Australia's largest stock trading and investment forum Australia's #1 stock forum

You are assuming a fully functional legal system. Crooks really...

First 211 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
ramAustralia

21,795 Posts.

124

20/10/21

17:50

Post #: 56946420
Share

Originally posted by sierra: ↑

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.

Expand

You are assuming a fully functional legal system. Crooks really don't care much about the law.
6 Upvote

Reply

There are more pages in this discussion • 635 more messages in this thread...

First 211 Last