Another bad bank story....

[Billdo]

Glad to hear you got the situation resolved cedman, as I said before, I’ve been in situations like this and it is a royal pain.

Bill

[Bryan_Ekers]

@cedman

All three developed leukemia.

Who was this guy, Doctor Manhattan?

[Mama_Zappa]

@cedman

Well, three weeks after her death, my step-dad secretly goes to the bank and borrows 60k against her free-and-clear house (only her name is on the deed)

@cedman

…

2. BB&T DID have a note against the house at the date of my mother’s death.

3. BB&T is entitled to that amount but no more. (36k down the toilet for BB&T.)…

I’m confused: in the OP you said the house was free and clear, then later you say that there was a loan against the house. Was the “free and clear” a mistake? Just wondering.

If so, as I understand it BB&T had two loans: one for 36K (your mother’s note, issued legally), one for 60K (your stepfather’s note, issued illegally). Is that right?

I have to say, whoever issued that second note should have been fired. Clearly the bank didn’t do its due diligence, as the house wasn’t in your stepfather’s name. Even if it had been, the most they should have loaned was 1/3 of (house value minus 36K), and that’s the most they could hope to recover once the house is sold.

Now, ignoring that, unless your stepfather had a will leaving it to you kids, his 1/3 of the house would have gone to someone else, right? Do you have to pay out 1/3 of the proceeds (when it sells) to someone?

[Filbert]

@Mama_Zappa

Now, ignoring that, unless your stepfather had a will leaving it to you kids, his 1/3 of the house would have gone to someone else, right? Do you have to pay out 1/3 of the proceeds (when it sells) to someone?

Unless I’m not understanding this, I don’t think so- because Stepfather had managed to block the situation ever being finalised, he never actually took possession of ‘his’ 1/3, so it should revert to the other heirs. I think.