Lots of people say thay will... finally someone walks the walk
Lots of people say thay will... finally someone walks the walk
wow... Him and IRS pilot moron have to be related.
At least this one got some legal advice and took his actions knowing what the consequences could be
It's not like he bought a McMansion at the height of the housing bubble with a shadey loan, but rather his business going under.
still...
Why and how could the bank feel they're entitled to more than what was owed?
Joey, did you read the story? Heck, he told the bank he could pay it off because he found a buyer. They didn't want any part of it. To me, this was spite. He came up with a way to uphold his end of the bargain, they backed out of theirs. I stand behind him 100%.
Some of these laws seem shady and go a bit over my head, but on the face of it, screw the bank. They're going after his house for a business-related IRS lien? Sounds to me like the bank found a way to exploit a loophole and wants to take the house by force... in which case, enjoy your new rubble pile dimwits.
nooo
sounds like he had a business loan and used the house as collateral. His business dies and he cannot pay the loan, so then.... house goes to bank.
read what you sign...
Right... he owed $170,000 or whatever, in total. Someone offered to pay that off. Bank said no, because they wanted the property to sell for more profit.
Man bulldozes house, contemplating bulldozing business.
I'm behind him 200%. Bank will only receive what is owed, not more.
Yeah, he had a business loan and the house was collateral. But then he comes up with a way to pay off the house, and not even keep it. He just wanted to uphold his end of the bargain, the bank would get 100% of what was owed, not a short sale or a deal. The bank could have came away with everything they had coming to them, he could have had his credit spared. All would have been happy.
I get the feeling there is a lot more to this story that what that report says. We only got one side of the story. In trouble with the IRS, sued by his brother? Sounds like a real stand up guy. I'll take what he says with a grain of salt.
Until the bank has the balls to comment on the situation, i'm going to go ahead and side with the bulldozer guy.
If the bank comes back with more info and makes him look stupid, then i will defect with no problems.
DrBoost wrote: Joey, did you read the story? Heck, he told the bank he could pay it off because he found a buyer. They didn't want any part of it. To me, this was spite. He came up with a way to uphold his end of the bargain, they backed out of theirs. I stand behind him 100%.
Doh! You got me....no, I hadn't read it carefully....I did so (foolishly) AFTER posting, and tried to delete my post before anybody else saw it. Stupid on my part.
I know Canadian bank rules are different, but wouldn't a bank that refused to accept payment in full because it wanted to be a property speculator AND a bank have some 'splainin' to do to the state bank regulator?
Toyman01 wrote: I get the feeling there is a lot more to this story that what that report says. We only got one side of the story. In trouble with the IRS, sued by his brother? Sounds like a real stand up guy. I'll take what he says with a grain of salt.
You read it on a news media site. Take the whole story with a grain of salt.
A good news article would have told the whole story. This is garbage journalism.
I might join this guys fan club.... I had a mortgage with automatic payments, new bank bought the mortgage. next thing i know im getting aphone call from my nephew who lives on the property telling me he just ejected two people he found wondering the property, he over heard them talking about where the new house would go. one of those people was from the "new" mortgage holder. two weeks later i get a foreclosure notice on a mortgage id been paying for, stating non payment (proceedings had not yet started.) I called, submitted proof of payment, etc, etc... AFTER that, they still tranfered my account to the foreclosure attorneys. It cost me over five grand to keep a house i had been up to date and current on the payments with. And no, they never paid me back or applied the owed credit to my account. I still have a lawyer working on it, but it ruined my credit. If they can get away with that on a property that is up to date and current, I cant even image what they could do to someone who is falling behind. these berkeleytards are pure evil.... if they want your house, there is virtually nothing stopping them thats legal on the home owners end. yea, i Like this guy....
ignorant wrote: nooo sounds like he had a business loan and used the house as collateral. His business dies and he cannot pay the loan, so then.... house goes to bank. read what you sign...
Do you have a single piece of evidence to back that claim up? Or are you speculating, and jumping to conclusions? I'm going to guess it's option 2.
I applaud his sense of theatrics. To me it sounds like what the bank was doing was wrong (maybe not legally not definitely morally). If he had found a way to pay off the debt on the house, why wouldn't the bank take that? Because of greed.
Ignorant gets his jollys cutting against the grain.
Isn't it when you use your house as collateral it's the whole value of the house. Like I think the remaining on his mortgage and this business loan are two separate things. Like he borrowed 350,000 to build his house, and now only owes 160,000 on it. But then he goes and puts that whole thing up as collateral on a business loan for x amount. Doesn't that mean if he defaults on his business loan they can take the house to get their 350,000 back? This offer for 170,000 sounds like it would only complete his mortgage.
Do I have this right or was his home paid for and he only owed 160,000 left on his business loan?
Here's the way I understand it: on a conventional mortgage if the guy owed $170K to the bank on a house worth $350K and defaulted on the loan, if the house went to foreclosure auction they can only take the balance owed plus costs from the proceeds, the remainder is to go to the property owner. On a 'short sale' the reverse is true.
Now if he put the house up as collateral for a business loan then the rules are completely different. It may not be right but the bank could legally do what they were planning to do. If there was a conventional mortgage on the house as well, that bank could exercise their rights as listed above, thereby making things even murkier.
Assuming the only loan was a business loan, if I were in his shoes I'd be very tempted to do exactly the same thing. Damned if I would lose my ass on a house so some jackoff at the bank could get a profit bonus by screwing me.
Something I learned a little while back that really surprised me: credit card companies will go after your home, car etc via a lien if you default on the CC payments. That surprised me because traditionally CC debt has been considered 'unsecured' debt (i.e. there's no collateral) but it seems that somehow that has changed.
zomby woof wrote:Toyman01 wrote: I get the feeling there is a lot more to this story that what that report says. We only got one side of the story. In trouble with the IRS, sued by his brother? Sounds like a real stand up guy. I'll take what he says with a grain of salt.You read it on a news media site. Take the whole story with a grain of salt. A good news article would have told the whole story. This is garbage journalism.
Yeah, thats Channel 5 in Cincinnati - "garbage" is a much more pleasant adjective than Id use for description of their journalistic practices and the media they air
GI_Drewsifer wrote:ignorant wrote: nooo sounds like he had a business loan and used the house as collateral. His business dies and he cannot pay the loan, so then.... house goes to bank. read what you sign...Do you have a single piece of evidence to back that claim up? Or are you speculating, and jumping to conclusions? I'm going to guess it's option 2. I applaud his sense of theatrics. To me it sounds like what the bank was doing was wrong (maybe not legally not definitely morally). If he had found a way to pay off the debt on the house, why wouldn't the bank take that? Because of greed.
I am speculating, but i cannot see another way that the bank could go after the house. Unless the house was also in the name of his business and not his personal name.... (he's a contractor, lots of contractors do that)
One more thing... Unless the loan is paid off.. It really isn't "His" home. It is the banks property.
Stealthtercel wrote: I know Canadian bank rules are different, but wouldn't a bank that refused to accept payment in full because it wanted to be a property speculator AND a bank have some 'splainin' to do to the state bank regulator?
Amerikka, comrade.
I.... agree... with......
man this is going to be tough.
ignorant
::gasp::
Assuming that his idea is correct, that this is a business loan worth more than the 170K he offered them, then yeah, this guy sucks and the bank was completely right by using the collateral HE promised them.
You'll need to log in to post.
