Thanks to Mystery Reader for this infuriating link. I just came from a lawyer's education course where we spent a long time hearing from judges and attorneys about mortgage foreclosure. Here's a question for you that nobody could answer:
If a bank forecloses on a mortgage, why can't the former owner stay on as a tenant and pay market rate rent if they want to, instead of being evicted? What is the point of kicking somebody out of the home and leaving it vacant? Many, probably most, people would gladly stay in their home as a renter. The bank would be getting income, the property would be maintained, there would be no disruption to the neighborhood, and the bank would own the property and could sell it to whoever they chose. If the former owner, now a renter, didn't pay the rent they could evict him like any other tenant.
Why don't banks do that instead of whining about how much vacant REO they have on their books? And why don't we have a federal law requiring them to accept that arrangement if the owner is willing and able to pay monthly rent, even if they can't pay the arrears, penalties, property tax, etc.?
4 comments:
Banks are in the business of lending not land lording.
They already have the properties, sitting vacant. All they have to do is hire a property management firm to take care of collecting the rents. If they can suck up all this bailout money they can at least stop the sociopathic destruction of people's lives and neighborhoods and show some trace of social responsibility.
> they can at least stop the sociopathic destruction of people's lives
> and neighborhoods and show some trace of social responsibility.
Didn't you get the memo? Quoting myself from the AT&T v Concepcion thread, corporate sociopathy is a feature, not a bug:
> Corporations have no social duty
> Except to those who own their stock
> …
> Corporations are amoral
> Corporate conscience is impossible
> The corporation really has no choice
> ...
> So if you want your freedom
> Let the corporate seize the day
> There really is no better way
>
> -The Milton Friedman Choir
>
> Conservatives, libertarians, and Ayn Randians celebrate corporations as a thing of beauty
> because they have no moral obligations to anyone other than their shareholders.
In what other context would a conservative accept a "I'm not responsible for my amoral actions because I really have no choice" excuse?
Kinda hard without knowing more details, but the Garn-St.Germain Act may protect the widow from such action by the financial institution.
Post a Comment