Dem Party

1…1516182021…68

Comments

  • Free
    Free Posts: 3,562
    Free said:

    mrussel1 said:

    Free said:

    mrussel1 said:

    Free said:

    mrussel1 said:

    The far left is discovering, in just a week, what it took 2+ years for those of us who were adults in 2000 to realize. Elections matter. Party unity matters. Good is the enemy of great.

    Sad times ahead. I just hope it won't take a generation or more to recover.

    :lol: "Unity" mattered to Democrats at the Dem convention this summer as they shut down Sanders and his thousands of supporters with DWS doing what she could to cheat America into a Clinton nomination.

    My ass you wanted unity. Not when you have to compromise. And now look at where we are.
    Somehow you are mistaking the insiders at the DNC and the delegates for Sanders with the general population. I wasn't there. And I doubt anyone opining here was there. My ass you get to speak for anyone but yourself. Looking where we are requires you to look in the mirror.
    I see taking responsibility is very difficult for you. Dems lost. They have lost big time. Time to take responsibility and make your party good again.
    Whatever with the troll comments. They lost big time? What are you shilling for the Trump now... "landslide"? What a joke. It's the Millenials and kids today that are going to feel the brunt of this administration. Not people like me. Trump's policies help me, but I'm still against them morally. Kids needing student loans? Fucked. First time home buyers getting crushed by your PMI? Fucked. A young girl in college that got pregnant and has nowhere to turn for services? Fucked. An inner city mother who needs SCHIP for pre-school costs? Fucked.

    I can sleep because I voted in November for the candidate that most aligned with my values, and had a chance to win. Wonder if you can say the same.
    So this is foreign to you:

    "In elections last night Democrats are now down to 48 senators, a minority. Democrats are down to 192 members of Congress. Under President Obama, Democrats have lost 900+ state legislature seats, 12 governors, 69 House seats, 13 Senate seats. That's some legacy.Nov 9, 2016
  • JC29856
    JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    edited February 2017
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/01/12/democrats-cant-win-until-they-recognize-how-bad-obamas-financial-policies-were/

    Two key elements characterized the kind of domestic political economy the administration pursued: The first was the foreclosure crisis and the subsequent bank bailouts.

    Second, Obama’s administration let big-bank executives off the hook for their roles in the crisis.
    Post edited by JC29856 on
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,881
    JC29856 said:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/01/12/democrats-cant-win-until-they-recognize-how-bad-obamas-financial-policies-were/

    Two key elements characterized the kind of domestic political economy the administration pursued: The first was the foreclosure crisis and the subsequent bank bailouts.

    Second, Obama’s administration let big-bank executives off the hook for their roles in the crisis.

    This article is complete rubbish and written by a wonk, whose bio makes clear that he's never spent one day working in the industry that he purportedly is an expert in. The Dodd-Frank capital requirements and fee restructuring that they thought would be so effective has done nothing but caused solidly capitalized and regulated industries from walking away from sub-prime lending. Now the poor and disadvantaged have to go to fintech and other wildcat lenders for short term loans at literally 100+% effective interest rate (that's right..). It's the law of unintended consequences. Plus the entire premise Dems lost the election because Jamie Dimon wasn't perp walked is just silly too.
  • JC29856
    JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    mrussel1 said:

    JC29856 said:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/01/12/democrats-cant-win-until-they-recognize-how-bad-obamas-financial-policies-were/

    Two key elements characterized the kind of domestic political economy the administration pursued: The first was the foreclosure crisis and the subsequent bank bailouts.

    Second, Obama’s administration let big-bank executives off the hook for their roles in the crisis.

    This article is complete rubbish and written by a wonk, whose bio makes clear that he's never spent one day working in the industry that he purportedly is an expert in. The Dodd-Frank capital requirements and fee restructuring that they thought would be so effective has done nothing but caused solidly capitalized and regulated industries from walking away from sub-prime lending. Now the poor and disadvantaged have to go to fintech and other wildcat lenders for short term loans at literally 100+% effective interest rate (that's right..). It's the law of unintended consequences. Plus the entire premise Dems lost the election because Jamie Dimon wasn't perp walked is just silly too.
    Foreclosure crisis
    Bank bailouts
    Zero accountability

    I see your point but I thought only Israel was allowed to illegally seize homes? Which came first Israeli chickens or bankster eggs?
    https://theintercept.com/2016/05/18/foreclosure-fraud-is-supposed-to-be-a-thing-of-the-past-but-it-happens-every-day/
    I have been building up a steady supply of stones just in case the banksters come for my home.
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,881
    JC29856 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    JC29856 said:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/01/12/democrats-cant-win-until-they-recognize-how-bad-obamas-financial-policies-were/

    Two key elements characterized the kind of domestic political economy the administration pursued: The first was the foreclosure crisis and the subsequent bank bailouts.

