PDA

View Full Version : Bank of America gets foreclosed on


brncs_fan
06-07-2011, 08:14 AM
Talk about a twist of irony...

In a modern-day evocation of David's slingshot triumph over Goliath, a couple of foreclosed homeowners in Naples, Florida reportedly foreclosed on a Bank of America branch last week, their attorney actually having moving trucks pull up in front of a Naples branch to execute a foreclosure judgment against the bank.

What must have seemed to observers like a scene out of a parallel universe - you can see some video here - was actually the fair and logical conclusion to a situation which, the court had ruled, had an unfair and illogical start. In 2009, retired police officer Warren Nyerges and his wife, Maureen Collier, paid $165,000 cash for their 2,700 square foot home in the Golden Gate Estates subdivision, and never took a mortgage out on it. So imagine their surprise when, in Februrary of 2010, Bank of America initiated foreclosure proceedings against them. The Nyerges hired an attorney, Todd Allen, to defend them against the wrongful foreclosure, and the Bank eventually abandoned the matter.

Clicky for full story (http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20110606/us_time/httpmoneylandtimecom20110606homeownerforeclosesonb ankofamericayesyouheardthatrightxidrssfullnationya hoo)

alkemical
06-07-2011, 08:38 AM
I saw this yesterday. Pretty awesome!

BOA has been doing a lot of shady work on the foreclosures. There really should be a massive investigation to this.

barryr
06-07-2011, 09:00 AM
Bank of America and Fannie Mae have both been problems in all of this. Billions were sent to banks for the sole purpose to modify bloated loans both such entities helped to create in the first place, yet they have largely sat on the money. Plus many people have not even bothered to fill out the mass paperwork involved to even try to get a modification since easier I guess to just walk away from a house. Bottom line is none of these banks or Fannie Mae really know what they are doing in all of this. They are making up the rules as they go since were never prepared for this fiasco which again, they largely created themselves.

alkemical
06-07-2011, 09:11 AM
can't we just torch the houses and claim the insurance?

make everyone happy?

barryr
06-07-2011, 09:37 AM
Itīs very bad, with so many homes empty and deserted. They say the time is right to buy a house since the prices are low, but with the high unemployment, that doesnīt help.

alkemical
06-07-2011, 09:42 AM
LOL, funny how that works, right?

Back in the early 2000's around the .com burst. I watched what "real" rich people did. I figured out they didn't really "buy" during good times. They waiting till bad times to buy everything up.

That One Guy
06-07-2011, 10:19 AM
Itīs very bad, with so many homes empty and deserted. They say the time is right to buy a house since the prices are low, but with the high unemployment, that doesnīt help.

No way it's the time to buy. Baja kept trying to tell me and the more I read, the more I came around that it is still going to go downhill until supply and demand stabilize. The number of houses still in the process or sitting foreclosed but off the market is a market fix that keeps anything from reflecting true value.

You might miss out on the absolute best possible price by waiting for things to stabilize but a solid investment is better than speculation unless you REALLY know what you're doing.

Rohirrim
06-07-2011, 11:44 AM
I guess deregulation doesn't work. Ya think?

pricejj
06-07-2011, 11:54 AM
LOL, funny how that works, right?

Back in the early 2000's around the .com burst. I watched what "real" rich people did. I figured out they didn't really "buy" during good times. They waiting till bad times to buy everything up.

Buy low, sell high.

:sunshine:

alkemical
06-07-2011, 11:54 AM
Buy low, sell high.

Well...it's not JUST as simple as that.

Smiling Assassin27
06-07-2011, 12:03 PM
I guess deregulation doesn't work. Ya think?

neither does over-regulation. it's always been about having the correct regulation in the proper amount, but thanks for the knee jerk reaction. we can always count on you and LABF to fill the void.

pricejj
06-07-2011, 12:05 PM
Government's only role in the mortgage business should be minimal regulation.

Any additional government involvement only spurs over-valuation of the housing market, which leads to speculation and bubbles. Three good examples.

1. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac
2. $7000 tax rebate in 2009
3. FHA 3.5% down loans

All three serve to inflate housing prices, by attempting to "stimulate" activity in an already inflated market.

alkemical
06-07-2011, 12:06 PM
Government's only role in the mortgage business should be establishing set credentials (20% down, level of income, length of employment, credit history, etc.) that prospective buyer's need to meet in order to qualify for financing through a private institution.

All over government involvement only spurs over-valuation of the housing market, which leads to speculation and bubbles. Three good examples.

1. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac
2. $7000 tax rebate in 2009
3. FHA 3.5% down loans

And those bull**** school districts that keep "reevaluating" property, raise the values in order to collect more taxable income (at least here).

Smiling Assassin27
06-07-2011, 12:10 PM
Government's only role in the mortgage business should be establishing set credentials (20% down, level of income, length of employment, credit history, etc.) that prospective buyer's need to meet in order to qualify for financing through a private institution.

All over government involvement only spurs over-valuation of the housing market, which leads to speculation and bubbles. Three good examples.

1. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac
2. $7000 tax rebate in 2009
3. FHA 3.5% down loans

Unless the government is gonna pay back the defaulted loan for me, why should they tell me how i should underwrite a loan made with MY money? They can underwrite their own loans any way they want--and in the case of the secondary market, they do--but no way should they be allowed to set their underwriting guidelines and impose them on any other lender, save for those deals they plan to purchase from said lenders.

The government knows nothing about lending, knows less about housing, and even less about turning a profit. As such, their knowledge gap--and intervention--makes them nothing more than a liability to lenders and consumers alike. Regulation has its place, but the extent to which our government has undertaken a social engineering venture has made this market nothing more than a shell.

pricejj
06-07-2011, 12:10 PM
And those bull**** school districts that keep "reevaluating" property, raise the values in order to collect more taxable income (at least here).

In Thornton, CO, new builders are forced to include a basement in new houses to increase property value, and therefore property tax. I also read that some municipalities are basing property value on what an owner "would sell" for, not what the property is actually worth.

Anything in order to keep their ever-increasing budgets eh?

alkemical
06-07-2011, 12:11 PM
In Thornton, CO, new builders are forced to include a basement in new houses to increase property value, and therefore property tax. I also read that some municipalities are basing property value on what an owner "would sell" for, not what the property is actually worth.

Anything in order to keep their ever-increasing budgets eh?

It's so frustrating.

Rohirrim
06-07-2011, 12:11 PM
neither does over-regulation. it's always been about having the correct regulation in the proper amount, but thanks for the knee jerk reaction. we can always count on you and LABF to fill the void.

You're an idiot. Just about every destructive economic event of the last five years was caused by deregulation. Had Glass/Steagle not been taken apart, there would have been no derivatives casino and no investment banks betting against their own clients investments. In the words of Mock, rent a clue.

pricejj
06-07-2011, 12:18 PM
Unless the government is gonna pay back the defaulted loan for me, why should they tell me how i should underwrite a loan made with MY money?

True. But the only problem is the government did pay banks, mega $$$ for bad loans that were made. i.e. the bailouts.

If a financial institution knows that it will be bailed out in event of default, why not give out liar loans?

Smiling Assassin27
06-07-2011, 12:19 PM
You're an idiot. Just about every destructive economic event of the last five years was caused by deregulation. Had Glass/Steagle not been taken apart, there would have been no derivatives casino and no investment banks betting against their own clients investments. In the words of Mock, rent a clue.

Thanks for the compliment but you're reading the tea leaves all wrong, fool. Glass Steagall is but one part of a mish mash of regulations that, when imposed, took the market to new imaginary heights. It's about PROPER regulations, not just tossing out 'FInancial Reform' regulation and thinking it'll do the job. If you can't see that over-regulation was just as bad for the housing market as deregulation, then you need to type less and read more. But then, laziness has always been your strong suit and your burning desire push your foolish 'deregulation is the devil' meme is kinda funny.

Smiling Assassin27
06-07-2011, 12:25 PM
True. But the only problem is the government did pay banks, mega $$$ for bad loans that were made. i.e. the bailouts.

If a financial institution knows that it will be bailed out in event of default, why not give out liar loans?

The bailouts didn't occur until AFTER the mass delinquencies hit. The government was not forced to bail them out, either. They foolishly CHOSE to bail these banks out rather than allowing the market to do what it does. The government, when it purchases loans a la fannie and freddie, can underwrite however they want, but to impose a nationwide underwriting scale is fascist and guarantees that banks will fail in greater not lesser numbers, IMO.

