Repo on 2004 Top Gun

[MERPerformance]

What do you think about someone that owns a boat and the bank takes it back? Had a customer that owned this 38, real estate business. Bank gets it, before that happens he pulls the seat cushions from cabin, removes carb, takes sparkplugs out of one engine, pays note on trailer, takes the distributor and retards it 15 degrees. It goes to auction, one of my old customers buys it for $110K, the old owner is there trying to buy it for $40k, says the drives are bad engines messed up old owner is p---ed off wants to sell the trailer and cushions,carb for $10K they settle at $7,500. How can you loose property then go and buy it back or try to , but you can't make the note payment? The funny thing is the old owner didn't know the boat came back to me to be straightened out, we really thought the one engine had a problem then I notice the distributor wasn't clocked like the other one since i did the work on the boat checked timing, they had it backed off to 20 degrees full advanced reset it to 35 ran perfect.

 

[getchasum111]

i just don't get it....these are grown men acting like little kids.....the bank would still go after him for the difference between the final sale price and the balance that was owed wouldn't they....so how does he win if he buys it back for 40k....and if he had 40k why didn't he just pay the note....

 

[Ratickle]

i just don't get it....these are grown men acting like little kids.....the bank would still go after him for the difference between the final sale price and the balance that was owed wouldn't they....so how does he win if he buys it back for 40k....and if he had 40k why didn't he just pay the note....

It's hard to say right now. The government is pulling some shady deals with banks to get control.

Got an aquaintance. Moved to take a job. Bought a new house. The bank contacted him on his old house and said they had a buyer for $30,000 under what he owed. They would release him from the loan if he would sign. He would have to claim the $30,000 as income. The goverment would give the bank the difference of $30,000 they lost.

He said no, they said they would start foreclosure proceedings, even though he had not been latre on a single payment. Found out there is a clause in almost every home loan, it has to be your principle place of residence or they can take it.

He signed.

Banks are not currently going after the difference like before because the Feds are handing them $.

 

[Buoy]

It's hard to say right now. The government is pulling some shady deals with banks to get control.

Got an aquaintance. Moved to take a job. Bought a new house. The bank contacted him on his old house and said they had a buyer for $30,000 under what he owed. They would release him from the loan if he would sign. He would have to claim the $30,000 as income. The goverment would give the bank the difference of $30,000 they lost.

He said no, they said they would start foreclosure proceedings, even though he had not been latre on a single payment. Found out there is a clause in almost every home loan, it has to be your principle place of residence or they can take it.

He signed.

Banks are not currently going after the difference like before because the Feds are handing them $.

WOW!
I could easily find myself in that exact situation.

 

[getchasum111]

It's hard to say right now. The government is pulling some shady deals with banks to get control.

Got an aquaintance. Moved to take a job. Bought a new house. The bank contacted him on his old house and said they had a buyer for $30,000 under what he owed. They would release him from the loan if he would sign. He would have to claim the $30,000 as income. The goverment would give the bank the difference of $30,000 they lost.

He said no, they said they would start foreclosure proceedings, even though he had not been latre on a single payment. Found out there is a clause in almost every home loan, it has to be your principle place of residence or they can take it.

He signed.

Banks are not currently going after the difference like before because the Feds are handing them $.

really....i have never heard of that....but it's cool if the govt will help you out of the dif. of what is owed and what it really brings

 

[getchasum111]

WOW!
I could easily find myself in that exact situation.

whats going on my friend....any luck on the job search...

 

[Buoy]

whats going on my friend....any luck on the job search...

Had something pop-up yesterday that has potential, but it'll put me on the road/air (not all bad I guess).
Also saw something this morning that might fill in for awhile.

That whole house deal is pretty wild.
My place in KY hasn't sold yet.

 

[masher44]

Banks can pretty much do whatever they want to do. Make/change rules as they go. It really pays to have legal representation when you start getting into multiple homes purchases or investment property. They are wordsmiths and can call your note over very stupid things if they want. If a bank sees any value or money to be made on something, they can and do call the note to get the asset.

 

[BUIZILLA]

It's hard to say right now. The government is pulling some shady deals with banks to get control.

