Bank 'walkaways' from foreclosed homes are a growing, troubling trend

[Robbien]

Source: Cleveland Plain Dealer

Renetta Atterberry thought she had lost her East 102nd Street house. So she was shocked to learn in January -- five years after her mortgage company filed for foreclosure -- that it was still in her name.

. . .


Her mortgage company didn't buy the house and never took it to sheriff's sale to see if somebody else would, leaving Atterberry the legal owner, responsible for upkeep and taxes.

These so-called "bank walkaways" are another troubling development in the foreclosure crisis, particularly in cities like Cleveland with weaker housing markets, say housing advocates and government officials.

Lenders or mortgage companies decide they don't want homes they have already foreclosed on, sometimes because the value has plummeted or they believe the homes could become costly liabilities if they are socked with housing code violations.

But without that sale, the property can languish abandoned and ripe for vandalism. As liens and liabilities mount -- creating a so-called "toxic title" -- it becomes even harder to transfer the property. Neighborhoods and local governments are left to deal with the mess.

"It's a growing issue. It's all over the state. It's not just Cleveland," said State Rep. Mike Foley. "That kind of lack of respect for communities that banks have made a ton of money off of in the past is infuriating."

much more . . .

Read more: http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/07/bank_walkaways_from_foreclosed.html

[Turbineguy]

1. "...lack of respect..."?

For those creating this mess it was a one-way street.

[saigon68]

7. Many people simply walk away also

Then the power is shut off. And since the sump pump does not work, the basement fills up with water. The furnace, water heater are under water.

Then with no heat in winter, the whole mess freezes solid. After a year or so the house begins to collapse. Then the former owner files Banko on everything. Then the city has to condemn it and tear it down. Meanwhile all forms of human detritus use it as a Shooting Gallery/Crack House.

[geckosfeet]

19. Damn that human detritus.

[comrade snarky]

63. Spend a few years

Living next to a crack house where people raise dogs for fighting.

It's an apt description of some. Not all, but some.

[MUAD_DIB]

23. Don't you just love Humanity?

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Raven]

2. You have to wonder why these banks don't renegotiate these loans

with the owners. Loan Work-out Agreements were numerous during the real estate bust in the '80's. They kept people in their homes and businesses operating and the banks didn't end up owning property that they couldn't take care of.

[ejpoeta]

4. it would make more sense. i mean, foreclosing on a home costs them a lot more

than if they just worked it out with the homeowner. they would still get their money, if not maybe take a little longer.

[Raven]

6. It may be because so many mortgages have been sold and are

not owned locally or even regionally owned anymore. Who has the authority to negotiate a work-out? I guess if I was being foreclosed on I'd ask to see the original note and if it couldn't be produced, I'd sit tight. It may be that some of these banks who are not following through on foreclosures can't because they don't have the authority to.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

25. rational thinking and mortgage companies do not mix

Even if you end up with a win win situation, trying to get a bank to go along is impossible, even though the solution safeguards their investment, keeps a family in their home, and prevents the neighborhood from falling apart.

Cannot recall how many times my clients and I have tried some creative solution only face a bank run by morons, concentrating on their "rules". I had a client, preggers wife, two little kids, renting a house from a landlord who went broke and quit paying the mortgage (even though my client was current with his rent).

We offered the bank a deal. We'd pay all late mortgage payments, with interest, AND we would buy out the owner and refinance. It was December, cold, and icy.
The Bank shyteheads said no, my client HAD to move out, make a bid on the property, and only if they won, by February, they could move back in, unless the bank found another buyer. So the Sheriff came the next week and forced my client to move out. With 6 inches of partly cloudy on the ground. Well, my client found another place, bought it and moved in. Out of curiosity, he drove by his old place. Shuttered. Empty, still for sale by the bank. No buyers.

Serves them right.

[ejpoeta]

52. i swear i think they are just being assholes when they won't even talk about anything

that would benefit themselves as well as anyone else. they'd cut off their nose to spite their face, so to speak. just because.

[WriteDown]

33. Can't be done....

The HMP plan has a very specific criteria that must be followed.

[Robbien]

5. The banks don't want to lower the principal amount of the loan

They may be willing to negotiate the interest rate but not the principal amount.

Most of the homes sold in the last three years were sold at fraudulent high prices. Renegotiating loans to reflect actual values would mean huge losses for the bank. The article says most of these foreclosed homes in Ohio were resold for less than half of the mortgage principal. Some even at less as ten percent of the original sales price.

[Raven]

8. Renegotiate the interest rate and extend the term of the loan...

gives people time to get back on their feet, provides the bank with an income stream, avoids the expense to the bank of owning the house and gives the market some time to recover some of the value. Why doesn't that make sense?

[Robbien]

10. Because just reducing the interest rate

and extending the term of the loan doesn't get the monthly payment amount down to a level which is affordable to the homeowner.

Remember most of these loans were made as interest only or opt-a loans. Original monthly mortgage amounts would have trebled or quadrupled when the grace period expired.

Unless the principal amount of the loan is lowered, there is no way possible that the payment amount can return anywhere close to the original monthly mortgage payment which is what the homeowner could afford.

[izquierdista]

12. Mark to market

These banks have forgotten rule number one of speculation -- the profit is not in your pocket until the position is closed. If you are hanging onto your long position in oil, hoping it goes back to $150 a barrel, or your long position in silver, hoping that the Hunt brothers will pump the price up again, you are a loser. They have a long position in these houses, and think that somehow, the market is going to come back -- it ain't. The sooner they mark these properties to market, realize the non-performing loans for what they are worth, the sooner they can move on, although it won't be with as many assets on their balance sheet.

[marketcrazy1]

27. if the big banks

mark their toxic assets to market and take the loss they would be BANKRUPT! thats why M to M regulations were dropped in march. the banks said that market prices were artificially low, remember! reality says different! we have been over this before, NO ONE wants banks to mark to market because if they were required to do that most of the largest banks in America would be insolvent and the entire system would collapse! ( or need to be restructured )

[notesdev]

38. That's the key issue

The banks CAN'T go through with foreclosure in a lot of cases because they can't afford to recognize the losses. On paper, a lot of these terrible loans to people who never had a prayer of keeping good on them are booked as profits as the principal rises!

Let's be honest here - the financial system has ALREADY collapsed. It is dead, defunct, extinct. It is Wile E. Coyote gone off the cliff, not yet having acknowledged that there is no ground beneath his feet.

[Odin2005]

55. Wow, That's damning.

This is even worse than I thought. :scared:

[Delphinus]

43. I'm beginning to understand.

It never occurred to me that this might be why banks aren't working with people - if they REALLY recognized the value of the house, they would have to show the difference as a mark against them, right?

Say my house is appraised at $50,000 but I owe the bank $75,000 because that's what it was appraised for when I bought it, then they have to show a loss of $25,000 - am I understanding correctly?

[marketcrazy1]

49. thats the gist of it Delphinus

the bank does not have to book the loss until they sell the foreclosure, same thing with workouts ( reducing interest/principle or modifying terms ) workouts are money losers up front for the banks plus with securitization thrown into the mix workouts can be a problem as changing the terms of the underlying assets (loans) in the securities pool can be seen as a breach of contract......... oh what a tangled web they have woven!!!

[izquierdista]

62. If there was an orderly market.....

They could "mark to market" and not go bust. But NOooooooo! They had to get rid of market regulations, wheeeee, look at the prices going up and up.

If they ever do decide to reimplement regulations, they should have some way to make the banks mark to market, maybe on a monthly or quarterly basis. Marking to market makes sure that speculators don't overleverage themselves with phony profits that are here today, gone tomorrow. That and requiring a real down payment, instead of 3%, of which the buyer gets back 5% at closing.

