 inGearX3.1415 9265
join:2000-06-11
New York |
foreclosure - can I see all that is in the house?my mom is going through a foreclosure in Florida
she filed for bankruptcy
the house is still hers and thing in it are hers... no?
can she legally sell everything - like the appliances... refrigerator, stove, washing machine, dryers, dish washer, microwave... she paid hard earned money for that back in the day...
thank you... |
· actions · 2012-Feb-25 1:54 pm · (locked) |
|
 r81984Fair and Balanced
Premium Member
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX |
r81984
Premium Member
2012-Feb-25 2:02 pm
She can sell anything that is not part of the mortgage.
For appliances if they were there when the mortgage was given, then any replacements must stay with the property (usually all mortgages say this, you will have to read the fine print)
Now this does not stop you from replacing them with junk appliances or just selling them as I doubt the insurance company will not go after you for missing appliances (They probably have no record of the appliances) unless you damage the house by ripping wiring out of the walls and putting holes everywhere.
1st she needs to stall them by asking for proof they own the mortgage.
I suggest doing some research, as she could probably live there for at least 2 years for free before she will be evicted.
Since they have done so many forclosures there is a weath of info online for what you can get away with like free rent for 2 years.
If you were wiling to do a modification to keep the house and they jerked you around and told you lies then it is fair to screw them around. |
· actions · 2012-Feb-25 2:02 pm · (locked) |
| r81984 |
to inGearX
Here is an article about bakruptcy and foreclosure. » money.cnn.com/2010/07/21 ··· ndex.htm |
· actions · 2012-Feb-25 2:07 pm · (locked) |
 nunyaLXI 483
MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO |
to inGearX
That's for the bankruptcy court to decide. You could be held in contempt of court for liquidating during bankruptcy proceedings.
Fixed in place appliances are generally considered part of the building (undercabinet dishwasher, OTR microwave, WH, Furnace, HVAC, pumps, water softener, light fixtures / fans, plumbing fixtures).
If she were to liquidate without permission, the court could force her to disperse the proceeds to the creditors (e.g., she would gain nothing by doing so).
If this is her first bankruptcy, she may end up keeping the house if the court feels it isn't excessive and within her means to keep (not a mansion or extravagant home). The court will generally restructure the mortgage. Since a mortgage company usually makes about 100 - 150% profit on a 30 year loan, the court is generally inclined to make significant principal reductions to keep people in their home. The mortgage company, in actuality, is still making a profit, just less.
I've never had to file bankruptcy (yet), but I have sat in court several times as a creditor. It's normally the creditors who get the short end of the stick. The debtors normally come out with a "sweet deal", unless they are habitual filers.
She has to have a lawyer, correct? You should ask that lawyer before you do anything. |
· actions · 2012-Feb-25 2:21 pm · (locked) |
 John Galt6Forward, March
Premium Member
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp |
to inGearX
|
· actions · 2012-Feb-25 4:08 pm · (locked) |
 FronkmanAn Apple a day keeps the doctor away
Premium Member
join:2003-06-23
Saint Louis, MO |
to r81984
said by r81984:Now this does not stop you from replacing them with junk appliances or just selling them fraud, plain and simple said by r81984:I suggest doing some research, as she could probably live there for at least 2 years for free before she will be evicted. Since they have done so many forclosures there is a weath of info online for what you can get away with like free rent for 2 years. this sort of attitude drives me crazy. she VOLUNTARILY agreed to buy a house under a certain set of terms. for whatever reason she can't meet those obligations. now you suggest that she should just completely fail to meet her end of the obligations (make mortgage payments) yet expect the bank to allow her to just keep living there? said by r81984:If you were wiling to do a modification to keep the house and they jerked you around and told you lies then it is fair to screw them around. no it doesn't. she agreed to certain terms when she signed the note. she can't perform on her end of the bargain. the bank does not HAVE to change the terms of the deal. this does not give her a license to steal appliances or to extract years of free rent. the situation sucks but it is not the bank's fault. said by inGearX:she paid hard earned money for that back in the day... how much equity has she put into the property? is she even at 20% it doesn't matter that she put lots of her paycheck into the house. if she only has 10% equity (or even less) then she only own 10% of the microwave, oven, etc. this is just how mortgages. mortgages are voluntary. you can rent, you can build your own house, you can save up and pay cash for the house. you don't need a mortgage to live. if you agree to sign on to one, be responsible for your actions. |
· actions · 2012-Feb-25 4:49 pm · (locked) |
 mityfowl
Premium Member
join:2000-11-06
Dallas, TX |
to inGearX
This a little old dinky house.
