The Freeman Movement and England

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mortgage is done by deed.
Deeds do not require consideration.
Begs the questions;
why do banks have use deed and not contract?
Click to expand...

Did you say "because it is a transaction involving land for which deeds are required as protection against fraud"?

Really, the idea that there's no consideration in a mortgage is just hysterical. These people would be a joke if it weren't for the fact that people are getting themselves into serious trouble relying on their inanity. Yozhik is particularly imbecilic.
 
Pardon me if I'm being dense, but if the mortgage doesn't apply to our hypothetical Freeman, doesn't that mean the house belongs to either the bank or the previous owner? How do they explain not paying the mortgage but still keeping the house?
 
skaarlaw said:
Yeah, You're going to expect me to be a teen if i'm asking this question, indeed i am but i'm turning 18 in 2 weeks and the question arose in my head...

Since a merchant cannot refuse payment, would it be UNLAWFUL to pick up X item, say an alcoholic drink, or movie/video game or anything with an age requirement, go to the counter, if they refuse to accept it/serve you, you put the money on the counter and walk out?

In my head this seems logical/legitimate? or is there something i'm missing?

I can't wait till 2 weeks time when my body can almost... in a split second... change from not allowed alcohol to being able to drink the government reccomended daily amounts! yay fun!
Click to expand...
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=101768
 
jargon buster said:
Good work over there lightindarkness

by the way Im asky ;)
Click to expand...

Seriously? Dude, I love the reactions you're getting over there.

"Asky is the only one getting paid to post on this forum."

Priceless! Keep it up!

PS A few more likeminded souls would be nice over there for a while ;)
Click to expand...

I'm considering it, but I don't know much about the law, and I'm just getting acquainted with Freeman on the Land. You might see me over there sometime, but probably not for a while.
 
Pardon me if I'm being dense, but if the mortgage doesn't apply to our hypothetical Freeman, doesn't that mean the house belongs to either the bank or the previous owner? How do they explain not paying the mortgage but still keeping the house?
Click to expand...
beceause (in England and Wales at least) the mortgage and house purchase are two seperate things, the mortgage just happens to be a loan secured on the house. The bank never owns the home and the previous owner no longer owns it as they have been paid for it.

I understand this does not apply in the USA. FMOTL is still crazy, no matter where you are.
 
brodski said:
beceause (in England and Wales at least) the mortgage and house purchase are two seperate things, the mortgage just happens to be a loan secured on the house. The bank never owns the home and the previous owner no longer owns it as they have been paid for it.

I understand this does not apply in the USA. FMOTL is still crazy, no matter where you are.
Click to expand...

If you default on your loan then the bank takes the security (house, car,ect) and sells it to recoup their loan. You will still owe the difference between the selling price and your loan amount.
 
Sledge said:
Pardon me if I'm being dense, but if the mortgage doesn't apply to our hypothetical Freeman, doesn't that mean the house belongs to either the bank or the previous owner? How do they explain not paying the mortgage but still keeping the house?
Click to expand...

It's free, man, on the land.
 
tsig said:
If you default on your loan then the bank takes the security (house, car,ect) and sells it to recoup their loan. You will still owe the difference between the selling price and your loan amount.
Click to expand...

Yes, the bank can initiate legal proceedings to take possession of the hose if you default on the mortgage, that doesn't mean that the bank ever owned the house, nor does it mean that if the mortgage was not a valid and legally binding agreement that the house would automatically be owned by the bank.

As mortgages are valid and legally binding agreements the point it moot.
 
brodski said:
Yes, the bank can initiate legal proceedings to take possession of the hose if you default on the mortgage, that doesn't mean that the bank ever owned the house, nor does it mean that if the mortgage was not a valid and legally binding agreement that the house would automatically be owned by the bank.

As mortgages are valid and legally binding agreements the point it moot.
Click to expand...

I never said the bank owned the house. The bank has a lien on the house.

You might want to read posts more carefully before you answer them I fully agree that a mortgage is legally and binding. I was talking about what happens if you don't pay it for whatever reason.
 
tsig said:
I never said the bank owned the house. The bank has a lien on the house.

You might want to read posts more carefully before you answer them I fully agree that a mortgage is legally and binding. I was talking about what happens if you don't pay it for whatever reason.
Click to expand...


