I totally remodeled the house I am in. If I were in your shoes can I
The exterior paint
two prehung entry doors
drainpipes for all sinks
How is this any different than garage doors?
THe only thing I see a problem with you taking is the bathroom ceiling
and the plenty more. I don't have any of them plenty mores. Were
On the other hand, if you have installed the rest of those items then
you just screwed the pooch. They'll have to stay along with the
Are those plenty mores available in different colors?
Our Constitution needs to be used less as a shield
for the guilty and more as a sword for the victim.
Definitely not that simple. For example, bookcases should have a safety
strap or bracket that is fastened to the wall to prevent them from
tipping, however they certainly would not be considered part of the
house, nor would artwork fastened to the walls of the house.
I am not sure, but I think that California is one of only a few states that
do not permit lenders to get a deficiency judgment against the debtor after
a foreclosure on a primary residence mortgage. If that is correct, the bank
cannot come after you for the difference between what they get from the
Sheriff's sale or foreclosure and the actual balance due on the mortgage.
About the garage door..., I think that would be considered part of the
structure of the building, just like the walls,ceilings, floors, etc. would
be. If so, the bank could probably come after you for taking the garage
door, just like they could if you took a wall, ceiling, or floor. There is
a technique that some investors use called "component depreciation" where
they can legally depreciate non-structure items (toilets, gutters,
downspouts, etc.) over a shorter term on their tax returns -- then they
depreciate the rest of the structure over 27 years. But, I think garage
doors may not be one of the components that can be depreciated over a
shorter term than the structure itself.
Since the house is apparently upside on the mortgage, and you probably have
other dischargeable debts, have you looked into just filing a Chapter 7
bankruptcy? Many (most?) bankruptcy attorneys provide a free initial
consultation. You may want to do 2 or 3 such consultations before deciding
what your best options are.
There is a Yahoo Group called Bankruptcy_Talk that you may want to join and
post your questions there.
According to this article California IS one of the few states that
limits deficiency judgments.
"[U of Arizona law professor, Brent T.] White argues that far more of
the estimated 15 million American homeowners who are underwater on their
mortgages should stiff their lenders and take a hike.
"Doing so, he suggests, could save some of them hundreds of thousands of
dollars that they 'have no reasonable prospect of recouping' in the
years ahead. Plus the penalties are nowhere near as painful or
long-lasting as they might assume.
" 'Homeowners should be walking away in droves,' according to White.
'But they aren't. And it's not because the financial costs of
foreclosure outweigh the benefits.' Sure, credit scores get whacked when
you walk away, he acknowledges. But as long as you stay current with
other creditors, 'one can have a good credit rating again -- meaning
above 660 -- within two years after a foreclosure.'
"Better yet, you can default 'strategically.' Buy all the major items
you'll need for the next couple of years -- a new car, even a new house
-- just before you pull the plug on your current mortgage lender.
" 'Most individuals should be able to plan in advance for a few years of
limited credit,' White said, with minimal disruptions to their
"The main point, [White] says, is that too often people's emotions get
in the way of clear financial thinking about mortgages, turning them
into what he calls 'woodheads' -- 'individuals who choose not to act in
their own self-interest.' Most owners are too worried about feelings of
shame and embarrassment following a foreclosure, and ignore the powerful
financial reasons for going through with it, he said.
"Buttressing these emotions is a system that White labels 'the social
control of the housing crisis' -- pressures and messages continually
sent to consumers by the 'social control agents,' namely banks,
government and the media. The mantra these agents -- all the way up to
President Obama -- pound into owners' heads, White says, is that
'voluntarily defaulting on a mortgage is immoral.'
"Yet there is an inherent imbalance in the borrower-lender relationship
that makes this morality message unfair to consumers: Banks set the
rules during the housing boom, handing out home loans with no down
payments, no income checks and inflated appraisals. Now that property
values have dropped 20 to 50 percent in many areas, banks have been slow
to modify troubled mortgages and reluctant to reduce principal debts.
"Only when homeowners cut through the emotional fog and default
strategically in large numbers, White argues, will this inequitable
situation be seriously addressed.
"How does White's 52-page manifesto go over with mortgage lenders?
Predictably, not well."
White is an unethical twit. Yes, banks wrote a lot of paper to people
they shouldn't have, with made-up dreamworld numbers. But they didn't
hold a gun to anyone's head to get them to sign. Anyone who commits to a
debt they can't afford SHOULD suffer some pain if their house of cards
collapses. That is how mother nature educates people who didn't pick it
up in school. I don't think the banks should be off the hook either- if
they write bad paper, they should have to eat part of the loss.
Yes, I know, some people suffer financial reversals through no fault of
their own, and should have a way to start over. That is what bankruptcy
laws are for. But people who still have jobs, but happen to notice that
their McMansion is worth less than they owe on it, I have little pity
for. Shouldn't have bought such an ego palace in the first place, fool.
Houses lower on the food chain have held their value a lot better, and
you can still sell them for something close to what you paid, in most
areas. There are several 10-year-old beige subdivisions around here,
maybe 1/4 built out, that haven't had any new starts in five years. But
due to the CCRs requiring McMansions, they won't be built out anytime
soon. At some point, the developers will walk away from the vacant lots,
and they will tax-revert to the city. Maybe they will sell them to the
neighbors, or make some nice unofficial pocket parks once nature plants
trees in them.
aem sends, ranting.....
Unfortunately, this type of behavior seem to be growing.
Here in Florida, we are also being hit with a severe RE down turn, and
many people cannot afford their mortgages and being foreclosed on.
Many of those are people who could not afford their mortgages and
probably should never have purchased a home to begin with, but there
are also some who could afford their mortgage and insurances, but did
not anticipate home owner association fees shooting up the roof.
I have a friend who's condo building is now at 60% vacancy, many were
owners who walked away or never moved in. However they have to
continue to pay for security guards, landscaping, swimming pool,
elevator maintenance etc...many of those are signed contracts and must
be paid, but less owners means your portion is now significantly
higher, and her HOA fee is higher than her mortgage!!!
There is also a growing number of what they now called "Strategic
Defaults". People who walked not because they cannot afford but
simply because their house is now worth less than the amount they
owed. They projected in Florida alone about 28% of the defaults are
strategic. They computed that by looking at those who defaulted, how
many of them are current on car payments, credit cards etc...and only
defaulting on mortgages. I even saw some newspaper articles about
those people who strategic defaulted needing counseling help to
overcome their guilt about not paying their mortgages. This is just
insane, people who walked away from their obligations and now they
Opinion varies, but it is clear that due to the economy, the mortgage
defaultors will be able to rebuild their credits much sooner than a
normal bankcruptcy. Some says 2 years. It seems that because it's
considered "norm and understandable", this is not as bad as the
traditional bankcruptcy filing.
I have visited a few foreclosed on homes. Sellers walked away and
they had to blame it on someone else except themselves, so yes, I see
glass windows broken, floor tiled cracked, walls ripped, basically the
realtors told me a lot of people destroyed their home before they
walked as a way to "stick it to the banks". Now the banks are stuck
with these properties, they cannot be sold conventionally as some of
them are inhabitable so the bank asks for cash only offers since there
is no way the new buyer can get a loan from another bank for it.
It's a total mess.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.