It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by SFA437
reply to post by FTD Brat
And if your mortgage has a property seizure clause in it you would be, in the eyes of the law, 100% wrong since your signature allows the mortgage company to do this. If you affix your signature to a contract specifying your obligations and the lender's recourse that contract is binding.
If the family in the OP did not wish for this to happen they should have either refused the mortgage due to the property seizure clause, had their attorney seek to remove it prior to signature or kept the mortgage current.
Then again the title & thread wouldn't garner much attention if it accurately described the situation and affixed at least some responsibility on the homeowner who signed the mortgage contract in the first place then failed to maintain payments.edit on 10-7-2011 by SFA437 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Homedawg
reply to post by MIDNIGHTSUN
Sorry...it IS a civil matter unles the homeowner files charges against the people....blame the lawmakers,not the cops...their hands are tied...Fla,is however,a self defense state and home invaders CAN be shot upon entry...JMOedit on 7/10/2011 by Homedawg because: clarity
Originally posted by SFA437
reply to post by FTD Brat
And if your mortgage has a property seizure clause in it you would be, in the eyes of the law, 100% wrong since your signature allows the mortgage company to do this. If you affix your signature to a contract specifying your obligations and the lender's recourse that contract is binding.
If the family in the OP did not wish for this to happen they should have either refused the mortgage due to the property seizure clause, had their attorney seek to remove it prior to signature or kept the mortgage current.
Then again the title & thread wouldn't garner much attention if it accurately described the situation and affixed at least some responsibility on the homeowner who signed the mortgage contract in the first place then failed to maintain payments.edit on 10-7-2011 by SFA437 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by korathin
Hardly. The problem with our society is that psychopaths and sociopaths are allowed to exist outside of Asylums. The home is probably not worth the mortgage(built with cheap wood, cheap drywall and cheap labor).
Originally posted by korathin
You forget one big thing. You can put anything you want into a contract, but if it conflict's with existing law's then it is a mute point. Law trumpets any contract period.