    Second, Obama’s administration let big-bank executives off the hook for their roles in the crisis.

    This article is complete rubbish and written by a wonk, whose bio makes clear that he's never spent one day working in the industry that he purportedly is an expert in. The Dodd-Frank capital requirements and fee restructuring that they thought would be so effective has done nothing but caused solidly capitalized and regulated industries from walking away from sub-prime lending. Now the poor and disadvantaged have to go to fintech and other wildcat lenders for short term loans at literally 100+% effective interest rate (that's right..). It's the law of unintended consequences. Plus the entire premise Dems lost the election because Jamie Dimon wasn't perp walked is just silly too.
    Foreclosure crisis
    Bank bailouts
    Zero accountability

    I see your point but I thought only Israel was allowed to illegally seize homes? Which came first Israeli chickens or bankster eggs?
    https://theintercept.com/2016/05/18/foreclosure-fraud-is-supposed-to-be-a-thing-of-the-past-but-it-happens-every-day/
    I have been building up a steady supply of stones just in case the banksters come for my home.
    When you pay off your home, you own it. Your other option is to pay cash.
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,881
    And I read that article. There are nuggets of truth being applied to the entire housing industry. Claims made by people on Chain of Title falsification is a case of tort law gone crazy. People will sue a bank for false COT because instead of using the legal entity Wells Fargo, N.A., someone signed with Wells Fargo. Or WF, NA. Technically the last two are not legal entities and therefore the chain is faulty. But that doesn't mean the debtor did not actually borrow the money or receive goods and services for which they are not pay for today.
  • JC29856
    JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    mrussel1 said:

    And I read that article. There are nuggets of truth being applied to the entire housing industry. Claims made by people on Chain of Title falsification is a case of tort law gone crazy. People will sue a bank for false COT because instead of using the legal entity Wells Fargo, N.A., someone signed with Wells Fargo. Or WF, NA. Technically the last two are not legal entities and therefore the chain is faulty. But that doesn't mean the debtor did not actually borrow the money or receive goods and services for which they are not pay for today.

    Correct, collateral is the property, the debtor still owes the lender BUT, the lender has no right to seize the property.

    The lenders remedy is to try to collect the debt, ruin lender credit, attach liens, wait for the borrower to hit the lottery, hope the borrower inherits a fortune etc etc etc BUT NOT seize the property.

    The laws don't apply to the banksters, after illegally stealing homes they simply run to the state AGs and beg for forgiveness. Forgiveness granted, now cut it out.
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,881
    JC29856 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    And I read that article. There are nuggets of truth being applied to the entire housing industry. Claims made by people on Chain of Title falsification is a case of tort law gone crazy. People will sue a bank for false COT because instead of using the legal entity Wells Fargo, N.A., someone signed with Wells Fargo. Or WF, NA. Technically the last two are not legal entities and therefore the chain is faulty. But that doesn't mean the debtor did not actually borrow the money or receive goods and services for which they are not pay for today.

    Correct, collateral is the property, the debtor still owes the lender BUT, the lender has no right to seize the property.

    The lenders remedy is to try to collect the debt, ruin lender credit, attach liens, wait for the borrower to hit the lottery, hope the borrower inherits a fortune etc etc etc BUT NOT seize the property.

