3 ms·
Most places have the opposite where the city would get the 8.00 and the owner get the remaining amount. Which would mean the city wouldn't bother.
by wolco 7y ago
Most places have the opposite where the city would get the 8.00 and the owner get the remaining amount. Which would mean the city wouldn't bother.
- JAlexoid 7y agoThe city, county or any other government institution is not supposed to profit off this kind of affairs at all. Government must be funded by taxes and taxes alone, all excess collections must be returned to taxpayers unconditionally. Civil asset forfeiture and this kind of laws just make racketeers out of government officials. And yeah - $8 isn't a good reason for seizing someone's house, when they can easily get a small claims court to summarily get that $8.
- JackFr 7y agoA bank foreclosing on a mortgage is only entitled only to the value of the money owed. Those laws are structured specifically to avoid the perverse incentive created by being able to receive $60,000 on an $8.00 debt.
- Retric 7y agoIn this case not being worth their time is a good thing. They can always asses interest and penalties until it’s worth their time prepossessing a home. But, when someone is making a good faith effort it’s crazy to escalate this far.