Out without warning

What it looks like is that the house was owned by a private person who rented it out and then did not pay the mortgage on the house. Which is one reason I will never rent a house owned by a private individual. If I rent anything its either going to be in an apartment complex or a townhome community where they rent out all of the homes. Im not 100% sure but I believe now days many apartment complexes are owned by commercial companies. I know many shopping Centers are. And commercial companies have enough money they dont even need to take out a loan for a property. They make their money from rents of all their properties where they rent spaces out.

I bet the neighbors are glad she is out. Who wants to live next to someone with 2 foot high grass??- makes a great home for rats and other creatures. And she had extended family "staying" there too. I hope they bug bomb that house before they sell it to another family probably full of roaches!

"I don't recall the article sayng it was purchased at a foreclosre sale. Sounds like the lender assummed ownership so would the law even be relevant?"

Properties in foreclosure are sold on the courthouse steps. When no one bids, the lender is the buyer of the note for the owed amount on the mortgage to my understanding.

It would be nice if one of our legal beagles could clarify if this pertains?

I think this is terrible! I feel that when a property is being rented either through a realtor or homeowner it should be mandatory.That the name of person(s)renting the property be submitted to the Mortgage Co.and the City.this way the renter can be notified by the City when the property is in foreclosure. This would allow the renter to break the lease and give adequate time to move. Something has to be done.I think the city can afford to hire someone to oversee this.

Basically, banks are not subject to the same laws as homeowners is what it sounds like. When typical owners tranfer properties they have to honor existing leases. There are also time periods that must be honored in order to raise rents or asked to vacate. But most lender agreements trump these laws. I guess the real question is should they be able to?

This article fails to mention how tenants refuse to talk to us agents, the representatives for the bank. If they would bother answering their doors or responding to the business cards with notes on the back left at the door, or the multiple letters that we send saying that the house will be re-secured if nobody gets in touch, then we would know about them. However, with no responses and unkempt lawn, all we can assume is that the house is vacant. There is also usually always a "cash for keys" offer made, which very rarely does anyone ever bother responding to. The cash for keys offer is usually more than an security deposit that they end up losing. The average cash for keys amount offered by my clients is $1,800.

Truth_Hurts wrote:

These lenders dont want to help the renter or anybody for that reason. Someone giving a a person a week is not helping anyone. This is just a transfer of wealth.

In case you didn't realize it lenders are in business to make money. They aren't a non profit. The real criminal here was the landlord. Considering the fact they didn't have to do anything giving her an extra week, offering to help her find a place, and share an attorney to sue the landlord seems like helping.

Dunn wrote:

Basically, banks are not subject to the same laws as homeowners is what it sounds like. When typical owners tranfer properties they have to honor existing leases. There are also time periods that must be honored in order to raise rents or asked to vacate. But most lender agreements trump these laws. I guess the real question is should they be able to?

Only if you want banks to loan money for hosues to be rented. She did have the sheriffs notice. I I got an evicition notice I'd do more than ignore it simply becasue I didn't recognize the name.

The grounds should have been the landlord's responsibility. I rented for 13 years (I've owned since 2002) and was never asked to mow the lawn. My landlord had a local service or kid in the neighborhood. This woman and her family are the victims in this story.

This is typical of what's happening in the mortgage industry, especially to renters and people who have actually lost their homes to foreclosure. I think the banks representative should have investigated before sending out a sheriff for eviction because the tenant has in fact been paying the rent. She should be able to continue to pay rent - to the bank -for a period of time until she can find a place to move to. But ofcourse this would be too much like right because banks just like mortgage companies are all about the money. Screw the actual living and breathing family that have HELD UP TO THEIR SIDE OF THE BARGAIN (in this renter in this case).

Landlords don't like tennants who don't pay yet when they don't pay for what they're renting they try to get as much out of these unfortunate people as they can. This is a double edge sword. It looks like a depression is almost here. Greed has reached its limit.

First wanted to say to all the idiots who read this and wasted the time to leave a comment about the grass to "GET A LIFE".

Second, I think that one way to remedy or help tenants stay knowledgeable about the property they live in is to require by law, that landlords provide certified documentation of ownership and if the house is under mortgage, proof that the house is not in foreclosure.

I think there should be some sort of law that when something like this happens, the tenant shouldn't be thrown out right then and there. They should allow at least 30 to 60 days for them to find another place or let them stay until the lease runs out. The banks would then be collecting the rents to pay for their costs. Being so cold-hearted like this only creates homelessness because not enough agencies like this one would "give another week". And it tells the public that it (the bank) doesn't really care about people.

afmca wrote:

This is just another example of laws written to protect business and unscrupolous investors versus hard working citizens. We already have examples of houses being taken for ground rent. This is just another example where you play by the rules and you lose any way. The law should state that a person stays in the property as long as the lease is in effect and the rent is paid on time. The company or investor that bought the property should have to go after the initial owner to collect damages; not the unsuspecting renter. It seems like the only person that gets off is the person that caused the problem.

The landlord is guilty of fraud, both a criminal and cival offense which the tennant has recourse against. In a case where a bank foreclosed, they should be liable to make reasonable accomidation for tennants in instances where they gave non "owner-occupied" loans so they should've been aware of tennants could be there. This bank gave a week's notice(more than they're required to do) to vacate but I would be ok with giving up to 1 month before they can evict. You must be reasonable in your outrage b/c the uninended consequence of add'l requirements on landlords and lenders to investment will INCREASE THE RENT CHARGED ON ALL! If you want to have places to rent, then there has to be a reward to taking the risks of being an investor...If it was this big of a problem, then we'd hear more about it since 70% of Bmore properties purchased in 2005 were investments and I've not heard of many instances where the foreclosing bank did not act reasonably so simply watch what you wish for..

ravenpic wrote:

Landlords don't like tennants who don't pay yet when they don't pay for what they're renting they try to get as much out of these unfortunate people as they can. This is a double edge sword. It looks like a depression is almost here. Greed has reached its limit.

Do you have any idea what a depression is? During the depression we had over 20%(thats 1 in 5) unemployment compared to our current 5%...for those who've obviously never had an Economics 101 class, a recession is defined as having 2 consequtive quarters of negative growth in the Gross Domestic Product. We've had 2 consequtive quarters of growth (that means it grew) in our nations' GDP, albeit small but growth none the less. Yes gas is expensive and yes there are some tough times for folks but the economy is cyclical with periods of slow times following periods of growth. Scaring people into thinking they're losing their jobs & homes is ludicrous and not going to happen. Go out and use you lifetime learning tax credit to take a basic economics class at your local community college before you start posting about how poor our economy is...

A Katherine West and Leif Colon also own a 550K home at 9412 Georgia Bell Drive in Perry Hall. I wonder if they are paying on that one.

Colon is also a licensed real estate agent.

that's my aunt, right now, she's living with her sister, where she use to live before. It was kind of crowded in the house so they moved into a town home of their own. Now since they got evicted, they're all crowded in the same house again. She is very upset.

Jane wrote:

that's my aunt, right now, she's living with her sister, where she use to live before. It was kind of crowded in the house so they moved into a town home of their own. Now since they got evicted, they're all crowded in the same house again. She is very upset.

I'm sure she is upset and has every right to be. She needs to file a civil law suit against that idiot for continuing to take her money AND for keeping her in the dark. A little pain and suffering and humiliation as well. I hope everything works out for her and the family.

Quick Draw wrote:

<quoted text>
I wonder if she could contact the lender and take over the loan. I doubt that the house is worth the mortgage that is on it, so that could be a win-win for the bank a Phavone.

Great point!