How much do you think that she would get?
How about the copper in the a/c and hot water pipes? |
· actions · 2012-Feb-25 6:49 pm · (locked) |
r81984Fair and Balanced
Premium Member
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX |
to Fronkman
said by Fronkman:said by r81984:Now this does not stop you from replacing them with junk appliances or just selling them fraud, plain and simple Its your word versus them, they have no idea of what appliances are in the house. Also if they are not original, but replacements they can use any replacement they want - including the cheapest so swapping them out would not be fraud. said by Fronkman:said by r81984:I suggest doing some research, as she could probably live there for at least 2 years for free before she will be evicted. Since they have done so many forclosures there is a weath of info online for what you can get away with like free rent for 2 years. this sort of attitude drives me crazy. she VOLUNTARILY agreed to buy a house under a certain set of terms. for whatever reason she can't meet those obligations. now you suggest that she should just completely fail to meet her end of the obligations (make mortgage payments) yet expect the bank to allow her to just keep living there? Drive you crazy. If they can pay a smaller amount per month and are looking for a reasonable modification that still is profitable for the mortgage company and the company keeps lying to them and stalling to purposely forclose then there is nothing wrong with playing the games back with them. Mortgage companies love to pretend they are taking your modification forms mailed in to them serious as they stall to steal your house. You cant trust your mortgage company. said by Fronkman:said by r81984:If you were wiling to do a modification to keep the house and they jerked you around and told you lies then it is fair to screw them around. no it doesn't. she agreed to certain terms when she signed the note. she can't perform on her end of the bargain. the bank does not HAVE to change the terms of the deal. this does not give her a license to steal appliances or to extract years of free rent. the situation sucks but it is not the bank's fault. Again mortgage companies gave unethical one sided loans and then pretend to be willing to give modifications. They pretend the paper work is going through and then they foreclose anyways. said by Fronkman:said by inGearX:she paid hard earned money for that back in the day... how much equity has she put into the property? is she even at 20% it doesn't matter that she put lots of her paycheck into the house. if she only has 10% equity (or even less) then she only own 10% of the microwave, oven, etc. this is just how mortgages. mortgages are voluntary. you can rent, you can build your own house, you can save up and pay cash for the house. you don't need a mortgage to live. if you agree to sign on to one, be responsible for your actions. The mortgage company has to be responsible for giving out unreasonable loans and then talking people into taking them. You think people blindly signed up for bad loans without these salesmen constantly telling them how it will all work out and they can get modification or refinance in a few years easily?? The mortgage company are the experts in loans, people trust they are not setting them up for failure. Any new things not part of the morgage are hers to sell. Some of the items as replacements legally have to be replace if the mortgage says so, but she is 100% free and legal to sell her high priced replacements and put cheap things in their place for things like appliances and light fixtures. For some things even if the loan requires it to stay with the house, they most likely will not go after her if she does not put in a replacement appliance. They are going to sell the house as-is anyways so appliances are not really their concern. The only reason they will foreclose and refuse to modify the loan is when they KNOW they will make more money from the foreclosure sale and keeping the amount you already paid for it. |
· actions · 2012-Feb-25 7:44 pm · (locked) |
 dogmaXYZ
Premium Member
join:2002-08-15
Boulder City, NV |
to inGearX
said by inGearX:can she legally sell everything - like the appliances... refrigerator, stove, washing machine, dryers, dish washer, microwave... she paid hard earned money for that back in the day...
