I'm not sure what is says about me but you accused me of posting FALSE (bolded and everything) information. Which I did not but suggesting all my post are erroneous post is not a smart comment at all. As my understanding of the case in question a clause similar to this was included when he took out his mortgage loan. Is it his fault for not reading it, yep? Is it a completely separate mortgage or document, nope, that is what you call erroneous information.How many BGP members have a lawyer review their mortgage loan documents prior to closing?? So was he wrong? Yes, again just making the point that this guy probably had no idea when he took out his home loan that someday in the future he would lose it because of a cross-collateralization agreement. I'd just prefer it not be insinuated that I'm a know nothing liar who has it out for financial institutions, I have quite a bit of knowledge in the area myself thank you.

 

To answer the bolded part, I do.:thumb:

LN, is what he did legal? I'm trying to figure out how he could bulldoze property that has a lien on it.

LN, is what he did legal? I'm trying to figure out how he could bulldoze property that has a lien on it.

 

I don't know to be honest with you. I don't practice that type of law. Perhaps under some intentional destruction of property of another theory if the law would hold that the bank's mortgage on the property constituted ownership in a criminal law context.

Trust me, he had to know he was mortgaging his home. He was obviously desperate by doing so. His business was probably struggling, and he had to have the cash to stay afloat. More evidence to this is the fact that there was an IRS lien on it. The fact that his home loan was current says nothing about his commercial loan, that was obviously delinquent.

 

This guy is an obvious deadbeat, and a jerk to boot. I hope he ends up in jail. Absolutely SHOCKED that anyone would "salute" him.

LN, is what he did legal? I'm trying to figure out how he could bulldoze property that has a lien on it.

 

Isn't the mortgage based on both the structure and the property? If so, I'm sure bulldozing it without permission is illegal.

I'm not sure what is says about me but you accused me of posting FALSE (bolded and everything) information. Which I did not but suggesting all my post are erroneous post is not a smart comment at all. As my understanding of the case in question a clause similar to this was included when he took out his mortgage loan. Is it his fault for not reading it, yep? Is it a completely separate mortgage or document, nope, that is what you call erroneous information. How many BGP members have a lawyer review their mortgage loan documents prior to closing?? So was he wrong? Yes, again just making the point that this guy probably had no idea when he took out his home loan that someday in the future he would lose it because of a cross-collateralization agreement. I'd just prefer it not be insinuated that I'm a know nothing liar who has it out for financial institutions, I have quite a bit of knowledge in the area myself thank you.

 

IMO you are sadly mistaken if you think he did not know he was mortgaging his home. Only wasy he could get the money, so he did it. What about the IRS lien? Guess he didn't know he owed the taxes?

Isn't the mortgage based on both the structure and the property? If so, I'm sure bulldozing it without permission is illegal.

 

If it's not, it ought to be...

Thanks for the smart comment. Says more about you than me, unfortunately for you. I can't help it if I am repeatedly correcting your erroneous posts.

 

I do know a lot about business lending. I make a living representing banks making business loans, thank you very much.

 

The clause you posted seems pretty straight forward to me. If he was too stupid to understand it and didn't have a lawyer review it for him before he signed it, then shame on him. It would be like me attempting to build my own home without having any experience building homes. If it fell apart after I completed it, who is to blame? Me.

 

Assuming he had previously granted the bank the mortgage on a prior loan (which is the only circumstance that the clause you posted would be germane to the discussion) and then subsequently personally guaranteed the business loan or owned the business as a sole proprietorship (in which case he was already personally liable to repay the business loan and wouldn't have had to sign a guarantee) when the business loan was made, that clause wouldn't have been in the Note as you originally stated and I corrected you on. It would have been in the mortgage (i.e. the "Security Instrument" as such term is used in the clause you posted).

 

And it wouldn't be hidden any where. I can assure you that the clause is in the same font size as the rest of the wording in the mortgage for all to see.

