detlef Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 I don't know? Why don't the deutsches at the bank, get their judgment against the party that is actually in the wrong, the Grandson, and leave the two little old ladies alone? That's a good question. Maybe the deutsches at the bank figure they are going to have to eat a $400,000,000.00 euro loss in Greece so they need the house? Depends on the circumstances, but it seems as if the grandson had the legal right to take out that loan. Perhaps granny said it was OK. So, in that case, the bank's beef is with the person currently residing in the home that has the defaulted loan and granny's beef is with the grandson who skipped out on, what I'm guessing, was an obligation he made to her to pay back the loan she allowed her house to back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Depends on the circumstances, but it seems as if the grandson had the legal right to take out that loan. Perhaps granny said it was OK. So, in that case, the bank's beef is with the person currently residing in the home that has the defaulted loan and granny's beef is with the grandson who skipped out on, what I'm guessing, was an obligation he made to her to pay back the loan she allowed her house to back. Seems to me that just makes the bank as equally culpable in the fraud of these two ladies as the Grandson. They have a responsibility to themselves to make sure they aren't issuing bull$hit loans. My cracked out cousin could probably talk my 89 year old grandmother into doing the same thing if given the chance. After I got done kicking my cousin's a$$ you can bet the banker would be next. I've got this visual of my grandmother sitting down at the bank with cousin cracky scratching his arms and shaking and her explaining to the banker how she's going to buy him a truck to start a landscaping business or some $hit and the bankers says "Well sure Maebell, you and Jack paid the house off 45 years ago so what kind of a truck does crackie need?" That's a good investment for the bank, loan Maebell $35,000.00 and when crackie screws her you get the $200,000.00 house. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Seems to me that just makes the bank as equally culpable in the fraud of these two ladies as the Grandson. They have a responsibility to themselves to make sure they aren't issuing bull$hit loans. My cracked out cousin could probably talk my 89 year old grandmother into doing the same thing if given the chance. After I got done kicking my cousin's a$$ you can bet the banker would be next. I've got this visual of my grandmother sitting down at the bank with cousin cracky scratching his arms and shaking and her explaining to the banker how she's going to buy him a truck to start a landscaping business or some $hit and the bankers says "Well sure Maebell, you and Jack paid the house off 45 years ago so what kind of a truck does crackie need?" That's a good investment for the bank, loan Maebell $35,000.00 and when crackie screws her you get the $200,000.00 house. What if your cousin isn't a crackhead and granny really wants to help him out? They've got granny sitting right there, saying she's cool with making the loan. Are they supposed to tell her they know better than she does? Again, I don't know the details and can only speculate on how this went down. But I see a number of ways where the bank was simply doing as they're asked to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 She is 103 years old. A reasonable calculation suggests that she will probably die soon enough, so from a public relations point of view, they should probably just wait. (Of course, on the other hand, once she does die, they will get accused of evicting her orphan daughter. I guess the bank is screwed no matter what.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CowboyGal2011 Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 (edited) Couldn't we have taken care of both sides with the exact same amount of money by simply paying off the loans on behalf of those people? Then who would ever pay their mortgage again? There was a push to put people in houses, people who didn't have the means or were responsible enough to pay, this was pushed by all political parties. Hussein in fact sued banks who would not lend to not-credit worthy applicants when he was a community organizer. The banks had no problem making the loans under these conditions seeing as how the Fed Govt was backing them. None of this is in dispute. Edited December 2, 2011 by CowboyGal2011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Then who would ever pay their mortgage again? I love this argument. You guys make living at the bottom seem so luxurious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donutrun Jellies Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 I think it's pretty sad that people are blaming the EVIL bank on this one, when it seems like the biggest D-Bag is clearly the Grandson who pretty much took off with a bunch of money and left two old ladies out to dry. Where is he? Why haven't people tracked him down and asked him why he burritoed over his 103 yeaar old Grandmother? This. Not an evil bank. Not evil 1%ers. A louse of a grandson. That's all. Unfortunate as hell? Yep. Here's a prayer that the gramma gets taken in by truly caring family ... nothing else to see here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CowboyGal2011 Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 I love this argument. You guys make living at the bottom seem so luxurious. I don't understand? If you buy a house that you can't afford, why should the gov't choose who gets a free house and who doesn't? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 But I see a number of ways where the bank was simply doing as they're asked to. Dudes go to jail every Saturday night on Cops for the crime of simply giving a random chick walking down the street a ride because she asked for a ride. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CowboyGal2011 Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 I love this argument. You guys make living at the bottom seem so luxurious. It's called Reality young man, I suggest you invest in some. A gaping loophole in state insurance rules that lets freeloaders pick up coverage to pay for expensive surgeries — and then dump it once they’re treated — has cost taxpayers as much as $37 million a year, according to a study that warns the same wrinkle in Obamacare could add a staggering $2 billion a year to the deficit-wracked federal budget. Exploiting a state provision that forces insurers to cover patients with pre-existing medical conditions, thousands of so-called “jumpers and dumpers” are buying plans just before major operations and procedures, and then chucking their coverage and passing those costs onto residents who play by the rules, according to a study by Suffolk University’s Beacon Hill Institute obtained by the Herald. http://news.bostonherald.com/news/regional...ayers_millions/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 I love this argument. You guys make living at the bottom seem so luxurious. What is your argument? Do you think I should have had my mortgage paid for? Yours? Who? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 I don't know? Why don't the deutsches at the bank, get their judgment against the party that is actually in the wrong, the Grandson, and leave the two little old ladies alone? That's a good question. Maybe the deutsches at the bank figure they are going to have to eat a $400,000,000.00 euro loss in Greece so they need the house? Is this REALLY so hard to understand? Like SEC said, the bank had to go to court to get a foreclosure. They had to prove to a judge that they had the correct paperwork entitling them to the house. Whomever was titleholder evidently signed the correct docs to get that loan. I can't just go get a loan on a house in your name, can I? So the court agreed with the bank. And you can be DAMN sure that the politicians got those court docs and went over them with a fine tooth comb, and had they found no better card to play than to shame the bank? The collateral is the house. The bank's ONLY recourse in this loan is to first take the collateral, sell it and go from there. I'm pretty sure they can't to anything else to get their money, other than calls and letters to the people on the loan. You're doing a heckuva job, Randull. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 just love me the christian logic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.