If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Worried that hurricane victims might not know how to best spend a sudden windfall of insurance money, banks have decided to just "hold on" to about $210 million in Sandy payments. You know, for a rainy day   (cnn.com) divider line 73
    More: Asinine, Superstorm Sandy, Andrew Cuomo  
•       •       •

11947 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Feb 2013 at 10:29 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



73 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-02-13 08:51:09 AM
You should go ahead an let me hold on to that money for you.  You don't want to put it in a bank.  See, banks get robbed.  Nobody's gonna rob me.
 
2013-02-13 08:53:30 AM
FTFA: Delays can follow when banks request proof of repairs or servicing required by federal mortgage agencies. But many residents have complained that they haven't received the funds they need to start the repairs.

So you're requiring them to repair the house before you pay for house repairs. It must be nice to live in a world where money is no object.

/oh wait... it is everything to bankers
 
2013-02-13 08:58:11 AM
Cuomo also wants $400M to buy out people in the most vulnerable areas. It would be nice to know that he cross-checked the list of people waiting for their money with the list of people up for buyouts - because it would be very Albany to demand money to rebuild a storm-trashed house, then demand money to demolish it once the repairs were done.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-02-13 09:01:30 AM
An underwater house leads to an underwater mortgage. In a no recourse state I take the money and run. Move out, stop payments. The bank forecloses on a wreck. I use the money to build a new house. So I understand why the banks might want to keep track.
 
2013-02-13 10:17:34 AM

ZAZ: An underwater house leads to an underwater mortgage. In a no recourse state I take the money and run. Move out, stop payments. The bank forecloses on a wreck. I use the money to build a new house. So I understand why the banks might want to keep track.


And the bank has no right to decide it knows best and withhold money, none.
 
2013-02-13 10:33:47 AM

GAT_00: ZAZ: An underwater house leads to an underwater mortgage. In a no recourse state I take the money and run. Move out, stop payments. The bank forecloses on a wreck. I use the money to build a new house. So I understand why the banks might want to keep track.

And the bank has no right to decide it knows best and withhold money, none.


Not to mention the banks might not even hold the mortgage on the house that they're witholding the money from.
 
2013-02-13 10:41:05 AM
FTFA: Delays can follow when banks request proof of repairs or servicing required by federal mortgage agencies.

What they meant to say is that delays can follow when they need that money to sit in their bank for a few months so that they can invest it and get a return. Once they get their cut, you can have yours.
 
2013-02-13 10:41:05 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fg6J1Skptbs

I'm REEACH BEEATCH HONK HONK
 
2013-02-13 10:44:52 AM
FTFA "use maximum discretion and effort to speed the release of funds."

Double speak
 
2013-02-13 10:44:55 AM
biz a usual.
 
2013-02-13 10:44:56 AM
They ought to team up with the Red Cross. You know, to make sure the money is spent in the right ways.
 
2013-02-13 10:47:32 AM

ZAZ: An underwater house leads to an underwater mortgage. In a no recourse state I take the money and run. Move out, stop payments. The bank forecloses on a wreck. I use the money to build a new house. So I understand why the banks might want to keep track.


There are states where it is legal to do this?
 
2013-02-13 10:48:14 AM

Girion47: GAT_00: ZAZ: An underwater house leads to an underwater mortgage. In a no recourse state I take the money and run. Move out, stop payments. The bank forecloses on a wreck. I use the money to build a new house. So I understand why the banks might want to keep track.

And the bank has no right to decide it knows best and withhold money, none.

Not to mention the banks might not even hold the mortgage on the house that they're witholding the money from.


Bad reporting is bad reporting.

What the article means is that the checks from the insurance companies are payable to the order of "John Homeowner and The Lending Bank that Holds JH's Mortgage (in other words, the Mortgagee)."  In order for such a check to be deposited, it must be indorsed by BOTH JH and The Mortgagee.  It is not the bank where JH has a deposit account that's causing the holdup; it's the lack of indorsement by the Mortgagee.

The reason the insurance companies draw the checks payable to the order of both JH and the Mortgagee is because the Mortgage requires it, as does the insurance contract.  After all, the house is Mortgagee's collateral and there is an obligation to repair the house (rather than take the money and move to the Bahamas, leaving the lender to foreclose on a rotted-out moldy shell worth zip).
 
2013-02-13 10:48:55 AM
It is rather obvious the the Bankers just cannot deal with a Black Man in their White House.

