Chase Foreclosing On 90-Year-Old Even Though Son Is Willing To Pay

Chase is proceeding full steam ahead with foreclosing on a 90-year-old woman’s condo even though her son has offered to pay it off. Rather than get the full amount of the mortgage paid in full, they prefer to incur the expenses of a foreclosure and sell it at a loss.

After 10 months of trying to work it out, the only response Chase has given him is that their attorneys are asking the court to proceed with immediate foreclosure.

The son says he never received any notice about payments being overdue or the loan being in default, even though he cosigned the loan with his brother.

The family has even resorted to writing the White House and Obama. No response from them either, and they wake up each morning expecting to see a foreclosure notice on the door.

Bank foreclosing on man willing to pay for condo [WTNH] (Thanks to Ken!)

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. rbleader says:

    It’s almost like Chase is there to not make money, but to make people miserable… Hmmm… WAIT! THIS EXPLAINS EVERYTHING!

  2. GuyGuidoEyesSteveDaveâ„¢ says:

    His brother defaulted. Did he file for bankruptcy or something? I think the lack of hearing his brothers side of the story and also things like details make this seem like a story that wouldn’t stand scrutiny. Maybe that’s why WNTH is the only outlet to cover this story, because they have lower standards.

    • El_Red says:

      Well, it does not matter any more. What’s important, is that he is willing to pay. So foreclosure should be stopped.

      • GuyGuidoEyesSteveDaveâ„¢ says:

        But if his brother is declaring bankruptcy or something else, that could make it so he CAN’T pay it. Just because you offer to pay for something you shoplifted doesn’t mean you can. Things are rarely as simple as someone trying to make you believe them will lead you to believe.

        • Im Just Saying says:

          I suppose this could vary state to state, but in my experience the homeowner can pay off the loan (either in a cash out or a sale etc) up until the forclosure auction starts. Of course at that point they can also bid on their own property and potentially own it outright for less, YMMV.

          • NeverLetMeDown says:

            Not if you’re in bankruptcy. It’s a process, and you can’t just decide “hey, I’m going to pay off creditor X, screw creditors Y and Z!”

            • Sudonum says:

              In certain bankruptcies you can “re-affirm” with certain creditors. IE, you have a car loan, you can re-affirm with the note holder to continue to pay the note and keep the car. You can also re-affirm other unsecured debt at your discretion. Why you would want to, since you’re filing BK, is another issue entirely.

          • rekoil says:

            What happens is that the banks generally add on all sorts of back interest, late penalties, collection fees, etc…that accumulate to the point that there’s no way it could be paid off. There was a foreclosure in my complex last year that had over $30K in such penalties added onto the principal. Even if the owner wrote a check for the total outstanding principal, she still would have lost the house.

          • Shinsei says:

            In many cases, you can pay it off even after the sale is held. The amount of time to do so varies by state, etc., of course.

    • allknowingtomato says:

      I think whether the details render Chase “entitled” to foreclose is not the point of the story. Rather, the issue is why Chase would chose to proceed with a foreclosure (presumably at a loss) when it could instead receive its expected payments from the cosigner of the loan.

      I imagine the defaulting brother is not sharing his part of the story due to one of two things:
      1. He is embarrassed to be on TV as the defaulter, or
      2. He has disappeared on his family and is not available to explain, even to this mother and brother, why he defaulted.

      Option 2 is crappy, but then again if he were still around why didn’t he tell his cosigning brother that he was going to default, thus preventing this whole issue? Co-signing brother is mad the bank didn’t notify him of his brother’s default; I imagine the defaulting brother dropped the ball on that as well.

      Chase is making a heartless and, more importantly to chase, financially poor decision; frankly, given the other stories around, it is likely that Chase is just so disorganized on their end that the right person does not know the cosigning brother is willing to pay. The paperwork dept is not talking to the phone dept, and nobody is timely alerting legal to stop foreclosure proceedings; someone somewhere is not reading carefully and just spitting out “we’re foreclosing!” form letters in response.

