A few days ago I wrote about one couple’s decision to skip out on their obligations out of convenience, and today I found one that makes the last couple look like saints:
Ohio Man Bulldozes Home to Avoid Foreclosure
From what I hear, this isn’t illegal in many areas. Since the guy owned the home he can do what he wants with the property. I’ve heard stories about homeowners turning on all the water in their house in the winter and turning off the heat and walking away from the house. I’ve seen Craigslist ads where homeowners are selling the furnace, cabinetry, plumbing, lighting, etc. from their in-foreclosure houses.
What makes this any different than robbing or vandalizing a bank directly? While people who choose to walk away from their homes for convenience (versus financial hardship) may be lacking morals, I believe the people who willfully destroy properties before walking away are down right criminal. I would love to see Minnesota pass a law against this kind of stuff. It is one thing to have the right to do whatever you want to do to your property, it is another thing to use that right to hurt the financial interests of others.
If you destroy a house you own free and clear of any mortgage, then all the more power to you. Do it instead as punishment to a lender and you should spend some time in The Big House.
Good point. That is way over the top.
Will credit applications have a new question: “If you’ve been foreclosed upon before, did you trash the property on the way out?”
It should! It’s amazing that people can get away with this stuff. I was wondering if we should have a web site that shows the names and photos of all the people cheating their banks – kind of like what we have with sex offenders.
I agree. I have sympathy for someone who can’t make the payments on their mortgage, but turning that into anger and bulldozing a house that you don’t completely own is terrible. He definitely deserves jailtime.
Guess this guy did not read his mortgage (obviously we need another new disclosure)
From Std FannieMae Uniform Insutrument (Mortgage):
“7. Preservation, Maintenance and Protection of the Property; Inspections. Borrower shall not destroy, damage or impair the Property, allow the Property to deteriorate or commit waste on the Property. Whether or not Borrower is residing in the Property, Borrower shall maintain the Property in order to prevent the Property from deteriorating or decreasing in value due to its condition. Unless it is determined pursuant to Section 5 that repair or restoration is not economically feasible, Borrower shall promptly repair the Property if damaged to avoid further deterioration or damage. If insurance or condemnation proceeds are paid in connection with damage to, or the taking of, the Property, Borrower shall be responsible for repairing or restoring the Property only if Lender has released proceeds for such purposes. Lender may disburse proceeds for the repairs and restoration in a single payment or in a series of progress payments as the work is completed. If the insurance or condemnation proceeds are not sufficient to repair or restore the Property, Borrower is not relieved of Borrower’s obligation for the completion of such repair or restoration.
Lender or its agent may make reasonable entries upon and inspections of the Property. If it has reasonable cause, Lender may inspect the interior of the improvements on the Property. Lender shall give Borrower notice at the time of or prior to such an interior inspection specifying such reasonable cause.”
—-
Your property rights do not actually extend very far when you’ve mortgaged the property, do they?
What recourse does Fannie have? Also, this is contract law so it is civil vs. criminal, right? I want the guy to be in jail.
Depends on who the Note is assigned to, but if a lender sends that to Fannie Mae for a claim, you can bet Fannie will ask some questions about why they have not pursued this guy.
I’d imagine there is a monetary damage threshold out there where civil rises to criminal. This is not exactly scraping fixtures, after all.
Based on my extensive experience watching made up court cases on TV and in Movies, I’d say this is either criminal mischief or wanton destruction of property with malicious intent.
I’ve got it:
Law & Order: Foreclosure Unit
Another way to read that is: Law & Order: FU – LOL!
I guess the guy was mad at the bank for giving him a house with $0 money down. I don’t understand these people who get so mad at the bank when they want to take the house back. Would you get mad at your landlord if he wanted to evict you for not paying rent?