Got an aquaintance. Moved to take a job. Bought a new house. The bank contacted him on his old house and said they had a buyer for $30,000 under what he owed. They would release him from the loan if he would sign. He would have to claim the $30,000 as income. The goverment would give the bank the difference of $30,000 they lost.

He said no, they said they would start foreclosure proceedings, even though he had not been latre on a single payment. Found out there is a clause in almost every home loan, it has to be your principle place of residence or they can take it.

He signed.

Banks are not currently going after the difference like before because the Feds are handing them $.

how did the bank know he moved and bought another house to be able to pull this off, if he was never late and current?

i'm confused..

 

[sellsman11]

how did the bank know he moved and bought another house to be able to pull this off, if he was never late and current?

i'm confused..

Change of address cards??

 

[BUIZILLA]

how did the bank have an immediate buyer for a home not foreclosed and current?

 

[Davidmnc]

They must have hired Frankie's attorney! :ack2:

 

[MERPerformance]

I guess what your saying is that they called the note, just because; it's a second home andit's for sale.

 

[Ratickle]

how did the bank know he moved and bought another house to be able to pull this off, if he was never late and current?

i'm confused..

Change of address cards??

how did the bank have an immediate buyer for a home not foreclosed and current?

He bought another house here in Michigan, his old one was in Indiana, and had to pass the qualifications to hold both loans. He was qualified, got the loan, bought the new house, this was almost 8 months later. I called BS too and he brought me the paperwork to read. Not one late payment, no longer principle place of residence as required under the terms of the loan. My suggestion was to get the local news guys involved, but when we looked at all the stuff he would go through vs just a hit on credit rating and taxes on $30,000. He decided that was the smartest thing to do when it's so hard to sell houses now anyway.

For all I know, it was the banks loan officers cousin.

Or Frankies attorney.....:sifone:

 

[Ratickle]

I guess what your saying is that they called the note, just because; it's a second home andit's for sale.

And the government is requiring higher debt to asset ratios for banks and handing out "free" money.......

Looks good for the bank I would guess. Plus puts them in a stronger position for the so-called tests.

 

[Audiofn]

This is why I use my local bank for all my loans now days. They would never pull this crap. They of course require certain loan to value ratios that are much more strict then most banks. When we first purchased out first house they would not do the loan but now that we have been in there for 6 years and have paid off a good chunk of it they are now going to take the loan over.

 

[Birdog]

really....i have never heard of that....but it's cool if the govt will help you out of the dif. of what is owed and what it really brings

It is "cool" that my tax $ go to bail out people and banks that made poor choices ?....WOW..That is the mindset of this country now

 

[Ratickle]

It is "cool" that my tax $ go to bail out people and banks that made poor choices ?....WOW..That is the mindset of this country now

I'm with you.

But, it wouldn't bother me all that much if the money had gone to the root of the issue.

People who coould afford to pay with rates at 5% couldn't afford to pay when the rates went to 8%. If they had mandated the loans get re-written at the lower rate but extended for 5 more years or something. Then the $ would have corrected the root of the problem. Instead, the $ was used to pay bonuses, take-over other banks, lobby congress, and just plain sit there.

 

[Birdog]

I'm with you.

But, it wouldn't bother me all that much if the money had gone to the root of the issue.

People who coould afford to pay with rates at 5% couldn't afford to pay when the rates went to 8%. If they had mandated the loans get re-written at the lower rate but extended for 5 more years or something. Then the $ would have corrected the root of the problem. Instead, the $ was used to pay bonuses, take-over other banks, lobby congress, and just plain sit there.

It was no secret that these rates would adjust up. If a person signed the contract they should have to honor it...NOT ME !

 

[Ratickle]

"Sen. Dick Durbin offered a bill that would allow families at risk of losing their homes — but with an ability to pay their mortgage if their monthly rates were lower and extended over more years — to legally get that option.

The very banks that taxpayers kept alive with billions in bailouts had the audacity to spend millions lobbying Congress to oppose this bill. They also showered politicians with campaign contributions.

The bill was defeated. Senator Durbin declared that banks “frankly own the place.” Will you continue to support politicians who support this corrupt system? Or will you demand that any politician you donate to support reform?"

This was in May. It was estimated at the time that banks spent more money defeating this bill and the one to change bankruptcy laws back to the previous rules prior to November 2005, than they did re-writing loans for homebuyers in trouble.