The Bipartisan March to Fiscal Madness

[urbanrealtor]

First, this is speculation but it makes sense given the existing incentive structure.
On its face, it would seem really obvious that a bank would want a short sale rather than a foreclosure.
This is because a bank incurs significant additional outlays when it becomes a landlord:
-trash outs
-key change
-attorneys
-repairs
-deed recordings
-tenant negotiations (usually a few thousand just in cash-for-keys)
In a short sale, all they do is approve a number and collect a check. If there is a junior lien or liens, the senior lien holder will authorize some paltry pay out to them (like $5000 on an $80000 second)
Generally a senior lien holder’s net is substantially higher in a short sale as compared to a foreclosure.
The monkey wrench here is greed.
Many times seconds will insist upon an unrealistic number or on a payment outside of escrow (which is illegal) or that they maintain the right to follow after the closing.
First lien holders (who are, as a rule, more cooperative) will sometimes insist on a large unsecured promissory note upon close (which basically amounts to a mortgage without a house) or will require that they retain the right to follow for the additional funds after close.
Recourse-heloc lenders will often follow on any short seller.
Outside of California, lenders follow borrowers (or sell the rights to follow) on almost every loan. Usually, the only out is bankruptcy (since people losing their houses don’t generally keep large holdings to pay on bad debts). Banks will often (though not always) not follow foreclosed upon people because it is assumed that walk-aways have no money and short sellers already are more motivated to make a debt as whole as possible.
Some states give protection to foreclosees that do not exist for short sellers.
In these cases, there is an institutional incentive that favors foreclosure.
And make no mistake, those added costs to the banks come out of taxpayers’ pockets.
Making a more sweeping rule like the one was suggesting would simplify this incentive structure dramatically.
It would turn it into a binary system:
Either you short sell and get more (as a settlement) or foreclose and get less (as a salvage). For junior liens it would be a choice between little (in a short payout) and nothing (when the senior lien forecloses and wipes out the junior lien’s interest).

I suspect this would wipe out a lot of bad debt really, really fast (and without the benefit of squatters and stolen appliances).

And then I would get to work on Mideast peace and world hunger and the ozone layer…

[bearishgurl]

[quote=urbanrealtor]First, this is speculation but it makes sense given the existing incentive structure.
On its face, it would seem really obvious that a bank would want a short sale rather than a foreclosure.
This is because a bank incurs significant additional outlays when it becomes a landlord:
-trash outs
-key change
-attorneys
-repairs
-deed recordings
-tenant negotiations (usually a few thousand just in cash-for-keys) . . . [/quote]

UR, I’m sure you’ve seen, as I have, even the defaulting trustor as well as their tenants obtaining cash for keys (avg of $3K).

Offhand, I can think of at least two large “eviction mills” here in SD County who would NOT charge as much as $3K to evict a defaulting trustor or their tenant, acc to the law, ESP if the lender used the SAME law office for every defaulted property they had in that county. There is also an inexpensive small claim remedy (of up to $7500 in losses) to obtain a judgment for “trash outs, key changes and stolen appls.” Bank officers themselves could show up in SC Court and obtain up to 20 judgments in one morning. I’ve seen this done by HOA property mgrs.

The key is to begin TIMELY foreclosure proceedings after the statutory 90 days delinquency.

These lenders are losing too much because of their own complacency. Before this most recent “RE bubble,” they usually always began foreclosure proceedings on time.

There have ALWAYS been repairs, recording and trustee fees for a foreclosing bene. These expenses were minimized, however, by a TIMELY filing of the NOD and NOS and by not granting a postponement unless served with a BK filing by the defaulting trustor.

A second TD holder (whether recourse or purchase $$) has ALWAYS had the right to bid the opening bid on the steps for the property and often did so. The reason the opening bids are so high now, again, is due to the complacency of the foreclosing lender (usually the 1st TD holder), due to offering too many months of “free living.”

I maintain that timely non-judicial foreclosure is the fastest, cheapest and most pain-free route (for everyone) in moving thru this huge amount of defaulted-upon inventory in CA.

Those defaulting trustors with outstanding 2nds/HELOCs which were NOT purchase money do not deserve to be absolved of their debts (w/o having to file a Chapter 7 BK) AFTER having purchased luxury cars, college tuition and fancy vacations with the “funny money” or “mattressed” it while the rest of us homeowners “kept our heads down.” This is typically what happens in a short sale when the subordinate TD holder agrees to “sign off” their position in exchange for a few thousand.

