Why would you bulldoze your home?

[CathrynRose]

It was because someone offered to give him the 160,000 to pay off the house and the bank said no, that they could get more for the house.. which was worth 350,000 So he didn't want the bank to have his house. so he bulldozed it.

The above is what bothers me the most, about this whole thing. Whatta shame...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MabgiO9pZDA

 

[LuvCuteBoys]

It infuriates me that this guy has no problem trying to make himself look sympathetic without giving all the facts.

The mortgage is IRRELEVANT. He used his primary residence as collateral for his business.

Jumping on the bank isn't going to solve anything and I hope he gets the book thrown at him so people don't go around thinking that you can just do whatever you please because you're mad at somebody, even if they are well within their rights to do what they're doing.

This guy is a whackjob who either doesn't have an iota of business sense, or is just clever enough to think that he can tell half truths and convince people to feel sorry for him.

 

[LuvCuteBoys]

That blurb about the bank making more money if they foreclose is driving me batty. Maybe the law is different in Ohio, but the bank cannot make a profit on a foreclosure. At least not in NYS.

Dude owes someone a lot more than $160,000. Can't wait to hear the rest of this story.

 

[klj27]

This guy is going to be on a local radio station in just a few minutes. You can listen at www.700wlw.com

 

[airhead]

I disagree

me too.

 

[Poohbear123]

I disagree

I do too, he was right in doing what he did, if he couldn't have it, why should the Bank...we have a foreclosed home in our neighborhood that sold 4 years ago for 265,000.00 NOW its selling for 121,000.00 and it was worth 225,000.00 its in excellant condition. I DO NOT BLAME THE MAN AT ALL!

 

[Carly_Roach]

I was wondering when someone was going to see this story. It broke the same day the Austin, TX one did so I'm not surprised that the plane story took precidence.

You can debate whether he was right or wrong all you want. It won't stop what's going to happen. The facts of the matter is that the American public is getting tired of the situation and you're going to be seeing more instances of this kind of behavior.

This is what I think they're thinking: "The government took my tax money to bail out these guys. Now that the banks received their no interest loan from me, they're continuing to fleece me with low interest rates on savings, high interest rates on loans, exhorbitant penalties for being 1 hour late on a payment and fees up the wazoo. If they think they're going to get my house so they can make their metrics and continue to receive their million dollar bonuses, they got another think coming. They'll get the house (or in the case of the Ohio man - they WON'T get the house), but they won't get much else that was in it."

Right or wrong, that's how people are feeling. It takes a long time to drive someone to the point where they will destroy the home they took so long to create, but I think we're finally reaching the limit of most American's patience.

 

[LisaR]

Has anyone been able to find out how much he owed the bank and IRS? I think that makes all the difference in the world in this story. He is blaming the bank and has stated numerous times that he offered them $170,000 but that wasn't good enough. Why wasn't it good enough? Did he owe them a million and felt $170,000 should be enough to call it even? Or did he only owe them the $170,000?

If I let you borrow my car and you return a bike to me instead, am I suppose to let it go? That is the vibe I get from this story. He owed a lot and had been warned and given options for years. Now when push came to shove, he offered the bank a fraction of what he owed and expected them to be happy. Maybe I am wrong. I would like to see the whole story.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I heard him on a radio interview.

He claims that he consulted an attorney prior to doing this. He was told that as long as it was he himself who did it then it was fine. As it turns out, he can work that machinery and knew how to bulldoze his property.

We can all cry foul if we want to, but he did nothing inhernently illegal or wrong towards the bank.

No different than whne someone decides to paint their house pink with purple polk dots.

In the end, it is just a foreclosure and not vandalism.

My husband is looking at foreclosures and none of them look vandalized. They do look like they've seen better days and perhaps the homeowners didn't have the money for good upkeep--but most he has seen are clean. The Short sales on the other hand.... Lived in and nasty!

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Has anyone been able to find out how much he owed the bank and IRS? I think that makes all the difference in the world in this story. He is blaming the bank and has stated numerous times that he offered them $170,000 but that wasn't good enough. Why wasn't it good enough? Did he owe them a million and felt $170,000 should be enough to call it even? Or did he only owe them the $170,000?

If I let you borrow my car and you return a bike to me instead, am I suppose to let it go? That is the vibe I get from this story. He owed a lot and had been warned and given options for years. Now when push came to shove, he offered the bank a fraction of what he owed and expected them to be happy. Maybe I am wrong. I would like to see the whole story.

