i'm hoping some of the atty's out here on the forum will be able to shine a bit of light on a few questions with respect to the mortgage relief act of 2007, and to exactly, what and what is NOT covered under the act.
while i understand the act was basically designed and " generally allows taxpayers to exclude income from the discharge of debt on their principal residence. debt reduced through mortgage restructuring, as well as mortgage debt forgiven in connection with a foreclosure, qualifies for the relief."
i also understand that one must prove insolvency during that time period. ( easier for those with a chapter 7 no asset case) as my understanding of what insolvency is, one that has more liabilities than assets at the time of the declaration of the loss. one would suppose those who did not file for bk but just foreclosed may have a more difficult time proving insolvency.
what i am having a difficult time understanding, and would appreciate some clarification, and the "heart " of my question is....
if one is in fact insolvent, and during which time of that insolvency, surrendered, or abandoned the primary residential property, how is it that one can be sued by a town, city and or HOA, on maintenance costs. IF...only IF the bank never has attempted to sell, transfer, etc., the property.
in other words, if a bank has made absolutely NO good faith effort, has made no attempts whatsoever, to sell the property, and your town continues charging you to cut your lawn and then sues you? even AFTER you filed bankruptcy and being discharged now find yourself being sued for the maintenance fees, etc. including lawn care, whatever other hidden costs there may be, how can that be? what provision of the law allows this?? what statue, state, federal...which or both??? now, i'm not talking about the right of the HOA, town or city to sue you, i'm just really directing this at the banks. would one be able to count those costs as being tax deductions as expenses or what, if they are responsible ???
i understand the basis for the HOA, town and cities suit, but is there any specific case that can be cited or pending????( i also understand HOA's are many times a completely different animal).
for those who surrender the property during a bankruptcy, it's even more clearly defined as to the intent of the owner. simply to give the property BACK to the BANK. i'm seeing more fretful and concerned people on this forum, who's banks are firmly making NO good faith effort, not even the smallest of attempt whatsoever to sell these properties, and as a result piling up substantial costs for those that left the premises. that in itself seems some what of a disparity, as well as such lack of good faith on the part of these banks that have been handed back over the keys to the homes.
i get it, when the town mows your lawn, you get charged, but if the bank, now having and taking ownership of the property, but refusing to sell it, or maintain it, most likely due to the lack of equity in the property, then why aren't the banks being held responsible? the banks have changed the locks? boarded up windows, winterized the pipes. (that's in some cases, i understand. in other no efforts have been made to keep up the property at all by the bank), what is the legal basis for the banks being allowed not to maintain those properties....PLEASE, i just cannot accept the simple fact that the names of the old owners just happen to still be on the deed because, and ONLY, because the bank has made no good faith efforts to do their due diligence to resolve this issue. we all know the only way one's name can be taken off the deed is via a deed in lieu or a transfer of ownership...again all under and in the banks control ;NOT the previous owner.
this could go on and on, and i'll use the example of nj, because that's the one i'm familiar with, (it may and most likely vary from state to state), and know, the bank has up to a 20 year statue of limitation, before one can force the bank into removing one's name on a deed. which brings me to this. just because someone's name is on a deed as a result of a banks purposes for an indefinite amount of time, how is it that one would be responsible for any costs associated with the upkeep of the property once it was surrendered or abandoned?? why aren't these cost being rolled over to the fees and the costs of the foreclosure itself?????where and what accountability does the bank have? NONE? didn't our tax dollar pay for many of these outstanding loans??? didn't that banks get billions of dollars for this exact reason?
i hear it over and over...the owner is still responsible for everything to do with that property because their names are still on the deed. now, while i understand the argument that an owners name is still on the deed, the act itself of i.e.surrendering in writing, and, or turning over the property to the bank, surely shows clear intent that the old owner of that property has and did return the "keys" to it's owner (the bank). did the bank FIGHT the surrendering, did they file a motion of some sort?? no, but as a result, the banks are not making any efforts or movement, and just keeping people's names on the deed.
once again, and i'm hoping someone will set me in the correct direction here...but my small knowledge of the understanding of the legal definition of that of
due diligence, in a broad sense, refers to the level of judgment, care, prudence, determination, and activity that a person would reasonably be expected to do under particular circumstances. further delving into exactly the role that due diligence plays with the banks behavior in these situations, and, would include fully understanding all of the obligations of the bank: debts, pending and potential lawsuits, leases, warranties, long-term customer agreements, distribution agreements, compensation arrangements, and so forth. would this not count for anything when applied to the banks new acquired take back of a property???
