situation for anyone.

I don't think anyone is talking about causing permanent and deadly destruction to the structural integrity of the homes. I think people are talking about getting what they can out of it before they are forced off, and maybe taking out a little frustration on the dry wall. Its not their responsibility to make sure the bank profits on a bad investment, and in fact, the bank gives them an incentive to make sure the bank realizes as big as loss as possible without causing permanent and deadly damage.

The sellers set the house price and the buyers agreed to pay it, the banks were foolish to agree the house was worth that much but I see no point in going on. As long as someone can blame someone else for their problems nothing will be solved.

 

[newbitech]

The sellers set the house price and the buyers agreed to pay it, the banks were foolish to agree the house was worth that much but I see no point in going on. As long as someone can blame someone else for their problems nothing will be solved.

are the sellers setting the price now? I don't think so. You have to realize that anyone can come out and say, hey this property is worth 200 grand, but unless an actual deal goes down and a contract consummated, then no one knows the value.

So how do deals get consummated? By the bank agreeing to the terms of course. Both buyer and seller depend on the banks valuation of the home. The only way the seller gets the price they ask for is if the bank agrees with the valuation. The only way the banks agree with the valuation is if a counter party accepts the terms. Banks can't find people to accept the terms because their valuations are too high. Banks CANNOT lower valuations because then they would go bankrupt. So we have gridlock. Sellers aren't selling because they are upside down, and buyers aren't buying because they are carrying a critical mass of debt.

Something has to give, and because the root of the problem is based on wildly inflated valuations by the banks, then it is the banks who will end up taking the brunt of the losses. Of course that is unless we continue to prop up the banks by allowing them to hide the losses and keep the valuations inflated. Regardless of how much papering over the banks get by putting taxpayers deeper into debt, the problem will only be solved when the banks are forced to realize the loss of the valuations. Either through mad money inflation to bring the value of the currency down (up is down down is up) to the levels of the inflated prices, OR as you are talking about insolvency at the banks due to overextended capital reserves based on severely overestimated returns.

Homeowners aren't blaming the banks for their problems. Homeowners are asking the banks to do their damn jobs and provide correct valuations. The banks refuse because then the bank would be forced to admit that they lost the bet. Banks are attempting to hide their stupid decisions and shift the blame to the homeowners, saying stuff like, well you agreed because you signed the contract. Effectively trying to tell the homeowners that they have the authority to value their homes at whatever they want. Well Homeowners say fine, its not worth as much as the bank thinks it is, give me my hammer and I will prove it.

Yes there is a small portion of people out there who understand the shell game, but these aren't homeowners, these are "investors". They never planned on occupying the home through the entire contract in the first place. They too benefit from the overvaluations and have no incentive to devalue their property. Maybe those are the people you are thinking of. And yes, a bunch of people also took option arms and trusted their Loan Officer to explain the loan. That is why they paid them after all. I hesitate to blame those people for being ignorant to the contract because they did pay someone to explain it to them. I might be more inclined to blame them for trusting the Loan Officer, but damn these people were prayed upon. I wouldn't blame the victim of predatory lending practices. But I don't think these are the people destroying shit either. They will probably just go back to renting, because clearly rent prices don't have a problem adjusting down to the realities of the "living space" market.

I encourage you to read the stories of people who would destroy their own property and see what their circumstances are. I'd put money on the fact that these are people who have lived in their homes for generations and plan on staying in them until the bitter end. I doubt these are new homeowners who respect property laws. I know of at least one example of someone who did this that was a new "homeowner". He used the money from his AC handler to pay the mortgage payment. Well, it was futile. He lost the house anyways. I won't go into detail on him, I have a very low opinion of him, but not because he "ripped" off part of the house in order to try and save the house. He did everything he could after the fact, but he was stupid to trust a loan officer about the terms of the loan, and equally as stupid as an investor going into this deal with very little capital. He didn't "destroy" the home out of spite. He did it cause that was the last thing he could possibly do to save his home/investment. It failed, and so did the loan and bank he got the loan from.

 

[Dr.3D]

Incorrect.

The mortgagee owns the home, hence why the mortgagee, and not the bank, pays the property taxes on it.

The home itself is simply the collateral for the principle of the loan. It the mortgagee defaults on the loan, then the bank forecloses and takes title to the home.

Now, it may be a stipulation in the mortgage contract they not undertake any major "renovations" to the home (to include tearing out shit) without the bank's consent, but such contractual clauses are between the mortgagee and the bank.

Of course you own the home. The bank sure wouldn't want to pay property taxes on it. The bank doesn't want to maintain it. All the bank wants is to keep it's interest in the property till you have made the last payment.

Just try to sell the property without talking to the bank about it and see what happens. Try to tear it down and build something else in it's place and see what happens. Try to do anything that makes the property lose value and see what the bank has to say about it.

