Bank is garnishing 25% of my wages from Foreclosure.. Is it legal??

[Wyldrush]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? FL

In 2006 I did a preconstruction home in Florida. Things went wrong and I walked away from the process. The home foreclosed and the home was never completed. The bank maybe funded 50-100K (I think closer to the 50-75k) because the structure was never even completed to my know.

I did not fight foreclosure and let the home go. The builder lost money as well I remember and he threatened to sue me because of how loan was structured but I remember very little from 6 or 7 years ago.

Now the bank sent paperwork to my corp office to start wage garnishment on my next pay check( I am paid once a month) so Nov 22nd I will get hit hard out of my check and could not survive.

Can banks legally garnish a mortgage that was done as PRIMARY OWNER OCCUPPIED. this was not done as an investment mortgage so laws are different. Also it seems they seeking the entire loan amount $203K oppose to the funded figures. I never contested the foreclosure so legal fees should not be high at all. Of course lawyers to scam banks with fees.

Should I contact attorney. I was not even served papers on this matter.

As for filing BK7 or 13 to make it go away, I would but I have to many assets (cash/401K,Roth IRA/Life Ins, and 2 paid off cars). I rent so not real estate. My name is on all my grandmothers cash assets as I handle her bills as she lives in an ALF now. Her cash assets are about 40K and my cash asset is 30K plus 200K in retirement accounts.

Any help be appreciated. I was thinking if the court can be petitioned in the matter and a hearing scheduled. Doubt bank showed a payout history on loan to builder that is no longer around. I know county records would show the building process because of permits and when I walked away and home sold for how much and I am sure the MLS would state condition of house (how much completed) All to provide proof bank did not fund home completely.

I am in a major bind and need help ASAP..... Starting this paycheck if garnished I will have to dip into savings accounts to get by and do not want to. At 40 yrs old I done great at building a nest egg...

 

[justalayman]

Now the bank sent paperwork to my corp office to start wage garnishment on my next pay check( I am paid once a month) so Nov 22nd I will get hit hard out of my check and could not survive.

I think you skipped something here. The bank cannot simply garnish money without a court order (judgment). Were you sued at some time? Is there an outstanding judgment?

Can banks legally garnish a mortgage that was done as PRIMARY OWNER OCCUPPIED.

well, you have a problem; since you did not live in it, it is not a primary owner occupied home. What it might have been after it was completed is not relevant.




As for filing BK7 or 13 to make it go away, I would but I have to many assets (cash/401K,Roth IRA/Life Ins, and 2 paid off cars). I rent so not real estate.

My name is on all my grandmothers cash assets as I handle her bills as she lives in an ALF now. Her cash assets are about 40K and my cash asset is 30K plus 200K in retirement accounts.

do you mean to say her funds have been transferred to accounts you own? or was your name added to her accounts? If so, as an co-owner of the accounts?

d and need help ASAP..... Starting this paycheck if garnished I will have to dip into savings accounts to get by and do not want to.

At 40 yrs old I done great at building a nest egg...

except apparently ignoring that $200k debt you signed for and agreed to repay.

 

[FlyingRon]

It makes no difference in Florida. There is no exemption from recourse for owner occupied, purchase mortgages, etc...

 

[LdiJ]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? FL

In 2006 I did a preconstruction home in Florida. Things went wrong and I walked away from the process. The home foreclosed and the home was never completed. The bank maybe funded 50-100K (I think closer to the 50-75k) because the structure was never even completed to my know.

I did not fight foreclosure and let the home go. The builder lost money as well I remember and he threatened to sue me because of how loan was structured but I remember very little from 6 or 7 years ago.

Now the bank sent paperwork to my corp office to start wage garnishment on my next pay check( I am paid once a month) so Nov 22nd I will get hit hard out of my check and could not survive.

Can banks legally garnish a mortgage that was done as PRIMARY OWNER OCCUPPIED. this was not done as an investment mortgage so laws are different. Also it seems they seeking the entire loan amount $203K oppose to the funded figures. I never contested the foreclosure so legal fees should not be high at all. Of course lawyers to scam banks with fees.

Should I contact attorney. I was not even served papers on this matter.

As for filing BK7 or 13 to make it go away, I would but I have to many assets (cash/401K,Roth IRA/Life Ins, and 2 paid off cars). I rent so not real estate. My name is on all my grandmothers cash assets as I handle her bills as she lives in an ALF now. Her cash assets are about 40K and my cash asset is 30K plus 200K in retirement accounts.