I did read your post carefully, I assumed though that you intended it to be related in some meaningful way to my post. The discussion went as follows
Sledge: if the mortgage was not valid wouldn't the bank own your house
Me: no, here's why
you: if you don't pay your mortgage the bank will take your house
me: Yes, but that doesn't mean that the bank would own your house if the mortgage was never valid.

No it's true that you didn't say that the bank would own the house, but then I didn't claim that was what you had said. That was an inference you made from my post much like the inference which I took form your post.

So we're all agreed then, if the mortgage was never valid the bank would not automatically own the house, and in the real world when you don't pay your mortgage banks tend to start possession proceedings.
 
I am not sure if I got the translation wrong.

I own my apartment not the bank. I paid the previous owner in full in part with a loan from the bank.

In order to get that loan the bank wanted some kind of security for it.
They suggested a "Pantebrev", translates as mortgage.
It is a paper stating that the holder is first in line for the value represented by my apartment, up to a certain amount.
The paper is registered by government/courts (Tinglyst) and that would come up in any court proceeding. (also you cannot make several of them if the value exceed the property)
So if I freaked out and made debt in other banks and on every card I could get my hands on, they would still be first in line for the apartment.
 
brodski said:
I did read your post carefully, I assumed though that you intended it to be related in some meaningful way to my post. The discussion went as follows
Sledge: if the mortgage was not valid wouldn't the bank own your house
Me: no, here's why
you: if you don't pay your mortgage the bank will take your house
me: Yes, but that doesn't mean that the bank would own your house if the mortgage was never valid.

No it's true that you didn't say that the bank would own the house, but then I didn't claim that was what you had said. That was an inference you made from my post much like the inference which I took form your post.

So we're all agreed then, if the mortgage was never valid the bank would not automatically own the house, and in the real world when you don't pay your mortgage banks tend to start possession proceedings.
Click to expand...

I see, first you misinterpreted what Sledge said then you misinterpreted what I said.
 
Toke said:
I am not sure if I got the translation wrong.

I own my apartment not the bank. I paid the previous owner in full in part with a loan from the bank.

In order to get that loan the bank wanted some kind of security for it.
They suggested a "Pantebrev", translates as mortgage.
It is a paper stating that the holder is first in line for the value represented by my apartment, up to a certain amount.
The paper is registered by government/courts (Tinglyst) and that would come up in any court proceeding. (also you cannot make several of them if the value exceed the property)
So if I freaked out and made debt in other banks and on every card I could get my hands on, they would still be first in line for the apartment.
Click to expand...

You own it but the bank's got a lien on it.
 
tsig said:
It's free, man, on the land.
Click to expand...

:D

I seem to have inadvertantly started a... argument may be too strong a word. Anyhoo, I'll see if I can explain my problem, aside from the fact that trying to think like a FotL makes me feel like a robot in a Star Trek episode being shut down with a logic puzzle.

Ok, if I buy a house with my own money, it's mine. I give the money to the previous owner, end of story. If I take out a mortgage, the bank loans me the money secured against the house and the money is paid to the previous owner. The problem I'm having (and I'm not gonna be surprised if the answer to this is "exactly") is how would I as a Freeloaderman on the Land own the house? The two arguments I can think of are:
1) The money doesn't really exist because it's just electronic transfers, or some similar rubbish
or
2) The money does exist, but the bank has no ability to enforce the contract saying I have to pay it back.

The first one is just silly, as if the money doesn't exist, no one has paid for the house so it still belongs to the original owner. I get the feeling that the second one is what FotL'ers are pushing, but I can't follow the logic. If the contract with the bank isn't binding, why is the contract with the guy who sold the house?

I'm overthinking this, aren't I?
 
Good grief. I didn't think anyone was stupid enough to be trying the "money doesn't really exist" gambit. This is why I love FotL.
 
Have you ever played paranoia?
It involves the idea of spurious logic spoken really fast to get the computer to see things your way.:)
 
Toke said:
Yes, you must concentrate your thoughts one what benefits you, try to get lost in the exact wording of your magic letters.:)

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=71143


Here is an example. :D
Click to expand...

I have to agree with him here:

"At the time of signing the aforementioned form neither of us fully grasped exactly what was occurring by way of signing the document, and to be honest we still cannot say for certain that we do."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom