yes they are. one is a contractual lienholder, the other one is a judicial lienholder. Doesn’t matter much, though.
of course they do. you get a lien, you can foreclose. that’s the entire point of liens.
once again, I’m not saying it was.
this is just patently not true and it’s contrary to how liens operate.
it’s relevant to the actual incident, but not to the overall point that i’m referring to.
Do you understand the word “disproportionate”? Read what Lisa said. “The punishment doesn’t fit the crime” are her exact words. (And yes, I’m well aware this is not criminal law – the phrase is often used metaphorically, as for example the impounding of a car (with a $250 recovery fee payable to the municipality) for failure to pay a $2 or $5 parking ticket.)
In fact, I’m mildly curious as to whether a case could be made that such a foreclosure, without involvement of the courts, by a HOA is not a strict-language violation of the due process clause.
And a final point: For someone so hot to defend the concept of paying for what you use, it’s interesting to note that your status is “Guest.”
yes. do you not understand that lienholders using the legal mechanisms at their disposal to collect on a debt that the debtor did not pay is not disproportionate. the punishment exactly fits the crime - namely the debtor is being punished exactly by the amount of money the debtor owes. pay the fucking bill, even after being hauled into court, and this never happens. i’ll break it down for your amoeba-level intellect:
person buys a piece of property with HOA covenants on the deed;
either by virtue of law or deed/contract agreement, person impliedly agrees to be foreclosed upon if they don’t pay debts due to the HOA;
person doesn’t pay the debt;
person doesn’t respond to any legal notices involving the foreclosure, which would have given said person the ability to pay the debt and completely avoid the foreclosure
person loses the house
what, pray the fuck tell, is disproportionate about that, exactly? it doesn’t matter if it’s a million dollar debt or a dollar debt - it’s the only fair and just way for someone to get what they are owed when the debtor is unwilling to actually pay the debt. the way, by the by, is going to court and getting the remedy that all parties were aware of when they entered into the transaction (or availing yourself of statutes that eliminate this step). how else would you do it? tell the creditor to fuck off and pound dirt?
(keep in mind, at this point i’m not delving into the specifics of this case, because servicemembers are apparently (i haven’t researched it) provided generous protections against creditors when they are deployed. i’m merely talking about the overall principles and legal actions that are claimed to be “disproportionate” in foreclosing for a small (percentage wise) debt)
because she was given due process by being notified of the court/non-court proceeding against her? and because this has nothing to do with government action?
no, i’m hot to defend the concept of paying for what you owe, sweetie.
god, I hope you’re not barred anywhere - your rank inability to comprehend the actual concepts that are being discussed (or the difference between use and owe) and your learning-disability-level understanding of what the due process clause is and is not would be quite shocking if you were an actual attorney. if you’re not, it’s just plain embarrassing.
Does Rand Rover have the day off or sumptin?
Yeah – Rumor’s doing a good job filling his shoes, though.
I thought he was ivn1188 for a minute.
Rumor_Watkins, since you’ve taken it upon yourself to defend the HOA, here for executing a perfectly reasonable judicial mechanism over the matter of unpaid bills, perhaps you could answer a query.
Is the HOA under no obligation to sell the house in a commercially reasonable manner? Foreclosing and selling the house for .5% of what the homeowners paid and for, what?, 1.1% of the immediate subsequent sale was in no way suspect?
I call bullshit.
Since this discussion has flared up again, I’ll post the email I received from my father-in-law who recently retired from his condo board here in Calgary:
So it could happen here, but not in such a short time, and not without informing the owners. I will give the Texas condo board credit - they did send letters, and you can’t make people open their mail, but at some point I’d pick up the damned phone already. And her making a payment and them not mentioning that they’re already in foreclosure proceedings - that sounds highly suspicious to me.
I think it’s cute when people use big-boy curse words and forceful language, as if the inclusion of the word “fuck” will somehow mask the weakness of their argument.
Fuck.
you must have missed my comments on the specifics of this case:
yes, usually foreclosure sales need to be done in a commercially reasonable manner, and there’s probably some fishy stuff in this specific case. I don’t know the specifics of this non-judicial foreclosure law so I can’t intelligently speak as to what they did or did not have to do,. But if it truly is an auction on the courthouse steps that was properly publicized and all procedures are adhered to, and the only person that comes to bid puts a bid down that is .5% of the “real” value of the asset… well, that’s just tough shit. Debtor could’ve bid, too…
My comments are not directed at defending this HOA in this case - it’s more at how some people fffffreak out and spew stupid shit like “zomg, this is SO disproportionate and unfair” in regards to foreclosures, debts, and unpaid bills.
Although the case in Texas as described seem strange, it certainly is not only in Texas that an HOA can eventually force a homeowner to sell if the dues are not being paid. Indeed, I think that’s the case in every state.
I don’t merely refute your argument; I throw it down on the bedspread and ravish it, leaving it begging for more.
Her making a payment, and then asking about her late payments, and them not saying that they’re in foreclosure sends up all sorts of red flags to me.
Part of the problem is that Texas allows this sort of thing to happen in 27 days…I certainly didn’t know that. That’s less than even the shortest month. It’s not impossible that a family might be on a vacation for a month or so…and might miss those crucial letters.
And apparently, other people in this HOA who owed much more in dues, and received personal visits from the HOA when they were about to be foreclosed upon. This is another red flag.
Of COURSE it matters. If I lend you money in exchange for the promise to repay and if you don’t repay I can come and take your house, thats one thing. If I mow your lawn and you don’t pay and I put a mechanic’s lien on your home, I never contracted for the right to sell your home to satisfy your obligation to pay me for mowing your lawn. That lien is a legal construct that the law puts there to give you some osert of recourse and in VERY few places does that lien translate into a right to foreclose. There is a reason that mechanics liens are not given foreclosure rights in most jurisdictions, because of shit like this.
no, not a mechanic’s lien dipshit. a judgment lien.
Do you have any legal authority for your bullshit claims? protip: quoting antiquated maxims of equity (incorrectly, i must add) isn’t legal authority.
I presume you missed the bit about them not having to take this through the courts, then?
“Sale on the courthouse steps,” my mauve-colored great aunt!
Considering you said you hoped I wasn’t “barred” anywhere (I’m not, and have never made a secret of it), just what states are you licensed to practice in, Counselor?
It’s real simple: certain types of lienholders don’t have to sue to foreclose on their lien. certain types of lienholders do.
mechanics lienholders do. certain types of contractual or other lienholders (specifically, in this case, homeowners associations by why I presume is some statutory grant of non-judicial foreclosure power. more generally, mortgagees are the ones most often given this power) don’t.
you are, again and unfortunately, missing the broad side of the barn with your pithy attempts at insult. like the difference between “use” and “owe”.
p.s. I’m licensed to practice in 2 states and a federal district.
p.p.s you didn’t need to make a secret of your not being an attorney. your idiotic posts expose you just fine.
How the heck does that mechanics lien turn into a foreclosure? They get a judgment on the mechanic’s lien don’t they? that still doesn’t negate the difference between a negotiatesd security itnerest that you have in my home when you lend me money on the promise to pay or you can foreclose and being able to extract a judgment from me by foreclosing on my home. Do you honestly not see a difference beween a contracted right to foreclose and a right to foreclose on just any old debt (converted into judgment or not, depending on what’s required). Why do we NEED to give people the ability to foreclose on mechanics liens? How is commmercial activity retarded by an inability to foreclose on a some trivial judgment?
Hrmm, it appears that many jurisdictions DO allow for foreclosure on mechanics liens. I’ve seen tons of mechanics liens and i have never seen one foreclosed on.
why is it any different? take this scenario:
Debtor owns a 100,000 house. that’s all the assets they have in the world. nothing else. zip. zilch. i’m even talking about clothes, a random CD, or a penny they picked up in an alley. jack else except for the house. doesn’t work, either.
Debtor lives in a state where there are no judgment exemptions (i.e. you can’t shield assets from judgment)
Debtor borrows $500 bucks from Creditor / Debtor mortgages his house for $500 from Creditor / Debtor contracts to have housing repair done on his house for $500
Debtor refuses to pay.
What is a creditor supposed to do? That’s why there’s no legal distinction between (there are procedural distinctions, yes) taking your house to pay the mortgage or taking your house to pay the judgment against you. It’s a debt.
legally? no. there is none. one is done beforehand, via contract (the mortgage), and is operative if and only if you refuse to pay a debt in accordance with the contract you entered into. the other is done after you have refused to pay a debt and you have been taken to court and have a judgment entered against you (the judgment lien). how else are you supposed to get money you’re owed? (incidentally, the same mechanism works if you have a tort judgment against a “judgment debtor” - if i punch you out and you sue me and get a $100k judgment, you either garnish my wages or seize my assets to pay)
because some people won’t pay money they owe, so the only remedy is to go after what they own - either wages, bank accounts, or tangible or real assets. Why do you think penny ante commercial activity is any less deserving of legal protection than large-scale commercial activity?
2 reasons:
mechanics liens are only relevant in 2 scenarios: personal property and real property. mechanics liens on personal properties allow the creditor to maintain possession of the article until the debt is paid. so if you don’t pay Gus the mechanic, you aren’t getting your car back. and it’s legal. in real property, i’m sure there is quite a bit of litigation for large-value mechanics liens on incomplete buildings and large commercial real estate. at the consumer level, a contractor would be stupid to not start work on your house without a deposit or pre-payment (i.e. he’s not extending you credit), so the risk is low.
you also don’t see foreclosure on mechanic’s liens because it’s costly to prosecute them, and most of the times the items they are foreclosing upon are either exempt from judgment, can be made exempt from judgment, or have larger liens on them (i.e. purchase-money liens like mortgages or car loans). so it’s just not cost effective to get a judgment on your lien for a $300 debt or something.
what distinguishes homeowner associations here is that they are given an exemption from judgment exemptions, given expedited non-judicial mechanisms to foreclose, and lastly operate on resident-contributed budgets where there is both a financial incentive ($500 on a small HOA can’t be covered up with accounting - it goes to pay necessary bills) and a fair game incentive (if one fellow resident isn’t paying, but everyone else is…) to vigorously pursue the liens. so you’ve got a situation where these lienholders are in prime position to foreclose. which puts the debtor/homeowner in prime position to ensure that the bill is paid. which is the entire point of rigging the system in the favor of the HOA - so that no one can skate by without paying for communal upkeep.