Beerball Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 http://www.13wmaz.com/story/news/2015/02/15/woman-loses-half-of-her-house-to-neighbor/23454577/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanM.D. Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 Wow. The neighbor is the issue. Why wouldnt the neighbor just give it back now that she knows what happened? That 'neighbor' is an azz. These aren't large realty companies vying for prime real estate. There, it'd be blood in the water and winner take all. Here, It's a 'neighbor' being an azz over .2 acres and 'half' her neighbors house. She could have done the right thing and told the owner about it when it went up for auction. Clearly, the owner was unaware and felt she was doing the right things for her property. I'm not interested in the arguments for the 'neighbor.' There's legal....and then there's 'right.' What comes around goes around... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Hammersticks Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 (edited) The neighbor clearly is an idiot, and the owner appears to be completely clueless. Hopefully natural selection sorts this one out in time. Edited February 21, 2015 by Johnny Hammersticks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Jack Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 The owner should have made sure the taxes were being paid, and it never would have gone to auction. I know here I can check online to see if they are up to date. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 i probably wouldn't be so gentle with this if it were me. the neighbor is my kind of ahole, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmokinES3 Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 (edited) Owner is an idiot, too lazy to cut a 200$ check once a year, and the neighbor is a huge !@#$. Pretty cut and dry. Edited February 21, 2015 by SmokinES3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 (edited) The owner should have made sure the taxes were being paid, and it never would have gone to auction. I know here I can check online to see if they are up to date. The owner should have gotten a receipt for taxes but shouldn't the bank with the escrow be held liable and why didn't the municipality send a delinquency letter? Something is missing. Edited February 24, 2015 by 4merper4mer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jobu Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 I got real good piece of advice when I bought my first house. I have the taxes escrowed, but I have the bank send me the check at the end of the year, then I pay the town. Don't think this is possible everywhere, but glad it is here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 I got real good piece of advice when I bought my first house. I have the taxes escrowed, but I have the bank send me the check at the end of the year, then I pay the town. Don't think this is possible everywhere, but glad it is here. Made out in you're name or the towns? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jobu Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 Made out in you're name or the towns? My name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 isn't the law in NY that if you maintain property for IIRC 7 years or so you can claim the rites to that property? Oh I hear it when the bank doesn't pay taxes. I am notified twice a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real Buffalo Joe Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Honestly, I'd get with my neighbor, and say we split whatever profits come from the sale to the mortgage company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cynical Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Owner is an idiot, too lazy to cut a 200$ check once a year, and the neighbor is a huge !@#$. Pretty cut and dry. Try reading the article a little closer: Prior to 2004, the owner was paying the taxes, but ... "In 2004, JP Morgan Chase (NYSE: JPM) officials told her they also needed to put money for the New York taxes into the escrow account. But the bank never paid the bill; it sold the loan in 2010 to Seterus Inc." It is cut & dry. The bank royally !@#$ed up. If the bank required her to have an escrow account for those taxes, but then failed to pay the taxes, then the bank can be held liable. She may/may not get the property back (as she would be ultimately responsible for making sure the taxes were paid), but she could go after the bank(s) for damages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmokinES3 Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 (edited) (as she would be ultimately responsible for making sure the taxes were paid) The parenthesis often hide the most important information. Edited February 24, 2015 by SmokinES3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cynical Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 The parenthesis often hide the most important information. Which does nothing to prove your point of the owner being "too lazy to cut a 200$ check once a year". The only cut and dry part (and yet another important piece of the puzzle) is the screw up by the bank. In the end, the lender is the one that is going to pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts