| Author | Post |
|---|
therenow
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 31st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 176 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat May 10th, 2008 03:48 pm |
|
I agree ............As I I take my morning walk I pass 5 houses, empty and abandoned with weeds two feet high, no water left on, pool emptied and plants dead. Should the bank or listing realtor maintain the property rather than see the property decline causing a lower selll price and annoyance to the neighbors? After all, the property will sell eventually and it would seem that the cost of maintenance could be recovered.
Secondly, does the H.O.A have a role to play in this? They seem to go to great lengths to cite one for leaviing a garbage can out. Even more, my garage window was broken by my Grandson,s basketball. Before I could get a replacemnt glass, I was cited for the broken window due to their regs to "maintain the property" Now that seems a bit rediculous.
|
Bravo
Member
|
Posted: Thu May 8th, 2008 05:55 pm |
|
Good to see one city going after people for abandoning property.
By Joyce Miles
Lockport Union-Sun & Journal
Lockport City Court is laying down the law on responsible home ownership.
Judge Thomas M. DiMillo sentenced a former homeowner to fines and community service Tuesday for his part in the deterioration of an Elmwood Avenue property that he lost to foreclosure. DiMillo also warned the former occupant of another vacated home that she, too, faces consequences for walking away from title-holder’s responsibility.
David Stewart, formerly of 31 Elmwood Ave., was ordered to pay a $1,000 fine and perform 60 hours of community service within 60 days to avoid jail time on his guilty plea to four building code violations.
When he moved out of the house he’d lived in for 17 years, he left behind a structure with foundation, exterior and sanitation defects. Even though the property technically belongs to Investors One Corp., which started foreclosure proceedings on Stewart’s defaulted mortgage three years ago, the court said the violations are Stewart’s problem.
The bank never completed foreclosure by taking back the property title, suggesting it didn’t want the house. When Stewart’s case came to court earlier this year, court officials tried to get the bank to relinquish its claim and let Stewart pay only $9,000 past-due taxes to get the property off the city’s annual tax foreclosure list.
Stewart never contacted the bank to work out a deal, Prosecutor Matthew Brooks said, and the city seized the property April 30.
Stewart said he is unemployed and does not work because he suffers from a severe back problem.
Brooks said he still wanted Stewart held responsible for the violations as a matter of principle. He asked Stewart to either plead guilty to the charges or try his luck with a non-jury trial.
“Word has to get out that you can’t just abandon property,” Brooks said. “You have to do something to get out from under it, not just stick your head in the sand.”
DiMillo, while expressing some sympathy for Stewart’s hardship, agreed.
“At some point three years ago you had an obligation ... that you couldn’t afford to do anything about, so you abandoned it,” he said. “(That’s) a crime in itself.”
Stewart’s sentence, technically, is 120 days in jail — 30 days on each guilty plea — conditionally discharged. If Stewart pays the fine and performs community service within 60 days, the case will be closed.
Complete article--http://www.lockportjournal.com/local/local_story_128020934.html
Last edited on Thu May 8th, 2008 07:06 pm by Bravo
|
Current time is 08:48 pm | |
|
|
|