- This topic has 45 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 6 months ago by
jpinpb.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 3, 2009 at 11:14 AM #392462May 3, 2009 at 11:50 AM #392487
patientrenter
ParticipantWhen I first saw this topic, I assumed it was some proposal to criminalize and actually prosecute the destruction of houses committed by the people who owned and lived in the houses, or at their invitation. As far as I can tell, the greatest loss of value right now from the foreclosures is this destruction, not the neglect by the banks after they gain possession.
What do the RE experts think is the relative importance of these two factors? 50/50? 20/80…?
May 3, 2009 at 11:50 AM #392752ParticipantWhen I first saw this topic, I assumed it was some proposal to criminalize and actually prosecute the destruction of houses committed by the people who owned and lived in the houses, or at their invitation. As far as I can tell, the greatest loss of value right now from the foreclosures is this destruction, not the neglect by the banks after they gain possession.
What do the RE experts think is the relative importance of these two factors? 50/50? 20/80…?
May 3, 2009 at 11:50 AM #392224ParticipantWhen I first saw this topic, I assumed it was some proposal to criminalize and actually prosecute the destruction of houses committed by the people who owned and lived in the houses, or at their invitation. As far as I can tell, the greatest loss of value right now from the foreclosures is this destruction, not the neglect by the banks after they gain possession.
What do the RE experts think is the relative importance of these two factors? 50/50? 20/80…?
May 3, 2009 at 11:50 AM #392894ParticipantWhen I first saw this topic, I assumed it was some proposal to criminalize and actually prosecute the destruction of houses committed by the people who owned and lived in the houses, or at their invitation. As far as I can tell, the greatest loss of value right now from the foreclosures is this destruction, not the neglect by the banks after they gain possession.
What do the RE experts think is the relative importance of these two factors? 50/50? 20/80…?
May 3, 2009 at 11:50 AM #392699ParticipantWhen I first saw this topic, I assumed it was some proposal to criminalize and actually prosecute the destruction of houses committed by the people who owned and lived in the houses, or at their invitation. As far as I can tell, the greatest loss of value right now from the foreclosures is this destruction, not the neglect by the banks after they gain possession.
What do the RE experts think is the relative importance of these two factors? 50/50? 20/80…?
May 3, 2009 at 2:04 PM #392744ucodegen
ParticipantBrad Ramos is barking up a dangerous tree that can turn around and wipe out his towns budget. He is trying to pierce the corporate veil, but the mechanism being used does not do it correctly. Ramos can hold the banks, as a legal entity, responsible for the upkeep. He can fine them too.. and then take possession of the property in question due to unpaid fines. What he can’t do is arrest the CEO or bank officers. They don’t own the property. The legal entity, the bank, does.
If he does, he will be hit with false arrest charges, abuse of authority charges and then hit for damages as well as effective lost wages of that individual. The sheriff will lose in court… very quickly and very badly.
The correct way is to fine the property and then when fines are sufficiently large, take possession of the property.
There is a nasty side effect on all of this to the individual home owner. This will be an army of people who check that you are properly keeping a property to their standards, and you could be fined and possibly your property taken. Pretty nasty extension of a HOA, but in this case the city is acting as an HOW but with no upkeep responsibilities on their side.
May 3, 2009 at 2:04 PM #392796ParticipantBrad Ramos is barking up a dangerous tree that can turn around and wipe out his towns budget. He is trying to pierce the corporate veil, but the mechanism being used does not do it correctly. Ramos can hold the banks, as a legal entity, responsible for the upkeep. He can fine them too.. and then take possession of the property in question due to unpaid fines. What he can’t do is arrest the CEO or bank officers. They don’t own the property. The legal entity, the bank, does.
If he does, he will be hit with false arrest charges, abuse of authority charges and then hit for damages as well as effective lost wages of that individual. The sheriff will lose in court… very quickly and very badly.
The correct way is to fine the property and then when fines are sufficiently large, take possession of the property.
There is a nasty side effect on all of this to the individual home owner. This will be an army of people who check that you are properly keeping a property to their standards, and you could be fined and possibly your property taken. Pretty nasty extension of a HOA, but in this case the city is acting as an HOW but with no upkeep responsibilities on their side.
