Frustrated Owner Bulldozes Home Ahead Of Foreclosure


#1

this is some funny shit alright :lol:


#2

Dude is a beast. Fuck banks and their hardball tactics.


#3

It seems like the brunt of his problems came from his brother suing his buisness. He should take the Bulldozer to his house next. Then go back to Russia.


#4

hes not from moscow russia hes from moscow ohio


#5

In other news in bizzarro land, attempting to collect on a loan is hardball tactics. Next up, the sky is green and penguins can fly.

imo.


#6

He could have sold is house to pay the debt but they wouldn’t allow him because they claimed they could get more money elsewhere.

I don’t blame him for what he did, his obligation to them is to pay his debt not to make them a profit.


#7

The collateral someone puts up for a house loan is the house itself, in essence the bank owns the interest in the house while he pays it off. How does it make sense to allow the guy to sell something that isn’t his to pay off the debt on the thing he doesn’t own? The point of an unpaid house lien, i.e., a mortgage, is to allow the bank to foreclose the house and sell it when the loan is unpaid.

Example: your friend wants an X-Box and you agree to give him $300 to get it, the X-Box is collateral for the $300. When he doesn’t pay the $300 does he get to sell the X-Box which you paid for to raise the $300? If he destroys the X-Box instead of giving it to you who is at fault?

imo.


#8

i blame him for what he did. he didn’t pay his mortgage, he deserves to get foreclosed. end of fucking story. bleeding heart liberals be damned.


#9

I am liberal, but not a bleeding heart liberal. Dude needs to pay off his loans. But I don’t understand this example.

My friend borrows 300 bucks to get an xbox. He can’t pay me back, so I would think either give me back the xbox or give me $300. If he sells the xbox and gives me $300, then I’m back to square one. Which I’m supposed to be…right?

Question: What about cars and their monthly payments? Am I able to sell my car even though I haven’t paid it all off yet?


#10

If he wanted to sell his xbox for $360 to raise the money to pay the debt why should I have a problem with that. My only concern should be getting my money back.


#11

here is a hint: IF YOU OWE MONEY TO SOMEONE AND YOUR HOUSE IS THE COLLATERAL, YOU ARE NOT A HOME OWNER!!!


#12

Agreed. What the fuck - he’s getting ‘mostly support’ from people? Well people are retards. This dude took out a loan for a house, which is a contractual obligation. He has to make the payments, as HE agreed to, at the scheduled payment dates. Oh, your business has problems? You were in a legal battle with your brother? Your dick got caught in a tractor and you had to pay for reconstructive cock surgery? TOO FUCKIN BAD. That’s why you don’t live paycheck to paycheck, and when you see that you aren’t going to be able to continue your payments, THEN you decide to sell. Not after the bank probably gave you time after time and chance after chance to catch up on your bills. At that point, the bank has every right to take your home.

And you bulldoze it? I hope they sue you and take everything (i.e. nothing) that you have left, because you’re a douche bag.


#13

I am just in favor of people saying fuck it and doing crazy shit as long as no one is physically harmed. Shit is funny to me.

He did bite off more than he could chew. Populist anger towards banks and bankers right now is fueling his support and I can tell you that it is coming for from the right wing tea bagger set than from liberals.

also, yeah I thought that they meant Moscow, Russia. Ohio would certainly complicate his getaway, lol


#14

I guess using a friend isn’t the best example because you might loan him money just because he is your friend. Replace a stranger in that example or a friend who you can associate a high degree of risk in getting your money back. What incentive is there for you to give them the loan, there has to be something in it for you in order to loan the person the money. That is the same logic of the banks which is why they wouldn’t exist if the loans they gave had no interest and were always paid off on time, they insure themselves from risk by being able to foreclose on people that don’t pay back their loans.

imo.


#15

Ahh, that makes more sense.


#16

If he built the house what’s to say that the loan wasn’t on the land rather than the house itself?

Shouldn’t he be entitled to take his improvements away when he leaves and just give the bank what he orgionaly had the loan for if this is the case?


#17

This would work out if he paid for the house separately and only took out the loan for the land itself and paying for the house out of pocket. The probability of that being the case is about .000000001%. The other almost certain scenario is he took a loan out for both the land and house and as AkumaTX said, IF THE HOUSE IS COLLATERAL FOR A LOAN, IT ISN’T YOURS.

They will auction the house, pay the dude back what he paid in principal minus the interest and any other fees, and then keep the rest.

imo.


#18

Hoskins owes 160K on his house. The article states that Hoskins was offered 170K by another individual to buy the house, which will cover what the bank claims is left owed on the house. The bank declined this offer, stating they could make more on the open market selling the house.

Sounds to me like the bank got greedy. I understand that banks at the end of the day, are a business. They make money off of our money, and interest off of our properties. But they were offered a chance to get what was owed.

I’m not saying this guy was right. He signed a binding contract. I don’t condone what he did. He was wrong. But I will say that it looks like it could have been avoided.

Jive Out!


#19

But the bank owns the house, so if they can make more money in one direction with something they own than another, of course they’re going to go that direction. In this case it was foreclosing it and reselling it. They can make more than $170K that way. It’s THEIR house, is this dirty? Fuck yeah it’s some slimeball shit but it’s theirs so they can do it.


#20

And I agree. Which is why i stated the guy was wrong. What he did was a pretty dick move. And I stated I understand a bank is business. But there are countless of foreclosed houses on the market with slashed prices. (they are basically asking for what is owed, and sometimes just a little more) These houses aren’t moving/selling. Bank isn’t wrong for what they did, as I stated, they are a business. But I think it could have been avoided. With the housing market the way it is, they were handed a rare opportunity on a defunct mortgage. If this was 10 years ago, I can understand their choice to decline the offer. But ever since the housing bubble burst not too long ago, it’s a totally different market. The risks aren’t the same anymore. I think they should have just taken the offer.

Bank isn’t wrong, but I’m just saying… it could have been avoided.

Jive Out!