[Igel]

64. Ah, but your solution makes for massive problems.

If I'm a bank and have to mark to market in assessing the value of my assets--the only reason for this is, of course, to meet liquidity and capital reserve requirements, and make the balance sheet look good--then why is it any different for the homeowner.

In most cases, the house has lost value long before the bank forecloses, and until then the bank doesn't own the house. It owns secured paper that has the house as collateral.

Mark-to-market rules for the homeowner would immediately mean he has to cough up either principal or more collateral because his collateral no longer covers the secured loan.

At the same time, mark-to-market for the value of the collateral might negatively impact banks--just as */Obama were trying to bail them out, conduct stress tests, and raise reserve requirements. That would be entirely self-defeating, unless the goal were to have a government-run banking system.

[izquierdista]

65. Part of a larger plan

I don't want banks speculating. I want the Savings&Loans back like they were 50 years ago. Stodgy and reliable. I don't give a flip about marking the homeowner's loan to the market; I want the bank's portfolio evaluated regularly so they aren't flying 3 sheets to the wind. If they knew they were going to have a margin call if their loan portfolio went down, maybe they wouldn't be handing out NINJA loans like they did.

[elehhhhna]

22. Well, it can -- a DUer recently renegot.'d an adjustment to

under 2% @ 40 years.

40 seems wierd btm hey -- they finnace new cars for upto 7 (!) -- which isa crazy!

[notesdev]

39. Say what??

What bank is going to offer 2% on a 40-year term? That doesn't sound right at all to me - rates should be lower at shorter terms, higher at longer terms, and there is nobody I have ever heard of with an interest rate below 4% on a mortgage.

I've heard a lot of schemes for mortgage work-outs, but 2% @ 40 yrs. is well outside the parameters of anything I have heard about.

[elehhhhna]

46. probably a 2 yr. adjustable w/ rate cap-- don't have details -- but I believe her.

[alisabalterman]

42. I renegociated my mortgage and my credit cards too

I was laid off from a professional job and now work two jobs that don't equal the earlier income. Needless to say, I needed to make some changes. I stopped paying on my home for one year. In that time I was contacted again and again, I explained the terms I felt I needed, basically the monthly payment and recommended a couple of ways to get there. Ultimately they offered something very close by taking 89,000 of the debt and charging no interest on that and the remainder at 7.5, on a fifty year mortgage. When I sell or refinance (not very likely) I am to pay off the 89,000 but otherwise it accrues no interest. Overall the net interest rate would be about 4.5 to 5%. It is still tight for me and I worry about the costs of heating the place when the cost of oil goes up. I planned some of the utilities into it yes, but if oil starts shooting up in price I think my goose is cooked.

When I knew what was happening with the house I then stopped paying my credit cards because they wouldn't consider a settlement without that. I have now renegotiated all my cards, to settle them, approx 50 cents on the dollar - across the board. I am very close to paying them off. Each company offered the 90 day pay off (but one wanted it all in one payment - a small bank).

I didn't like doing any of this and I did go see a bankruptcy lawyer who recommended bankruptcy - before I started all this. I wanted to see what I could do without going bankrupt - no question that all parties did better as a result of negotiation. I produced the money to pay off the cards mainly by selling assets, frankly I am a little short (what I really could afford was 30 cents on the dollar) when I come up dry I am thinking of not making a couple of mortgage payments and that would cover the rest of the credit card debt settlement. I know the mortgage company won't like it but I think they will accept it. It is not my plan to rip them off, or anyone for that matter, but I have to reduce - drastically - my month to month expenses or the whole house of cards will collapse.

I accept that my credit is ruined, that I will likely never have a credit card again. Apart from my poor credit, I just don't see our country ever really going back to the kind of credit environment we had prior to the financial meltdown.