this inquiring mind awaits some, i hope, juicy answers!
while i understand the act was basically designed and " generally allows taxpayers to exclude income from the discharge of debt on their principal residence. debt reduced through mortgage restructuring, as well as mortgage debt forgiven in connection with a foreclosure, qualifies for the relief."
i also understand that one must prove insolvency during that time period. ( easier for those with a chapter 7 no asset case) as my understanding of what insolvency is, one that has more liabilities than assets at the time of the declaration of the loss. one would suppose those who did not file for bk but just foreclosed may have a more difficult time proving insolvency.
what i am having a difficult time understanding, and would appreciate some clarification, and the "heart " of my question is....
if one is in fact insolvent, and during which time of that insolvency, surrendered, or abandoned the primary residential property, how is it that one can be sued by a town, city and or HOA, on maintenance costs. IF...only IF the bank never has attempted to sell, transfer, etc., the property.
in other words, if a bank has made absolutely NO good faith effort, has made no attempts whatsoever, to sell the property, and your town continues charging you to cut your lawn and then sues you? even AFTER you filed bankruptcy and being discharged now find yourself being sued for the maintenance fees, etc. including lawn care, whatever other hidden costs there may be, how can that be? what provision of the law allows this?? what statue, state, federal...which or both??? now, i'm not talking about the right of the HOA, town or city to sue you, i'm just really directing this at the banks. would one be able to count those costs as being tax deductions as expenses or what, if they are responsible ???
i understand the basis for the HOA, town and cities suit, but is there any specific case that can be cited or pending????( i also understand HOA's are many times a completely different animal).
for those who surrender the property during a bankruptcy, it's even more clearly defined as to the intent of the owner. simply to give the property BACK to the BANK. i'm seeing more fretful and concerned people on this forum, who's banks are firmly making NO good faith effort, not even the smallest of attempt whatsoever to sell these properties, and as a result piling up substantial costs for those that left the premises. that in itself seems some what of a disparity, as well as such lack of good faith on the part of these banks that have been handed back over the keys to the homes.
i get it, when the town mows your lawn, you get charged, but if the bank, now having and taking ownership of the property, but refusing to sell it, or maintain it, most likely due to the lack of equity in the property, then why aren't the banks being held responsible? the banks have changed the locks? boarded up windows, winterized the pipes. (that's in some cases, i understand. in other no efforts have been made to keep up the property at all by the bank), what is the legal basis for the banks being allowed not to maintain those properties....PLEASE, i just cannot accept the simple fact that the names of the old owners just happen to still be on the deed because, and ONLY, because the bank has made no good faith efforts to do their due diligence to resolve this issue. we all know the only way one's name can be taken off the deed is via a deed in lieu or a transfer of ownership...again all under and in the banks control ;NOT the previous owner.
this could go on and on, and i'll use the example of nj, because that's the one i'm familiar with, (it may and most likely vary from state to state), and know, the bank has up to a 20 year statue of limitation, before one can force the bank into removing one's name on a deed. which brings me to this. just because someone's name is on a deed as a result of a banks purposes for an indefinite amount of time, how is it that one would be responsible for any costs associated with the upkeep of the property once it was surrendered or abandoned?? why aren't these cost being rolled over to the fees and the costs of the foreclosure itself?????where and what accountability does the bank have? NONE? didn't our tax dollar pay for many of these outstanding loans??? didn't that banks get billions of dollars for this exact reason?
i hear it over and over...the owner is still responsible for everything to do with that property because their names are still on the deed. now, while i understand the argument that an owners name is still on the deed, the act itself of i.e.surrendering in writing, and, or turning over the property to the bank, surely shows clear intent that the old owner of that property has and did return the "keys" to it's owner (the bank). did the bank FIGHT the surrendering, did they file a motion of some sort?? no, but as a result, the banks are not making any efforts or movement, and just keeping people's names on the deed.
once again, and i'm hoping someone will set me in the correct direction here...but my small knowledge of the understanding of the legal definition of that of
due diligence, in a broad sense, refers to the level of judgment, care, prudence, determination, and activity that a person would reasonably be expected to do under particular circumstances. further delving into exactly the role that due diligence plays with the banks behavior in these situations, and, would include fully understanding all of the obligations of the bank: debts, pending and potential lawsuits, leases, warranties, long-term customer agreements, distribution agreements, compensation arrangements, and so forth. would this not count for anything when applied to the banks new acquired take back of a property???
this inquiring mind awaits some, i hope, juicy answers!
MAKE SURE AND VISIT Tobee's Blogs! 
Comment