Let’s just say pretend I know what I’m talking about.
Not the way to win arguments, I assume nothing. I believe the old saying about ‘assume’..
If you buy a car, replace the goodyear tires with the cheapest tires you can find after the original tires wear out and the car gets repo’d. Are you guilty of theft for not returning the original tires or replacing them with equally expensive tires.
Not accurate. The tires are expendable items. Contra example. If I know the car will be repo’d and I then part out the car before repo can be done.. am I guilty of theft?
An important note: The foreclosure was known before the decision to part out/cheap tires.. not afterwards. Very important distinction.
The problem is that the asset is the underlying part of the securitization for the loan and affects the asset that the loan is tied to. Remember, the buyer really doesn’t own the property until the loan is paid off!! Who has the name on the title for the property??
If the lender was smart they could seek an injuction to bar the owner from removing fixed items at the point of the nod, then the violation doesn’t need to satisfy the theft statute, it would be an offence to violate the court order
True.. but looking at lending standards and how they are doing short sales.. do most lenders fit underneath this description? I also think it would be a TRO.. not an injunction…
18 USC 1011 – entering into the mortgage contract with intent to defraud by default and sale of part of underlying asset.
also possible 18 USC 1014. — this does not only apply to ‘farms’.
18 USC 1001.a.1 – deceits against the bank?
18 USC 1001.c.2 – procurement of property – intent.
This one is interesting.. I would have to check the reach of 12 USC 1131-1134m
18 USC 658
Related to banks being closed by FDIC and dealing with the loans they held.
18 USC 1032 – bit of a reach though.
Tricky portion is the intent. Effectively the homeowner ‘intends’ to reduce what the bank would get in closing out the debt and profit from it. 18 USC – chapter 9 has some useful parts, but bankruptcy was not declared by the debtor.. they are just defaulting on a loan. NOTE: It will be interesting if the loan on the property is the original purchase money loan or a refi. They would be slitting their own throat by parting out the house on a refi’d property because the bank can go after them for the deficit. I think there was some post to the effect that the individuals were Realtors.. bank might see if they can go after their license.
NOTE: The above scenario may be why some of the properties are being pulled from short sale and pushed through judicial foreclosure.
I found 18 USC 650 ironic in the current scheme of things…