[elehhhhna]

45. Great job BUT

Pay the mort. on time. Don't skip or delay it if possibe --the home's an asset (eventually). Let the cc companies WAIT. Always. Even Suze Orman is advising this Unprecidented advice from a financial planner? Yes. These are unprecidented times.

[cap]

67. the price of oil will go up... please plan for it...

I know you are trying and this is not the news you want to hear...

Consider taking in room-mates

[mbperrin]

29. And yet, when the house falls in, they will get nothing at all. Bankers

are a stupid lot, by and large, as I discovered during the 60s and 70s when I worked for several.

Experience did me some good, though. I've never had an account, a loan, a card, or any other dealings with them since then.

Saved me a bunch of fees, charges, frauds, and heartbreak, and allowed me to accumulate a few things.

[WriteDown]

34. Bankers have little to do with mortgage servicers.....

After TARP, mortgage servicers are bound by the HMP (Obama's plan) which has VERY specific criteria for modifying a loan. The mortgage servicer must follow these criteria. If the borrower can't fit into those criteria, there is little that can be done.

[mbperrin]

44. Okay, let me rephrase. What idiot group of bankers decided to go to a model

of mortgage servicers, selling off bundles, and all the rest?

That would be the current group of bankers. For centuries, bankers made loans, people made payments, bankers made money. Then all this imaginary bullshit with all these useless middlemen were invented as ways to skim even more from the actual productive people in society.

When enough was finally skimmed off through organized fraud and systemic design, the productive people couldn't make it and revenues ended to the crooks.

Except of course for the part where they get the taxpayers to stand good for their stupid schemes.

All of the current system was designed by the bankers. They instituted it. Hardly my fault they were too stupid to see that it just could not work. When the Mafia steals all the production from a factory, sooner of later the factory will close, and they will have nothing to steal.

Not too hard to figure. What's hard for me to figure is why we must subsidize a group of idiotic schmucks that I wouldn't trust to rake leaves, to the tune of trillions so far?

Let me recap. Bankers are idiots. They are favored by the system for now, but that can't last any longer than the system can make up for. That fail point is near. Bankers planned it. They executed it. They continue to reap welfare from it. They will collapse it. Stupid, blind, unyielding greed combined with no ability to see long term is their epitaph.

They were the kids your mom wouldn't let you play with. Glad I listened.

[Lance_Boyle]

70. "fraudulent high prices?"

That's a new one. What makes a price "fraudulent" in your view?

If people agreed to pay the contract price, they should pay the contract price. There is no room for "fraud" here unless the price is different on two copies of the contract.

[Demeter]

14. Bankers Admit Failure? Never Happen

They'd rather take everything and everybody down to dirt than admit that they were foolish, or worse, criminal.

[InkAddict]

40. Anecdotally, Dem

In another life, I worked at the corp headquarters of a major bank as a Trust secretary. I got handed off from my officer boss to the new guy, a silver-spoon sort of character. (but that's another story). Looking for a pen on/near/in his desk one day so I could leave him a note about something on which I was working, I was astonished to see a client's bearer bonds, sitting in his unlocked desk drawer not having been physically taken (usually by me, the GOFER, immediately on receipt) right back to THE vault. Now, granted, the busy downtown headquarters building was probably as "safe" as could be from the "bad guys", but OMG, bearer bonds, just sitting around in his unlocked desk drawer.

[geckosfeet]

20. Because it is preferable to give the human detritus a place to smoke crack and shoot up smack.

It's a public welfare thing.

[WriteDown]

30. The Obama plan requires very specific criteria to renegotiate

a loan. Many don't qualify.

[Jackpine Radical]

41. The banks often don't own the notes any more.

That's what derivatives and bundling are all about. The local bank may have sold your mortgage to a bundler long ago, and the bundler added your paper to a bunch of other mortgages from all over the country, split the package into a bunch of derivative shares and sold the bits & pieces all over the place. So who now owns the property?, Often, the answer is that nobody really knows.

[Odin2005]

54. It's vindictive, right-wing thinking mixed it with dogmatic adherence to the rulebook.

In the mind of a vindictive right-wing corporatist those people deserve to be thrown out onto the street and "working things out" is seen as "justifying virtuousness behavior by the rabble" and also risks giving credence to the idea that use implies ownership, an idea they fear because it undermines corporate capitalism and the little person's state of bondage to capital.

[gorfle]

56. I think it's coming.

I read a couple of weeks ago that by one estimate some 26% of foreclosures were "voluntary" foreclosures, in that the people being foreclosed on could actually afford their payments but they just chose not to to make them.

I myself am finding myself pondering it, though not terribly seriously at this point. Two years ago we had a new home built for $270K with 100% financing - no money down. Currently there are a few homes in the neighborhood for sale but no one is looking at them. The last house in our subdivision to sell sold for around $220K. So my guess is my house is already worth about $50K less than what we paid for it.

The builder went bankrupt, and now a new, lower-cost builder has bought the subdivision. Rumor has it they will be putting in homes in the $60/sq.ft. range as opposed to the $100/sq.ft. that was originally put in. This will of course depress the value of our homes even more.

Now I don't have any plans to move any time soon, but one does have to wonder how big a loss one is willing to take on their home and keep paying interest on. Say my house is reduced $70,000. I still have to pay that $70K, with interest. At some point you have to wonder if your investment is a wise one or if you should just cut your losses and walk.

[flvegan]

61. Because they're idiots and because databases don't negotiate.

Everything is done by mouseclicks and date-triggers. People have been replaced with technology. I fought for years to get default resolution put in place at one firm I worked at. The lenders didn't want any part of it. They'd have to hire people to do the jobs needed to put a responsible default resolution system in place.

Biting them in the ass now, in a big way. Sadly, not as much as it's biting the homeowners in the ass.

[ejpoeta]

3. how can they get away with this!! they walk away after the owner vacates but before they own it....

that's horseshit. then leave the person they kicked out to pay the cost of a ruined house. that is crap.

[droidamus2]

9. Huh?

Okay maybe I'm dense but let's see if I can figure this out. Your a mortgage lender who has a person who is defaulting on their loan (for whatever reason), and as is usual practice you foreclose but you don't like the 'asset' you end up holding so you don't transfer ownership and you let the house rot to the point it is worthless. You as the lender ended up with nothing the loan wasn't paid, the property wasn't sold, the asset is now worthless and you had the cost of the foreclosure on your records. Let me guess the government gives the bank some kind of big tax write off for the foreclosure otherwise it would make much more sense to reduce the amount of the loan to the point the original buyer can continue to make payments. Hell it would almost make more sense to just give the people the house and walk away from the deal all together (Yes I know they can't do that because then why would anybody pay their mortgage). The problem with companies today is they are not happy just making a profit they set the amount of profit they want and will not accept anything less. So when they don't see that amount of profit coming in they do stupid stuff like this along with laying off lots of people and selling off assets just so they can reach their profit numbers. Before anybody starts saying that I don't understand or believe in the US capitalist system you are right. Does it make sense that at this point in human economic evolution that we have come up with the best system that could ever be through the rest of eternity I don't think so. To latch onto one system because it happens to look like the best at the moment and to ignore any changes, modifications or whole new ways of looking at the economy is just shortsighted. The whole political game of 'its socialism' instead of 'lets find what works for the most people' is self defeating. Oh well this rant has gone on long enough, later.

[jobendorfer]

72. One possible reason:

In corporate America, ALL thinking is short term.
Priority 1: how the books will look at the end of the quarter
Priority 2: how the books will look at the end of the quarter
Priority 3: how the books will look at the end of the quarter
...
Priority 99: how the books will look at the end of the fiscal year
There is no priority 100.

If there's any way to NOT post the loss on foreclosed property until next quarter,
or next year, that's what you do.