Any help be appreciated. I was thinking if the court can be petitioned in the matter and a hearing scheduled. Doubt bank showed a payout history on loan to builder that is no longer around. I know county records would show the building process because of permits and when I walked away and home sold for how much and I am sure the MLS would state condition of house (how much completed) All to provide proof bank did not fund home completely.

I am in a major bind and need help ASAP..... Starting this paycheck if garnished I will have to dip into savings accounts to get by and do not want to. At 40 yrs old I done great at building a nest egg...

I suggest that you get your name off your grandmother's accounts IMMEDIATELY.

Once that is done consult a bankruptcy attorney...retirement assets may have some protection.

 

[You Are Guilty]

I suggest that you get your name off your grandmother's accounts IMMEDIATELY.

Depending on how exactly these accounts are titled, this could be epically bad advice.

http://law.justia.com/codes/florida/2005/TitleXLI/ch0726.html

 

[LdiJ]

Depending on how exactly these accounts are titled, this could be epically bad advice.

http://law.justia.com/codes/florida/2005/TitleXLI/ch0726.html

I disagree that removing your name from bank accounts containing money belonging to an elderly relative could be considered to be fraud.

 

[Zigner]

I disagree that removing your name from bank accounts containing money belonging to an elderly relative could be considered to be fraud.

But the law may differ with your view. Don't we try to offer legally accurate advice here?

The bank accounts may actually "belong" to the OP, depending on how they are held.

 

[LdiJ]

But the law may differ with your view. Don't we try to offer legally accurate advice here?

The bank accounts may actually "belong" to the OP, depending on how they are held.

Yes we do. However, the situation being described here is incredibly common. It is not unusual at all for people who have to declare bankruptcy to be listed on the accounts of their elderly parents. In order for the removal of their name to be considered to be fraudulent, the bankruptcy trustee would have to determine that the money in the account did, in fact, "belong" to the person filing bankruptcy and that the person had not been added to the account for the convenience of the person to whom the money actually/originally belonged...despite technical ownership of the account.

This is the kind of thing that has been addressed over and over and over again in the courts. If he/she removes their name from the parent's accounts, then the bankruptcy court would have to fight to gain access to the money. If he/she does not, the real owner of the money would have to fight to get it back. Not putting that onus on the elderly parent is the right thing to do.

 

[Zigner]

Yes we do. However, the situation being described here is incredibly common. It is not unusual at all for people who have to declare bankruptcy to be listed on the accounts of their elderly parents. In order for the removal of their name to be considered to be fraudulent, the bankruptcy trustee would have to determine that the money in the account did, in fact, "belong" to the person filing bankruptcy and that the person had not been added to the account for the convenience of the person to whom the money actually/originally belonged...despite technical ownership of the account.

This is the kind of thing that has been addressed over and over and over again in the courts. If he/she removes their name from the parent's accounts, then the bankruptcy court would have to fight to gain access to the money. If he/she does not, the real owner of the money would have to fight to get it back. Not putting that onus on the elderly parent is the right thing to do.

We're not talking about just the bankruptcy aspect - we're talking about the attempt to fraudulently conceal assets from creditors.

 

[LdiJ]

We're not talking about just the bankruptcy aspect - we're talking about the attempt to fraudulently conceal assets from creditors.

Remember that whole "innocent until proven guilty bit"?

Its only fraud if a court of law rules that its fraud. In this instance, a bankruptcy court. A court of law is not going to deprive an elderly person of their life savings just because they added a child's name to the account for convenience sake. Now, if the OP took his/her life savings, and stashed it in their elderly parent's account, that's whole 'nuther story.

My mother added all 4 of us children to one or another of her accounts for convenience purposes. My brother had to declare bankruptcy a few years ago. The very FIRST thing his bankruptcy attorney told him to do was get his name off of mom's account...making the same comments that I made...that it would be safer for mom to have the bankruptcy courts try to fight for the money (as unlikely as that would be according to the attorney) than for mom to have to fight to get her money back.

The bankruptcy attorney also went on to explain that it would be a very simple procedure to prove that none of brother's money went into that account...but that wouldn't make the trustee release it easily once the trustee had their hands on it. However it would generally make the trustee give up going after it quite easily in the reverse scenario.