I agree that this whole problem would not reappear in the future if ALL loans encumbering real property were recourse, but this is not likely to happen in CA. Given the choice, I would rather not have any change in our current laws, that is, retain our “non-judicial foreclosure” status where the collateral must satisfy the amount of purchase money lent.

There is nothing wrong with CA’s current non-judicial foreclosure legislation. These laws are in place for a REASON and they WORK … that is . . . when they are actually INVOKED :=]

[bearishgurl]

[quote=urbanrealtor]First, this is speculation but it makes sense given the existing incentive structure.
On its face, it would seem really obvious that a bank would want a short sale rather than a foreclosure.
This is because a bank incurs significant additional outlays when it becomes a landlord:
-trash outs
-key change
-attorneys
-repairs
-deed recordings
-tenant negotiations (usually a few thousand just in cash-for-keys) . . . [/quote]

UR, I’m sure you’ve seen, as I have, even the defaulting trustor as well as their tenants obtaining cash for keys (avg of $3K).

Offhand, I can think of at least two large “eviction mills” here in SD County who would NOT charge as much as $3K to evict a defaulting trustor or their tenant, acc to the law, ESP if the lender used the SAME law office for every defaulted property they had in that county. There is also an inexpensive small claim remedy (of up to $7500 in losses) to obtain a judgment for “trash outs, key changes and stolen appls.” Bank officers themselves could show up in SC Court and obtain up to 20 judgments in one morning. I’ve seen this done by HOA property mgrs.

The key is to begin TIMELY foreclosure proceedings after the statutory 90 days delinquency.

These lenders are losing too much because of their own complacency. Before this most recent “RE bubble,” they usually always began foreclosure proceedings on time.

There have ALWAYS been repairs, recording and trustee fees for a foreclosing bene. These expenses were minimized, however, by a TIMELY filing of the NOD and NOS and by not granting a postponement unless served with a BK filing by the defaulting trustor.

A second TD holder (whether recourse or purchase $$) has ALWAYS had the right to bid the opening bid on the steps for the property and often did so. The reason the opening bids are so high now, again, is due to the complacency of the foreclosing lender (usually the 1st TD holder), due to offering too many months of “free living.”

I maintain that timely non-judicial foreclosure is the fastest, cheapest and most pain-free route (for everyone) in moving thru this huge amount of defaulted-upon inventory in CA.

Those defaulting trustors with outstanding 2nds/HELOCs which were NOT purchase money do not deserve to be absolved of their debts (w/o having to file a Chapter 7 BK) AFTER having purchased luxury cars, college tuition and fancy vacations with the “funny money” or “mattressed” it while the rest of us homeowners “kept our heads down.” This is typically what happens in a short sale when the subordinate TD holder agrees to “sign off” their position in exchange for a few thousand.

I agree that this whole problem would not reappear in the future if ALL loans encumbering real property were recourse, but this is not likely to happen in CA. Given the choice, I would rather not have any change in our current laws, that is, retain our “non-judicial foreclosure” status where the collateral must satisfy the amount of purchase money lent.

There is nothing wrong with CA’s current non-judicial foreclosure legislation. These laws are in place for a REASON and they WORK … that is . . . when they are actually INVOKED :=]

[bearishgurl]

[quote=urbanrealtor]First, this is speculation but it makes sense given the existing incentive structure.
On its face, it would seem really obvious that a bank would want a short sale rather than a foreclosure.
This is because a bank incurs significant additional outlays when it becomes a landlord:
-trash outs
-key change
-attorneys
-repairs
-deed recordings
-tenant negotiations (usually a few thousand just in cash-for-keys) . . . [/quote]

UR, I’m sure you’ve seen, as I have, even the defaulting trustor as well as their tenants obtaining cash for keys (avg of $3K).

Offhand, I can think of at least two large “eviction mills” here in SD County who would NOT charge as much as $3K to evict a defaulting trustor or their tenant, acc to the law, ESP if the lender used the SAME law office for every defaulted property they had in that county. There is also an inexpensive small claim remedy (of up to $7500 in losses) to obtain a judgment for “trash outs, key changes and stolen appls.” Bank officers themselves could show up in SC Court and obtain up to 20 judgments in one morning. I’ve seen this done by HOA property mgrs.

The key is to begin TIMELY foreclosure proceedings after the statutory 90 days delinquency.