Dropping the mortage/property on the floor until the structures cave in and the city
makes you bulldoze it over and clean up the mess ... that's even better, because that
might take 5-6 years to happen. A lot can happen in 5 or 6 years, please see the
fable "Teaching the Horse to Sing".

And so it goes.

J.

[slackmaster]

11. If I was a former borrower in that situation...

I'd move back into the house.

I don't believe that situation would be legal here in California. When a lender forecloses, title (which carries liabilities like tax and upkeep) is transferred to the lender.

ETA there is a simple solution for a person in that situation. Prepare a Quit Claim deed and hand the property over to the city, county, or state (whichever entity collects property taxes).

[WriteDown]

35. I THINK that they are talking about starting the foreclosure

process but not taking it to sale so the title is not transferred.

[slackmaster]

47. As I said, the person holding the title always has the option of doing a Quit Claim

Handing interest in the property off to the lender, or the government, or anyone.

[csziggy]

59. Yes, buy up the tax certificates if the bank is not paying property taxes

Then when the county puts up the house for sale to recoup back taxes, buy it out of the sale. Then the house will be owned free and clear.

[bobshin]

13. Some advice I've heard from several acquaintances in their situations

is that they've been told by government-funded foreclosure advisors to stay in their homes. The worse thing they can do is leave is the advice they're given. Even after foreclosure papers are filed they can usually stay in their homes for up to two years. In my town, friends of mine walked away when they stopped paying the mortgage. The property wasn't foreclosed on for seven years. In the meantime, the tenant stayed, rent free, and bought a house cash with the rent he saved. If he hadn't stayed in the house, it would have been wrecked.

In this atmosphere, sometimes the risk of staying could pay off. Banks are overwhelmed with foreclosure actions. I hear in some cases they are 18 months behind. Someone, somewhere is going to have to make a deal to stop this bleeding or it will drive the market down to nothing and no one wins.

[Number_Six]

15. Not just houses!

A co-worker asked me a week ago as to what to do with a car he can no longer afford. "Be nice, take it back to them, hand them the keys or sit down with them and talk a deal of some kind."

He tried. He came back: "They want the money. They don't want to talk and they do not want the car back. Now what?"

"Wash it, wax it, put it in the front yard with a note on it for the repo man that you have the keys. Talk to an attorney immediately."

That worries me, but it's not surprising: These banks and finance sharks made this bed, now, laying in it ain't working. Not just houses, no, they don't want back the car, the truck, the airplane, the boat.

I can't wait to find out what his lawyer says.

[POAS]

17. Make sure he takes lots of pictures to prove it wasn't

damaged before they took it!

[Lance_Boyle]

71. Of course they don't want the car back, or the house, or whatever

people who sell cars for a living don't want to take back cars they've sold - shock!

His lawyer will say "give the car you can't afford to the repo man." This is how it's always worked when people's wants are too big for their incomes.

[bemildred]

16. Does this make it a depression yet?

Are we going to have to be respectful to the Russians now about their economy? When we have people going to law to AVOID ownership of property in the US?

Sigh.

[POAS]

18. I would think that in a case

like this she could reclaim the property for back taxes and probably get that reduced also.

[Vidar]

21. I'm so sorry the thieves' booty isn't more profitable.

[Kweli4Real]

24. I guess that's why ...

The lender should have: 1) done a "work-out" before foreclosure; 2) foreclosed, but left the owner in the home at, a) minimal rent, or b) more substantial rent that would go towards reviving the orginial loan; 3) sucked it up and live by the standard it establishes for us and stop whinning like a spoiled middle-schooler vying for attention.

[WriteDown]

36. Can't do it...

They are required to follow the HMP (Obama's Plan).

[Christa]

26. Time to let squatters move in

I know squatters can legally move into empty home in Holland. At least it prevents the home from deteriorating to the point where it has to be destroyed.

[Joanne98]

28. The banksters are destroying the country!

[NJCher]

31. I used to wonder why banks do things that don't make sense, too

Until I read why they do things this way: it's because there is no system set up for this vast number of foreclosures.

