tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6739442929159985935.post300720507399426234..comments2023-07-11T04:30:30.172-07:00Comments on Condo Issues.com: The Great Foreclosure DebateTyler Berdinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03447615900980759254noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6739442929159985935.post-54680729119702990522010-03-09T10:16:50.813-08:002010-03-09T10:16:50.813-08:00To: Anonymous at February 8, 2010 9:54 AM :
That ...To: Anonymous at February 8, 2010 9:54 AM :<br /><br />That is the risk everyone takes buying in a common interest development. You don't know who you are in business with. The class warfare you attempt by making comments about "loafers," cell phones or "expensive cars" don't help the matter. The cell phone could be their only phone and the "expensive car" could be paid off. But whatever.<br /><br />There are problems with EVERY system. A single family homeowner could pay property taxes for years and while the City is the "loafer" and ignores problems.<br /><br />It's two sides of the same coin.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6739442929159985935.post-3652887032588563292010-02-08T10:12:24.083-08:002010-02-08T10:12:24.083-08:00Anon:
Yes, that is indeed the flaw in the system. ...Anon:<br />Yes, that is indeed the flaw in the system. If a bank (or the community association) does not immediately foreclose, the owner can drift for a long time without paying anything. That amount is not made up when the bank eventually forecloses since that foreclosure wipes out the association's lien. In order for the association to benefit from the lien it has under its governing documents, it either has to move quickly to institute its own foreclosure action or pursue the delinquent owner personally. There is no alternative under California law.Tyler Berdinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03447615900980759254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6739442929159985935.post-67399347613619135332010-02-08T09:54:46.715-08:002010-02-08T09:54:46.715-08:00When I bought my condo may years ago, neither the ...When I bought my condo may years ago, neither the contract nor the CCR's stated that I would be responsibile for another owner's HOA dues. I did believe, however, that if someone's unit was sold or foreclosed on, these delinquent dues would be paid for by the bank or the new buyer since that unit had been receiving maintenance and upkeep that would have been covered by those dues, and, more importantly, would receive future maintenance and upkeep from reserve funding that would have been supported by those dues. In California, this is not the case. This needs to change. <br /><br />I cannot be sympathetic towards owners when they don't contact the association to discuss their situation, when they don't make any amount of payment, and when they don't even inquire about a payment plan until they have racked up thousands of dollars in delinquent dues and are served with foreclosure papers. This has been the case in our large complex. We have not had ONE owner try to work with us when they first get into trouble! These same people don't seem to have any problem continuing to pay for their cell phone, DSL, and satellite dish services or, in some cases, continuing to drive their expensive cars. <br /><br />The responsible owner's don't have any say in who the bank chooses to give loans to, and the banks take their chances with these individuals. This should not be at the expense of the rest of the homeowners. What would happen if there was a need for a special assessment that these loafers would also ignore? That could potentially bring down a complex.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com