These lenders are losing too much because of their own complacency. Before this most recent “RE bubble,” they usually always began foreclosure proceedings on time.

There have ALWAYS been repairs, recording and trustee fees for a foreclosing bene. These expenses were minimized, however, by a TIMELY filing of the NOD and NOS and by not granting a postponement unless served with a BK filing by the defaulting trustor.

A second TD holder (whether recourse or purchase $$) has ALWAYS had the right to bid the opening bid on the steps for the property and often did so. The reason the opening bids are so high now, again, is due to the complacency of the foreclosing lender (usually the 1st TD holder), due to offering too many months of “free living.”

I maintain that timely non-judicial foreclosure is the fastest, cheapest and most pain-free route (for everyone) in moving thru this huge amount of defaulted-upon inventory in CA.

Those defaulting trustors with outstanding 2nds/HELOCs which were NOT purchase money do not deserve to be absolved of their debts (w/o having to file a Chapter 7 BK) AFTER having purchased luxury cars, college tuition and fancy vacations with the “funny money” or “mattressed” it while the rest of us homeowners “kept our heads down.” This is typically what happens in a short sale when the subordinate TD holder agrees to “sign off” their position in exchange for a few thousand.

I agree that this whole problem would not reappear in the future if ALL loans encumbering real property were recourse, but this is not likely to happen in CA. Given the choice, I would rather not have any change in our current laws, that is, retain our “non-judicial foreclosure” status where the collateral must satisfy the amount of purchase money lent.

There is nothing wrong with CA’s current non-judicial foreclosure legislation. These laws are in place for a REASON and they WORK … that is . . . when they are actually INVOKED :=]

[bearishgurl]

[quote=urbanrealtor]First, this is speculation but it makes sense given the existing incentive structure.
On its face, it would seem really obvious that a bank would want a short sale rather than a foreclosure.
This is because a bank incurs significant additional outlays when it becomes a landlord:
-trash outs
-key change
-attorneys
-repairs
-deed recordings
-tenant negotiations (usually a few thousand just in cash-for-keys) . . . [/quote]

UR, I’m sure you’ve seen, as I have, even the defaulting trustor as well as their tenants obtaining cash for keys (avg of $3K).

Offhand, I can think of at least two large “eviction mills” here in SD County who would NOT charge as much as $3K to evict a defaulting trustor or their tenant, acc to the law, ESP if the lender used the SAME law office for every defaulted property they had in that county. There is also an inexpensive small claim remedy (of up to $7500 in losses) to obtain a judgment for “trash outs, key changes and stolen appls.” Bank officers themselves could show up in SC Court and obtain up to 20 judgments in one morning. I’ve seen this done by HOA property mgrs.

The key is to begin TIMELY foreclosure proceedings after the statutory 90 days delinquency.

These lenders are losing too much because of their own complacency. Before this most recent “RE bubble,” they usually always began foreclosure proceedings on time.

There have ALWAYS been repairs, recording and trustee fees for a foreclosing bene. These expenses were minimized, however, by a TIMELY filing of the NOD and NOS and by not granting a postponement unless served with a BK filing by the defaulting trustor.

A second TD holder (whether recourse or purchase $$) has ALWAYS had the right to bid the opening bid on the steps for the property and often did so. The reason the opening bids are so high now, again, is due to the complacency of the foreclosing lender (usually the 1st TD holder), due to offering too many months of “free living.”

I maintain that timely non-judicial foreclosure is the fastest, cheapest and most pain-free route (for everyone) in moving thru this huge amount of defaulted-upon inventory in CA.

Those defaulting trustors with outstanding 2nds/HELOCs which were NOT purchase money do not deserve to be absolved of their debts (w/o having to file a Chapter 7 BK) AFTER having purchased luxury cars, college tuition and fancy vacations with the “funny money” or “mattressed” it while the rest of us homeowners “kept our heads down.” This is typically what happens in a short sale when the subordinate TD holder agrees to “sign off” their position in exchange for a few thousand.

I agree that this whole problem would not reappear in the future if ALL loans encumbering real property were recourse, but this is not likely to happen in CA. Given the choice, I would rather not have any change in our current laws, that is, retain our “non-judicial foreclosure” status where the collateral must satisfy the amount of purchase money lent.

There is nothing wrong with CA’s current non-judicial foreclosure legislation. These laws are in place for a REASON and they WORK … that is . . . when they are actually INVOKED :=]

[bearishgurl]

[quote=urbanrealtor]First, this is speculation but it makes sense given the existing incentive structure.
On its face, it would seem really obvious that a bank would want a short sale rather than a foreclosure.
This is because a bank incurs significant additional outlays when it becomes a landlord:
-trash outs
-key change
-attorneys
-repairs
-deed recordings
-tenant negotiations (usually a few thousand just in cash-for-keys) . . . [/quote]

UR, I’m sure you’ve seen, as I have, even the defaulting trustor as well as their tenants obtaining cash for keys (avg of $3K).

Offhand, I can think of at least two large “eviction mills” here in SD County who would NOT charge as much as $3K to evict a defaulting trustor or their tenant, acc to the law, ESP if the lender used the SAME law office for every defaulted property they had in that county. There is also an inexpensive small claim remedy (of up to $7500 in losses) to obtain a judgment for “trash outs, key changes and stolen appls.” Bank officers themselves could show up in SC Court and obtain up to 20 judgments in one morning. I’ve seen this done by HOA property mgrs.

The key is to begin TIMELY foreclosure proceedings after the statutory 90 days delinquency.

These lenders are losing too much because of their own complacency. Before this most recent “RE bubble,” they usually always began foreclosure proceedings on time.

There have ALWAYS been repairs, recording and trustee fees for a foreclosing bene. These expenses were minimized, however, by a TIMELY filing of the NOD and NOS and by not granting a postponement unless served with a BK filing by the defaulting trustor.

A second TD holder (whether recourse or purchase $$) has ALWAYS had the right to bid the opening bid on the steps for the property and often did so. The reason the opening bids are so high now, again, is due to the complacency of the foreclosing lender (usually the 1st TD holder), due to offering too many months of “free living.”

I maintain that timely non-judicial foreclosure is the fastest, cheapest and most pain-free route (for everyone) in moving thru this huge amount of defaulted-upon inventory in CA.

Those defaulting trustors with outstanding 2nds/HELOCs which were NOT purchase money do not deserve to be absolved of their debts (w/o having to file a Chapter 7 BK) AFTER having purchased luxury cars, college tuition and fancy vacations with the “funny money” or “mattressed” it while the rest of us homeowners “kept our heads down.” This is typically what happens in a short sale when the subordinate TD holder agrees to “sign off” their position in exchange for a few thousand.

I agree that this whole problem would not reappear in the future if ALL loans encumbering real property were recourse, but this is not likely to happen in CA. Given the choice, I would rather not have any change in our current laws, that is, retain our “non-judicial foreclosure” status where the collateral must satisfy the amount of purchase money lent.

There is nothing wrong with CA’s current non-judicial foreclosure legislation. These laws are in place for a REASON and they WORK … that is . . . when they are actually INVOKED :=]

[urbanrealtor]

At a logistics level:
There is almost no legal way to remarket a property less than 180 days from first non-payment.
That is not true in shorts.
That alone is a tremendous public savings when multiplied over hundreds of thousands of distress sales.
That is true even if the eviction is “timely”.
So you are wrong there.

At a moral level:
The morality of this suggestion is not relevant.
But let’s judge just for fun.
No, the borrowers do not “deserve” to have their debts absolved.
And anyway, unpaid debts are settled (with derogatories), and not absolved (with no consequence).
However, neither do the banks “deserve” to be made whole through collections (or even have the right to try).
No real moral imperative either.

In sum, there is no moral or logistical benefit to the status quo. There is a large potential savings in changing the existing arrangement.

Your argument is invalid.

[urbanrealtor]

At a logistics level:
There is almost no legal way to remarket a property less than 180 days from first non-payment.
That is not true in shorts.
That alone is a tremendous public savings when multiplied over hundreds of thousands of distress sales.
That is true even if the eviction is “timely”.
So you are wrong there.

At a moral level:
The morality of this suggestion is not relevant.
But let’s judge just for fun.
No, the borrowers do not “deserve” to have their debts absolved.
And anyway, unpaid debts are settled (with derogatories), and not absolved (with no consequence).
However, neither do the banks “deserve” to be made whole through collections (or even have the right to try).
No real moral imperative either.

In sum, there is no moral or logistical benefit to the status quo. There is a large potential savings in changing the existing arrangement.

Your argument is invalid.