They are overwhelmed with the crisis. They have never been through anything like this and as a poster upthread pointed out, banks love rules. If there isn't a rule, there's a void and they do nothing, even if it makes no sense and causes deep financial loss.


Cher

[winyanstaz]

32. About ten years ago, in Snohomish County, WA state,

I noticed several banks were having the streets torn up around their buildings.
I asked my banker what was going on and she said they were " re-enforcing the ground all around the banks for security reasons." The amount of steel and cement made it look like fort knox or something. I thought to myself..."Are they really expecting an attack?"
About that same time I also heard the banks were going to close their doors and not re-open for a while and call in all the money and issue plastic cards instead. I also heard they expected riots within three days of this happening.
I again asked my banker if the banks were going to do this and she said "Well if they want to they will as it is the banks' money."
I was rather surprised at that as I had always thought that the money belonged to the person that had earned it. Silly me.
Perhaps they are just getting ready to turn to the one world order's id card/money as the rhetoric about how we "need" a one world government is getting so loud now.
It would explain as well why they wrecked our economy. It would help to force us into the "New World Order/fascist dictatorship" they have planned for the world.
Please try to remember that a large part of the NWO plans are to murder millions of people to get the population down to where they feel they can control us better.
Expect mandatory "flu" shots and more endless wars.
Expect more businesses closing.
Expect more housing busts and the credit card crunch is now in full bloom.
Expect the cost of food to go through the roof.
Stock up if you can and have a plan.

[dysfunctional press]

57. it's only the middle of the month...

and the meds have already run out?

:tinfoilhat:

[JanusAscending]

66. You've got some nerve!

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

[winyanstaz]

68. I am sorry that you have run out of meds.

I don't use medications or pills or hard drugs myself so it is hard for me to relate to your post.
However I hate to see anyone suffer, even people that have to be drugged up such as yourself.
Have you tried asking your Dr for a generic drug that could help you function better for a lower price?
Good luck on getting your meds.

[dysfunctional press]

69. i haven't.

"I don't use medications or pills..."

it seems from your other post that you might want to consult with a dr. about changing that.

[winyanstaz]

73. get a life kid...and stop with the childish posts already..thanks :)

If you try posting counter points that is one thing..if you behave like a childish twit, you can expect to get your fanny spanked and sent to ignore.

[dysfunctional press]

74. fine with me...

the more brain-dead goofballs who spew retarded shite that can't respond to me, the better.

[djp2]

48. Why don't they just let the owners stay..

in the house then, if they don't care about trying to get money out of the property? It would be better to deed over the property, or at least let them stay free of charge..oh yeah, that might give them squatter's rights...better to leave it empty and falling apart. Heartless B*st*rds!

[chill_wind]

50. This is so incredibly destructive on so many levels

it's hard to know where to begin. Everyone loses, everyone. Including those in no way responsible at all, those still living in the surrounding neighborhoods still trying to keep up and maintain their own properties while watching their values plummet to nothing as the blight and rot spreads, worsens and lingers for even more indetermined time.

[villager]

51. when is the first brick going through the first bank window?

How much longer will people tolerate this? Homes sitting empty, unclaimed, no families allowed to live there -- consigned to the streets instead -- etc.?

[Odin2005]

53. The banksters are anti-social creeps? Who knew?

Lenders or mortgage companies decide they don't want homes they have already foreclosed on, sometimes because the value has plummeted or they believe the homes could become costly liabilities if they are socked with housing code violations.

But without that sale, the property can languish abandoned and ripe for vandalism. As liens and liabilities mount -- creating a so-called "toxic title" -- it becomes even harder to transfer the property. Neighborhoods and local governments are left to deal with the mess.

This is horrifying. :wow:

[crickets]

58. K&R for informative (though depressing) discussion. -nt

[Wednesdays]

60. K&R

:kick: