Bank 'walkaways' from foreclosed homes are a growing, troubling trend

[dipsydoodle]

Renetta Atterberry thought she had lost her East 102nd Street house. So she was shocked to learn in January -- five years after her mortgage company filed for foreclosure -- that it was still in her name.

Worse, the long-vacant rental home had been vandalized and she faced a raft of housing code violations. Since then, she has been saddled with debts of about $12,000 to pay for demolition and back taxes.

"I thought I had nothing else to do with that home," said Atterberry. "I was so embarrassed and humiliated by this."

Her mortgage company didn't buy the house and never took it to sheriff's sale to see if somebody else would, leaving Atterberry the legal owner, responsible for upkeep and taxes.

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/07/bank_walkaways_from_foreclosed.html

[dixiegrrrrl]

1. A suggestion that has been repeated often: do not walk away without legal advice.

[surrealAmerican]

2. I would assume the bank in question has a lawyer.

The "homeowner" was foreclosed on. It's the bank that walked away.

She'll probably have to sue them to get them to pay the taxes and other expenses.

[Sirveri]

3. So does this mean that she now owns the house outright?

City thinks she's the legal owner, so screw the bank, what are they going to do?

[dipsydoodle]

4. It would seem so

but the issue is the back taxes whatever.

[Sirveri]

5. It looks like there is still a mortgage lein on the property though.

It looks like the bank is trying to get the best of both worlds. Throw this poor lady out of her house, but keep the mortgage even if they can't sell it, while also stiffing the city and everyone else.

The 'fair' thing to me would be that she can come back in, the bank is responsible for all the fines in the interim period, and the mortgage lien stays in place on the property as a mechanics lien then she starts paying the city property taxes and can take her time paying off the principal value of the mortgage. House gets maintained and she basically owns her property without the place becoming a blight to the city, while the bank still gets something instead of nothing.

[BT021]

6. the slumlord should not have abandonded the ...

property until the foreclosure was final,
which apparently it never was.

[bemildred]

7. Tsk, you just don't know who to pick.

A slumlord and a bank, neither wishing to be responsible.

[midnight]

8. This issue of people in a downward spiral economically should of been able to be secured via Hamp.

But this program was rigged from the get go.. The banks were only to volunteer... Such a lose of community and hope... I'm thinking that making people walk away is not the solution... Families/people need a place to live... This is the least this country could do...