How to make deal with bank after sheriff's sale?
Most Popular Reply
Randall AlanPro Member
Investor · Lakeland, FL · Member since 2017 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votesQuote from @Ian G.:
> They are well aware they can profit off the resale of the unit.
I see your point but in this case there's no way the unit is worth what the minimum bid was.
> They already have a well worn path where they will use their preferred realtor to list the property and someone will buy it off the open market.
I see your point. Makes sense.
> The bank bids what it is owed, because they want to recover the money they are owed and not lose money.
This statement does not make sense. If they are bidding X, then they would be paying X to themselves, so they'd make 0 (minus fees) so they'd just end up with the house. But in this case, it's a house that's not worth what was owed on it. It would make more sense for them to bid what it is worth, and then if anyone bid any more they'd have a profit.
But maybe this process happened mechanically, so they didn't know that?
Anyway, it raises another question in this case, which is that - if they actually did *bid* then how they were able to place a bid without physically being there, but that's a topic for another thread I have open if you happen to know the answer.
> They will retake possession of the unit and put it on the market themselves and not only recover the money owed, but also make a profit- but for themselves.
Right, except in this case they won't. The price was higher than the assessed value, and that was high considering the condition of the property. But again, maybe the bank didn't bother to investigate and just went by rote and will lose money? Does that seem likely?
I think you miss the point that the auction process is really a single process to handle multiple people’s interest. The bank is just one player. The original owner of the house is another party with an interest in the house as well and has rights in this process too - even though they are losing their house.
The bank’s bid is not a bid they have to pay to themselves. It is the amount of money they are owed in order to be made whole, and anyone bidding that amount or more than that can take the property (off the hands of the bank), which makes the bank whole
Ultimately the auction is a tool to determine the highest value of the property that day. The borrower has already agreed in the loan documents that the bank gets the property back if the borrower defaults on their loan they took out for the property. The property is the asset securing their loan.
But say for instance someone quit paying when there was $100,000 left owing on a $500,000 loan and the house is worth $750,000 now (just to create a set of conditions to illustrate different outcomes.)
The bank would say, “We’re owed $100,000 and that would be their minimum bid. Investors bidding are going to say, hey, I’ll bid $600,000 for the property, put $50,000 into it to fix it up and net $100,000 selling it at $750,000. If the bid closed at $600,000 / the bank only gets $100,000, the original owner of the house can petition the court for the excess $500,000 and original owner would receive that from the court barring any complications. Why? Because the $500,000 is equity in the property the original owner is entitled to.
In an upside down scenario (say the bank loaned $100,000 and the house is now worth $50,000) due to deflation, the auction still serves to prove this point to the courts, and the original home owner. No one will bid the $100,000 owed. The homeowner now has no gain to realize (so they are now out of the picture). The bank now receives the asset in their name (and no, they didn’t have to pay the $100,000 to the court) - it’s just what they were owed, and in lieu they receive the $50,000 property. In essence the bank has to absorb the $50,000 loss on their books. They will list the property on the open market and recover what they can to minimize their loss.
The bank is allowed to set a lower bid if they so choose… but they run the risk of not knowing if they could have received more, right? How do you know the winning bidder wouldn’t have paid $100,000 for the property and only had to pay $80,000 (if the bank had set a lower minimum bid and the 2nd interested bidder quit at $79,000. So the safest approach is to set it for what they are owed. The value is set by what someone is willing to pay… not by what an investor thinks it’s worth. For instance, maybe that house is the last piece of land holding up a developer from making a 10 million dollar deal go through… suddenly it’s not about the value of the house that sits on the land… they are going to tear it down. You just don’t know everyone’s motivation, but the auction is there to sort it out for all the interested parties.
Keep in mind the bank likely received lots of interest / loan payments before the person defaulted… so they are always out less money than it appears.
By the way… the original owner can also bid on the property at any time as well, and if they win the property they in essence get out of part of what they owed to the bank if the bank had set a lower price. So say they would have owed $100,000 and the bank said they only wanted $60,000 but it was only worth $50,000. The original owner could pay $60,000, keep the house, and they avoided $40,000 they originally owed the bank. A bit far fetched, but possible. (Maybe they won the lottery the day before and liked their house… or a benefactor stepped in and felt sorry for them).
