Home
What's new
Latest activity
Authors
Store
Latest reviews
Search products
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New listings
New products
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Cart
Cart
Loading…
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Change style
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
SVTPerformance's Chain of Restaurants
Road Side Pub
List your state's dumbest new laws here.....
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="MG0h3" data-source="post: 17021166" data-attributes="member: 164690"><p>I don’t know why you think the bank wouldn’t disclose this? I don’t know if you’ve ever dealt with this sort of thing but there is no gain in the bank not disclosing this IF they owned it. What an easy lawsuit to win that would be. I don’t recall seeing in the article that they are suing the bank so it’s safe to say this isn’t the case. S</p><p></p><p>Regardless, unless the bank is the owner, they have zero responsibility in checking the condition of the home. Why would they? </p><p>In fact I don’t think I’ve ever seen a bank owned home not being listed “as is” with all sorts of disclaimers. </p><p></p><p>If the buyers bought this off the estate of the old guy that died and they didn’t disclose it, they can sue them. </p><p></p><p>I’d bet they were told that the house is occupied and just thought good natured people would leave. Oooops </p><p></p><p>And people buy houses that are occupied all the time. When the bank forecloses and takes ownership, they list it as an occupied foreclosure. It says in very obvious verbiage that the house is occupied and that it is the buyers responsibility to evict them. </p><p></p><p></p><p>Sent from my iPhone using the <a href="http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=92568" target="_blank">svtperformance.com mobile app</a></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="MG0h3, post: 17021166, member: 164690"] I don’t know why you think the bank wouldn’t disclose this? I don’t know if you’ve ever dealt with this sort of thing but there is no gain in the bank not disclosing this IF they owned it. What an easy lawsuit to win that would be. I don’t recall seeing in the article that they are suing the bank so it’s safe to say this isn’t the case. S Regardless, unless the bank is the owner, they have zero responsibility in checking the condition of the home. Why would they? In fact I don’t think I’ve ever seen a bank owned home not being listed “as is” with all sorts of disclaimers. If the buyers bought this off the estate of the old guy that died and they didn’t disclose it, they can sue them. I’d bet they were told that the house is occupied and just thought good natured people would leave. Oooops And people buy houses that are occupied all the time. When the bank forecloses and takes ownership, they list it as an occupied foreclosure. It says in very obvious verbiage that the house is occupied and that it is the buyers responsibility to evict them. Sent from my iPhone using the [url=http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=92568]svtperformance.com mobile app[/url] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
SVTPerformance's Chain of Restaurants
Road Side Pub
List your state's dumbest new laws here.....
Top