You are correct. I don't know the full story and know even less about
Spanish law. I was responding based mostly on what I saw happening in
southwest Florida and especially, around my father's home in Henderson,
Nevada (next to Las Vegas). Once people left their homes the properties
deteriorated rapidly. A whole neighborhood of $8-900,000 houses
neglected and in disrepair with their values continuing to fall as the
neighborhood slowly disintegrated. I'm sure the banks didn't (at least
in the beginning) see what the results of foreclosures would bring in
the end. But, at some point, I think it would have been to everyone's
advantage to allow people to stay in their homes if they could at least
pay the utilities and defer the payments and interest until some future
time. I have no idea how to actually carry that off and I suppose the
banks don't either. And, of course, the guy making the decisions
probably wont be in his own seat for another year. Hard to make a long
term plan when the players have no incentive or interest in doing so.
Chuck Norcutt
On 2/1/2015 4:36 PM, Moose wrote:
On 1 Feb 2015, at 15:19, Chuck Norcutt
<chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The banks (and everyone else) would have been very much better off in
negotiating some sort of long term reduced/delayed payment plan with
the buyers.
How do we know the bank didn't try? With both mortgagees out of work,
perhaps they couldn't even manage that?
Instead they've thrown all parties (including themselves) under the
bus. Stupid.
How do you know that? Only one side has presented their case, and I'll
bet you know as little as I do about tax laws and accounting rules in
Spain. For all we know, this may have been the best financial outcome
possible for the bank.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|