This is known as foreclosure stripping. To my knowledge, it is not a criminal offense in Florida. Yet. It is in Arizona. But the reality is it's almost impossible to prosecute as law enforcement would have to catch the soon-to-be ex owner in the act. Foreclosure stripping is a civil matter for the most part, and the lender could potentially sue the former owner, but again, that is remote. nunya and Fronkman are correct. Generally, if the item is affixed to the property, it is considered part of the property. And thus must be relinquished at the time the lender takes control of the property in foreclosure. In the spirit of full disclosure, I have purchased items that I knew were most likely being stripped from homes in the last death throws of foreclosure. I have also purchased properties that have been stripped bare of everything, including garage doors, plants, air conditioning units, Romex or other electrical wiring, even built-in pools. Stripped homes are heavily discounted by the lender as they are uninhabitable, and generally can not be sold with a new mortgage. IOW, foreclosure stripping is arguably unethical and there is a chance she could be civilly liable. |
· actions · 2012-Feb-25 8:17 pm · (locked) |
 stevek1949We're not in Kansas anymore
Premium Member
join:2002-11-13
Virginia Beach, VA |
to inGearX
As I always told my sons when they were growing up, you can do anything that you want to do. You just have to be prepared to also take the consequences that comes along with the action.
To just say "screw the man" isn't the right answer. Contracts are contracts. It seems that people are so quick to throw them away today. |
· actions · 2012-Feb-25 8:19 pm · (locked) |
 hortnutHuh?
join:2005-09-25
PDX Metro
1 edit |
to inGearX
said by inGearX:my mom is going through a foreclosure in Florida
she filed for bankruptcy
the house is still hers and thing in it are hers... no?
can she legally sell everything - like the appliances... refrigerator, stove, washing machine, dryers, dish washer, microwave... she paid hard earned money for that back in the day...
thank you...
Not a lot to go on here. Is the Bankruptcy in Florida? What type is it, 7, 13 or what? Where in the Bankruptcy process are things? Since she filed for Bankruptcy, everything is under the control of the Bankruptcy Court. Suggest doing a search using the following or some such on the subject- "Bankruptcy Exemptions – What Can I Keep When I File for Bankruptcy?" and "what can i sell when in bankruptcy" Disposing anything while in Bankruptcy without Court approval, could cause problems. But this is something to ask of Legal Counsel, as this is an Internet Forum. And every State has its own set of rules. And every State has its own rules as to what property that is exempt. |
· actions · 2012-Feb-25 8:20 pm · (locked) |
FronkmanAn Apple a day keeps the doctor away
Premium Member
join:2003-06-23
Saint Louis, MO |
to r81984
it is simple, no bank has forced ANYONE to take out a loan. perhaps you have never applied for a loan, but nearly every single piece of paper involved in a real estate transaction says the following phrase:
"this document has legal consequences, if you don't understand contact a lawyer"
if you enter into a contract you agree to abide by it. the bank doesn't have to accept less money and they don't have to agree to your demands. period.
sales tactics have nothing to do with it, everyone does this. has best buy never tried to sell you an extended warranty? regardless of what the salesman says, you do have free choice. as i have already said, taking out a mortgage is not required in order to live. you can rent, you can save up and pay cash.
lets say you sell your car and decide to underwrite the financing yourself. the buyer agrees to give you $300 a month for 3 years. however, 1 year in he comes to you and says that he can only afford to pay $50 per month. this extends the repayment to 18 years. would you really accept that?
-even worse what if he sells the spare tire, the radio and the first aid kit before he gives it back? after all he has paid for part of the car, it is only fair that he gets some of his value back
-what if you are a very busy person and he continues to drive the car around for another two years without paying you a dime?
and regarding the appliances, even if the bank doesn't know the exact brand or model of the appliances (information they certainly can look up if it is recent construction) it is still ILLEGAL to take or exchange those items. nothing is fully yours in a house with less than 100% equity. |
· actions · 2012-Feb-25 9:21 pm · (locked) |
mityfowl
Premium Member
join:2000-11-06
Dallas, TX |
to inGearX
What I always say and tell my children:
Thieves will always be thieves. |
· actions · 2012-Feb-25 9:30 pm · (locked) |
 alkizmo
join:2007-06-25
Pierrefonds, QC |
to Fronkman
Agreed.
Did the banks make those people choose an overpriced home?