 

 

As a small business owner I have used this several times and never had a problem and ALWAYS have my attorney review any finicial agreements. Yeah is cost me some money upfront but I can be assured that I am not going to lose on the backside, and I am within my personal means to uphold my end of the agreement. CPAs and Attorneys cost money but not using them can cost a heck of alot more.

 

Owning a small business is a tough way to make a living but it can be done if you are wise enought to see your own shortcomings when it comes to certain areas of running the business.

And upon further review....

 

The fact that he destroyed his own home to send a message shows just how short sighted and ignorant he really is.

IMO you are sadly mistaken if you think he did not know he was mortgaging his home. Only wasy he could get the money, so he did it. What about the IRS lien? Guess he didn't know he owed the taxes?

 

Sure he knew he was mortgaging his home, for the purchase of said home. The cross-collateralization clause are included in the language of some banks and almost all credit unions notes/mortgages/security agreements. My understanding of this instance was that he had the mortgage (home/personal) loan prior to financing his business through the same bank. It is also my understanding that when the bank financed the commercial loan they did not use as collateral his personal residence, but because he had a previous mortgage loan with this clause in it and he personally guaranteed the commercial loan his residence was caught in the clause. Not saying he was right in his actions just trying to explain why he may be angry and not understand. Honestly how many people actually sit and read all the documents at a loan closing, I know I didn't? The only closing document that has to be made available prior to closing a consumer mortgage loanis the HUD statement not the docs with the contractual information.

On a side note, LN I apologize for the smart comment.

Sure he knew he was mortgaging his home, for the purchase of said home. The cross-collateralization clause are included in the language of some banks and almost all credit unions notes/mortgages/security agreements. My understanding of this instance was that he had the mortgage (home/personal) loan prior to financing his business through the same bank. It is also my understanding that when the bank financed the commercial loan they did not use as collateral his personal residence, but because he had a previous mortgage loan with this clause in it and he personally guaranteed the commercial loan his residence was caught in the clause. Not saying he was right in his actions just trying to explain why he may be angry and not understand. Honestly how many people actually sit and read all the documents at a loan closing, I know I didn't? The only closing document that has to be made available prior to closing a consumer mortgage loanis the HUD statement not the docs with the contractual information.

 

Can I ask how you came to this understanding? Business owners all the time have to use there home as collateral, I would be shocked if he didn't know it. All the facts that I'vew read point to this guy being a flat out rogue...

Isn't the mortgage based on both the structure and the property? If so, I'm sure bulldozing it without permission is illegal.

 

One would think, but I'm not sure what law it would be. You owe a balance to the bank on your mortgage, right? What law would you be violating (outside of permit-type laws) if you bulldozed it tonight? Be pretty stupid on your part and the bank probably wouldn't be too thrilled (not that they'd even know if you still kept making your payment), but what law would it violate?

One would think, but I'm not sure what law it would be. You owe a balance to the bank on your mortgage, right? What law would you be violating (outside of permit-type laws) if you bulldozed it tonight? Be pretty stupid on your part and the bank probably wouldn't be too thrilled (not that they'd even know if you still kept making your payment), but what law would it violate?

 

My guess, and I stress the word "guess", is that a bank is not going to let you owe $100k+ on an asset without placing some restrictions on what you can do with that asset. Since a bank has the right to call for the note to be paid at any time (again, I thiink that's the case) they also would have the right to place restrictions on what you can do to the asset.

My guess, and I stress the word "guess", is that a bank is not going to let you owe $100k+ on an asset without placing some restrictions on what you can do with that asset. Since a bank has the right to call for the note to be paid at any time (again, I thiink that's the case) they also would have the right to place restrictions on what you can do to the asset.

 

And I guess that's the whole key. I don't think there is any such clause in the note that would prevent you from doing so. If there were, then it would obviously be an open-and-shut case with this guy. Apparently, he actually sought out legal counsel before going through with this stunt to make sure he wasn't violating any criminal laws.