View Full Version : Homeowner forcloses on Bank. LOL
06-06-2011, 03:48 PM
The story says it all!
06-06-2011, 04:19 PM
06-06-2011, 10:49 PM
Although I like the concept, and applaud this result, it is being mischaracterized in this article.
In a foreclosure, there is a promissory note and a mortgage, where the property is specifically held forfeit to foreclosure if the note isn't paid.
That cannot have been the case here, and all kinds of businesses are deadbeats on bills without ever having a worry that someone will come in and legally seize everything in their place of work for non-payment. That isn't really how these things work.
What happened here was an enforcement action of the prior judgment, not a foreclosure, except figuratively.
06-06-2011, 11:03 PM
Ok, now I learned a little better how this works, and it STILL is not a foreclosure, although it could have been, if done differently.
The point of 'foreclosure' is to take away the equitable right of redemption, meaning the debtor still can make good on the payment and keep the property. As of a foreclosure, the debtor can NOT redeem the property by paying the debt.
Here, the debtor WAS allowed to simply make the payment the judgment required.
Your skit on this forum is actually a joke right? I get it now ... you are being a caricature of an ill informed leftist.
The reality is, #1, this is what happened according to the link:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So, how did it end with bank being foreclosed on? After more than 5 months of the judge's ruling, the bank still hadn't paid the legal fees, and the homeowner's attorney did exactly what the bank tried to do to the homeowners. He seized the bank's assets.
"They've ignored our calls, ignored our letters, legally this is the next step to get my clients compensated, " attorney Todd Allen told CBS.
<span style='font-size: 11pt'>Sheriff's deputies, movers, and the Nyergers' attorney went to the bank and foreclosed on it.</span> The attorney gave instructions to to remove desks, computers, copiers, filing cabinets and any cash in the teller's drawers.
After about an hour of being locked out of the bank, the bank manager handed the attorney a check for the legal fees.
"As a foreclosure defense attorney this is sweet justice" says Allen. </div></div>
And that words mean things: (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/foreclosure)
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Legal Dictionary
Main Entry: fore·clos·ure
1 : a legal proceeding that bars or extinguishes a mortgagor's equity of redemption in mortgaged real property —see also deficiency judgment at JUDGMENT, REDEEM, RIGHT OF REDEMPTION, STATUTORY FORECLOSURE, STRICT FORECLOSURE 1
2 : the extinguishment (as under the provisions of Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code) of the rights of a debtor in personal property subject to a security interest by judicial proceedings and esp. by judicial sale </div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">foreclose (fɔːˈkləʊz)
1. law to deprive (a mortgagor, etc) of the right to redeem (a mortgage or pledge)
2. ( tr ) to shut out; bar
3. ( tr ) to prevent or hinder
4. ( tr ) to answer or settle (an obligation, promise, etc) in advance
5. ( tr ) to make an exclusive claim to </div></div>
But, I understand your position. The banksters fund the regime and the regime covers for the banksters ... therefor you feel obliged to defend both.
Clear as mud. The man closed the bank and took control of assets until paid. Just like what the bank does when they forclose.
Good for the guy.
06-07-2011, 07:20 PM
What I said is right there in your citation.
It involves preventing the equitable right of redemption. The bank doesn't take your payment at that moment, refuses to do so, has established the legal right to do that, and that is what the foreclosure is all about.
In this case, the guy took the payment, allowing them to redeem all their stuff by the payment.
It doesn't matter what the newspaper reporter wrote, as if reporters never got it wrong.
So you hang your hat on 1 meaning and void the language of all other meanings?
How lame is that.
06-08-2011, 07:42 AM
Some people will argue just for the sake of arguing.
What do you mean by that! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.