They took their marbles and went home back in '08.

Still won't come out and play.
 
2013-02-13 10:49:44 AM

GAT_00: ZAZ: An underwater house leads to an underwater mortgage. In a no recourse state I take the money and run. Move out, stop payments. The bank forecloses on a wreck. I use the money to build a new house. So I understand why the banks might want to keep track.

And the bank has no right to decide it knows best and withhold money, none.


Is the bank giving them the money, or the insurance company.   Its not uncommon for auto insurance payments to be made out to the owner AND the repair shop.
 
2013-02-13 10:52:42 AM

snocone: It is rather obvious the the Bankers just cannot deal with a Black Man in their White House.


Obama is their biatch. He'll keep his mouth shut and do as he is told like a good little boy.
 
2013-02-13 10:53:58 AM

IkonOlator: Girion47: GAT_00: ZAZ: An underwater house leads to an underwater mortgage. In a no recourse state I take the money and run. Move out, stop payments. The bank forecloses on a wreck. I use the money to build a new house. So I understand why the banks might want to keep track.

And the bank has no right to decide it knows best and withhold money, none.

Not to mention the banks might not even hold the mortgage on the house that they're witholding the money from.

Bad reporting is bad reporting.

What the article means is that the checks from the insurance companies are payable to the order of "John Homeowner and The Lending Bank that Holds JH's Mortgage (in other words, the Mortgagee)."  In order for such a check to be deposited, it must be indorsed by BOTH JH and The Mortgagee.  It is not the bank where JH has a deposit account that's causing the holdup; it's the lack of indorsement by the Mortgagee.

The reason the insurance companies draw the checks payable to the order of both JH and the Mortgagee is because the Mortgage requires it, as does the insurance contract.  After all, the house is Mortgagee's collateral and there is an obligation to repair the house (rather than take the money and move to the Bahamas, leaving the lender to foreclose on a rotted-out moldy shell worth zip).


Yes, I agree, but I think the money should be held in escrow at a third party, not providing float for the lien holder.
 
2013-02-13 10:54:09 AM
"Hey John, we got this $200 million in insurance payouts, right?"
"Right."
"How much money could we make with that if we don't pay it out for like 6 months?"
".....Ben, add another VP to your title and schedule a board meeting."
 
2013-02-13 10:55:12 AM

DROxINxTHExWIND: FTFA: Delays can follow when banks request proof of repairs or servicing required by federal mortgage agencies.

What they meant to say is that delays can follow when they need that money to sit in their bank for a few months so that they can invest it and get a return. Once they get their cut, you can have yours.


My thoughts exactly.
 
2013-02-13 10:55:31 AM

WhoopAssWayne: snocone: It is rather obvious the the Bankers just cannot deal with a Black Man in their White House.

Obama is their biatch. He'll keep his mouth shut and do as he is told like a good little boy.


THIS. So much this, it really isn't funny.
 
2013-02-13 10:56:15 AM
It was a hurricane. I know when something hits the East Coast, especially New York, that it has to be the worst/best (insert superlative) whatever, but it was a hurricane. There is no meteorological term "Superstorm". Katrina, Ike, Sandy and Andrew were all really bad hurricanes in that they were major disruptions to the ways of life for thousands of people. But why is it we only call Sandy the "Superstorm"?
 
2013-02-13 10:56:36 AM

GAT_00: ZAZ: An underwater house leads to an underwater mortgage. In a no recourse state I take the money and run. Move out, stop payments. The bank forecloses on a wreck. I use the money to build a new house. So I understand why the banks might want to keep track.

And the bank has no right to decide it knows best and withhold money, none.


Rights are governed by money and power.  Banks have both.  Who's going to challenge them?  For every voice of dissent, they can hire ten Harvard educated lawyers to follow you around and yell "YOU'RE WRONG" in your face for a couple of months.  For that amount of money, they can afford to do it for years and still turn a pretty decent profit.  Even if you were 100% in the right and the law was 100% on you side, they'd drag out the 'open and shut case' in court for so long that your grandchildren's grandchildren would be fighting with them over it.

Honestly, if the mortgage is held by the bank, I can kind of understand it.  Until your mortgage is paid off, the bank owns the place and they're just letting you say in it.  Under a mortgage, your legal obligation is to keep the place habitable and in good condition.  The banks (presumably) are holding on to this money because the want to ensure that the houses actually get repaired and not just abandoned...there are probably plenty of people who were packing their bags for just that because they didn't want to be in the situation anymore, but the bank still wants to have them by the balls.  I'm a firm believer in the fact that if the apocalypse came and all technology were destroyed, you'd still get your mortgage bills in the mail, as if nothing happened.  Even if a mail system didn't exist.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-02-13 10:57:01 AM
wild9

In some states foreclosure satisfies the entire debt, no matter how much the property sells for at auction. In that case you can walk away when you are underwater.
 
2013-02-13 10:57:14 AM
Delays can follow when banks request proof of repairs

Why would the bank require proof for a check written to me by my insurance company? It's not their farking money.
 
2013-02-13 11:02:55 AM

ajgeek: So you're requiring them to repair the house before you pay for house repairs.


Reminds me of this...

10 We can't hire you because you have no experience.
20 How do I get experience?
30 Get hired.
40 How do I get hired?
50 Have experience.
60 goto 20
 
2013-02-13 11:04:22 AM
Sounds like what my state is doing with 800million in over paid taxes, keeping it because tehy can spend it better than those they took it from in the first place. Although one part wanted to give it back to the people, guess which one?
 
2013-02-13 11:06:02 AM

Glancing Blow: What the article means is that the checks from the insurance companies are payable to the order of "John Homeowner and The Lending Bank that Holds JH's Mortgage (in other words, the Mortgagee)." In order for such a check to be deposited, it must be indorsed by BOTH JH and The Mortgagee. It is not the bank where JH has a deposit account that's causing the holdup; it's the lack of indorsement by the Mortgagee.

The reason the insurance companies draw the checks payable to the order of both JH and the Mortgagee is because the Mortgage requires it, as does the insurance contract. After all, the house is Mortgagee's collateral and there is an obligation to repair the house (rather than take the money and move to the Bahamas, leaving the lender to foreclose on a rotted-out moldy shell worth zip).

Yes, I agree, but I think the money should be held in escrow at a third party, not providing float for the lien holder.


The amount they gain from the float these days is small potatoes.  The problem is much simpler--they're simply overwhelmed.

abhorrent1: Delays can follow when banks request proof of repairs

Why would the bank require proof for a check written to me by my insurance company? It's not their farking money.


But it is.  In a case like this the check will be made out to the homeowner *AND* the lienholder.
 
2013-02-13 11:06:07 AM

ZAZ: wild9

In some states foreclosure satisfies the entire debt, no matter how much the property sells for at auction. In that case you can walk away when you are underwater.


I...I never knew this. Dang, I need to do some more reading.
 
2013-02-13 11:08:32 AM

born_yesterday: You should go ahead an let me hold on to that money for you.  You don't want to put it in a bank.  See, banks get robbed.  Nobody's gonna rob me.


3.bp.blogspot.com

"Banks get knocked off. No one knocks off Tony"

/not obscure?
 
2013-02-13 11:09:17 AM
"After insurance companies have sent homeowners checks to pay for repairs, the money should not be sitting with the bank because of red tape."

It's NOT sitting there because of "red tape".  It's sitting there because the daily interest on $200 million is pretty sweet.
 
2013-02-13 11:10:04 AM
Reminds me of that scene in Donnie Brasco, where Pacino gives Depp that Christmas card with all the money in it, and then asks him for a loan
 
2013-02-13 11:15:16 AM
Line them all up against the wall.  It's the only way.
 
2013-02-13 11:15:54 AM

MythDragon: born_yesterday: You should go ahead an let me hold on to that money for you.  You don't want to put it in a bank.  See, banks get robbed.  Nobody's gonna rob me.

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 800x321]

"Banks get knocked off. No one knocks off Tony"

/not obscure?


The Professional?
 
2013-02-13 11:16:24 AM

ZAZ: An underwater house leads to an underwater mortgage. In a no recourse state I take the money and run. Move out, stop payments. The bank forecloses on a wreck. I use the money to build a new house. So I understand why the banks might want to keep track.


That would make sense, if you were expecting to get the money from your mom.  The bank is not your mom.  The bank is a bank.
 
2013-02-13 11:18:07 AM

ajgeek: FTFA: Delays can follow when banks request proof of repairs or servicing required by federal mortgage agencies. But many residents have complained that they haven't received the funds they need to start the repairs.

So you're requiring them to repair the house before you pay for house repairs. It must be nice to live in a world where money is no object.

/oh wait... it is everything to bankers


They have no choice in federally backed mortgages. What the FA doesn't mention is that most banks will release the funds after you provide them with a contract for the work to be performed. What they also do not mention is that if the mortgage is in or near default, the banks will not release the funds. They hold the security deed and it entitles them to do this. It creates a catch-22 situation, of course. When you are behind in your mortgage payments is the worst time for a disaster to strike.
 
2013-02-13 11:20:53 AM

Girion47: GAT_00: ZAZ: An underwater house leads to an underwater mortgage. In a no recourse state I take the money and run. Move out, stop payments. The bank forecloses on a wreck. I use the money to build a new house. So I understand why the banks might want to keep track.

And the bank has no right to decide it knows best and withhold money, none.

Not to mention the banks might not even hold the mortgage on the house that they're witholding the money from.


Do you know how I know that you haven't a clue?

"Banks" are not withholding payments.  If there is a mortgage, the insurance check is made out to A) the homeowner, and B) the institution holding the mortgage.  The mortgage-holder may have certain stipulations on how and when the money needed to make repairs is released, but it is never the case that a bank that is not the mortgage-holder is withholding anything.
 
2013-02-13 11:23:36 AM

Glancing Blow: IkonOlator: Girion47: GAT_00: ZAZ: An underwater house leads to an underwater mortgage. In a no recourse state I take the money and run. Move out, stop payments. The bank forecloses on a wreck. I use the money to build a new house. So I understand why the banks might want to keep track.

And the bank has no right to decide it knows best and withhold money, none.

Not to mention the banks might not even hold the mortgage on the house that they're witholding the money from.

Bad reporting is bad reporting.

What the article means is that the checks from the insurance companies are payable to the order of "John Homeowner and The Lending Bank that Holds JH's Mortgage (in other words, the Mortgagee)."  In order for such a check to be deposited, it must be indorsed by BOTH JH and The Mortgagee.  It is not the bank where JH has a deposit account that's causing the holdup; it's the lack of indorsement by the Mortgagee.

The reason the insurance companies draw the checks payable to the order of both JH and the Mortgagee is because the Mortgage requires it, as does the insurance contract.  After all, the house is Mortgagee's collateral and there is an obligation to repair the house (rather than take the money and move to the Bahamas, leaving the lender to foreclose on a rotted-out moldy shell worth zip).

Yes, I agree, but I think the money should be held in escrow at a third party, not providing float for the lien holder.


I think the logistics of that would be worse than the current situation.  When I had roof damage, my insurance sent me a paper check for half the repairs, which I then had to schlep down to the local Countrywide office to get stamped by them.  Before they did this, they ran a check to make sure I was current on my payments, otherwise they said they would confiscate the funds to go towards settling my arrears payments.  I bet a larger version of this is what's happening here and the banks are just overwhelmed, although I don't think it would necessarily take that long to process all that and give the homeowners their money.  The financial dis-incentive to do this in an expedient manner, however, really stinks.
 
2013-02-13 11:23:37 AM

tylerdurden217: It was a hurricane. I know when something hits the East Coast, especially New York, that it has to be the worst/best (insert superlative) whatever, but it was a hurricane. There is no meteorological term "Superstorm". Katrina, Ike, Sandy and Andrew were all really bad hurricanes in that they were major disruptions to the ways of life for thousands of people. But why is it we only call Sandy the "Superstorm"?


Because when it made landfall, it wasn't a hurricane any longer.
 
2013-02-13 11:27:39 AM

born_yesterday: You should go ahead an let me hold on to that money for you.  You don't want to put it in a bank.  See, banks get robbed.  Nobody's gonna rob me.


that70scard.com
Agrees
 
2013-02-13 11:28:29 AM
HAHAHAHA cool, at this rate it will only take 5333+ months to pay off the national debt.
 
2013-02-13 11:30:16 AM

Comic Book Guy: Before they did this, they ran a check to make sure I was current on my payments, otherwise they said they would confiscate the funds to go towards settling my arrears payments.


You nailed it. This actually happened to a friend of mine a few years back. He had some water damage after a storm. The insurance company paid the claim quickly, but he was three payments behind in his mortgage and the bank would not release the finds. They applied the money as back payments. I loaned (make that gave) him the money to pay for the repairs. The situation only staved off the inevitable for a few more months. He was in a cheater mortgage and under water too. The bank foreclosed on him about six months later.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-02-13 11:30:56 AM
Before they did this, they ran a check to make sure I was current on my payments, otherwise they said they would confiscate the funds to go towards settling my arrears payments.

If the check is made out to both you and the bank, they can't have the money either until you endorse the check.

I reread the article and it seems that the banks are not holding onto money. They are preventing insurance company checks from being cashed. Insurance companies have the money until the check is cashed.

You file a claim. Insurance company sends a check made out to you and Bank of Evil. Bank of Evil requires a notarized affidavit from your parents, God and Ayn Rand before it will endorse the check. The bank may be evil but it is not rich, because it can't cash the check without your consent.
 
2013-02-13 11:34:35 AM

ZAZ: Before they did this, they ran a check to make sure I was current on my payments, otherwise they said they would confiscate the funds to go towards settling my arrears payments.

If the check is made out to both you and the bank, they can't have the money either until you endorse the check.

I reread the article and it seems that the banks are not holding onto money. They are preventing insurance company checks from being cashed. Insurance companies have the money until the check is cashed.

You file a claim. Insurance company sends a check made out to you and Bank of Evil. Bank of Evil requires a notarized affidavit from your parents, God and Ayn Rand before it will endorse the check. The bank may be evil but it is not rich, because it can't cash the check without your consent.


But if the homeowner refused to endorse it, they'd still release it to the mortgage holder.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-02-13 11:35:47 AM
But if the homeowner refused to endorse it, they'd still release it to the mortgage holder.

Really? I've never been in that situation. What's the point of issuing a joint check then?
 
2013-02-13 11:39:40 AM
Here's what we should do:
1) give the banks ANOTHER slap on the wrist
2) ANOTHER multi-billion dollar bailout
3) ???
 
2013-02-13 11:43:50 AM

ZAZ: But if the homeowner refused to endorse it, they'd still release it to the mortgage holder.

Really? I've never been in that situation. What's the point of issuing a joint check then?


Because that's the legal requirement, and part of the "illusion" of home ownership.  You purchased the home so you have a legal requirement to be on the check as the homeowner, but in the actual sense you're really nothing more than a steward for the bank, who as primary lienholder can gobble up that joint money whenever they damn well please if you start missing payments.  The moral to this story is to not miss payments and you'd never be in that situation, strategic defaults aside.
 
2013-02-13 11:56:56 AM
bankers giving whores a bad name since (insert date here)
 
2013-02-13 11:59:47 AM
i552.photobucket.com

It's good to be a bankster.
 
2013-02-13 12:00:31 PM
Are they going to pass along the money made off of interest?
 
2013-02-13 12:12:45 PM

ZAZ: An underwater house leads to an underwater mortgage. In a no recourse state I take the money and run. Move out, stop payments. The bank forecloses on a wreck. I use the money to build a new house. So I understand why the banks might want to keep track.




I'm going to wait 4 months before paying my next insurance bill, you've convinced me.
 
2013-02-13 12:19:39 PM
Remember when after the hurricane Obama said he was going to cut through the red tape and get the victims taken care of?

Yeah, that was right before the election.

Obama 2016.
 
2013-02-13 12:22:12 PM

IkonOlator: Girion47: GAT_00: ZAZ: An underwater house leads to an underwater mortgage. In a no recourse state I take the money and run. Move out, stop payments. The bank forecloses on a wreck. I use the money to build a new house. So I understand why the banks might want to keep track.

And the bank has no right to decide it knows best and withhold money, none.

Not to mention the banks might not even hold the mortgage on the house that they're witholding the money from.

Bad reporting is bad reporting.

What the article means is that the checks from the insurance companies are payable to the order of "John Homeowner and The Lending Bank that Holds JH's Mortgage (in other words, the Mortgagee)."  In order for such a check to be deposited, it must be indorsed by BOTH JH and The Mortgagee.  It is not the bank where JH has a deposit account that's causing the holdup; it's the lack of indorsement by the Mortgagee.

The reason the insurance companies draw the checks payable to the order of both JH and the Mortgagee is because the Mortgage requires it, as does the insurance contract.  After all, the house is Mortgagee's collateral and there is an obligation to repair the house (rather than take the money and move to the Bahamas, leaving the lender to foreclose on a rotted-out moldy shell worth zip).


You sound knowledgeable, but you keep misspelling a key word.
 
2013-02-13 12:38:22 PM
After Hurricane Floyd, I had some minor shingle damage that caused a leak in the roof. Rather than wait on the insurance adjuster to visit (they were really busy since Eastern NC was totally underwater at the time), we got the roof repaired and paid for it ourselves. When the adjuster showed up, we gave him the receipt for the roof repairs, and he then added more money for a slightly damaged gutter, discolored ceiling (where the water leaked), possible damage to the items in the closet, and repairs for all the above. The check was written directly to me. Now that was many years ago, or does each state have different rules for insurance money pay outs?
 
2013-02-13 12:38:45 PM

GORDON: Remember when after the hurricane Obama said he was going to cut through the red tape and get the victims taken care of?

Yeah, that was right before the election.


Remember when Obama blocked the floor vote for the House to pass the full bill to grant emergency assistance?  Or when, after blocking the floor vote, adjourned the House for the weekend?  Yeah, neither do I.
 
2013-02-13 12:39:37 PM
They have to fund the bankers bonuses from somewhere.
 
2013-02-13 12:50:08 PM

sethen320: You sound knowledgeable, but you keep misspelling a key word.


Actually, I tend to make things up as I go along,

If you're referring to my use of "mortgagee," you're mistaken.  If you're referring to "indorse" , you're also mistaken.

Oh, and if the lender won't indorse the check and party that has the money in the interim is the insurer (the drawer of the check) not the lender.

Ken
 
2013-02-13 12:51:57 PM
How 'bout we allocate one million dollars of that money for kicking bankers in the nuts?
 
2013-02-13 12:56:05 PM
Sounds like Social Security to me.
 
2013-02-13 01:15:13 PM

born_yesterday: You should go ahead an let me hold on to that money for you.  You don't want to put it in a bank.  See, banks get robbed.  Nobody's gonna rob me.


That movie gives me guilty pleasure.
 
2013-02-13 01:16:46 PM
farm4.staticflickr.com
 
2013-02-13 01:27:22 PM

Glancing Blow: The reason the insurance companies draw the checks payable to the order of both JH and the Mortgagee is because the Mortgage requires it, as does the insurance contract. After all, the house is Mortgagee's collateral and there is an obligation to repair the house (rather than take the money and move to the Bahamas, leaving the lender to foreclose on a rotted-out moldy shell worth zip).

Yes, I agree, but I think the money should be held in escrow at a third party, not providing float for the lien holder.


Escrow services don't work for free.  That would cost the homeowner a cut.

Could let the bank hold the money and assume responsibility for paying repair contractors promptly.  IDK if contractors would go along with that.
 
2013-02-13 01:30:06 PM

Merltech: Are they going to pass along the money made off of interest?


If the check's not endorsed and deposited, the check's issuer is earning the interest.
 
2013-02-13 01:41:32 PM

Bendal: After Hurricane Floyd, I had some minor shingle damage that caused a leak in the roof. Rather than wait on the insurance adjuster to visit (they were really busy since Eastern NC was totally underwater at the time), we got the roof repaired and paid for it ourselves. When the adjuster showed up, we gave him the receipt for the roof repairs, and he then added more money for a slightly damaged gutter, discolored ceiling (where the water leaked), possible damage to the items in the closet, and repairs for all the above. The check was written directly to me. Now that was many years ago, or does each state have different rules for insurance money pay outs?


More than likely, it depends on the extent of the damage done.  No one is going to take money for a minor repair and vanish with it leaving their slightly damaged home behind and ruining their credit for a long ass time.  However, if you own a mortgage on a house that no longer farking exists, you might very well consider taking the money and running.  Even if contractually it is up to the home owner to keep the home livable, it strikes a cord in the 'not fair' part of the mind to realize that you're stuck paying for a house that no longer exists and don't even have a place to stay.  It's kind of like how the occasional person gets their car totaled in a hit and run and the car company is all, "Hey, you still gotta pay for that car that you can no longer drive...even while you're in the hospital...and it was no fault of your own...and it will financially ruin you."  Or the occasional home awarded to the spouse in a divorce where the other spouse still has to pay for it but can't actually live in it.  Or the occasional "We seized your house because your son had a joint in his backpack, we're going to sell it to fund our continued War on Drugs, and you've still gotta pay the bank for it."
 
2013-02-13 02:02:50 PM

IkonOlator: sethen320: You sound knowledgeable, but you keep misspelling a key word.

Actually, I tend to make things up as I go along,

If you're referring to my use of "mortgagee," you're mistaken.  If you're referring to "indorse" , you're also mistaken.

Oh, and if the lender won't indorse the check and party that has the money in the interim is the insurer (the drawer of the check) not the lender.

Ken


I stand corrected and it looks like I learned something today. Thanks.
 
2013-02-13 02:13:33 PM

jayhawk88: "Hey John, we got this $200 million in insurance payouts, right?"
"Right."
"How much money could we make with that if we don't pay it out for like 6 months?"
".....Ben, add another VP to your title and schedule a board meeting."


But, the banks can't deposit it either if the homeowner hasn't endorsed the check as well. Right now the cash is really still sitting in the insurance company's bank accounts and it won't move until both the banks and the homeowners have signed off on it.

The big hangup appears to be on the banks' part.  They have evaluated the damage and compare it to A) the costs required to repair the property and B) whether there is any property left to secure the mortgage going forward.  If all I have left is just a flushed out piece of land, the bank may demand that the mortgage be satisfied in full if the property cannot be restored to usable status with the funds provided.

A simpler observation may just be that the departments within these banks that handle such matters are not profit centers and are grossly understaffed in relation to the cases on hand.
 
2013-02-13 04:36:38 PM
As someone who has now waited over a *year* for his insurance payments because of a crappy bank such as these.... I'm getting a kick.

/but unfortunately, no insurance money as of yet.
//there should be major penalties for this kind of crap.
 
2013-02-13 04:38:49 PM

CptnSpldng: t endorsed the check as well. Right now the cash is really still sitting in the insurance company's bank accounts and it won't move until both the banks and the homeowners have signed off on it.


as an FYI for you... the banks *require* you to endorse the check after the insurance company sends it to you if you want them to further process it. -So, you really don't have an option with that sort of thing considering it's a 3 party check.
 
Ral
2013-02-13 05:49:00 PM
If this is money being paid out on an insurance policy that the recipient has, then the only people who have any right whatsoever to dictate how that money is spent are the policy holder and the insurance company (specifically, the policy contract).

No one else has any say in the matter, nor is it any of their business.

If we're talking about "free" money from the govt, then I think they should keep track of every cent and make sure it is spent appropriately.  That's MY money we're talking about.  The govt shouldn't be giving people any money for the disaster anyway.  If people were not insured, tough shiat.
 
2013-02-13 05:53:31 PM
That's farking grocery money to storm victims. Goddamn vampires.
 
2013-02-13 06:16:54 PM

Ral: If this is money being paid out on an insurance policy that the recipient has, then the only people who have any right whatsoever to dictate how that money is spent are the policy holder and the insurance company (specifically, the policy contract).

No one else has any say in the matter, nor is it any of their business.


Unless somebody else was a party to the insurance contract.  Mortgage lender might make that a condition to its lending.
 
2013-02-13 08:23:16 PM
200 Million is nothing to these people. It's a farking joke. Fark these banks and the people who run them.
 
2013-02-13 11:50:48 PM
Thus is funny; I have friends who are contractors. They agree with the home owner on a price, do the work and leave after they are paid. Insurance is HUGE for them. One of the partners is a roofer who can sell sand to the bedouin. After the last wind storm he sold $150,000 in roofs to home owners who really didn't need the work done, but he had the contacts in the insurance world to get the deals through. Word to the wise: make sure your house needs all of those repairs before you sign with the contractor. Getting a second opinion will piss off the contractor, but it is your premium, and if you think they are helping you out for the goodness in their hearts, I have a bridge in queens to sell you. Cheap.
/the contractors are relatively honest, but the roofer is a prick
 
2013-02-14 12:05:59 PM

BarkingUnicorn: Glancing Blow: The reason the insurance companies draw the checks payable to the order of both JH and the Mortgagee is because the Mortgage requires it, as does the insurance contract. After all, the house is Mortgagee's collateral and there is an obligation to repair the house (rather than take the money and move to the Bahamas, leaving the lender to foreclose on a rotted-out moldy shell worth zip).

Yes, I agree, but I think the money should be held in escrow at a third party, not providing float for the lien holder.

Escrow services don't work for free.  That would cost the homeowner a cut.

Could let the bank hold the money and assume responsibility for paying repair contractors promptly.  IDK if contractors would go along with that.


No they won't.
There is a ton of chump change to be made keeping the homeowner in the loop.
Insurance or bank directly dealing w contractors is a loser.
 
Displayed 73 of 73 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report