But a mortgage is on property that often includes a building.

Borrowing something is not the smae as buying something.

This man stole nothing.

His bank held title, but he was free (as we ALL are btw!) to do with his property as he wished.

If I bought a car, mac'd it out, turned into a demolition vehicle. It is still my car. The bank repo's it--well, they can't accuse me of vandalism. They can seek from me the difference in value and the loan balance, but I am not guilty of a criminal act.

If I loaned an item to you and you destroyed it--that is different.

We are not "borrowing" our homes and our cars. We are "buying them". The title is in OUR names. Not the bank. Bank is lienholder and they get to hold title, but the physical property is ours.

We are not blocked from doing anything on our property just b/c there is a loan.

I'm interesetd in the whole story as well.

I'm not interested in banks being able to determine what I can and cannot do with my property just b/c they loaned me money to purchase it.

 

[LisaR]

But a mortgage is on property that often includes a building.

Borrowing something is not the smae as buying something.

This man stole nothing.

His bank held title, but he was free (as we ALL are btw!) to do with his property as he wished.

If I bought a car, mac'd it out, turned into a demolition vehicle. It is still my car. The bank repo's it--well, they can't accuse me of vandalism. They can seek from me the difference in value and the loan balance, but I am not guilty of a criminal act.

If I loaned an item to you and you destroyed it--that is different.

We are not "borrowing" our homes and our cars. We are "buying them". The title is in OUR names. Not the bank. Bank is lienholder and they get to hold title, but the physical property is ours.

We are not blocked from doing anything on our property just b/c there is a loan.

I'm interesetd in the whole story as well.

I'm not interested in banks being able to determine what I can and cannot do with my property just b/c they loaned me money to purchase it.

True. You make a very good point and my analogy wouldn't apply. He is just painting the bank out to be the bad guy. It is his house and he can do what he wants with it but if he owes the bank a boat load of money between his house, business and commercial property, I side with the bank. If he only owes $170,000, offered to pay and the bank refused, I still think he is an idiot but I get the point he was trying to make.

 

[Aristomommy]

When the economy was good, banks allowed all kinds of loans to be approved even as they forecasted the economic downturn. A dear friend of mine lives in a home that has a mortgage and two additional loans that are $90k more than what the house is worth. She wants to buy it as the owner is foreclosing, but the bank will not budge. They said they would rather have the home sit empty than to give it away.

The more I read into it, banks benefit sooo much when they foreclose in write offs over and over again. They took a risk in approving the loans and now they are not willing to work with people so they can keep their homes or walk away with some dignity. Even a short sale takes many months without any guarantee for a deal. Buyers can't often wait that long.

So I have no sympathy for the banks when people get fed up and "lose it".

 

[sbell111]

Whoa! He owes $160,000, got a way to pay $170,000 and the bank said no??!! Am I reading that correctly? Until it was officially forclosed on I don't see how the bank would be able to say no?

As I understand it, he has a $160,000 mortgage but he also has some amount of business debt that he used his house as collateral against. On top of this he owes the IRS some bunch of money which resulted in IRS liens against his business property.

That blurb about the bank making more money if they foreclose is driving me batty. Maybe the law is different in Ohio, but the bank cannot make a profit on a foreclosure. At least not in NYS.

I think that he asked them to take $170,000 to satisfy his $160,000 mortgage and his business loan(s) that the house is being used as collateral for. I think that we can certainly imagine that these loans are for more than $10,000. If so, the bank will refuse the deal if they believe that they could sell the property for more than $170,000. The sales price likely would still be less than the total debt, but they have a fiduciary responsibility to not take the lesser deal.

Personally, I think the guy is an idiot. The bank is going to immediately call his commercial loans since he no longer has collateral that can support them. He's going to lose absolutely everything, resulting in a bankruptcy to get out from under the bank, but the IRS is still going to want their money. Between the bank calling his loans and the bankruptcy, he will no longer have the business property the the IRS has put a lien on. This is going to result in a legal nightmare and it's going to really stir up the IRS.

Honestly, this entire episode makes me think of a husband who destroys all his assets just so he won't lose half of them in a divorce. Boneheaded and short-sighted.

 

[cheermom1]

here is the way I am seeing this ..the man owed a lot b/c of his business but the bank took his house as collateral on their own...if the guy was paying his payments there is NO reason they should take his house..but if he wasn't paying on his business they should take the business NOT his house!!! I don;t understand why his house was put up as collateral?? from my understanding the back did it not the guy...this is why he is so upset....if this is the case I can't blame the poor guy...

