Jan 03 2008
Foreclosure in its Nastiest Form; Outlaws Beware
Yes, deceptive practices do work to catch people’s attention, but in this case there is no reason to deceive. Going through my daily routine of house hunting for bargains on the market, I came across a home that I had walked through last July of 2007. The house was then priced at $188,900. The house was decently nice and had some nice features including a fenced in yard, a dining room and all bedrooms on the 2nd floor. There were also materials left in the basement to finish it off. I knew the house was overpricedwhen I walked through it, but aparantly no one told the realtor or home owner that until it was too late. (just as an FYI I moved across the street)
Looking out my front window I frequently saw trucks and cars loading up and leaving multiple times a day. After about 3 days of multiple trips I noticed that the fence was gone. Being a nosy neighbor, I walked up to the home and looked in the window. To my surprise cabinets had been removed from the kitchen, door hardware was missing, holes were in the drywall, and walls had been colored on with crayons. Now, the unfortunate part of this event is the fact that the home is now sitting vacant in a decent neighborhood, and will likely remain that way for many months until the price of the home equals that of the cost of fixing it. Priced originally at $188,900, the home is now priced at $169,900, probably not enough to hire someone to fix the issues.
What the homeowner failed to understand is the amount of money it will take the real estate company to advertise, list, and sell the home. Had they continued paying their mortgage and sold at $180,000 they would have made out nicely. Now they will sell at below the $169,900 and also pay all the additional winterizing fees and additional foreclosure fees. The worst part of the scenario is the fact that they must take the difference between their mortgage value and the final sale price of the home (following all the additional fees) and claim it on their taxes as income. They now have to pay taxes on the portion of the home that will not be recuperated.
Now to the title. The reason the title was used is because there needs to be put in place a way to make the homeowner more responsible for their actions. Although the authorities had been called, there was nothing they would do to prevent this family from wrecking the home and making it a must more difficult sale. If there had been fines, or jail terms discussed, I would assume people would rethink their decisions of ripping apart a home that they are going to lose to foreclosure. In conclusion, don’t make your life more miserable by destroying a home you couldn’t afford to begin with. You are only hurting yourself in the long run. I would much rather owe a small portion in taxes that have to pay on an equivalent to a second income. (if you are assessed a $40,000 loss on your home, you would owe and average of 28% in taxes to the government.) I don’t know too many that have $11,200 sitting around, especially after just losing a home.
I’m sure there are far worse stories out there, feel free to comment on a foreclosure that tops this cake.