 

[Zigner]

Remember that whole "innocent until proven guilty bit"?

Its only fraud if a court of law rules that its fraud. In this instance, a bankruptcy court. A court of law is not going to deprive an elderly person of their life savings just because they added a child's name to the account for convenience sake. Now, if the OP took his/her life savings, and stashed it in their elderly parent's account, that's whole 'nuther story.

My mother added all 4 of us children to one or another of her accounts for convenience purposes. My brother had to declare bankruptcy a few years ago. The very FIRST thing his bankruptcy attorney told him to do was get his name off of mom's account...making the same comments that I made...that it would be safer for mom to have the bankruptcy courts try to fight for the money (as unlikely as that would be according to the attorney) than for mom to have to fight to get her money back.

The bankruptcy attorney also went on to explain that it would be a very simple procedure to prove that none of brother's money went into that account...but that wouldn't make the trustee release it easily once the trustee had their hands on it. However it would generally make the trustee give up going after it quite easily in the reverse scenario.

It wouldn't necessarily be a bankruptcy court ruling on this matter. The JC can take the OP to court and they can be found to have fraudulently transferred assets. Of course it's not fraud "until a court says it's fraud" - but that can be said about ANYTHING we're advising about. It's not helpful at all to try to pull that card out. Might as well tell the next guy "It's not murder until the court finds you guilty of it" or "It's not speeding until the court finds you guilty of it" or "It's not parental abduction until the court finds you guilty of it" or "It's not fraud until the court finds you guilty of it" (Oh, you already tried that one)

 

[Zigner]

My mother added all 4 of us children to one or another of her accounts for convenience purposes. My brother had to declare bankruptcy a few years ago. The very FIRST thing his bankruptcy attorney told him to do was get his name off of mom's account...making the same comments that I made...that it would be safer for mom to have the bankruptcy courts try to fight for the money (as unlikely as that would be according to the attorney) than for mom to have to fight to get her money back.

Addressing this specifically:

The difference between the situation you describe above and the one the OP finds him/herself in is that our OP already has a judgement against him/her. As such, changing the title of assets held can certainly be ruled to be done "With actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor of the debtor..." (taken straight from the applicable code section)

 

[LdiJ]

It wouldn't necessarily be a bankruptcy court ruling on this matter. The JC can take the OP to court and they can be found to have fraudulently transferred assets. Of course it's not fraud "until a court says it's fraud" - but that can be said about ANYTHING we're advising about. It's not helpful at all to try to pull that card out. Might as well tell the next guy "It's not murder until the court finds you guilty of it" or "It's not speeding until the court finds you guilty of it" or "It's not parental abduction until the court finds you guilty of it" or "It's not fraud until the court finds you guilty of it" (Oh, you already tried that one)

Yes it would be a bankruptcy court. Once a bankruptcy has been filed the JC is prohibited from filing any other court matters related to the debt.

 

[Zigner]

Yes it would be a bankruptcy court. Once a bankruptcy has been filed the JC is prohibited from filing any other court matters related to the debt.

No, it's not going to be bankruptcy court:

As for filing BK7 or 13 to make it go away, I would but I have to many assets (cash/401K,Roth IRA/Life Ins, and 2 paid off cars). I rent so not real estate. My name is on all my grandmothers cash assets as I handle her bills as she lives in an ALF now. Her cash assets are about 40K and my cash asset is 30K plus 200K in retirement accounts.

 

[justalayman]

You Are Guilty

Quote Originally Posted by LdiJ View Post
I suggest that you get your name off your grandmother's accounts IMMEDIATELY.

Depending on how exactly these accounts are titled, this could be epically bad advice.

http://law.justia.com/codes/florida/...LI/ch0726.html

LdiJ

Quote Originally Posted by You Are Guilty View Post
Depending on how exactly these accounts are titled, this could be epically bad advice.

http://law.justia.com/codes/florida/...LI/ch0726.html

I disagree that removing your name from bank accounts containing money belonging to an elderly relative could be considered to be fraud.

Of all posters here to argue with you decide to argue with the NY attorney that has a tendency to post little bits of wisdom as he has here because there is value to them. Making the blanket statement as you have is not correct. Not enough info to advise the OP take any such action without first reviewing all the facts of the situation and depending on the facts, acting now could invoke the laws YAG referred to.