    The laws don't apply to the banksters, after illegally stealing homes they simply run to the state AGs and beg for forgiveness. Forgiveness granted, now cut it out.
    That doesn't make sense. If I buy a house with say, an LTV of 98%. And I owe the bank $300k, and I make 3 payments and go straight into the delinquency, you think the bank should have no right to repossess the house? Their only recourse should be collection calls and a credit report?
    Well fuck I would trash my credit day one in order to get a free $300k. I could just use that money I save every month in a mortgage to pay cash for everything. Who needs credit?? Under your proposal, the credit system would fall on its face immediately. There would be zero reason to pay your debt, therefore banks would never make a loan.
  • rssesq
    rssesq Fairfield County Posts: 3,299
    Two Foreclosure mill law firms in my state basically were allowed to re-write foreclosure rule proceedings to get people out of their homes faster. What do most of these firms all have in common?
    https://livinglies.wordpress.com/2011/07/11/foreclosure-mill-directory-state-by-state/


  • JC29856
    JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    mrussel1 said:

    JC29856 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    And I read that article. There are nuggets of truth being applied to the entire housing industry. Claims made by people on Chain of Title falsification is a case of tort law gone crazy. People will sue a bank for false COT because instead of using the legal entity Wells Fargo, N.A., someone signed with Wells Fargo. Or WF, NA. Technically the last two are not legal entities and therefore the chain is faulty. But that doesn't mean the debtor did not actually borrow the money or receive goods and services for which they are not pay for today.

    Correct, collateral is the property, the debtor still owes the lender BUT, the lender has no right to seize the property.

    The lenders remedy is to try to collect the debt, ruin lender credit, attach liens, wait for the borrower to hit the lottery, hope the borrower inherits a fortune etc etc etc BUT NOT seize the property.

    The laws don't apply to the banksters, after illegally stealing homes they simply run to the state AGs and beg for forgiveness. Forgiveness granted, now cut it out.
    That doesn't make sense. If I buy a house with say, an LTV of 98%. And I owe the bank $300k, and I make 3 payments and go straight into the delinquency, you think the bank should have no right to repossess the house? Their only recourse should be collection calls and a credit report?
    Well fuck I would trash my credit day one in order to get a free $300k. I could just use that money I save every month in a mortgage to pay cash for everything. Who needs credit?? Under your proposal, the credit system would fall on its face immediately. There would be zero reason to pay your debt, therefore banks would never make a loan.
    Let's back up... I was responding to your chain of title response. If chain of title was broken say by robo signing, then yes the only remedy to the lender is collections enforcement NOT SEIZURE OF COLLATERAL.
    pay attention.
    Allot waisted energy here today.
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,881
    JC29856 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    JC29856 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    And I read that article. There are nuggets of truth being applied to the entire housing industry. Claims made by people on Chain of Title falsification is a case of tort law gone crazy. People will sue a bank for false COT because instead of using the legal entity Wells Fargo, N.A., someone signed with Wells Fargo. Or WF, NA. Technically the last two are not legal entities and therefore the chain is faulty. But that doesn't mean the debtor did not actually borrow the money or receive goods and services for which they are not pay for today.

    Correct, collateral is the property, the debtor still owes the lender BUT, the lender has no right to seize the property.

    The lenders remedy is to try to collect the debt, ruin lender credit, attach liens, wait for the borrower to hit the lottery, hope the borrower inherits a fortune etc etc etc BUT NOT seize the property.

    The laws don't apply to the banksters, after illegally stealing homes they simply run to the state AGs and beg for forgiveness. Forgiveness granted, now cut it out.
    That doesn't make sense. If I buy a house with say, an LTV of 98%. And I owe the bank $300k, and I make 3 payments and go straight into the delinquency, you think the bank should have no right to repossess the house? Their only recourse should be collection calls and a credit report?
    Well fuck I would trash my credit day one in order to get a free $300k. I could just use that money I save every month in a mortgage to pay cash for everything. Who needs credit?? Under your proposal, the credit system would fall on its face immediately. There would be zero reason to pay your debt, therefore banks would never make a loan.
    Let's back up... I was responding to your chain of title response. If chain of title was broken say by robo signing, then yes the only remedy to the lender is collections enforcement NOT SEIZURE OF COLLATERAL.
    pay attention.
    Allot waisted energy here today.
    Well that's an inane argument so that's why I would not have guessed it. Either the chain of title is faulty and it is not appropriate to repossess and collect, or the faulty chain is immaterial to the underlying loan agreement and it does warrant unjust enrichment. You can't sit in teh middle and say "well you can't take the house but you can collect on the loan". It's not appropriate to have a 'compromise' position here.

    Second, I think you are misunderstanding what robosigning is. It doesn't break a chain of title. Robosigning is when a person signs an affidavit or debt, bill or sale or some other legal document but does not have knowledge or contemporaneous knowledge to the information contained in the affidavit.. OR they did not review the information prior to signing. The case in the intercept article, if as explained, would not be robo signing. It would be forgery or perpetrating a fraud on the court.
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,881
    rssesq said:

    Two Foreclosure mill law firms in my state basically were allowed to re-write foreclosure rule proceedings to get people out of their homes faster. What do most of these firms all have in common?
    https://livinglies.wordpress.com/2011/07/11/foreclosure-mill-directory-state-by-state/


    I'm not doubting your statement that they are allowed to re-write procedures, although that seems unusual, but I have no knowledge of this pesonally. Other than that, this article has just declared that some 200+ law firms that specialize in foreclosure are perpetrating fraud, likely without ever having investigated a single one of them. Seems a bit overblown. You're a lawyer.. I'm sure your firm has a specialty or are aware that firms have areas of focus in their practice. That's all this is from what I can tell.
  • rssesq
    rssesq Fairfield County Posts: 3,299
    OK, defend this sir
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jS9r1Dk-Zg8
  • JC29856
    JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    edited February 2017
    mrussel1 said:

    JC29856 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    JC29856 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    And I read that article. There are nuggets of truth being applied to the entire housing industry. Claims made by people on Chain of Title falsification is a case of tort law gone crazy. People will sue a bank for false COT because instead of using the legal entity Wells Fargo, N.A., someone signed with Wells Fargo. Or WF, NA. Technically the last two are not legal entities and therefore the chain is faulty. But that doesn't mean the debtor did not actually borrow the money or receive goods and services for which they are not pay for today.

    Correct, collateral is the property, the debtor still owes the lender BUT, the lender has no right to seize the property.

    The lenders remedy is to try to collect the debt, ruin lender credit, attach liens, wait for the borrower to hit the lottery, hope the borrower inherits a fortune etc etc etc BUT NOT seize the property.

    The laws don't apply to the banksters, after illegally stealing homes they simply run to the state AGs and beg for forgiveness. Forgiveness granted, now cut it out.
    That doesn't make sense. If I buy a house with say, an LTV of 98%. And I owe the bank $300k, and I make 3 payments and go straight into the delinquency, you think the bank should have no right to repossess the house? Their only recourse should be collection calls and a credit report?
    Well fuck I would trash my credit day one in order to get a free $300k. I could just use that money I save every month in a mortgage to pay cash for everything. Who needs credit?? Under your proposal, the credit system would fall on its face immediately. There would be zero reason to pay your debt, therefore banks would never make a loan.
    Let's back up... I was responding to your chain of title response. If chain of title was broken say by robo signing, then yes the only remedy to the lender is collections enforcement NOT SEIZURE OF COLLATERAL.
    pay attention.
    Allot waisted energy here today.
    Well that's an inane argument so that's why I would not have guessed it. Either the chain of title is faulty and it is not appropriate to repossess and collect, or the faulty chain is immaterial to the underlying loan agreement and it does warrant unjust enrichment. You can't sit in teh middle and say "well you can't take the house but you can collect on the loan". It's not appropriate to have a 'compromise' position here.

    Second, I think you are misunderstanding what robosigning is. It doesn't break a chain of title. Robosigning is when a person signs an affidavit or debt, bill or sale or some other legal document but does not have knowledge or contemporaneous knowledge to the information contained in the affidavit.. OR they did not review the information prior to signing. The case in the intercept article, if as explained, would not be robo signing. It would be forgery or perpetrating a fraud on the court.
    Okay your paying attention...if the chain of title was not properly recorded or not recorded at all the only legal remedy to the lender is to force collection on the loan document, not seize the property. There is no middle, there legal clear chain of title exists or not.
    Banksters in order to save of few bucks on the feed recording fee skipped a step knowing that the loan would likely be bundled and sold.
    Post edited by JC29856 on
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,881
    ^^ I'm at work in a meeting, so I'm not watching a video. But I'm not inclined to defend any particular individual. But I'm also not inclined to indict an entire industry or 200+ law firms based on some joker's list when the chances of him knowing anything about those specific companies is just about zero.
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,881
    BTW - edit here. I forgot the word NOT when typing.. kind of makes a difference in the argument:

