Termyn8or
Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005 Status: offline
|
Well, now I'll let myself in for education I guess. I thought you weren't allowed to buy the property back yourself. The problem here is I don't remember where I heard that, or if it applies universally or just in certain states, or whatever. For the sake of argument though I'll assume that he was able to buy back the same property. This opens the door to alot of abuse, which would effectively stick it to the banks. With so many owing more than the place is worth, I guess some of that bailout money would effectively trickle down so to speak. Actually, if, in whatever area you are not allowed to buy it back, what is to stop you from having someone else do it. Granted there are few people who can be trusted to that level, but they exist. Leave it to a psycho like me to figure out how to get over in a situation like that. Let's say you wanted a new kitchen and bath. Concievably you could tear the place up, just leaving the bare necessities, which you would've done anyway. Later you evict yourself (lol) and live there without a house payment. It would make those granite countertops and gold plated fixture a bit easier on your wallet without having to pay that pesky house payment. Something like this would never work if prices were stable, as bidders would be all over it. That would of course include the bank. Of course if I were the bank I could just bid double what it was worth and simply pay myself - kinda. But in today's market while the banks take advantage of people, there might be a real possibility of returning the favor. No doubt some banks want the properties as long as they can afford to hold onto them until the prices are not so depressed, and we've seen instances where I think that is what happened. But perhaps they might get overstretched doing so, making them victims of their own vice. That would be nice. And if Ron Paul has anything to say about it they won't get much help from their big brother, the fed. Nuff said. T
|