Found an insurance company to insure my foreclosure home ...

[CCsAreEvil]

...I wonder if you have drawn the conclusion based on your experience that since you were not sued, or pursued, that noone else will be. I can totally see where you are coming from if that's the case. Experience is a great teacher.

Exactly. Court decisions do take into huge consideration past court cases. I have not personally researched on this because usually, the chances of someone having something happen to them (at least something serious) on your property is not common (at least I wouldn't think). The "off of the top of my head" example I can think of is if someone climbed into your backyard and drowned in your swimming pool (yeah, you probably don't have a swimming pool, I'm just coming up with an example). So yeah, the chance of a serious instance happening might be .0001% especially during the few months a home is in foreclosure/post-BK. I doubt there's one instance even on this forum where someone's detailed some type of case like this and what actually went down.

And, maybe 99.99% of the time, nothing will ever happen to any of us. Heck, maybe we have a better chance of winning the lotto :P

Lastly, I don't know why this forum blocks certain URLs and not others.

[tobee43]

Surrender is a declaration of intent only. It doesn't change ownership. It {521 (2)(A)} was introduced with BAPCA because creditors, who could no longer contact the debtor because of the automatic stay, proposed it. They wanted to know what was going on with the property securing the loans included in the filing.

Surrender does not change the ownership interest. That is why the bank must go through the foreclosure process.

Until they do that, or until the homeowner transfers their ownership interest in sale for satisfaction of the lien, short sale, quit claim, deed-in-lieu, or whatever, the homeowner is personally liable for any lawsuits arising out of their negligence with regard to the property.

The bankruptcy does not relieve them of that personal liability. It only relieves them of personal liability for the loan for which the house was security. If the house is damaged, it is the bank's problem because it just reduces the asset value. But any injury on the property is the concern of the homeowner.

An article by California lawyer Cathy Moran pertaining to the legal meaning of "surrender" and our responsibilities post-bk:

http://www.bankruptcymastery.com/surrendering-property-in-bankruptcy/

In California at least the homeowner is not personally liable for property tax. Those attach to the land and will become the bank's problem.

City codes vary. Some cities - like Vacaville,CA - explicitly state they will attach liens to the property rather than pursue the homeowner. If you live there, aside from personal liability insurance, you can walk.

Some cities with foreclosure ordinances don't indicate how they intend to pursue. And even without a foreclosure ordinance, there are still vacant property codes.

Article by Florida lawyer, Peter Orville, indicating you can end up in jail if you ignore the city ordinance even though you surrendered the property in bk:

http://www.*************************...-7-bankruptcy/

< I guess this link is not allowed. Sorry. Anyone who wants to read the article can find it by googling "Peter Orville City Fines"

Tobee - I wonder if you have drawn the conclusion based on your experience that since you were not sued, or pursued, that noone else will be. I can totally see where you are coming from if that's the case. Experience is a great teacher. Please don't take it personally that I have a different position on this issue. I only post on this because I am in this boat so I have special feelings for other people who are in this boat, or who will be. I would LOVE it if I could just walk away, but so far I can't find any evidence (other than your posts which I would love to believe) that it's possible without great risk.

The last thing I want post-bk is a judgment that I cant eliminate in bankruptcy.

this will be the absolute last time i respond to this....in my eyes, the eyes of my atty...and other atty's i have spoken with and my own experience as my resolve are not mere conclusions...they are the answers, at least to my own personal situation.

may i suggest you get your own. you can continue to go into threads and repeat it over and over.....please SHOW ONE CASE where the ex-home owner was sued....just ONE that this has happened to, after a home was surrendered to a bank in a bk, that was discharged...just ONE. if not, as i said, you need to find your owe answers to your own situation.

when you have surrendered in the us federal court collateral , and there has been no objections and the case discharged you are free from responsibility.

i will not continue to take your miss information personally, nor will i continue to debate with you a point over and over.