    • Excuse My Ambition Deficit Disorder says:

      I do believe FOX News may beat them out on the standards issue. Who needs details…come on…how could anyone be asking for both sides of the story from the media….come on…stick it to the “man”….we can sort the “details” out later…

  3. Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

    Sorry, but can’t they just pay it off? What is preventing the brother from walking into the bank and writing them a check?

    also, I wonder if he could buy the foreclosed property for less than they currently owe.

  4. CWG85338 says:

    If the son has a check in hand to pay the entire debt, how can the bank refuse and foreclose. Either there is more to this story, or it is a lawyers dream for any attorney willing to stick his neck out and sue the bastards at chase.

    • Tom Foolery says:

      Pretty much. If the condo has already gone to sale, then the bank is acting correctly. The borrower, family or friends can’t purchase a foreclosed property. If, on the other hand, the condo is in foreclosure but has not yet gone to sale, this is really screwy. He might try getting in touch with the investor. If it’s Freddie or Fannie, i can’t imagine they’d be pleased to hear a bank was refusing a mortgage payoff.

  5. Blueskylaw says:

    It seems that, in this still bad economy, JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon wants to downsize from his current McMansion to something more “austere” and this is the condo he has chosen.

  6. tomz17 says:

    Agree… there has to be a LOT more to this story. There is NOTHING preventing you from paying the principle on your loan at any time you want. If he truly had a check in hand, there would be no issue.

    • hansolo247 says:

      Yes there is…hefty prepayment penalties are very common on the crappier loans.

      I think what Chase really wants is an extra few percent to pay off the loan.

    • GuyGuidoEyesSteveDaveâ„¢ says:

      Yeah, if he had all the letters from Chase and everything, why would the reporter need to contact Chase to see what was going on? It should be spelled out in the letters he has. Unless this guy cherry picked what he showed the reporter…

  7. Shtetl G says:

    This story sounds fishy. What type of mess did his bankrupt brother get into to? How come the good son hasn’t hired a lawyer over the last 10 months? Inquiring minds want to know.

  8. Wang_Chung_Tonight says:

    I don’t think they are selling it as a loss. I think they can get more if they do it that way rather then just the balance left on the mortgage.

    this is rotten dirty. I really hope the bank doesn’t get sleep over this and makes it right.

  9. coren says:

    Yeah, no bank in their right mind turns down full payment so they can instead spend money and get half payment.

  10. DD_838 says:

    The story is written as if the bank is going to loose money by foreclosing. In actuality they are GOING TO MAKE MONEY. They would just accept the brothers money if they were going to incur a loss. The banks have a “secret” protocol they use to determine if it will be more profitable to foreclose or to allow the borrower to resume payments / pay the debt off.

    • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

      Bank rarely make money off a foreclosure. The only instances I can think of are when the homeowner is only a few years from paying off the mortgage entirely, or if the home substancially increased in value. Given the fact that home values have dropped without exception, I doubt the latter is the case. The former seems equally unlikely.

      • MonkeyMonk says:

        You have a very short memory. The decline in home sales has only happened in a past 4-5 years. If this home was purchased 10 years ago (or more) it’s likely worth A LOT more than was paid for it.

        • whittygirl says:

          This. We’ve owned our home for about 15 years and it’s worth 2½ times what we paid, even in this downturn. We’re now looking to sell and upgrade (in our area average time from list to sale is 70 days).

        • Dallas_shopper says:

          My house’s tax appraised value has increased by 103% from 2000 to 2010. I bought it in 2009 and its tax value went up substantially in 2010. I appealed and that is the first time in a decade that my house’s value has dropped on the tax rolls. I guess the previous owner never appealed an appraisal.

          But my point is: My house’s value has risen substantially in the last 10 years.

    • Bob Lu says:

      I asked this before but I am still confused:

      Say your house worth $100K currently, you only owe $10k, then for whatever reason it is foreclosed – what than? If the bank take the house, sell it for $90K, will you get the $80k minus other costs and fees) back?

      • FatLynn says:

        No.

        • Bob Lu says:

          Hopefully where it something preventing every bank from refusing the last payment check for every mortgage so they can get both the money and the house, right?

          Then how can chase refuse a payment and go ahead to foreclose the house? Something is missing here.

        • Sudonum says:

          I could see that happening in a non-recourse state, but in a recourse state I would imagine that the bank would have to turn over any profit to the home owner. Of course after all the fees are tacked on there would surely be no profit.

      • Sudonum says:

        I know a friend of mine many years ago who owed like 3 months of car payments, lost his job, car got repoed. The bank sold it for more than what was owed, including repo, storage and other fees. He got a check from the bank for the difference.

        With a home loan in non-recourse states I don’t know how this would work, since if the bank sells the home at a loss they can’t come after you for the difference. So, conversely, if they sold the home at a profit would they have to give you the difference?

  11. sirwired says:

    Of course, if the loan is far behind, the interest payments and penalties that were missed out on need to be paid off too. You can’t just pay off the principal and call it quits. I don’t know how reasonable the penalties are at this time…

  12. JohnDeere says:

    i bet someone at the bank wants the house. someone at the bank will get it at a deep discount and the taxpayer will somehow make up the difference. bankers know exactly what they are doing.

  13. chaesar says:

    “The family has even resorted to writing the White House and Obama.”

    The “White House” and [President] Obama are the same, right? And what the hell would he do anyway, issue a pardon?

  14. tunaman says:

    The reason for this is that the bank will make MORE money by foreclosing, than they would if they accept the guys payment. On top of making more money, they will also own the house. They get their cake and they get to eat it. How is this possible? YOU, the taxpayer!

    The loan is likely backed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. So when the borrower defaults, the government steps in and pays the difference between what was owed and what the home is sold for. But because of the way foreclosure works, it usually involves racking up fees and expenses of $15 to 40,000 which of course are marked up over and above the true cost. The government(read: you and me) ALSO pays for those expenses as well. This is why the bailouts are so screwed up. Yes, there would have been foreclosures and job losses. But now, with the bailouts, private businesses are profiting off of those job losses and subsequent foreclosures.

  15. tunaman says:

    The reason for this is that the bank will make MORE money by foreclosing, than they would if they accept the guys payment. On top of making more money, they will also own the house. They get their cake and they get to eat it. How is this possible? YOU, the taxpayer!

    The loan is likely backed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. So when the borrower defaults, the government steps in and pays the difference between what was owed and what the home is sold for. But because of the way foreclosure works, it usually involves racking up fees and expenses of $15 to 40,000 which of course are marked up over and above the true cost. The government(read: you and me) ALSO pays for those expenses as well. This is why the bailouts are so screwed up. Yes, there would have been foreclosures and job losses. But now, with the bailouts, private businesses are profiting off of those job losses and subsequent foreclosures.

  16. CookiePuss says:

    This exact same thing happened to my father. He co-signed on a house for my sister and her husband. The husband fell behind on the payments and was going to claim bankruptcy. My father tried paying the entire mortgage off and the bank wouldn’t allow it. I know it sounds crazy but the bank refused to let him pay off the loan.

    It had something to do with the way the contract was written. In any case my fathers credit got dinged even though he was fully able/willing to pay off the loan. The brother in law claimed bankruptcy but got to live in the house making only minimum payments. Somehow he managed to buy a new jeep before filing too.

  17. anewmachine615 says:

    There’s something missing here. There should be a statutory right of redemption on the property, that allows you to just pay it off in full.

    • allknowingtomato says:

      I thought the statutory right of redemption is only available if/when the house is sold, or at least after actual, not just threatened foreclosure. The story is lacking many details but i believe the cosigning brother said he’s still waiting fore the foreclosure proceeding to formally start.

    • peebozi says:

      this would not profit big business. our politicians are the best money can buy….and they are bought and sold like $5 street whores (no offense to $5 street whores because I actually believe they could make more if we did live in a free market economy).

  18. Bob Lu says:

    It is a bank’s error on your advantage. Take it!

  19. common_sense84 says:

    It’s because they have worked out the math and foreclosing is not part of the business model. They found it to be cheaper to blindly foreclose on everyone and offer no customer support or changes to stop it, than it was to have a staff to deal with issues like this.

  20. Scuba Steve says:

    I’ve heard this story before:
    Family or Friend willing to pay off loan
    Bank forecloses anyway, offers house up for auction.
    Family tries to buy at auction.
    Bank already sold house before family could buy it.
    Kickbacks are awarded by new buyers, allegedly.