May 3, 2009 at 2:04 PM #392938ParticipantBrad Ramos is barking up a dangerous tree that can turn around and wipe out his towns budget. He is trying to pierce the corporate veil, but the mechanism being used does not do it correctly. Ramos can hold the banks, as a legal entity, responsible for the upkeep. He can fine them too.. and then take possession of the property in question due to unpaid fines. What he can’t do is arrest the CEO or bank officers. They don’t own the property. The legal entity, the bank, does.
If he does, he will be hit with false arrest charges, abuse of authority charges and then hit for damages as well as effective lost wages of that individual. The sheriff will lose in court… very quickly and very badly.
The correct way is to fine the property and then when fines are sufficiently large, take possession of the property.
There is a nasty side effect on all of this to the individual home owner. This will be an army of people who check that you are properly keeping a property to their standards, and you could be fined and possibly your property taken. Pretty nasty extension of a HOA, but in this case the city is acting as an HOW but with no upkeep responsibilities on their side.
May 3, 2009 at 2:04 PM #392533ParticipantBrad Ramos is barking up a dangerous tree that can turn around and wipe out his towns budget. He is trying to pierce the corporate veil, but the mechanism being used does not do it correctly. Ramos can hold the banks, as a legal entity, responsible for the upkeep. He can fine them too.. and then take possession of the property in question due to unpaid fines. What he can’t do is arrest the CEO or bank officers. They don’t own the property. The legal entity, the bank, does.
If he does, he will be hit with false arrest charges, abuse of authority charges and then hit for damages as well as effective lost wages of that individual. The sheriff will lose in court… very quickly and very badly.
The correct way is to fine the property and then when fines are sufficiently large, take possession of the property.
There is a nasty side effect on all of this to the individual home owner. This will be an army of people who check that you are properly keeping a property to their standards, and you could be fined and possibly your property taken. Pretty nasty extension of a HOA, but in this case the city is acting as an HOW but with no upkeep responsibilities on their side.
May 3, 2009 at 2:04 PM #392268ParticipantBrad Ramos is barking up a dangerous tree that can turn around and wipe out his towns budget. He is trying to pierce the corporate veil, but the mechanism being used does not do it correctly. Ramos can hold the banks, as a legal entity, responsible for the upkeep. He can fine them too.. and then take possession of the property in question due to unpaid fines. What he can’t do is arrest the CEO or bank officers. They don’t own the property. The legal entity, the bank, does.
If he does, he will be hit with false arrest charges, abuse of authority charges and then hit for damages as well as effective lost wages of that individual. The sheriff will lose in court… very quickly and very badly.
The correct way is to fine the property and then when fines are sufficiently large, take possession of the property.
There is a nasty side effect on all of this to the individual home owner. This will be an army of people who check that you are properly keeping a property to their standards, and you could be fined and possibly your property taken. Pretty nasty extension of a HOA, but in this case the city is acting as an HOW but with no upkeep responsibilities on their side.
May 3, 2009 at 4:37 PM #392794CA renter
Participant[quote=ucodegen]Brad Ramos is barking up a dangerous tree that can turn around and wipe out his towns budget. He is trying to pierce the corporate veil, but the mechanism being used does not do it correctly. Ramos can hold the banks, as a legal entity, responsible for the upkeep. He can fine them too.. and then take possession of the property in question due to unpaid fines. What he can’t do is arrest the CEO or bank officers. They don’t own the property. The legal entity, the bank, does.
If he does, he will be hit with false arrest charges, abuse of authority charges and then hit for damages as well as effective lost wages of that individual. The sheriff will lose in court… very quickly and very badly.
The correct way is to fine the property and then when fines are sufficiently large, take possession of the property.
There is a nasty side effect on all of this to the individual home owner. This will be an army of people who check that you are properly keeping a property to their standards, and you could be fined and possibly your property taken. Pretty nasty extension of a HOA, but in this case the city is acting as an HOW but with no upkeep responsibilities on their side.
[/quote]
Correct, UR.
I’d rather have the city enforcing the rules than have banks letting squatters move in and/or allow the houses to deteriorate like they do.