Then did the banks make them get qualified when they weren't?
And then did the banks give them incentives to spend on other luxuries to get them to refinance the mortgage every couple of years?
Some people fall on tough luck and it's nobody's fault, but consequences need to follow.
Some people are stupid and overspend. Just because you BARELY qualified for a mortgage doesn't mean you can go buy a brand new Porsche 911 to match your house and compete with neighbors.
Then again I don't know the american mortgage market, but I certainly know the Canadian one. I actually had to beg some clients to reconsider and buy a cheaper home. Then they left, found a scrupulous mortgage broker that falsifies documents and got them approved elsewhere.
Stupid clients and criminal brokers are responsible, not the banks. |
· actions · 2012-Feb-25 9:37 pm · (locked) |
John Galt6Forward, March
Premium Member
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp |
said by alkizmo:Stupid clients and criminal brokers are responsible, not the banks. Perhaps you should so some research on what William K. Black has to say about that... |
· actions · 2012-Feb-25 9:58 pm · (locked) |
 SnakeoilIgnore Button. The coward's feature.
Premium Member
join:2000-08-05
united state |
to nunya
Depends on the bankruptcy. Some debtors, thanks to chapter 13, pay back 100% of the debt that was filed in the bankruptcy.
It's not a bad thing either, as the money is owed to the creditor. I know of one family that this is their situation. They just needed breathing room, because the creditors were unwilling to work with them. So the court created the breathing room, the creditors are getting 100% of the money owed.
I know that isn't always the case, but there are cases like that out there. |
· actions · 2012-Feb-25 11:18 pm · (locked) |
| |
to inGearX
While under normal circumstances I would wholeheartedly agree with a "you signed the mortgage, so you must honor the mortgage" sentiment, we haven't been dealing with "normal" circumstances for quite a while now. Mortgage fraud has been running rampant for ages; I believe it was Bank of America that just got hit with a $25 billion fine over this (probably just a drop in the bucket compared to the actual fraud), and it is estimated that they alone have defrauded local governments out of at least $2 billion in deed filing fees and such.
Under our property laws (which go back hundreds of years, to English common law), if you fail to file or don't mind all of your P's and Q's when conducting the transaction (I'm sure that you've seen all of the paperwork that goes with a mortgage), then any ownership claim you have on said property can be rendered null and void. A recent study done in California estimates that something like 85% of foreclosures filed there in recent years are fraudulent because of this. And in many cases the financial institutions involved ignored the law and other rules and regulations and handed out mortgages to people knowing that they would default and expecting them to do so, because (as it turns out) flipping a house in a foreclosure is usually quite profitable, under normal market conditions (used car sales are notorious for this type of behavior). Be we aren't under normal market conditions at the moment, are we?
That said, as someone has already suggested, the first thing to do is to make the foreclosing entity prove that they actually have the legal right to foreclose. In a great many instances the paperwork trail is either missing or corrupt, so the ball is in their court to come up with valid documentation. There is a legal process for recreating the documentation even if the originals are non-existent, but it takes time and money on their part, and may very well expose them to charges that they've acted fraudulently. |
· actions · 2012-Feb-25 11:41 pm · (locked) |
 joako
Premium Member
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null |
to inGearX
Was a final judgement issued and BK was filed a day or two prior to the sale date to stop it, or for other reasons? |
· actions · 2012-Feb-26 3:01 am · (locked) |
| |
to inGearX
Just reading these replies gives a perfect example why the mortgage situation is a problem.
People sign a contract in exchange for money to purchase a home. They fail to honor the terms of the contract and try to blame the Bank, Mortgage Co., credit union or individual who made the loan to them. Priceless thinking.
Maybe if our schools had courses in economy, real estate and contracts the misinformation and misunderstanding would not be so evident. |
· actions · 2012-Feb-26 9:02 am · (locked) |
stevek1949We're not in Kansas anymore
Premium Member
join:2002-11-13
Virginia Beach, VA |
said by Jack_in_VA:Just reading these replies gives a perfect example why the mortgage situation is a problem.
People sign a contract in exchange for money to purchase a home. They fail to honor the terms of the contract and try to blame the Bank, Mortgage Co., credit union or individual who made the loan to them. Priceless thinking.