Hope it helps
Randy
15 Replies
- 3yRandall AlanPro MemberInvestor · Lakeland, FL · Member since 2017 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
@Ian G
Trust me, banks know what they are doing. They are well aware they can profit off the resale of the unit. You only serve to throw off their plan, so they likely won't make it easy for you, or even want to listen to you at all (my guess). They already have a well worn path where they will use their preferred realtor to list the property and someone will buy it off the open market.
The bank bids what it is owed, because they want to recover the money they are owed and not lose money. If they don't get at least that amount, the court awards them back the house. They will retake possession of the unit and put it on the market themselves and not only recover the money owed, but also make a profit- but for themselves. If they were to over-bid at the auction, they would have to give the excess gained at the sale back to the home-owner. By retaking possession of the property, they no longer have to do that (they can keep the profits).
Randy
- 3yIan G.USA · Member since 2023 · 24 posts · 3 votesOP
> They are well aware they can profit off the resale of the unit.
I see your point but in this case there's no way the unit is worth what the minimum bid was.
> They already have a well worn path where they will use their preferred realtor to list the property and someone will buy it off the open market.
I see your point. Makes sense.
> The bank bids what it is owed, because they want to recover the money they are owed and not lose money.
This statement does not make sense. If they are bidding X, then they would be paying X to themselves, so they'd make 0 (minus fees) so they'd just end up with the house. But in this case, it's a house that's not worth what was owed on it. It would make more sense for them to bid what it is worth, and then if anyone bid any more they'd have a profit.
But maybe this process happened mechanically, so they didn't know that?
Anyway, it raises another question in this case, which is that - if they actually did *bid* then how they were able to place a bid without physically being there, but that's a topic for another thread I have open if you happen to know the answer.
> They will retake possession of the unit and put it on the market themselves and not only recover the money owed, but also make a profit- but for themselves.
Right, except in this case they won't. The price was higher than the assessed value, and that was high considering the condition of the property. But again, maybe the bank didn't bother to investigate and just went by rote and will lose money? Does that seem likely?
- 3yRandall AlanPro MemberInvestor · Lakeland, FL · Member since 2017 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
Quote from @Ian G.:
> They are well aware they can profit off the resale of the unit.
I see your point but in this case there's no way the unit is worth what the minimum bid was.
> They already have a well worn path where they will use their preferred realtor to list the property and someone will buy it off the open market.
I see your point. Makes sense.
> The bank bids what it is owed, because they want to recover the money they are owed and not lose money.
This statement does not make sense. If they are bidding X, then they would be paying X to themselves, so they'd make 0 (minus fees) so they'd just end up with the house. But in this case, it's a house that's not worth what was owed on it. It would make more sense for them to bid what it is worth, and then if anyone bid any more they'd have a profit.
But maybe this process happened mechanically, so they didn't know that?
Anyway, it raises another question in this case, which is that - if they actually did *bid* then how they were able to place a bid without physically being there, but that's a topic for another thread I have open if you happen to know the answer.
> They will retake possession of the unit and put it on the market themselves and not only recover the money owed, but also make a profit- but for themselves.
Right, except in this case they won't. The price was higher than the assessed value, and that was high considering the condition of the property. But again, maybe the bank didn't bother to investigate and just went by rote and will lose money? Does that seem likely?
I think you miss the point that the auction process is really a single process to handle multiple people’s interest. The bank is just one player. The original owner of the house is another party with an interest in the house as well and has rights in this process too - even though they are losing their house.
The bank’s bid is not a bid they have to pay to themselves. It is the amount of money they are owed in order to be made whole, and anyone bidding that amount or more than that can take the property (off the hands of the bank), which makes the bank whole
Ultimately the auction is a tool to determine the highest value of the property that day. The borrower has already agreed in the loan documents that the bank gets the property back if the borrower defaults on their loan they took out for the property. The property is the asset securing their loan.But say for instance someone quit paying when there was $100,000 left owing on a $500,000 loan and the house is worth $750,000 now (just to create a set of conditions to illustrate different outcomes.)
The bank would say, “We’re owed $100,000 and that would be their minimum bid. Investors bidding are going to say, hey, I’ll bid $600,000 for the property, put $50,000 into it to fix it up and net $100,000 selling it at $750,000. If the bid closed at $600,000 / the bank only gets $100,000, the original owner of the house can petition the court for the excess $500,000 and original owner would receive that from the court barring any complications. Why? Because the $500,000 is equity in the property the original owner is entitled to.
In an upside down scenario (say the bank loaned $100,000 and the house is now worth $50,000) due to deflation, the auction still serves to prove this point to the courts, and the original home owner. No one will bid the $100,000 owed. The homeowner now has no gain to realize (so they are now out of the picture). The bank now receives the asset in their name (and no, they didn’t have to pay the $100,000 to the court) - it’s just what they were owed, and in lieu they receive the $50,000 property. In essence the bank has to absorb the $50,000 loss on their books. They will list the property on the open market and recover what they can to minimize their loss.
The bank is allowed to set a lower bid if they so choose… but they run the risk of not knowing if they could have received more, right? How do you know the winning bidder wouldn’t have paid $100,000 for the property and only had to pay $80,000 (if the bank had set a lower minimum bid and the 2nd interested bidder quit at $79,000. So the safest approach is to set it for what they are owed. The value is set by what someone is willing to pay… not by what an investor thinks it’s worth. For instance, maybe that house is the last piece of land holding up a developer from making a 10 million dollar deal go through… suddenly it’s not about the value of the house that sits on the land… they are going to tear it down. You just don’t know everyone’s motivation, but the auction is there to sort it out for all the interested parties.
Keep in mind the bank likely received lots of interest / loan payments before the person defaulted… so they are always out less money than it appears.
By the way… the original owner can also bid on the property at any time as well, and if they win the property they in essence get out of part of what they owed to the bank if the bank had set a lower price. So say they would have owed $100,000 and the bank said they only wanted $60,000 but it was only worth $50,000. The original owner could pay $60,000, keep the house, and they avoided $40,000 they originally owed the bank. A bit far fetched, but possible. (Maybe they won the lottery the day before and liked their house… or a benefactor stepped in and felt sorry for them).
Hope it helps
Randy
- 3yRandall AlanPro MemberInvestor · Lakeland, FL · Member since 2017 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
Quote from @Ian G.:
> They are well aware they can profit off the resale of the unit.
I see your point but in this case there's no way the unit is worth what the minimum bid was.
> They already have a well worn path where they will use their preferred realtor to list the property and someone will buy it off the open market.
I see your point. Makes sense.
> The bank bids what it is owed, because they want to recover the money they are owed and not lose money.
This statement does not make sense. If they are bidding X, then they would be paying X to themselves, so they'd make 0 (minus fees) so they'd just end up with the house. But in this case, it's a house that's not worth what was owed on it. It would make more sense for them to bid what it is worth, and then if anyone bid any more they'd have a profit.
But maybe this process happened mechanically, so they didn't know that?
Anyway, it raises another question in this case, which is that - if they actually did *bid* then how they were able to place a bid without physically being there, but that's a topic for another thread I have open if you happen to know the answer.
> They will retake possession of the unit and put it on the market themselves and not only recover the money owed, but also make a profit- but for themselves.
Right, except in this case they won't. The price was higher than the assessed value, and that was high considering the condition of the property. But again, maybe the bank didn't bother to investigate and just went by rote and will lose money? Does that seem likely?
Regarding the opening bid - the bank is the plaintiff in this case. They are who the auction is being conducted for. They therefore get to set the opening bid (on their asset). No different than if you put an item up for a reserve auction. They are saying, “If I don’t get this price, I’m not selling it at the auction”.
Here’s something else to watch out for… it’s not always the primary lender suing. Say you didn’t pay your home owners dues, a home owners association can sue as well. Or you were a second mortgage holder. Those parties can sue as well and don’t have to list the primary mortgage holder as a party to their suit. if you win the auction for $5,000 in home owners dues you can actually take possession of the house, but the primary mortgage remains attached and unless you settle up with them (ie. Pay off their note) they will turn around and foreclose on you when they stop receiving payments from the evicted homeowner. There is a whole industry where people will do this, move a renter into the house, and ride out the second foreclosure for a year or two and collect the profits for as long as they can. They are not responsible for the primary mortgage, but the primary lender’s lien is superior to their position on the property (it was there first).
Randy
- 3yIan G.USA · Member since 2023 · 24 posts · 3 votesOP
Thank you and I completely comprehend what you are saying. But we are completely glossing over the question. You said:
> The bank is allowed to set a lower bid if they so choose
My question is and has been: *How does the bank get to set the bid?*
Actually, is the bank a bidder, in which case where *exactly* did they get the authority to bid somewhere other than the court steps?