the intention at the time a surrendered is submitted to the courts is proof enough to stand ground. once again, i will stress, one is no longer responsible for anything...the mere fact of the technicality that the bank has yet to remove your name off the deed, the bank did not resist, nor file any motion in a court of law stating they refused the surrendered property, the home, the actual collateral of the debt therefore your concern is moot.

i'm not really caring if you would love to believe me or not. you do what you need to do...for yourself...but it may be time for you really to get yourself a good atty, who will, in fact explain to you eye to eye...any costs accessed through out the foreclosure process will indeed, turn into liens against the house and discharged along with your bankruptcy...have YOU EVEN filed yet???

please post the dates etc....because if you speaking foreclosure as opposed to surrendering of a property during a bk...they are two different animals. you can go most likely into sub division after sub division that has empty houses in AZ...what you think all those people whom were foreclosed on and went chapter 7 no assets are still paying their home owners insurance or mowing the lawns. apparently no one can control when the bank decides to foreclose in some states and if you think you are correct, with the respect that, simply because a bank decided to hold your property for 4 years of more after you have a discharge and surrendered your home it's simply ludicrous.

i can care less about city codes....you just LIST your city on your bk petition.....

as i said...get an atty and really get the advise that you need...i have seen two of the most respected atty's on this site give you advise that you chose NOT to accept as truth...so please, don't waste anyone time with repetitive questions and when you don't like the answers you ask them again...hire an atty please.

[tobee43]

ALmostAmos: Tobee43 is a she?! Geez, there goes that mental picture. I was picturing "Tobey".

thanks...no...i really look like a "she"....LOL!!! honest...

[debee]

No attorney on this site has ever advised me to drop personal liability insurance or ignore city codes.

[tobee43]

Exactly. Court decisions do take into huge consideration past court cases. I have not personally researched on this because usually, the chances of someone having something happen to them (at least something serious) on your property is not common (at least I wouldn't think). The "off of the top of my head" example I can think of is if someone climbed into your backyard and drowned in your swimming pool (yeah, you probably don't have a swimming pool, I'm just coming up with an example). So yeah, the chance of a serious instance happening might be .0001% especially during the few months a home is in foreclosure/post-BK. I doubt there's one instance even on this forum where someone's detailed some type of case like this and what actually went down.

And, maybe 99.99% of the time, nothing will ever happen to any of us. Heck, maybe we have a better chance of winning the lotto :P

Lastly, I don't know why this forum blocks certain URLs and not others.

and a case like this will never be seen and, if it does it will never go down provided the house was surrendered and the bk discharged.


think about it....what if they. the bank, decide to have my old house torn down...(frankly i think they are going to have to)....do you think i'd still be responsible for the land it stood on....or for that matter, because of the problems with the flooding the bank can never sell the house...20 years goes by...you think we are still responsible?

no...i understand your concerns, but i'm not concerned at all.

[CCsAreEvil]

in my eyes, the eyes of my atty...and other atty's i have spoken with and my own experience as my resolve are not mere conclusions...they are the answers, at least to my own personal situation.

i will not continue to take your miss information personally, nor will i continue to debate with you a point over and over.

...one is no longer responsible for anything...the mere fact of the technicality that the bank has yet to remove your name off the deed, the bank did not resist, nor file any motion in a court of law stating they refused the surrendered property, the home, the actual collateral of the debt therefore your concern is moot.

I'm not going to say your attorney is wrong, but there are usually attorneys on BOTH sides of every case who want to prove they are correct. That's why we have the judicial system. So, I'm sure your attorney would be defending you if someone tried to sue you, especially the advice given. And again, we will probably never know what would happen because it's very highly unlikely we'd be faced with having to deal with this.

And you should not say someone else's advice is absolute misinformation. This whole thing is mute because we don't have enough information really.

I saw the word "technicality" thrown is there somewhere... well, laws DO look at technicalities. If there's something is recorded in public records (or wherever), the lawyer fighting on the other side of the case WILL use that "technically" that said the property was STILL in your name on said date, yadda yadda.