    Either the chain of title is faulty and it is not appropriate to repossess and collect, or the faulty chain is immaterial to the underlying loan agreement and it does NOT warrant unjust enrichment.
  • JC29856
    JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    mrussel1 said:

    JC29856 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    And I read that article. There are nuggets of truth being applied to the entire housing industry. Claims made by people on Chain of Title falsification is a case of tort law gone crazy. People will sue a bank for false COT because instead of using the legal entity Wells Fargo, N.A., someone signed with Wells Fargo. Or WF, NA. Technically the last two are not legal entities and therefore the chain is faulty. But that doesn't mean the debtor did not actually borrow the money or receive goods and services for which they are not pay for today.

    Correct, collateral is the property, the debtor still owes the lender BUT, the lender has no right to seize the property.

    The lenders remedy is to try to collect the debt, ruin lender credit, attach liens, wait for the borrower to hit the lottery, hope the borrower inherits a fortune etc etc etc BUT NOT seize the property.

    The laws don't apply to the banksters, after illegally stealing homes they simply run to the state AGs and beg for forgiveness. Forgiveness granted, now cut it out.
    That doesn't make sense. If I buy a house with say, an LTV of 98%. And I owe the bank $300k, and I make 3 payments and go straight into the delinquency, you think the bank should have no right to repossess the house? Their only recourse should be collection calls and a credit report?
    Well fuck I would trash my credit day one in order to get a free $300k. I could just use that money I save every month in a mortgage to pay cash for everything. Who needs credit?? Under your proposal, the credit system would fall on its face immediately. There would be zero reason to pay your debt, therefore banks would never make a loan.
    Serious question...if you could skip out on a loan and maintain property ownership because of break in title chain would you? Serious.
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,881
    JC29856 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    JC29856 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    And I read that article. There are nuggets of truth being applied to the entire housing industry. Claims made by people on Chain of Title falsification is a case of tort law gone crazy. People will sue a bank for false COT because instead of using the legal entity Wells Fargo, N.A., someone signed with Wells Fargo. Or WF, NA. Technically the last two are not legal entities and therefore the chain is faulty. But that doesn't mean the debtor did not actually borrow the money or receive goods and services for which they are not pay for today.

    Correct, collateral is the property, the debtor still owes the lender BUT, the lender has no right to seize the property.

    The lenders remedy is to try to collect the debt, ruin lender credit, attach liens, wait for the borrower to hit the lottery, hope the borrower inherits a fortune etc etc etc BUT NOT seize the property.

    The laws don't apply to the banksters, after illegally stealing homes they simply run to the state AGs and beg for forgiveness. Forgiveness granted, now cut it out.
    That doesn't make sense. If I buy a house with say, an LTV of 98%. And I owe the bank $300k, and I make 3 payments and go straight into the delinquency, you think the bank should have no right to repossess the house? Their only recourse should be collection calls and a credit report?
    Well fuck I would trash my credit day one in order to get a free $300k. I could just use that money I save every month in a mortgage to pay cash for everything. Who needs credit?? Under your proposal, the credit system would fall on its face immediately. There would be zero reason to pay your debt, therefore banks would never make a loan.
    Serious question...if you could skip out on a loan and maintain property ownership because of break in title chain would you? Serious.
    Yes of course. You're asking if I would take a free 300K and the answer is yes. And most people would say yes. That's why it can't be the system. The whole lending industry is based on the predicate that net adjusted charge off will not supersede the good loans revenue (compared to where that capital could be expended elsewhere). If people could just walk away with the property title clear and free, banks would cease loaning money to buy houses.
  • JC29856
    JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    mrussel1 said:

    JC29856 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    JC29856 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    And I read that article. There are nuggets of truth being applied to the entire housing industry. Claims made by people on Chain of Title falsification is a case of tort law gone crazy. People will sue a bank for false COT because instead of using the legal entity Wells Fargo, N.A., someone signed with Wells Fargo. Or WF, NA. Technically the last two are not legal entities and therefore the chain is faulty. But that doesn't mean the debtor did not actually borrow the money or receive goods and services for which they are not pay for today.

    Correct, collateral is the property, the debtor still owes the lender BUT, the lender has no right to seize the property.

    The lenders remedy is to try to collect the debt, ruin lender credit, attach liens, wait for the borrower to hit the lottery, hope the borrower inherits a fortune etc etc etc BUT NOT seize the property.

    The laws don't apply to the banksters, after illegally stealing homes they simply run to the state AGs and beg for forgiveness. Forgiveness granted, now cut it out.
    That doesn't make sense. If I buy a house with say, an LTV of 98%. And I owe the bank $300k, and I make 3 payments and go straight into the delinquency, you think the bank should have no right to repossess the house? Their only recourse should be collection calls and a credit report?
    Well fuck I would trash my credit day one in order to get a free $300k. I could just use that money I save every month in a mortgage to pay cash for everything. Who needs credit?? Under your proposal, the credit system would fall on its face immediately. There would be zero reason to pay your debt, therefore banks would never make a loan.
    Serious question...if you could skip out on a loan and maintain property ownership because of break in title chain would you? Serious.
    Yes of course. You're asking if I would take a free 300K and the answer is yes. And most people would say yes. That's why it can't be the system. The whole lending industry is based on the predicate that net adjusted charge off will not supersede the good loans revenue (compared to where that capital could be expended elsewhere). If people could just walk away with the property title clear and free, banks would cease loaning money to buy houses.
    Or they would not skip deed recording steps and follow legal procedure.

    The title isn't clear thou, borrower can't sell house without bank approval. Basically the borrower would have to die still owning the house. It's a credit score for cash flow trade off. When the bank writes off the loan borrower pays tax on relief of debt amount.
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,881
    JC29856 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    JC29856 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    JC29856 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    And I read that article. There are nuggets of truth being applied to the entire housing industry. Claims made by people on Chain of Title falsification is a case of tort law gone crazy. People will sue a bank for false COT because instead of using the legal entity Wells Fargo, N.A., someone signed with Wells Fargo. Or WF, NA. Technically the last two are not legal entities and therefore the chain is faulty. But that doesn't mean the debtor did not actually borrow the money or receive goods and services for which they are not pay for today.

    Correct, collateral is the property, the debtor still owes the lender BUT, the lender has no right to seize the property.

    The lenders remedy is to try to collect the debt, ruin lender credit, attach liens, wait for the borrower to hit the lottery, hope the borrower inherits a fortune etc etc etc BUT NOT seize the property.

    The laws don't apply to the banksters, after illegally stealing homes they simply run to the state AGs and beg for forgiveness. Forgiveness granted, now cut it out.
    That doesn't make sense. If I buy a house with say, an LTV of 98%. And I owe the bank $300k, and I make 3 payments and go straight into the delinquency, you think the bank should have no right to repossess the house? Their only recourse should be collection calls and a credit report?
    Well fuck I would trash my credit day one in order to get a free $300k. I could just use that money I save every month in a mortgage to pay cash for everything. Who needs credit?? Under your proposal, the credit system would fall on its face immediately. There would be zero reason to pay your debt, therefore banks would never make a loan.
    Serious question...if you could skip out on a loan and maintain property ownership because of break in title chain would you? Serious.
    Yes of course. You're asking if I would take a free 300K and the answer is yes. And most people would say yes. That's why it can't be the system. The whole lending industry is based on the predicate that net adjusted charge off will not supersede the good loans revenue (compared to where that capital could be expended elsewhere). If people could just walk away with the property title clear and free, banks would cease loaning money to buy houses.
    Or they would not skip deed recording steps and follow legal procedure.

    The title isn't clear thou, borrower can't sell house without bank approval. Basically the borrower would have to die still owning the house. It's a credit score for cash flow trade off. When the bank writes off the loan borrower pays tax on relief of debt amount.
    Whether the resident can sell the property or has to live in it forever would be entirely irrelevant to the bank. It would still be a bad loan that they could never recover or liquidate. And if the Bank paid 95% of the sale price to the builder (or previous owner) and the customer paid 5%, why does the customer come away with 100% of the benefit? It makes zero economic sense.

    And yes, if you settle for forgiveness greater than $600 you do get a 1099, but that gets paid to the gov't as taxable income. It doesn't help the bank one iota.

Categories