2 bodies found in burning foreclosed house

[bearishgurl]

[quote=briansd1]The investors who bought at auction gambled and lost. Comes with the territory. No big deal.

A winning bid of $267,100 was made for Christenson’s property at public auction June 3, with unpaid debt and costs of $173,228, county records show. Court records show the first of two five-day notices to vacate the house were served June 4.

[/quote]

patb, the scenario you are painting isn’t what happened here. No doubt the winning bidder thought he/she got a “good deal” on the courthouse steps as the property was located in an “upscale” neighborhood and had been owned by the mom for “decades.” (The older ‘hoods in Reno ARE/WERE “upscale.”) The new owner had to OVERBID on what was owed (in competition with other bidders) to obtain the trustees deed. The lender owed the $173,228 was paid in full. We don’t know if the balance went to a second trust deed lender or back to the “now dead” trustor(s).

We don’t know this but it’s very possible the son used the balance to pay a gambling debt. His life may have been threatened regarding his gambling debts and he was too ashamed to tell his mom they were being evicted.

[ucodegen]

[quote patb]
In a decent society, a bankruptcy judge would write the note down to the new value of 200K.
[/quote]
Why? It is a secured note. Someone fronted the 400K. If you want mortgage rates to go sky high, go ahead and do this. The people lending money will start demanding a higher interest rate to offset the risk of loss of capital. They will refuse to lend until they get this. Remember that the lenders only make about 72% over the life of the loan (not adjusting for inflation and assuming that they are the primary source of capital). If you are going to demand a 50% haircut from the lenders with the possibility of then getting 36% back for a total return of -14% over a 30 year period(about -0.5%/yr) vs their 72% for a 30 year (about 4%/yr). The result will be mortgage interest rates close to 8 or 9% because you are effectively taking a secured loan and making it unsecured… just like credit cards – whose balances can be written down.

I would LOVE to have all my ‘costs’ readjusted if the real price changes. Imagine that if a stock price goes down, I get some of my cash back because its real value is less!! NICE!!!

[quote patb]
yes it may not appeal to people but the
cramdown is the best outcome.
[/quote]
And what of moral hazard?

[ucodegen]

[quote patb]
In a decent society, a bankruptcy judge would write the note down to the new value of 200K.
[/quote]
Why? It is a secured note. Someone fronted the 400K. If you want mortgage rates to go sky high, go ahead and do this. The people lending money will start demanding a higher interest rate to offset the risk of loss of capital. They will refuse to lend until they get this. Remember that the lenders only make about 72% over the life of the loan (not adjusting for inflation and assuming that they are the primary source of capital). If you are going to demand a 50% haircut from the lenders with the possibility of then getting 36% back for a total return of -14% over a 30 year period(about -0.5%/yr) vs their 72% for a 30 year (about 4%/yr). The result will be mortgage interest rates close to 8 or 9% because you are effectively taking a secured loan and making it unsecured… just like credit cards – whose balances can be written down.

I would LOVE to have all my ‘costs’ readjusted if the real price changes. Imagine that if a stock price goes down, I get some of my cash back because its real value is less!! NICE!!!

[quote patb]
yes it may not appeal to people but the
cramdown is the best outcome.
[/quote]
And what of moral hazard?

[ucodegen]

[quote patb]
In a decent society, a bankruptcy judge would write the note down to the new value of 200K.
[/quote]
Why? It is a secured note. Someone fronted the 400K. If you want mortgage rates to go sky high, go ahead and do this. The people lending money will start demanding a higher interest rate to offset the risk of loss of capital. They will refuse to lend until they get this. Remember that the lenders only make about 72% over the life of the loan (not adjusting for inflation and assuming that they are the primary source of capital). If you are going to demand a 50% haircut from the lenders with the possibility of then getting 36% back for a total return of -14% over a 30 year period(about -0.5%/yr) vs their 72% for a 30 year (about 4%/yr). The result will be mortgage interest rates close to 8 or 9% because you are effectively taking a secured loan and making it unsecured… just like credit cards – whose balances can be written down.

I would LOVE to have all my ‘costs’ readjusted if the real price changes. Imagine that if a stock price goes down, I get some of my cash back because its real value is less!! NICE!!!

[quote patb]
yes it may not appeal to people but the
cramdown is the best outcome.
[/quote]
And what of moral hazard?

