That doesn't make sense.
There are conditions that must be met before a mortgage goes into default and a set time before the holder of that mortgage can take possession after those conditions are met.
If he wasn't in default of the terms of the mortgage the mortgage holder couldn't have got a court to order the repossession. Even if he was in default and the bank took possession and disposed of the property there are conditions to meet to ensure it is sold fairly on the open market with provisions to allow work to be carried out to improve the salability.
After all that any amount above the debt and costs must be paid to the mortgagor by the mortgagee.
Finally if the mortgagor was willing and able to pay the mortgagee the debt owed before the court order was issued and their lawyer had it documented that the mortgagee refused to accept payment the court could never have issued that order.
That's my understanding as a mortgagee who was party to repossessing a property from a mortgagor who defaulted.
- Forums
- Breaking News
- Today's Gestapo news
That doesn't make sense.There are conditions that must be met...
- There are more pages in this discussion • 636 more messages in this thread...
You’re viewing a single post only. To view the entire thread just sign in or Join Now (FREE)
Featured News
Featured News
The Watchlist
RDN
RAIDEN RESOURCES LIMITED
Dusko Ljubojevic, MD
Dusko Ljubojevic
MD
SPONSORED BY The Market Online