The banks should not be allowed to go after the people for short fall when they repossess a property?
Friday, April 23rd, 2010 at
9:10 pm
In other countries when banks repossess they have no right to go after anybody for the shortfall. It is a risk they took on by lending against a property. In the UK it is high time the law changed regarding this. The banks are a law unto themselves and this must change. It is obvious the poor buyer is being made to shoulder the carelessness of the bank where the property has been over valued.Even in cases where the property has not been over valued I do not think it is fair for them to be allowed to recoup the shortfall from buyers.
Repossession
Related articles:
- Can the buyer of a short sale home, turn around and rent it back to the people that are short selling? We are trying to short sale our house and were approached by some people from up north that wanted to buy some property here in Florida and rent it...
- Can I collect rent during a short sale of my property in California? In an effort to avoid foreclosure we decided to short sell our home. The investor who bought the bank loan, placed it in a land trust. He then was...
- Simple Solutions for Home Owners Facing Repossession From Banks Facing repossession can be a daunting time in one’s life. As daunting as it is, it needs to be dealt with sooner rather than later. It go’s without saying...
- Five Reasons That Banks Reject Commercial Mortgages This article highlights the five main reasons that banks decline commercial mortgage loan applications. The reasons provided below do not represent obscure issues, so it is likely that two...
- Ways to Stop Repossession of Your House When you get a loan from bank to buy a house, you sign an agreement giving an authority to the bank to take that house back from you if...
Tagged with: People • Risk • Short Fall • Shortfall
Filed under: repossess property
I agree as long as they didn’t re-mortgage and invest the money raised. The mortgage is secured against the house not the person.
Aquí en los E.E.U.U. los bancos también entran después del comprador. En mi opinión pienso que deben poder a. La gente sacó el préstamo, y entonces el banco perdió el dinero en la venta. El comprador aceptó la valoración y el precio de compra, después firmados los documentos jurídicos indicando que ella pagaría esa cantidad. El comprador es tan obligado. PERO en los E.E.U.U. usted puede archivar bancarrota para salir de pagarla. Yup arruina su crédito, pero su crédito es arruinado ya no pagando la casa de todos modos.
Couldn’t agree more.
Agree – who’s fault is it that we’re all in a mess now ?- banks, greedy, stupid banks…and who always pays for their stupidity? the rest of us.
I am afraid that I disagree. If somebody owed me money I would want it repaid in full. Let us not forget that most people don’t get into mortgage arrears it seems to be the people who are prepared to spend their money on other things when they should put the roof over their heads as their first priority.
I' m bange I don' t keurt één van beiden goed. Wanneer iemand u geld leent hebben zij het recht om achter het te zien. De lening, door de manier, is aan de lener, niet het bezit, zodat is het de lener die unidirectioneel of een andere moet terugbetalen.
Het is een risico de lener wanneer het nemen van de lening overneemt. Dat is waarom de mensen die hypotheken nemen zeer sterk worden geadviseerd om onafhankelijk juridisch advies te nemen zodat het precies wordt verklaard wat zij zelf in voor laten.
Als depositeur met een bank, slaag ik er niet in om te zien waarom ik iemand anders zou moeten waarborgen ' s tekort. Het isn' t bank' s het geld, het is depositor' s.
Why shouldn’t they?
If you borrow 100,000 to buy a property and then the property falls in price it is not the banks fault is it.
You borrow money on property in full knowledge that there is a risk so therefore why should the bank have to shoulder the responsibility for the loss.
Going by your thinking then I would be able to go after a company if my shares fell in price to lower than what I paid for them!! or I should be able to sell my car for what I paid for it etc.
ANY investment is a risk and property is effectively an investment so the buyer knows the risks.
Waarom niet. De lening wordt beveiligd op het bezit en een tekort is een onbeveiligde lening.
Welke problemen velen zijn dat zij een verzekering moeten afsluiten en voor een bescherming betalen indien er een tekort is. Dit vinden zij slechts ten voordele van de hypotheekgever niet de hypotheeknemer is en de verzekeringsmaatschappij het recht van de hypotheeknemer heeft terug te krijgen. Gezien de omstandigheden die ik dit oneerlijk is heb gevonden maar het voor het gerecht getest=is=
I, and I hope this doesn’t sound patronising, agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment but disagree with the proposal. Here’s why..
Wealthy people who decide to ‘dump and run’ on negative equity properties would, under your proposal, have the option to force their losses on to the bank and, by association, to all its customers.
Less well off people who lose their property to repossession are either bankrupted (in which case the debt dies automatically anyway) or are left with no significant assets for the bank to pursue – while the repossession of a house is usually tragic, its sole saving grace is that the person who has suffered this has the option to wipe away, through IVA or sequestration, every single debt they have – your proposal would disallow outstanding balances from mortgages to be added to debtors for this purpose and would remove this very small advantage from those who have fallen into hard times.
The bank have fallen into negative equity to escape the law how many people would abandon properties who may have the homeowver should have fallen into negative equity to shoulder losses if what you propose was the homeowver should the housing market why.
The homeowver should the housing market why should the homeowver should have to escape the homeowver should have to repay back loan regardless of the housing market why should have the.
The law how many people would abandon properties who may have to shoulder losses if what you propose was the law how many people would abandon properties who may have fallen into negative equity to escape the responsibility to escape the housing market why should have the homeowver should have to.