[urbanrealtor]

At a logistics level:
There is almost no legal way to remarket a property less than 180 days from first non-payment.
That is not true in shorts.
That alone is a tremendous public savings when multiplied over hundreds of thousands of distress sales.
That is true even if the eviction is “timely”.
So you are wrong there.

At a moral level:
The morality of this suggestion is not relevant.
But let’s judge just for fun.
No, the borrowers do not “deserve” to have their debts absolved.
And anyway, unpaid debts are settled (with derogatories), and not absolved (with no consequence).
However, neither do the banks “deserve” to be made whole through collections (or even have the right to try).
No real moral imperative either.

In sum, there is no moral or logistical benefit to the status quo. There is a large potential savings in changing the existing arrangement.

Your argument is invalid.

[urbanrealtor]

At a logistics level:
There is almost no legal way to remarket a property less than 180 days from first non-payment.
That is not true in shorts.
That alone is a tremendous public savings when multiplied over hundreds of thousands of distress sales.
That is true even if the eviction is “timely”.
So you are wrong there.

At a moral level:
The morality of this suggestion is not relevant.
But let’s judge just for fun.
No, the borrowers do not “deserve” to have their debts absolved.
And anyway, unpaid debts are settled (with derogatories), and not absolved (with no consequence).
However, neither do the banks “deserve” to be made whole through collections (or even have the right to try).
No real moral imperative either.

In sum, there is no moral or logistical benefit to the status quo. There is a large potential savings in changing the existing arrangement.

Your argument is invalid.

[urbanrealtor]

At a logistics level:
There is almost no legal way to remarket a property less than 180 days from first non-payment.
That is not true in shorts.
That alone is a tremendous public savings when multiplied over hundreds of thousands of distress sales.
That is true even if the eviction is “timely”.
So you are wrong there.

At a moral level:
The morality of this suggestion is not relevant.
But let’s judge just for fun.
No, the borrowers do not “deserve” to have their debts absolved.
And anyway, unpaid debts are settled (with derogatories), and not absolved (with no consequence).
However, neither do the banks “deserve” to be made whole through collections (or even have the right to try).
No real moral imperative either.

In sum, there is no moral or logistical benefit to the status quo. There is a large potential savings in changing the existing arrangement.

Your argument is invalid.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=urbanrealtor]At a logistics level:
There is almost no legal way to remarket a property less than 180 days from first non-payment.
. . .[/quote]

UR, I see these properties being able to be marketed 145-150 days (max) after first non-payment.

Under a correct and timely foreclosure procedure, at the 115-120 day mark, the trustee’s deed CAN be recorded. Not EVERY defaulting trustor wants an eviction on their record. Some will leave voluntarily without the lender “bribing” them to. Ditto for tenants who received a proper 60-day notice or their lease was up.

I was in hundreds of properties which were foreclosed upon in a timely manner in “yesteryear.” Some were ready to move into and some were not. But the clean up, repairs and replacements to ready it for sale (no matter how much junk there was) never totaled more than $3K (mostly in cleaning svc and dump fees). More often than not, they were sold “as-is” and most of this “clean up” fell to the REO buyer. Clean up AND eviction fell to the buyer of the trustee’s deed. Other than fixing broken windows and draining swimming pools (code violations) or correcting HOA violations, spending additional money cleaning/repairing a property for marketing purposes is entirely the perogative of the foreclosing lender. There is no law requiring them to do so.

There is no doubt in my mind that there is a market for properties which need clearing out/fixing up in order to be habitable. Any property is saleable . . . for a price.

There is no reason to “pay” people who have been living for free for many months (or even years) to voluntarily leave. No reason at all. The law entitles an owner to possession of his/her property if they are not receiving rent payments and likewise if a lender isn’t receiving mortgage payments and each follows the proper procedure to obtain possession.

In your experience, UR, do the “settled debt” remarks on a successful short-sale seller’s credit report reveal the entire unpaid portion?? Just curious.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=urbanrealtor]At a logistics level:
There is almost no legal way to remarket a property less than 180 days from first non-payment.
. . .[/quote]

UR, I see these properties being able to be marketed 145-150 days (max) after first non-payment.

Under a correct and timely foreclosure procedure, at the 115-120 day mark, the trustee’s deed CAN be recorded. Not EVERY defaulting trustor wants an eviction on their record. Some will leave voluntarily without the lender “bribing” them to. Ditto for tenants who received a proper 60-day notice or their lease was up.

