In relation to our other post further down the page 'think i might have caught them out' it has also occured to me that if the house had been sold closer to the repo date instead of holding it from sale deliberately ,the six your voluntary limit would have passed long ago.Do you think that this add's weight to my case??

-- nope (no@no.com), May 24, 2002

Answers

I think you are in the lucky position of being able to walk away (eventually) from this one. The catalogue of errors you describe, if accurate, would make this a tenuous case for them to pursue. Stand your ground, make a huge fuss, threaten publicity for the alleged potential rental agreement and yes, the voluntary limit would have passed. Do remember one thing, however: the mortgagee in possession - the Lender - doesn't have to sell your property. They can essentially do as they please once they are "in possession" and you are on the hook for any losses.In the same way, you could have claimed any profit, had the property appreciated over the three years. This is such a mess for them, as the rental arrangement they were expecting never happened. They cannot justify the losses they made for you in the interim, as the *intent* was clearly not to sell the property. Remember that word...

-- Too scared to say (iwasduped@yahoo.com), May 24, 2002.