Re: An answer to foreclosure problems - arson
- From: EskWIRED@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 12:07:36 +0000 (UTC)
In misc.survivalism, knews4u2chew@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
The whole idea is stupid.
#1. Insurance only covers the structure.
#2. Land can be more than half of the value of a property covered by a
mortgage.
Or it can be a small fraction. Houses are worth the same wherever you
plop them down; land is a huge variable. And 1/8 acre in some godforsaken
suburb of a broken-down rustbelt city isn't worth all that much.
#3. The borrower will still have a mortgage if they don't rebuild and
the lender will take the insurance proceeds.
All true, but maybe the deficiency judgement will be for an affordable
amount.
--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: An answer to foreclosure problems - arson
- From: Foobar
- Re: An answer to foreclosure problems - arson
- Prev by Date: US Banks To Borrow From Foreign Governments
- Next by Date: Re: Can You Count on Voting Machines?
- Previous by thread: Re: An answer to foreclosure problems - arson
- Next by thread: Re: An answer to foreclosure problems - arson
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|