And if the bank is not a bidder, then why did the sheriff call the bank's bid a "bid" and by what *exact* authority did they set a minimum price?
You said:
> They are who the auction is being conducted for. They therefore get to set the opening bid (on their asset).
Your "therefore" comes without proof. Why would they get to set the opening bid? The *judgement* sets - not the opening bid because there is no opening bid in the judgement but - the reserve price, no? Because the sheriff is just doing what the judgement says.
But then if that is true, why did the sheriff call it a "bid," and if that is not true, then *exactly* what piece of text should I be reading to explain how we got from a to b.
> No different than if you put an item up for a reserve auction.
But there's a huge difference. The difference is that if I put a thing up for auction, I am putting it up for auction, but in this case the court is putting it up for auction with the sheriff as agent.
Does that help explain what I am asking? I want to know which of these is true and what is triggering it? I do not see it in the judgement, and the sheriff says that they are only executing what the judgement says, so my question is what (*as in what exact law/statute/documentation/precedent*) am I missing?
I'm quite sure the deficiency is mine. I'm ignorant of this process. That's why I created an account on this site. I am hoping to find someone who can explain the exact source of this minimum price. *Particularly* since the judgement makes it clear that if the winning bid is lower than the amount owed, the bank cannot sue the winning bidder! That clause only makes sense if there's a possibility of the winner bidding less.
> Say you didn’t pay your home owners dues, a home owners association can sue as well. Or you were a second mortgage holder.
Yes, thank you for the warning for sure. I did a check for liens and mortgages. No title insurance but I went through the motions myself to learn the proces, but I really appreciate you saying this because if someone didn't know this they could get really screwed so thank you.
- 3yRandall AlanPro MemberInvestor · Lakeland, FL · Member since 2017 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
answers in line below
Quote from @Ian G.:
Thank you and I completely comprehend what you are saying. But we are completely glossing over the question. You said:
> The bank is allowed to set a lower bid if they so choose
My question is and has been: *How does the bank get to set the bid?*
Actually, is the bank a bidder, in which case where *exactly* did they get the authority to bid somewhere other than the court steps?
And if the bank is not a bidder, then why did the sheriff call the bank's bid a "bid" and by what *exact* authority did they set a minimum price?
From an auction perspective the bank is the seller… who will receive the proceeds of the auction. From a court perspective they are the plaintiff and the court is conducting the auction to satisfy the judgement in the case (so the court is the auctioneer) . The seller gets to set the opening bid. The seller is bound by the rules of the terms of the final judgement in the case (ie they can only receive the value they sued for from the proceeds of the auction.) But the lender (seller) can instruct the court that they will accept less than what they are owed if they so choose. It is their prerogative (a right granted the plaintiff in a foreclosure sale) . I can’t quote you an exact authority other than to say that is the functional way it happens - which at the end of the day is probably what matters here. Perhaps it is buried within your states codes / laws. I’m just another investor… not a lawyer.
You said:
> They are who the auction is being conducted for. They therefore get to set the opening bid (on their asset).
Your "therefore" comes without proof. Why would they get to set the opening bid? The *judgement* sets - not the opening bid because there is no opening bid in the judgement but - the reserve price, no? Because the sheriff is just doing what the judgement says.
Pretty much already answered this.., most of this is a matter of expediency. The plaintiff is the recipient of the judgement , which you could think of as the document that establishes what they (the lender) is entitled to. But the nature of the auction is that the seller (which is the lender, not the court - the court is the auctioneer) has the right to set a lower opening price if they are willing to accept that lower price. They retain that right because they are now the controller of the asset (the property) upon receiving their final judgement, but are still bound by the terms of the final judgement and any excess funds received would not go to them. The auction itself ultimately determines the value of the asset… so ultimately the opening bid has little bearing on things other than to determine if the lender will retain the asset themselves.
But then if that is true, why did the sheriff call it a "bid," and if that is not true, then *exactly* what piece of text should I be reading to explain how we got from a to b.
