Skip to main content
Foreclosure Defense Florida

The Jack Booted Thugs Coming to Break Into a Home Near You!

Last week, I was a speaker at the National Bankruptcy Institute.   During my presentation, I was describing how the banks were literally driving around this country, breaking into homes and doing whatever they damn well pleased….with no consequence and no penalties whatsoever.   A woman in the front row became angrily indignant.   She directly challenged me and all but called me a liar….in front of an audience of about a hundred attorneys.
I didn’t lay into her as directly as I could have, but she certainly got 100% of my attention.   I was more than happy to rattle off to the crowd all the very specific cases that I am directly involved in. And then other members of the audience jumped in and started sharing their experiences…..she was literally shouted down.   Needless to say this woman was put in her place.
And just this morning, I received the following email.   I want everyone to read it carefully.   Think about the larger picture and the bigger policy implications…..
I received a letter from Chase Home Finance threatening to break into my home, change the locks for “our protection and your own”.
According to Chase, my home is vacant and unoccupied, though apparently the lights being on, the car in the driveway, and my wife was weeding our property at the time they drove by or their agent drove by didn’t convince them of this fact.
On several occasions, Chase has sent people who refused to identify themselves by name, to enter the home, or have walked around the property freely photographing the front and back of the property even though they were told to leave as they were trespassing. In one instance, one of their workers tried to pop the Medico lock up front, and I had to warn the guy I would shoot through the door if he did not leave the property at once.
Like your client, the Sheriff’s Office refused to respond to the call until I told them I would shoot the intruder, no matter who it is. Citing the “Stand Your Ground Law”. That got them out.
I suspect that the reasons for Chase’s actions are simple. My home was once worth $310,000 and it has now been assessed by the property appraiser at somewhere between $97,000 and $127,000.
Though I have paid well over $100,000 on the purchase price, this does not affect Chase’s insecurity complex. At least 1/2 of the homes in the neighborhood have suffered a foreclosure, and today low class tenants occupy the “hood”. What was once a wonderful neighborhood full of cops, firefighters and paramedics, ATF, and DEA agents is now a jungle.
So I suppose I should begin by saying I never asked Chase to finance my purchase. That was World Savings Bank. My original commitment letter stated 4.84 percent APR, but they strung me out, or should I say the mortgage broker did, and on the date of closing, the last day to close, with a sizable deposit, Chase appeared with a “take it or leave it” 5.99 percent APR loan. World Savings Bank was nowhere in sight.
In other words, I was forced to accept Chase as my lender at closing. When I contacted World Savings Bank and complained, they claimed that they had no idea that Chase got the loan, and blamed the mortgage broker who, apparently, sold my loan for a higher origination fee or simply got bribed to switch me into a more expensive loan.
Immediately after closing, Chase threatened a foreclosure because according to them I would not insure the entire amount of the loan, rather than replacement value of the building.
They wanted the building and land insured. I tried to explain to them that you can’t just insure for the entire loan amount, as its illegal to do that and insurers were not going to do that.
This cat and mouse game, including extremely expensive $14k a year insurance premiums continued through 2009 and part of 2010. Of course now they are claiming the same.
Last Saturday I received a letter, again from Chase threatening to break in, change locks and “winterize” my property to protect it.
I find it ironic since its not Winter, and more specifically why change existing locks if the property is occupied and adequately protected?
I fear that there are two laws. One for the common man and one for the too-big-to-fail banks.  Somehow I feel the situation is inequitable.