Maybe if our schools had courses in economy, real estate and contracts the misinformation and misunderstanding would not be so evident.
^ What he said! |
· actions · 2012-Feb-26 9:35 am · (locked) |
| |
to inGearX
Having been in a foreclosure situation for years now. The banks are better off to modify then foreclose. Some money is better then no money. With the housing market the way it is. As to the reason for the foreclosure, it varies from person to person. and I'm not going to get into that. If you are in Bankruptcy I would talk to legal council of some form before selling anything major. And keep documents/papertrail for it all. |
· actions · 2012-Feb-26 10:44 am · (locked) |
| |
said by Pher9999:Having been in a foreclosure situation for years now. The banks are better off to modify then foreclose. Some money is better then no money. With the housing market the way it is. As to the reason for the foreclosure, it varies from person to person. and I'm not going to get into that. If you are in Bankruptcy I would talk to legal council of some form before selling anything major. And keep documents/papertrail for it all.
The reason does not vary from person to person. There is only one reason. Failure to repay the mortgage as agreed to when the loan was made. A mortgage is no different than any other loan like a car loan. Don't make the payments and you get a visit from the REPO Man. |
· actions · 2012-Feb-26 11:05 am · (locked) |
Keiro
join:2005-10-25
Birmingham, AL |
to Jack_in_VA
said by Jack_in_VA:Just reading these replies gives a perfect example why the mortgage situation is a problem.
People sign a contract in exchange for money to purchase a home. They fail to honor the terms of the contract and try to blame the Bank, Mortgage Co., credit union or individual who made the loan to them. Priceless thinking.
Maybe if our schools had courses in economy, real estate and contracts the misinformation and misunderstanding would not be so evident.
What about if you lose a job? Are they still to be blamed if they lose a job and cannot find another due to the market? You still gonna say, "They failed to keep their part of the bargain?" when you find out they're foreclosed on because the breadwinner of the family was laid off due to cost-cutting or some other bullshit? |
· actions · 2012-Feb-26 11:33 am · (locked) |
| |
said by Keiro:said by Jack_in_VA:Just reading these replies gives a perfect example why the mortgage situation is a problem.
People sign a contract in exchange for money to purchase a home. They fail to honor the terms of the contract and try to blame the Bank, Mortgage Co., credit union or individual who made the loan to them. Priceless thinking.
Maybe if our schools had courses in economy, real estate and contracts the misinformation and misunderstanding would not be so evident.
What about if you lose a job? Are they still to be blamed if they lose a job and cannot find another due to the market? You still gonna say, "They failed to keep their part of the bargain?" when you find out they're foreclosed on because the breadwinner of the family was laid off due to cost-cutting or some other bullshit? sadly yes, you owe money, it was borrowed on a set of terms, now an unfortunate change has come, but its not the fault of the lender who still has claims to his money |
· actions · 2012-Feb-26 11:36 am · (locked) |
| |
to Keiro
said by Keiro:said by Jack_in_VA:Just reading these replies gives a perfect example why the mortgage situation is a problem.
People sign a contract in exchange for money to purchase a home. They fail to honor the terms of the contract and try to blame the Bank, Mortgage Co., credit union or individual who made the loan to them. Priceless thinking.
Maybe if our schools had courses in economy, real estate and contracts the misinformation and misunderstanding would not be so evident.
What about if you lose a job? Are they still to be blamed if they lose a job and cannot find another due to the market? You still gonna say, "They failed to keep their part of the bargain?" when you find out they're foreclosed on because the breadwinner of the family was laid off due to cost-cutting or some other bullshit? What does all that have to do with the fact the borrower failed to make the agreed payments? That is the only issue. It is the same for any loan a person makes and is not unique to a mortgage on a home. |
· actions · 2012-Feb-26 11:39 am · (locked) |
Keiro
join:2005-10-25
Birmingham, AL |
to telco_mtl
said by telco_mtl:said by Keiro:said by Jack_in_VA:Just reading these replies gives a perfect example why the mortgage situation is a problem.
