Thursday, December 23, 2010

Adverse Possession

I’m not getting this whole mortgage thing. Banks, it seems, should not be allowed to foreclose because they do not have the proper paperwork. Does their lack of paperwork alter the fact that they paid out money? Does it alter the fact that they are not being repaid that money? Does it alter the fact that the homeowner received real property? Does it alter the fact that the homeowner is not paying for that real property?

Why should the value of that loan be decreased simply because the item purchased with the borrowed money decreased in value? Does my car loan diminish because my car depreciated? Does it vanish altogether if my car is demolished in an accident?

Did the bank not lend that money? Did the bank/lender not pay that money to someone; a previous owner, be that a person or a builder? Who has the money, and why should they be allowed to keep it if what they sold was not worth the money that they charged for it? The lender was simply in the middle of the deal. Why should the seller, who sold a property for an inflated value, walk away wealthy and stick everyone else with the loss? If the house was overvalued then the seller is the thief, here, not the lender and not the buyer, and the seller is the one party who is being immunized.

A great many of these “underwater” homes are in that condition due to “cash out” refinancing. Why should those loans be written down? Those homeowners took cash from the lenders and spent that cash. Why should a lender be forced to absorb that loss, unless the borrower pays by losing the encumbered property?

Have we no sense of responsibility left in this nation? Have we no sense that if someone buys something that is neither worth the price nor within the buyer’s budget that the buyer might be responsible for the consequences of that action? But we write sob stories about the evil banks throwing innocent victims out of their homes.

“The bank didn’t send me the paperwork.” Did you ask? Did you follow up to see why the paperwork that you should have gotten from the bank was not forthcoming instead of happily assuming that “no news is good news” and it meant that you did not have to pay. Of course not, everything is someone else’s responsibility.

Maybe I’m just out of step with reality, here, but I would never live in a house that I was not paying for, a house that I was keeping by “adverse possession” simply because the person to whom I owed the payment for it could not technically prove the debt by the letter of the law. I would feel like a thief if I were doing that. Actually, I would be a thief.


  1. bruce8:47 PM

    I think the "not allowed to foreclose" was /is in regard to them not having the proper paperwork, ie, proof of lien holding or somesuch. If these loans were packaged and sliced up into securities, the myriad of securities shareholders could be the actual holders of the mortgage /lien. I don't know, I'm not a financial guy.

    If the previous owner overvalued the house, and the buyer still bought it, who exactly is in the wrong? If the owner re-financed and sucked out money and now its worth less and he owes all the original plus inflated value - yeah it's his ass. Or the house. There is probably blame to go around, but ultimately it's the borrower at the end of it all. I don't think the mortgage lenders /brokers are at fault for all of these. Some, okay I can understand. But I'll bet it's the minority, and by now, those are gone in forclosure already.

  2. Kudos to you! It's nice to see people stand up for what is right. And yes... adverse possession is nothing more than legalized land theft. Good to know that you see adverse possession for what it is, and those who claim it for who they are!