Yes, some of the problem lies with the former owner/occupant (who should also be fined, IMHO), but I’ve seen plenty of homes go downhill FAST simply because they are empty and neglected.
May 3, 2009 at 4:37 PM #392846Participant[quote=ucodegen]Brad Ramos is barking up a dangerous tree that can turn around and wipe out his towns budget. He is trying to pierce the corporate veil, but the mechanism being used does not do it correctly. Ramos can hold the banks, as a legal entity, responsible for the upkeep. He can fine them too.. and then take possession of the property in question due to unpaid fines. What he can’t do is arrest the CEO or bank officers. They don’t own the property. The legal entity, the bank, does.
If he does, he will be hit with false arrest charges, abuse of authority charges and then hit for damages as well as effective lost wages of that individual. The sheriff will lose in court… very quickly and very badly.
The correct way is to fine the property and then when fines are sufficiently large, take possession of the property.
There is a nasty side effect on all of this to the individual home owner. This will be an army of people who check that you are properly keeping a property to their standards, and you could be fined and possibly your property taken. Pretty nasty extension of a HOA, but in this case the city is acting as an HOW but with no upkeep responsibilities on their side.
[/quote]
Correct, UR.
I’d rather have the city enforcing the rules than have banks letting squatters move in and/or allow the houses to deteriorate like they do.
Yes, some of the problem lies with the former owner/occupant (who should also be fined, IMHO), but I’ve seen plenty of homes go downhill FAST simply because they are empty and neglected.
May 3, 2009 at 4:37 PM #392319Participant[quote=ucodegen]Brad Ramos is barking up a dangerous tree that can turn around and wipe out his towns budget. He is trying to pierce the corporate veil, but the mechanism being used does not do it correctly. Ramos can hold the banks, as a legal entity, responsible for the upkeep. He can fine them too.. and then take possession of the property in question due to unpaid fines. What he can’t do is arrest the CEO or bank officers. They don’t own the property. The legal entity, the bank, does.
If he does, he will be hit with false arrest charges, abuse of authority charges and then hit for damages as well as effective lost wages of that individual. The sheriff will lose in court… very quickly and very badly.
The correct way is to fine the property and then when fines are sufficiently large, take possession of the property.
There is a nasty side effect on all of this to the individual home owner. This will be an army of people who check that you are properly keeping a property to their standards, and you could be fined and possibly your property taken. Pretty nasty extension of a HOA, but in this case the city is acting as an HOW but with no upkeep responsibilities on their side.
[/quote]
Correct, UR.
I’d rather have the city enforcing the rules than have banks letting squatters move in and/or allow the houses to deteriorate like they do.
Yes, some of the problem lies with the former owner/occupant (who should also be fined, IMHO), but I’ve seen plenty of homes go downhill FAST simply because they are empty and neglected.
May 3, 2009 at 4:37 PM #392989Participant[quote=ucodegen]Brad Ramos is barking up a dangerous tree that can turn around and wipe out his towns budget. He is trying to pierce the corporate veil, but the mechanism being used does not do it correctly. Ramos can hold the banks, as a legal entity, responsible for the upkeep. He can fine them too.. and then take possession of the property in question due to unpaid fines. What he can’t do is arrest the CEO or bank officers. They don’t own the property. The legal entity, the bank, does.
If he does, he will be hit with false arrest charges, abuse of authority charges and then hit for damages as well as effective lost wages of that individual. The sheriff will lose in court… very quickly and very badly.
The correct way is to fine the property and then when fines are sufficiently large, take possession of the property.
There is a nasty side effect on all of this to the individual home owner. This will be an army of people who check that you are properly keeping a property to their standards, and you could be fined and possibly your property taken. Pretty nasty extension of a HOA, but in this case the city is acting as an HOW but with no upkeep responsibilities on their side.
[/quote]
Correct, UR.
I’d rather have the city enforcing the rules than have banks letting squatters move in and/or allow the houses to deteriorate like they do.
Yes, some of the problem lies with the former owner/occupant (who should also be fined, IMHO), but I’ve seen plenty of homes go downhill FAST simply because they are empty and neglected.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.