I was in hundreds of properties which were foreclosed upon in a timely manner in “yesteryear.” Some were ready to move into and some were not. But the clean up, repairs and replacements to ready it for sale (no matter how much junk there was) never totaled more than $3K (mostly in cleaning svc and dump fees). More often than not, they were sold “as-is” and most of this “clean up” fell to the REO buyer. Clean up AND eviction fell to the buyer of the trustee’s deed. Other than fixing broken windows and draining swimming pools (code violations) or correcting HOA violations, spending additional money cleaning/repairing a property for marketing purposes is entirely the perogative of the foreclosing lender. There is no law requiring them to do so.

There is no doubt in my mind that there is a market for properties which need clearing out/fixing up in order to be habitable. Any property is saleable . . . for a price.

There is no reason to “pay” people who have been living for free for many months (or even years) to voluntarily leave. No reason at all. The law entitles an owner to possession of his/her property if they are not receiving rent payments and likewise if a lender isn’t receiving mortgage payments and each follows the proper procedure to obtain possession.

In your experience, UR, do the “settled debt” remarks on a successful short-sale seller’s credit report reveal the entire unpaid portion?? Just curious.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=urbanrealtor]At a logistics level:
There is almost no legal way to remarket a property less than 180 days from first non-payment.
. . .[/quote]

UR, I see these properties being able to be marketed 145-150 days (max) after first non-payment.

Under a correct and timely foreclosure procedure, at the 115-120 day mark, the trustee’s deed CAN be recorded. Not EVERY defaulting trustor wants an eviction on their record. Some will leave voluntarily without the lender “bribing” them to. Ditto for tenants who received a proper 60-day notice or their lease was up.

I was in hundreds of properties which were foreclosed upon in a timely manner in “yesteryear.” Some were ready to move into and some were not. But the clean up, repairs and replacements to ready it for sale (no matter how much junk there was) never totaled more than $3K (mostly in cleaning svc and dump fees). More often than not, they were sold “as-is” and most of this “clean up” fell to the REO buyer. Clean up AND eviction fell to the buyer of the trustee’s deed. Other than fixing broken windows and draining swimming pools (code violations) or correcting HOA violations, spending additional money cleaning/repairing a property for marketing purposes is entirely the perogative of the foreclosing lender. There is no law requiring them to do so.

There is no doubt in my mind that there is a market for properties which need clearing out/fixing up in order to be habitable. Any property is saleable . . . for a price.

There is no reason to “pay” people who have been living for free for many months (or even years) to voluntarily leave. No reason at all. The law entitles an owner to possession of his/her property if they are not receiving rent payments and likewise if a lender isn’t receiving mortgage payments and each follows the proper procedure to obtain possession.

In your experience, UR, do the “settled debt” remarks on a successful short-sale seller’s credit report reveal the entire unpaid portion?? Just curious.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=urbanrealtor]At a logistics level:
There is almost no legal way to remarket a property less than 180 days from first non-payment.
. . .[/quote]

UR, I see these properties being able to be marketed 145-150 days (max) after first non-payment.

Under a correct and timely foreclosure procedure, at the 115-120 day mark, the trustee’s deed CAN be recorded. Not EVERY defaulting trustor wants an eviction on their record. Some will leave voluntarily without the lender “bribing” them to. Ditto for tenants who received a proper 60-day notice or their lease was up.

I was in hundreds of properties which were foreclosed upon in a timely manner in “yesteryear.” Some were ready to move into and some were not. But the clean up, repairs and replacements to ready it for sale (no matter how much junk there was) never totaled more than $3K (mostly in cleaning svc and dump fees). More often than not, they were sold “as-is” and most of this “clean up” fell to the REO buyer. Clean up AND eviction fell to the buyer of the trustee’s deed. Other than fixing broken windows and draining swimming pools (code violations) or correcting HOA violations, spending additional money cleaning/repairing a property for marketing purposes is entirely the perogative of the foreclosing lender. There is no law requiring them to do so.

There is no doubt in my mind that there is a market for properties which need clearing out/fixing up in order to be habitable. Any property is saleable . . . for a price.

There is no reason to “pay” people who have been living for free for many months (or even years) to voluntarily leave. No reason at all. The law entitles an owner to possession of his/her property if they are not receiving rent payments and likewise if a lender isn’t receiving mortgage payments and each follows the proper procedure to obtain possession.

In your experience, UR, do the “settled debt” remarks on a successful short-sale seller’s credit report reveal the entire unpaid portion?? Just curious.

[Author]

Posts