People sign a contract in exchange for money to purchase a home. They fail to honor the terms of the contract and try to blame the Bank, Mortgage Co., credit union or individual who made the loan to them. Priceless thinking.
Maybe if our schools had courses in economy, real estate and contracts the misinformation and misunderstanding would not be so evident.
What about if you lose a job? Are they still to be blamed if they lose a job and cannot find another due to the market? You still gonna say, "They failed to keep their part of the bargain?" when you find out they're foreclosed on because the breadwinner of the family was laid off due to cost-cutting or some other bullshit? sadly yes, you owe money, it was borrowed on a set of terms, now an unfortunate change has come, but its not the fault of the lender who still has claims to his money Eh. I personally think being able to modify the mortgage is a good thing. It doesn't necessarily mean that the mortgage company is getting ripped off. (As if they're not already ripping us off?) I have to wonder, though... with all the bailout money the banks got... why in the name of living fuck did we bother giving them the money in the first place? It'd have been useful in going straight to those that were getting foreclosed on. :U More people in homes = more people buying stuff = more jobs = more people in homes... rinse and repeat. |
· actions · 2012-Feb-26 11:40 am · (locked) |
| Keiro |
to Jack_in_VA
said by Jack_in_VA:said by Keiro:said by Jack_in_VA:Just reading these replies gives a perfect example why the mortgage situation is a problem.
People sign a contract in exchange for money to purchase a home. They fail to honor the terms of the contract and try to blame the Bank, Mortgage Co., credit union or individual who made the loan to them. Priceless thinking.
Maybe if our schools had courses in economy, real estate and contracts the misinformation and misunderstanding would not be so evident.
What about if you lose a job? Are they still to be blamed if they lose a job and cannot find another due to the market? You still gonna say, "They failed to keep their part of the bargain?" when you find out they're foreclosed on because the breadwinner of the family was laid off due to cost-cutting or some other bullshit? What does all that have to do with the fact the borrower failed to make the agreed payments? That is the only issue. It is the same for any loan a person makes and is not unique to a mortgage on a home. It applies, most especially if someone is trying to make arrangements to where they can still pay, but the company/bank refuses to accept. As someone said in this thread, "Some money is better than no money." What do you do then, in that case? |
· actions · 2012-Feb-26 11:42 am · (locked) |
| |
I feel bad for you guys down in the states. I've read articles where the banks have screwed up and are foreclosing to soon or over a couple hundred dollars. There are lots of stories I've heard where people are over their heads and are willing to modify their payments until they get back on their feet but the bank won't have it... to the tune of whole subdivisions going vancant. It's not like the bank is going to turn around and sell the house next month and get their money back. To me it's just smart business sense to work with people during hard times, modify the payment terms until things pick up. It just means house would be paid off slower.... and they get more interest in the long run. |
· actions · 2012-Feb-26 11:46 am · (locked) |
 macsierra8Baby Newfoundland
Premium Member
join:2003-11-30
Minden, NV |
to telco_mtl
said by telco_mtl:sadly yes, you owe money, it was borrowed on a set of terms, now an unfortunate change has come, but its not the fault of the lender who still has claims to his money
I agree, but all too often that set of terms included a balloon mortgage and unsuspecting young buyer's were sadly caught in the emotional trap of buying their first home without proper advice. These "lenders" were far too willing to loan money at a sub prime rate with the guarantee that our government would bail them out should the loan default. So some of the blame here should also sit squarely on the lenders shoulders. |
· actions · 2012-Feb-26 11:50 am · (locked) |
| |
to Keiro
Why should the Bank, Mortgage Co or individual who lent the money in good faith have to modify anything? How can they be ripping off anyone? After all the person agreed to the terms and signed the agreement. How can that be a rip off?
The bailouts have nothing to do with a person not adhering to the agreement (mortgage). The mortgage holder might be a credit union, a bank or an individual lender who makes real estate loans as an investment that did not receive a "bail out".
It's just amazing the reasons, smoke screens, etc that people can come up with when the only problem is someone not fulfilling the terms of the agreement they made to get someone, bank or mortgage company to lend them the money to purchase a home. |
· actions · 2012-Feb-26 11:56 am · (locked) |