And for "me personally", I will be paying my home owner's insurance as long as title is "technically" still in my name. Once title officially changes ownership would I stop paying for it. And "woe is me" for being a stupid idiot for wasting money on a house I am giving up and giving back to the lender.

Edit: For me, as long as title is legally in my name, I will be paying home owner's insurance and the HOA. Once title changes (even if they take longer than I would like to change title), I will stop payment on both HOA and insurance. Of course, everyone has his/her own free will to choose whatever he/she wants to do in his/her situation.

[tobee43]

I'm not going to say your attorney is wrong, but there are usually attorneys on BOTH sides of every case who want to prove they are correct. That's why we have the judicial system. So, I'm sure your attorney would be defending you if someone tried to sue you, especially the advice given. And again, we will probably never know what would happen because it's very highly unlikely we'd be faced with having to deal with this.

And you should not say someone else's advice is absolute misinformation. This whole thing is mute because we don't have enough information really.

I saw the word "technicality" thrown is there somewhere... well, laws DO look at technicalities. If there's something is recorded in public records (or wherever), the lawyer fighting on the other side of the case WILL use that "technically" that said the property was STILL in your name on said date, yadda yadda.

And for "me personally", I will be paying my home owner's insurance as long as title is "technically" still in my name. Once title officially changes ownership would I stop paying for it. And "woe is me" for being a stupid idiot for wasting money on a house I am giving up and giving back to the lender.

no one is implying you are being stupid or an idiot...you need to do what you feel is right for you.

i can see, and do see this is miss information, as, i know and am aware it is. while i have actually, and am actually living the experience.

when your "closed", we will revisit this situation.

[CCsAreEvil]

i can see, and do see this is miss information, as, i know and am aware it is. while i have actually, and am actually living the experience.

So how do you KNOW and prove that you don't need to pay insurance again until title is legally out of your name again? Because your lawyer said?

You are NOT "living the experience" that something bad happened to someone on your property right now unless I missed that. And again, it will not even happen so we'll never know.

[mrskal]

As far as the original post about Foremost insurance, I called them and they will not write a house that is currently in foreclosure process. At least that is what I was told.

[tobee43]

So how do you KNOW and prove that you don't need to pay insurance again until title is legally out of your name again? Because your lawyer said?

You are NOT "living the experience" that something bad happened to someone on your property right now unless I missed that. And again, it will not even happen so we'll never know.

our bank has a blanket policy covering our house...maybe not yours...so you need to look into for yourself in as much as what the banks do with the properties and how they are treated....i only know what's happening with mine...i can't speak for anyone else..each state and each bank handles the situation differently.

[tobee43]

As far as the original post about Foremost insurance, I called them and they will not write a house that is currently in foreclosure process. At least that is what I was told.

i hear you...in our state NO insurance co. will cover a house that you have vacated or is in the foreclosure process...but i think a few have been able to get coverage in some states.

[debee]

http://www.tgiinsurance.com will insure vacant homes in Florida, NC, SC or Georgia regardless of why it is vacant - foreclosure, for sale, moving, whatever. They offer 3 month, 6 month, etc policies as well. Their toll free number is (800) 531-9725

[tobee43]

i'm sure it good that some states can get covered..unfortunately in the state our property is in will not cover any house i know many people having the same problem in the NORTHEAST! LOL!! i know nothing about southern states at all.

[AbbeyA]

As far as the original post about Foremost insurance, I called them and they will not write a house that is currently in foreclosure process. At least that is what I was told.

Hmmmm, I'm sorry to hear that. I wonder if the insurance broker didn't actually tell Foremost that we are in foreclosure but that we had a bk on our credit report??? I disclosed everything to him but I guess I really don't know exactly what he said to the insurance company. I just know that he said that Foremost was the only one who would insure us. Maybe you can contact an individual insurance broker who shops around all the different companies and see if that makes any difference.

[mrskal]

@Debee-Tgi insurance, My friend in Georgia called on this one, won't write a policy if house is in foreclosure either. They told her they will do a vacated house, but can't be in foreclosure process.