[ucodegen]

[quote patb]
In a decent society, a bankruptcy judge would write the note down to the new value of 200K.
[/quote]
Why? It is a secured note. Someone fronted the 400K. If you want mortgage rates to go sky high, go ahead and do this. The people lending money will start demanding a higher interest rate to offset the risk of loss of capital. They will refuse to lend until they get this. Remember that the lenders only make about 72% over the life of the loan (not adjusting for inflation and assuming that they are the primary source of capital). If you are going to demand a 50% haircut from the lenders with the possibility of then getting 36% back for a total return of -14% over a 30 year period(about -0.5%/yr) vs their 72% for a 30 year (about 4%/yr). The result will be mortgage interest rates close to 8 or 9% because you are effectively taking a secured loan and making it unsecured… just like credit cards – whose balances can be written down.

I would LOVE to have all my ‘costs’ readjusted if the real price changes. Imagine that if a stock price goes down, I get some of my cash back because its real value is less!! NICE!!!

[quote patb]
yes it may not appeal to people but the
cramdown is the best outcome.
[/quote]
And what of moral hazard?

[ucodegen]

[quote patb]
In a decent society, a bankruptcy judge would write the note down to the new value of 200K.
[/quote]
Why? It is a secured note. Someone fronted the 400K. If you want mortgage rates to go sky high, go ahead and do this. The people lending money will start demanding a higher interest rate to offset the risk of loss of capital. They will refuse to lend until they get this. Remember that the lenders only make about 72% over the life of the loan (not adjusting for inflation and assuming that they are the primary source of capital). If you are going to demand a 50% haircut from the lenders with the possibility of then getting 36% back for a total return of -14% over a 30 year period(about -0.5%/yr) vs their 72% for a 30 year (about 4%/yr). The result will be mortgage interest rates close to 8 or 9% because you are effectively taking a secured loan and making it unsecured… just like credit cards – whose balances can be written down.

I would LOVE to have all my ‘costs’ readjusted if the real price changes. Imagine that if a stock price goes down, I get some of my cash back because its real value is less!! NICE!!!

[quote patb]
yes it may not appeal to people but the
cramdown is the best outcome.
[/quote]
And what of moral hazard?

[Arraya]

Why do you feel entitled to live in a decent society?

[Arraya]

Why do you feel entitled to live in a decent society?

[Arraya]

Why do you feel entitled to live in a decent society?

[Arraya]

Why do you feel entitled to live in a decent society?

[Arraya]

Why do you feel entitled to live in a decent society?

[bearishgurl]

Just perused the article provided by patb.

The fact that the son built up a “fortress” around the house ALREADY LOCATED in a prestigious gated community further buttresses my notion that the son felt his life was threatened in some way, perhaps by mafia-backed thugs who threatened him when he couldn’t pay all his casino debt.

I don’t believe the son built this fortress for a “5-day notice to vacate.”

BK filings and dismissals are a common tactic and “par for the course” when people are faced with foreclosure and want to buy a little time.

Also, after reading this, I NO LONGER FEEL their (hard-money or sub-prime) lender solicited these trustors door-to-door. I think the son had to have sought them out.

[bearishgurl]

Just perused the article provided by patb.

The fact that the son built up a “fortress” around the house ALREADY LOCATED in a prestigious gated community further buttresses my notion that the son felt his life was threatened in some way, perhaps by mafia-backed thugs who threatened him when he couldn’t pay all his casino debt.

I don’t believe the son built this fortress for a “5-day notice to vacate.”

BK filings and dismissals are a common tactic and “par for the course” when people are faced with foreclosure and want to buy a little time.

Also, after reading this, I NO LONGER FEEL their (hard-money or sub-prime) lender solicited these trustors door-to-door. I think the son had to have sought them out.

[bearishgurl]

Just perused the article provided by patb.

The fact that the son built up a “fortress” around the house ALREADY LOCATED in a prestigious gated community further buttresses my notion that the son felt his life was threatened in some way, perhaps by mafia-backed thugs who threatened him when he couldn’t pay all his casino debt.

I don’t believe the son built this fortress for a “5-day notice to vacate.”

BK filings and dismissals are a common tactic and “par for the course” when people are faced with foreclosure and want to buy a little time.

Also, after reading this, I NO LONGER FEEL their (hard-money or sub-prime) lender solicited these trustors door-to-door. I think the son had to have sought them out.

[bearishgurl]

Just perused the article provided by patb.

The fact that the son built up a “fortress” around the house ALREADY LOCATED in a prestigious gated community further buttresses my notion that the son felt his life was threatened in some way, perhaps by mafia-backed thugs who threatened him when he couldn’t pay all his casino debt.

I don’t believe the son built this fortress for a “5-day notice to vacate.”

BK filings and dismissals are a common tactic and “par for the course” when people are faced with foreclosure and want to buy a little time.

Also, after reading this, I NO LONGER FEEL their (hard-money or sub-prime) lender solicited these trustors door-to-door. I think the son had to have sought them out.

[Author]

Posts