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 kawika
Its almost as if they don't want people to pay on time.
I noticed credit cards that would move the due date around and change the payment amounts unexpectedly.
Originally posted by snowspirit
Originally posted by isyeye
One thing I curious about......most banks require you to have a checking account with the bank before they will issue a loan. While I don't agree with the bank not accepting cash, why did they not write a check? Something is off here.
Or just put the money directly into his bank account for them to take out his mortgage payment.
A bank has to accept cash to go into an account if you show up at the teller, and want to put money into your account.
How can a person have a mortgage, and not have a chequing or savings account with the same bank?
Originally posted by kawika
Its almost as if they don't want people to pay on time.
I noticed credit cards that would move the due date around and change the payment amounts unexpectedly.
I think they all do it.
We just changed cell phone companies, and I knew they would give us one price and then the bill would be higher, always is, sure enough, that is how it went down.
Can not trust big companies anymore.edit on 4-2-2012 by kawika because: corectolated spel'n err
Originally posted by kawika
Its almost as if they don't want people to pay on time.
***********************************************************************************
They don't ...
There was a time when the Banks really didn't want the house back because they weren't in the real estate sales business and didn't want to have to sell the house and also deal with vacant properties while it was on the market. But, then, enter Wall Street. Everything changed.
Way back when, they took the house back reluctantly. Now, that's no longer the case.
Banks make huge profits by taking the house back, even if the house sits vacant and they pay the property taxes and minimal maintenance for as long as one year... they still make out like bandits. The government reimburses the Bank for the foreclosed property (market value) and then the Bank sells the house and also keeps whatever money they received from the homeowner over the years.
So, up until maybe 6 or 7 or so years ago, especially in the past few years, if they take back the house, the government compensates them with the "stimulus" money (by giving the Bank FMV -- Fair Market Value for the house that they're now going to sell) that was supposedly intended for struggling homeowners who were underwater in their mortgages but who never saw a dime of this money.
The greedy Banks get market value from the government for the house that they foreclosed on AND they turn around and sell the house for whatever they can get AND of course, keep the owner's original down payment AND all of the payments the owners made towards the principle ... not too mention the interest they made while the owners were making their monthly payments, known as double-dipping, or is it triple-dipping?
Not a bad deal ... for the Banks.
It's no wonder they were giving mortgages out so freely and relaxing their standards.edit on 5-2-2012 by Jana12 because: typo
Originally posted by Liquesence
A bank not accepting CASH?
Unfortunately, they are well within their rights to not accept cash, even though one would think they had to accept the "legal tender." Although cash is accepted legal tender, that doesn't mean it must be accepted just that it can be used.
One might argue that cash payments are inconvenient, but when there is usually a point at which one must use cash (whether at the post office for a money order, where they must count it).
What they perhaps should have done is take the cash to the bank to get a bank note (to see if they take cash for THAT, then in turn pay the mortgage, or put it into your account, OR
An interesting exercise (although possibly not too smart), is to simply not pay the mortgage. One could always claim "they wouldn't accept my payment," but BoA has a lot of (more) money for lawyers than the average, struggling home-buyer.
I wonder how the courts would rule on that.
Sounds like there is something else to this story though, if the couple--doing business with BoA, can no longer even ENTER the bank (to pay their mortgage????).
Something fishy with this whole thing, and it sounds like someone is trying to cause a ruckus.
edit on 4-2-2012 by Liquesence because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by theindependentjournal
People surprise me with their lack of knowledge in the Law. This were me I would own that home with that video and a Federal Judge! They broke the contract, and Federal Reserve Notes are acceptable as money for payment of all debts public and private and to not accept a payment is to hand over ownership.
I can't believe these people don't take them to Court and never make another payment ever.