Let’s start with the fact I’m just explaining how it works where I’m at… The person on the steps of the courthouse may be a local auctioneer but is ultimately representing the court… in auctioneering, there is a term called a “left bid”, which is when someone literally left a bid before the auction started. But you can use this term (albeit somewhat incorrectly and to generalize to the crowd) the opening acceptable bid for the property - in essence it is the seller’s reserve price, below which if no one bids the lender (seller) will retain the asset. 98 times out of 100 it is the judgement value. Is the bank a bidder? Perhaps you could call them a bidder, but they’re usually only going to bid once at the opening if you take that view. Yes, the lender is bound by the judgement as to what they can receive, but there is an option within the sales process for them to set a lower opening bid (technically a lower reserve price) in an effort to still utilize the auction as a method of disposal for the property. Why would they do this? Because retaining the property and listing on the open market will come with 6% in agent fees, as well as marketing expenses and certainly additional carrying costs of the property… continuing insurance expenses, care expenses to make sure the property is maintained. 6% on a $300,000 property would be $18,000 more dollars they will incur in expenses to sell on the open market. So if upside down on the property already, listing at slightly less than the judgement value might be a way to avoid the carrying costs.
> No different than if you put an item up for a reserve auction.
But there's a huge difference. The difference is that if I put a thing up for auction, I am putting it up for auction, but in this case the court is putting it up for auction with the sheriff as agent.
The court (clerk) is conducting the auction on behalf of the plaintiff who initiated the court action to repossess the asset. Yes, the judgement says the plaintiff is entitled to 100% of what the judgement value was (and no more). As the recipient of the judgement the plaintiff retains a right to set the opening bid for the auction at or below what they are owed. Is that actually a bid is perhaps up for debate… I think of it as the reserve on the auction, because ultimately the property will not transfer if that price is not met.
I can’t quote you song and verse on why (again, not a lawyer) but can tell you that is how it goes. And each court may have different rules… where I’m at the plaintiff has that right. Where you are at it might always have to be the judgement value. If I had to guess how it works in real life the clerk likely requires a form to be filled out by the plaintiff that says “opening price” or “ opening bid”. Functionally it is the same , by precedent of how auctions are conducted and the involved parties.Does that help explain what I am asking? I want to know which of these is true and what is triggering it? I do not see it in the judgement, and the sheriff says that they are only executing what the judgement says, so my question is what (*as in what exact law/statute/documentation/precedent*) am I missing?
If you want the specifics you should likely contact your county clerk‘s office. They should have more specific answers to your exact situation… but will likely tell you “this is just how it is done”. I feel like you are getting caught up in the technicalities, and I’m sure you have a reason, but we aren’t giving legal advice on these chat boards, so can only help so much.
I'm quite sure the deficiency is mine. I'm ignorant of this process. That's why I created an account on this site. I am hoping to find someone who can explain the exact source of this minimum price. *Particularly* since the judgement makes it clear that if the winning bid is lower than the amount owed, the bank cannot sue the winning bidder! That clause only makes sense if there's a possibility of the winner bidding less.
This might be key here… the deficiency judgement is not against the winner of the auction, but the defendant in the case. In other words, if the defendant owed $150,000, and the amount owed (sued for) was $180,000 due to caring cost court costs, etc. the lender can not turn around and sue THE DEFENDANT for the difference as i understand it. It does not have anything to do with the winner of the auction. The auction winner receives the property free and clear of any of the suing lender’s claims.
> Say you didn’t pay your home owners dues, a home owners association can sue as well. Or you were a second mortgage holder.
Yes, thank you for the warning for sure. I did a check for liens and mortgages. No title insurance but I went through the motions myself to learn the proces, but I really appreciate you saying this because if someone didn't know this they could get really screwed so thank you.
- 3yIan G.USA · Member since 2023 · 24 posts · 3 votesOP
> I can’t quote you an exact authority other than to say that is the functional way it happens
Right, but I already knew how it functionally happens. I witnessed it. I'm trying to find exactly what controls that action.> If you want the specifics you should likely contact your county clerk‘s office.
Obviously, that was my first stop after the auction. Which only means that I made the same mistake you just made, in thinking they might know anything.> I feel like you are getting caught up in the technicalities
Yeah. I came here asking a technical question.
> and I’m sure you have a reason,
I do have a reason. The reason is because I don't know the technicalities. What other reason could a person need? If you don't get all of this, why did you reply?
I asked you once not to reply to my messages in the future, and this is why. You're wasting my time. You're telling me things I already know, and you have no knowledge that could answer the question I asked. I've tried blocking your username but for some reason BP won't let me. I'll just ignore future posts of yours, but it would also be nice if you'd have the courtesy not to reply to things you can't answer. Good luck. - Member since 2018 · 2k+ posts · 1k+ votes3yThe bank gets to credit bid what is owed. This was the foreclosure. Usually on a owner occupied home there cannot be a deficiency judgement. Investment loans they can go after the guarantee for any monies that they don't recover. Most banks have an REO division that evaluates the properties and decides how to market them. A lot of them are put back on the MLS for sale. The banks may have a website for the properties it is willing to sell or go back to auction.
Quote from @Ian G.:
There was a sheriff's sale recently where the bank bid the price it was owed. I don't understand that, but anyway I assume that they'll want to sell it now, right?
How can I contact them to make a deal to take this thing off their hands before they make it more complicated and expensive, like a Foreclosure sale or going through Auction.com which are no-go's for me.
- 3yIan G.USA · Member since 2023 · 24 posts · 3 votesOP
Quote from @Tim Herman:
The bank gets to credit bid what is owed
Yeah I noticed that. That question I asked is not what did I see, but *why* it happened, as in, where is this controlled. What language should I be looking for in the judgement, or is it a statute, etc? Where is the controlling language for this action?
- Member since 2018 · 2k+ posts · 1k+ votes3y
Quote from @Ian G.:
Quote from @Tim Herman:
The bank gets to credit bid what is owed
Yeah I noticed that. That question I asked is not what did I see, but *why* it happened, as in, where is this controlled. What language should I be looking for in the judgement, or is it a statute, etc? Where is the controlling language for this action?
Why, because they didn't make their payments as agreed in the mortgage documents. Different states have to follow different procedures on the foreclosure process. After a certain period of time with no payments the bank gets to accelerate the note and demand complete payment of all fees, interest and balance. That is the foreclosure that the sheriff conducted. Certain investment loans the banks set the reserve lower to stimulate bidding. If it doesn't reach what the bank is owed then they can proceed with a deficiency judgement against the borrower. No different than borrowing money to buy a car and they repossess the car for no payment.
- 3yIan G.USA · Member since 2023 · 24 posts · 3 votesOP
> Why, because they didn't make their payments as agreed in the mortgage documents.
Thanks, but that reason (the borrower failing to make payments) would be why the thing went to court in the first place, which is not what I am asking about.
I'm trying to find out:
- was the starting price due to a reserve or a bid?
- if a bid, then why did the bank get to bid without being on the steps?
- and if not a bid, what exact mechanism set the reserve price?
- Member since 2018 · 2k+ posts · 1k+ votes3y
@Ian G. You did ask why "Yeah I noticed that. That question I asked is not what did I see, but *why* it happened". Banks are owed the money so that is the opening bid or reserve, because most owner occupied loans cannot be pursued for deficiency judgements.
- 3yIan G.USA · Member since 2023 · 24 posts · 3 votesOPI did ask why, but to a different question than the one you anwered. Again, I did not ask why it went to court in the first place, but why it... oh hell I'm not re-writing this question a 20th time.
Quote from @Tim Herman:
@Ian G. You did ask why "Yeah I noticed that. That question I asked is not what did I see, but *why* it happened". Banks are owed the money so that is the opening bid or reserve, because most owner occupied loans cannot be pursued for deficiency judgements.
- Investor · VA · Member since 2015 · 21k+ posts · 19k+ votes3y
@Ian G.
Who is the lender? If it’s a large lender you will not be able to buy it. They have nationwide asset management firms they use to liquidate their portfolios.
There are many reasons why a bank may bid higher for tax and balance sheet issues of running their corporation that may make it better for them to do what they did.
But typically they will get it back to list it on the market as a foreclose does not allow interior inspections and are typically cash which has lower number of qualified buyers but by getting it back then can list it on open market for everyone:
7e investments53 Reviews - Real Estate Agent · Washington, D.C. · Member since 2012 · 17k+ posts · 30k+ votes3y
In order for the bank to make a claim against a mortgage insurance policy, they need to take possession of the property and attempt to sell it for what is owed. If they are owed say $100,000...but bid $50,000 and just take that $50,000 loss...then they can not make a claim on the mortgage insurance policy.
District Invest Group545 Reviews
Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.