 

[Sanchez]

But a mortgage is on property that often includes a building.

Borrowing something is not the smae as buying something.

This man stole nothing.

His bank held title, but he was free (as we ALL are btw!) to do with his property as he wished.

If I bought a car, mac'd it out, turned into a demolition vehicle. It is still my car. The bank repo's it--well, they can't accuse me of vandalism. They can seek from me the difference in value and the loan balance, but I am not guilty of a criminal act.

If I loaned an item to you and you destroyed it--that is different.

We are not "borrowing" our homes and our cars. We are "buying them". The title is in OUR names. Not the bank. Bank is lienholder and they get to hold title, but the physical property is ours.

We are not blocked from doing anything on our property just b/c there is a loan.

I'm interesetd in the whole story as well.

I'm not interested in banks being able to determine what I can and cannot do with my property just b/c they loaned me money to purchase it.

This is simply not true. You should take a look at your mortgage (if you have one) and check the provisions where the borrower is required to maintain the collateral.

Yes, the property is owned by the borrower and not the bank, however the lender has lien rights. Per the lien agreement the borrower has the obligation to maintain the property. This may give the lender holding the mortgage grounds for claiming loan fraud - and last time I checked that was a federal crime.

 

[Sanchez]

here is the way I am seeing this ..the man owed a lot b/c of his business but the bank took his house as collateral on their own...if the guy was paying his payments there is NO reason they should take his house..but if he wasn't paying on his business they should take the business NOT his house!!! I don;t understand why his house was put up as collateral?? from my understanding the back did it not the guy...this is why he is so upset....if this is the case I can't blame the poor guy...

Banks cannot take collateral. He would have had to agree by way of a mortgage or they would have to obtain a judgment against him and seek recovery of the judgment amount by auctioning his assets.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

This is simply not true. You should take a look at your mortgage (if you have one) and check the provisions where the borrower is required to maintain the collateral.

Yes, the property is owned by the borrower and not the bank, however the lender has lien rights. Per the lien agreement the borrower has the obligation to maintain the property. This may give the lender holding the mortgage grounds for claiming loan fraud - and last time I checked that was a federal crime.

He maintained it.

Perhaps not in the manner his bank wished..but he maintained it and took care of it.

He didn't commit fraud anymore than people do who voluntarily and willfully walk away from homes they are fully and capable of paying.

 

[Sanchez]

He maintained it.

Perhaps not in the manner his bank wished..but he maintained it and took care of it.

He didn't commit fraud anymore than people do who voluntarily and willfully walk away from homes they are fully and capable of paying.

He maintained it by bulldozing it?

He destroyed the collateral no matter how you and others wish to rationalize it. He malicously and purposely destroyed collateral that he had an obligation to maintain.

 

[LuvCuteBoys]

I think that he asked them to take $170,000 to satisfy his $160,000 mortgage and his business loan(s) that the house is being used as collateral for. I think that we can certainly imagine that these loans are for more than $10,000. If so, the bank will refuse the deal if they believe that they could sell the property for more than $170,000. The sales price likely would still be less than the total debt, but they have a fiduciary responsibility to not take the lesser deal.

I know... what I meant was that it's driving me batty that people aren't willing to read and understand this whole story. They're seeing his assertion that he offered more than what is owed on the mortgage and the conclusion that is jumped to is "oh, greedy bank!"

The bank cannot just take his home as collateral unless he offered it.

He needs to take some responsibility. Bulldozing your house because you don't want someone else to have it is not taking responsibility.

It scares me to think that this is what we're teaching our children.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

He maintained it by bulldozing it?

He destroyed the collateral no matter how you and others wish to rationalize it. He malicously and purposely destroyed collateral that he had an obligation to maintain.

We can argue all we want about what he did. However, it wasn't illegal. Perhaps a shingle was out of place.

If they aren't going to prosecute the people who steal the appliances, break the windows and paint graffiti--what he is doing is no different.

A physical structure is not a collateral, his entire property is. It just went down in value like the rest of the homes in America.

I don't agree with it. But it won't change the fact that he can and was able to do what he did with it.

He is no different than the tons of other homeowners who make decisions about their property out of anger over its current value or their inability to keep it. He'll be able to bankrupt out of it just like they do.