patrick.net

It varies. A person with a $25 lien on your home could technically foreclose... if they felt that it was worth spending a couple of hundred thousand dollars foreclosing in order to get back their $25. Since that doesn't make any sense, at all, most people holding smaller judgment liens just wait until the property sells or the owner dies. Now let's say you have a $500,000 judgment lien against a person's house... and that house is worth $2M... well then it might make sense to foreclose. So the first thing that has to be considered is the cost-benefit of forcing the sale. And forcing a sale costs money.

That said, a tax lien has a higher position than a mortgage. So, typically, they would notify the lender first. The lender often will just pay the taxes and then go after the mortgage holder. Unless the mortgage holder is also way behind on mortgage payments, too. That could speed up the process because now you have the first position lien holder and the second position lien holder who have an interest in forcing the sale.

I would imagine that the process varies from case to case, location to location.

It depends on the wiseasses you have at the City Hall.
Are they petty sniveling Liberals who loves to watch people cry in missery, and the said person is a white republican or not.

turtledove says

A person with a $25 lien on your home could technically foreclose.

Wouldn't it stand to reason that anyone with a $25 debt (in the argument it was about a supposed $500 bill), would be able to get cash out of their equity and pay such a bill? Unless they had already gotten into HELOC trouble or whatever?

She was basically saying the home was going up for auction with very little time, simply due to a property tax bill. I personally have never heard of that (but what do I know?), and think they would choose other remedies, like have the bank deal with it in most cases.

What does anyone think is the fastest time a Government would act on their own volition to remove someone for an unpaid tax bill? I think if it has a mortgage, it would be a few years really. And if they were insolvent, you would think that bill becomes the bank's. Is that always the case?

That does sound fishy. I know in general collections, a person is delinquent for the first 90 days before they are classified as having defaulted. With medical billing, for example, a person has to be 90 past due before a collection agent will even consider taking on the account. Furthermore, there are notification requirements. With medical billing, you have to show that you sent them regular notices over a period of 90 days. So, you can't just suddenly declare that the person defaulted on something. Even the government has to allow for due process. I would imagine that simply setting up a tax sale takes time. It's not like one person gets to decide to force a sale. You are taking property from someone... There needs to be some kind of court order. So, after the person officially defaults (90 days +)... then they have to get it in front of a judge. I would imagine that takes several months, unless the debtor does nothing and allows the other side to get a summary judgment. So, if I had to take a guess, I would say that a fast-tracked forced sale would still take at least nine months to execute.

Tenpoundbass says

the said person is a white republican or not.

White Republicans worry more about which brown person to hate, who to be afraid of today, how to find time to count their money, and how to cover up the abortions they say they don't have, while paying for the coke and hookers they don't partake in.

Ironman says

That's why most banks want to handle the tax payments as part of the mortgage, so they don't get "stuck"

But if the homeowner defaults, the bank still gets "stuck" with the bill as part of the mortgage, right?

CL says

But if the homeowner defaults, the bank still gets "stuck" with the bill as part of the mortgage, right?

Well, the bank gets stuck because you cannot sell the property when their is a lien against it. The new owner won't have clear title. Someone must satisfy the lien. It would either be the bank would have to pay it or the new prospective owner would have to pay it.

CL says

White Republicans worry more about which brown person to hate.

Yeah the White liberal ones especially. Like Doesal and King.

Thanks all!

Excellent thread, good information. I have myself a rather complicated question related to foreclosures--I will post it in a minute as a separate thread . Please take a look and see if you have any remarks about my analysis and question.

turtledove says

CL says

But if the homeowner defaults, the bank still gets "stuck" with the bill as part of the mortgage, right?

Well, the bank gets stuck because you cannot sell the property when their is a lien against it. The new owner won't have clear title. Someone must satisfy the lien. It would either be the bank would have to pay it or the new prospective owner would have to pay it.

Assuming you get past the redemption period the new owner will have clear title. Property tax liens are superior to all other liens. Property tax lien foreclosures extinguish all junior liens including the mortgage. The only exception is if the tax tax lien holder makes a mistake with the foreclosure process. If you do discover a surviving lien you can almost always take quiet title action to have it removed.

BTW tax lien foreclosures don't have to notify the individual junior lien holders. Public notice of default and tax sale has been held by state courts to be sufficient notice.