Lenders did not know that they'd be bailed out. They were writing liar loans because laws like the CRA demanded that they make a certain number of loans to a certain number of people of specific races and economic levels. If they did not meet those quotas set by the gov't , Janet Reno and other AG's would litigate them out of business. The lenders figured they could make these loans, make a TON of money (due to the escalating property values nationwide) and then double that money in the market by bundling them. It all became a house of cards with gov't, lender, and consumer alike having some culpability in the collapse.

pricejj
06-07-2011, 12:28 PM
The bailouts didn't occur until AFTER the mass delinquencies hit. The government was not forced to bail them out, either. They foolishly CHOSE to bail these banks out rather than allowing the market to do what it does. The government, when it purchases loans a la fannie and freddie, can underwrite however they want, but to impose a nationwide underwriting scale is fascist and guarantees that banks will fail in greater not lesser numbers, IMO.

Lenders did not know that they'd be bailed out. They were writing liar loans because laws like the CRA demanded that they make a certain number of loans to a certain number of people of specific races and economic levels. If they did not meet those quotas set by the gov't , Janet Reno and other AG's would litigate them out of business. The lenders figured they could make these loans, make a TON of money (due to the escalating property values nationwide) and then double that money in the market by bundling them. It all became a house of cards with gov't, lender, and consumer alike having some culpability in the collapse.

Good knowledge, I agree. Editing above post.

Rohirrim
06-07-2011, 12:34 PM
Thanks for the compliment but you're reading the tea leaves all wrong, fool. Glass Steagall is but one part of a mish mash of regulations that, when imposed, took the market to new imaginary heights. It's about PROPER regulations, not just tossing out 'FInancial Reform' regulation and thinking it'll do the job. If you can't see that over-regulation was just as bad for the housing market as deregulation, then you need to type less and read more. But then, laziness has always been your strong suit and your burning desire push your foolish 'deregulation is the devil' meme is kinda funny.

I applaud your talent for believing in the **** you make up.

Smiling Assassin27
06-07-2011, 12:35 PM
I applaud your talent for believing in the **** you make up.

And I applaud your utter inability to argue your own weak point after someone disagrees with it. But hey, calling me an idiot would win if we were in 3rd grade. Nice job.

epicSocialism4tw
06-07-2011, 12:48 PM
And I applaud your utter inability to argue your own weak point after someone disagrees with it. But hey, calling me an idiot would win if we were in 3rd grade. Nice job.

He could have stepped it up a notch and called you a "butthead".

broncocalijohn
06-07-2011, 01:30 PM
Great story and I would not buy right now in the areas where foreclosures are at its highest. There is another round of bad Zero down loans which balloon up in 5 years (from 2006). I would wait until end of year or beginning of 2012 if you are renting and have a good situation currently. No need to rush.

Rohirrim
06-07-2011, 02:52 PM
And I applaud your utter inability to argue your own weak point after someone disagrees with it. But hey, calling me an idiot would win if we were in 3rd grade. Nice job.

The repeal of Glass/Steagle allowed the banks to go from systems that relied on interest based income to systems that relied on fee based income. This simple fact created an environment that encouraged banks to churn transactions (derivatives anyone?). And that is what brought down the economy.

Basic ****. Perhaps, even you can grasp it.

baja
06-07-2011, 03:53 PM
No way it's the time to buy. Baja kept trying to make the claim but the more I read, the more I came around that it is still going to go downhill until supply and demand stabilize. The number of houses still in the process or sitting foreclosed but off the market is a market fix that keeps anything from reflecting true value.

You might miss out on the absolute best possible price by waiting for things to stabilize but a solid investment is better than speculation unless you REALLY know what you're doing.

I never made that claim. I said RENT and wait for the bottom if you wanted/needed to live in cities.

baja
06-07-2011, 03:55 PM
My advice was and is, get as rural as you can and get off the grid as much as you can and be sure to have water and soil to plant a big garden.

show me otherwise

baja
06-07-2011, 04:15 PM
If you wonder why I chose Baja (after Reagen was elected) go to Google Earth and get on night satellite then zoom to Baja - No lights no people except on both ends.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
06-07-2011, 04:32 PM
Talk about a twist of irony...



Clicky for full story (http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20110606/us_time/httpmoneylandtimecom20110606homeownerforeclosesonb ankofamericayesyouheardthatrightxidrssfullnationya hoo)

Now that's what I call a feel-good story.

Thanks! :thumbsup:

That One Guy
06-07-2011, 05:23 PM
I never made that claim. I said RENT and wait for the bottom if you wanted/needed to live in cities.

Sorry about that. I meant it completely different than it reads after I edited it and it still made sense to me.

You were the one saying not to buy when I was looking at buying and the more I've read since then, the more I came to the same conclusion. I'll edit it now.