Re: An answer to foreclosure problems - arson
- From: EskWIRED@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:54:44 +0000 (UTC)
In misc.survivalism, Robert Sturgeon <rsturge@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 12:07:36 +0000 (UTC),
EskWIRED@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
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.
In California and, IIRC, most states, there is no deficiency
judgment on purchase money loans.
Not true here, but you may be correct about "most states". I don't know.
--
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: Curly Surmudgeon
- Re: An answer to foreclosure problems - arson
- References:
- Re: An answer to foreclosure problems - arson
- From: EskWIRED
- Re: An answer to foreclosure problems - arson
- Prev by Date: Re: Are You Ready To Weather A Severe Recession aka Depression?
- Next by Date: Re: Are You Ready To Weather A Severe Recession aka Depression?
- Previous by thread: Re: An answer to foreclosure problems - arson
- Next by thread: Re: An answer to foreclosure problems - arson
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|