In essence, the bank really does own the property till you have satisfied the terms of the contract. You can fool yourself into thinking you own that property, but really, you will never own that property because the moment you stop paying property taxes on it, you will lose control of it.

I'm sorry if what I implied was confusing to you... yes, technically I was incorrect in the bank owning the house, but I was completely correct in that the bank does have an interest in the property till it is paid off. In fact, they have such an interest as to what happens to that property as to be able to dictate what you are allowed to do with it till you have satisfied the terms of the contract.

 

[tmosley]

Of course you own the home. The bank sure wouldn't want to pay property taxes on it. The bank doesn't want to maintain it. All the bank wants is to keep it's interest in the property till you have made the last payment.

Just try to sell the property without talking to the bank about it and see what happens. Try to tear it down and build something else in it's place and see what happens. Try to do anything that makes the property lose value and see what the bank has to say about it.

In essence, the bank really does own the property till you have satisfied the terms of the contract. You can fool yourself into thinking you own that property, but really, you will never own that property because the moment you stop paying property taxes on it, you will lose control of it.

I'm sorry if what I implied was confusing to you... yes, technically I was incorrect in the bank owning the house, but I was completely correct in that the bank does have an interest in the property till it is paid off. In fact, they have such an interest as to what happens to that property as to be able to dictate what you are allowed to do with it till you have satisfied the terms of the contract.

You are confusing holding a lien with holding a deed.

The bank can't stop you from tearing down your house and building a new one in it's place, unless that was stipulated in the contract. I tore down a decrepit carport on my property and installed a wood shop/garage. I didn't have to tell anyone except the county (which I didn't, because I didn't know about the need for a permit at that time).

Not all banks got bailouts. Thousands are being closed down.
The homeowner is getting money out of it selling parts of it on Ebay or just keeping the material which is money.
The money is coming from somewhere whether it is the bank bailout money or the depositers in the bank. I scraped and earned a little nestegg that I had in the bank. That wasn't big bad bankers money. If my local bank goes broke because they have made bad loans, FDIC will bail me out which means everyone else is paying which shouldn't be. I should have to take the risk that that little interest I get is worth the risk of keeping my money there.
It is both the banks and the house purchaser's mistakes not everyone elses. If everyone else pays for those mistakes it is socialism and if that is the way we want it to be then we are going in the right direction. Why should someone have to pay for health care after all none of us want to see someone get destitute because they got sick whether it was their own fault or not. Let's all be compassionate.

I am well aware that not all banks got bailouts, and I addressed that in one of my earlier posts. You've got to understand that the VAST majority of mortgages in this country are owned by bailed out or nationalized banks. Fannie Mae alone owns 25% of residential mortgages in this country, with JPMorgan, Wells Fargo, and BoA owning another 42%. That's 2/3rds right there, and I'm pretty sure there are others that I am missing.

And no, the money is not coming from depositors in the bank. You're nuts if you think that is the case. The money is coming straight from the government ie the ENEMY. Why should you give the ENEMY any of your assets during wartime?

Further, the government has negated contract law. Without contract law, there is no method by which men can deal with each other save for cash up front. That's fine and all, but you can't apply that type of thinking retroactively. People are waking up. You can't hold what they did beforehand against them. They were wrong, and they admitted it. But now we are fighting a system that is straining and heaving against the last few threads that were placed by our Constitution. Soon those protections will be completely gone. When they are, we need to be sure that the beast is so drained of blood that he is unable to do anything, so we can start anew.

This is part of that struggle.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Two "wrongs" don't make a "right". Vandalism and destruction are nothing more than an adult temper tantrum.

 

[PrairieQueen]

It used to be that you had to put 10-20% down on a property. That was protection against these kind of economic downturns. In agriculture you still have to put down 30% down AT LEAST, unless you have other collateral for the loan. I am amazed that I still hear advertisments for 100% + mortgages. And even more amazed at people that actually do that.

I remember my dad telling me not to take out more of a mortgage than one persons salary could handle, and that was after other expenses were deducted. He also taught us to pay off credit cards monthly (or don't even have one) or you don't need to buy things if you can't.

What happend to having 6-12 months worth of expenses in savings?

Properties would not have been so "over" inflated in value, if so many people had not been qualifying for loans. Increased demand means increased prices.

Do I think these bad lenders should have to pay. Of course. This is the problem, they are getting bailed out and no lesson is learned.

But I also think that there is also responsibility on the side of the person borrowing the money.

Lots of homeowners are not facing foreclosure even in these hard times because they did not spend more than they could handle. You have to factor in that at some point you are holding a mortgage (20-30 years in most cases) you are going to be out of work. And you need to have that 6-12 months of expenses in savings.

All those good economic times of the 90's in my opinion were an illusion. Everything was being financed.

 

[Dr.3D]

You are confusing holding a lien with holding a deed.

~Snip

No, I'm not confusing anything.
Read this post and you will understand what I'm talking about.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2352124&postcount=26