  21. amcfarla says:

    ah Chase…or Bank of America…which one can be the worst bank on the planet.

  22. buckeyegoose says:

    Go to a branch and pay it off if you REALY have the cash. 1 of 2 things will happen, you’ll either 1 get a reciept saying you payed xxx or 2 the teller will say i cant take your payment, then if possable get her or the branch manager put it in writting that you came to their branch to pay on xx with xx funds on xx account, but their system refused to accept the payment for xx reasons. Perhaps one or the outher will have a lil compassion and see/hear that your being forclosed and trying to pay it and getting the run around by Chase. Then go to court when the forclosure hearing is taking place, show the judge that letter or even better the payment reciept, and perhaps he’ll bitchslap Chase for either taking the payment and thus owe them nothing but maybe some fees which can be worked out or 2 that you’ve in good faith attempted to resolve this and Chase steamrolled on with the foreclosure payment be dammed, and make shure u have the check for them in court. Hard to ignore the payment being in court when u tried to pay this before hand.

  23. golddog says:

    Is that Shooter McGavin on the front steps of the house??

    Stay classy Chase.

  24. Pax says:

    Whichever fucktard of a Chase executive decided to go forward with the foreclosure, needs to DIE IN A FIRE.

    I volunteer to bring the matches. Who wants to bring the lighter-fluid?

  25. Jimmy37 says:

    I don’t think we have the whole story here.

  26. Extended-Warranty says:

    10 months of trying to work it out? Does that mean it’s been way longer than that since a payment was made? I’d be foreclosing on you too if I was the bank. Your loan is not interest free.

    Before you blame the bank, put yourself in their shoes. It’s easy to say all banks should be a charities and should understand everyone’s excuses. Whether someone at the bank wants it or not is a moot point. You don’t pay, it’s not yours. We all get perks and unfair advantages for depending on what industry we work in.

    • Conformist138 says:

      But, if he has been trying to pay off the debt, why can’t he? No one said it should be interest free, but it just seems like *this* is sort of the point of a cosigner- you got someone else to fall back and on and if they would like to work with you, work with them! Better than ending up on the news for evicting a little old lady, that’s not good PR no matter what.

    • Pax says:

      Regardless of how long it’s been – you’d think, if someone said “I will pay whatever she owes you, IN FULL, if you stop the forclosure” … that someone at Chase would wake up and realise “this gets us more money, for less effort” … and let the guy pay the frakking debt!

  27. ARPRINCE says:

    Hmmmm….blaming the bank since he was not informed fo the default? Cannot believe he didn’t know about it. He’s freakin BROTHER is a co-signee of the mortgage.

    Having said that, the bank should let him pay it off!

  28. xkellyx says:

    I used to work for a non-profit that helped people with mortgage issues. You would be surprised how many banks are unwilling to help homeowners who have come up with the money to bring them current even though they are not anywhere near foreclosure.

    Chase was hands down one of the worst banks we dealt with (Wells Fargo as well).

  29. NydiaGeben says:

    The son needed to make the payments prior to the old lady going into default. As a co-signer he should have made sure the payments were being made on time…That would have avoided the whole situation.

  30. kristin70 says:

    ah capitalism…a love story

  31. kristin70 says:

    some bank exec probably needs the space to throw a high dollar party for their friends

  32. FrugalFreak says:

    The lawyers likely want it at a loss.

  33. Levk says:

    I really do think banks want free money and want to fail, they may sell the house but at a loss so why not just let them pay the morg and a little extra this way they get you know MONEY >> and why did we give banks money again?

  34. Warren - aka The Piddler on the Roof says:

    We need to foreclose on Chase. How? Stop giving them your money, people.

    The guy who’s being foreclosed on should call the press and move his stuff into the lobby of a Chase bank. That should attract some national media attention. He’d probably get his own reality TV show and could use the money to buy an even BETTER condo!

  35. sopmodm14 says:

    stay classy chase

  36. vinceli says:

    Wow even after the bailouts they still do this.
    http://www.newsbeats.net/showthread.php?5048-U.S.-Foreclosures-continue This just shows how greedy this banks are.