Fire!fire!fire!

[Airwolf]

Again isn't this what insurance is for? I mean normally you don't sell your house unless you have a contract for a new one:shrug:

That's exactly what I said. They had house #1, they decided to buy now burned house #2, so they signed a contract to sell house #1 to buyer A. Now that House #2 is a steaming pile of ashes, and the legally binding contract to sell house #1 is still in effect, they must complete said sale. However, since they haven't gone to settlement on house #2, they have no insurance from which to receive $$ to provide them with a place to live until the builder can rebuild house #2.

 

[crabcake]

from what I understand is no Money (except a downpayment of 5 or 10K) changes hands until the final settlement/ closing.

Typically a down payment is 10-20% ... on a $450K home, taking an average of 15% down is $67,500 ... not $5-10K. Yea, these folks may have some money coming when they sell their home, but even then, it can take several days for the checks to clear from settlement.

If the eco-nazi's are in fact responsible, it's just another fine,example of their liberal hypocrisy at work.

 

[Airwolf]

I CAN assume if they are buying a halfmillion dollar house they are not destitute, and can buy a place to rent if they have to to hold them over.. from what I understand is no Money (except a downpayment of 5 or 10K) changes hands until the final settlement/ closing.. So if the new owners haven't made it to closing yet, they are all still the developers houses, and the new owners haven't suffered any loss. And if their closing was conditional on the selling of their current home, that usually takes place on at least the same day as closing on the new home.. so they would void their contract and not have to move from the house they currently live in.

Developer is going to take a bite in the shorts over this one, but the individual buyers I don't think will get hurt at all, other then not being able to move in to their new houses for another 6 months or so.

If you void your contract to sell your house, due to no fault of the buyers, you better be prepared for quite a lawsuit. Once you have a signed contract to sell, it is a legally binding contract. The buyers could then take you to court and force you to complete the sale and get damages awarded (i.e. get more of your money).

6 months? Try more like a year MINIMUM. First the law has to do their investigation, tehn the insurance companies have to try to get out of paying fair market value, then they have to actually pay the $$, then the damaged houses have to be torn down the rest of the way, including the foundations on the really messed up ones, then any ground contamination has to be remediated, then they have to start the reconstruction process.

 

[itsbob]

Typically a down payment is 10-20% ... on a $450K home, taking an average of 15% down is $67,500 ... not $5-10K. Yea, these folks may have some money coming when they sell their home, but even then, it can take several days for the checks to clear from settlement.

If the eco-nazi's are in fact responsible, it's just another fine,example of their liberal hypocrisy at work.

CLOSE.. but not right.. we're not talking a downpayment, that's not due until settlement. We're talking about "good faith" money.

And point above was, if the buying of this house is contigent on selling the last house, the contingency SHOULD go both ways. I.E. they can cancel the sale on the house they are living in now with nothing lost. Since the house was lost in the fire, that contract is null and void also, so they can take their good faith money, their downpayment money and close on a different house within 2 or 3 weeks..

 

[flowerchild]

I CAN assume if they are buying a halfmillion dollar house they are not destitute, and can buy a place to rent if they have to to hold them over.. from what I understand is no Money (except a downpayment of 5 or 10K) changes hands until the final settlement/ closing.. So if the new owners haven't made it to closing yet, they are all still the developers houses, and the new owners haven't suffered any loss. And if their closing was conditional on the selling of their current home, that usually takes place on at least the same day as closing on the new home.. so they would void their contract and not have to move from the house they currently live in.

Developer is going to take a bite in the shorts over this one, but the individual buyers I don't think will get hurt at all, other then not being able to move in to their new houses for another 6 months or so.

Dear God, please don't ever go into real estate. The contingency on the sale of their home is placed on the purchase of the new home...in other words, they don't have to go through with the purchase of the new house until they have a CONTRACT on their current residence. Once they have a ratified contract, the contingency is removed, it doesn't just hang out there till the date of settlement. However, the sale of the current home is not contingent upon them buying, or settling on the new one. In many cases, there is a real domino effect involved with many families selling to move up...this could put a number of people in a lousy position.

 

[mAlice]

Everyone seems to be pointing a finger at the environmentalists and some disgruntled carpenter or dry wall guy is kicking back laughing his azz off while he slurps his 10oz Bud.

 

[Airwolf]

Everyone seems to be pointing a finger at the environmentalists and some disgruntled carpenter or dry wall guy is kicking back laughing his azz off while he slurps his 10oz Bud.

I really doubt that some "disgruntled carpenter" would have been pissed off enough to plan and execute a plan to set fire to an entire neighborhood in a manner with all the halmarks of the previous environmental terrorist's attacks.

 

[mAlice]

I really doubt that some "disgruntled carpenter" would have been pissed off enough to plan and execute a plan to set fire to an entire neighborhood in a manner with all the halmarks of the previous environmental terrorist's attacks.

Why?

 

[crabcake]

CLOSE.. but not right.. we're not talking a downpayment, that's not due until settlement. We're talking about "good faith" money.

then you should have said "good faith money" instead of downpayment. :shrug:

(except a downpayment of 5 or 10K)

 

[itsbob]

If you void your contract to sell your house, due to no fault of the buyers, you better be prepared for quite a lawsuit. Once you have a signed contract to sell, it is a legally binding contract. The buyers could then take you to court and force you to complete the sale and get damages awarded (i.e. get more of your money).

6 months? Try more like a year MINIMUM. First the law has to do their investigation, tehn the insurance companies have to try to get out of paying fair market value, then they have to actually pay the $$, then the damaged houses have to be torn down the rest of the way, including the foundations on the really messed up ones, then any ground contamination has to be remediated, then they have to start the reconstruction process.

If the house was a loss.. the contract is null and void, they can take their money and close on a house in a different neighborhood, or anywhere else they want, and be in a different house in a couple of weeks. I'm fairly certain that somebody that can afford a 500K house can afford to stay in a hotel for two or three weeks..

Now when these houses are re-built, would they be considered Stigmatized properties? Would you buy a house that was victim to a terrorist attack, and may well be again after you move into it?

 

[Elle]

Now when these houses are re-built, would they be considered Stigmatized properties? Would you buy a house that was victim to a terrorist attack, and may well be again after you move into it?

Better yet, if you have a contract on one of these houses, do you really want to still live there?

 

[itsbob]

then you should have said "good faith money" instead of downpayment. :shrug:

Got me there.. twenty lashes with a wet vermicelli

 

[itsbob]

Everyone seems to be pointing a finger at the environmentalists and some disgruntled carpenter or dry wall guy is kicking back laughing his azz off while he slurps his 10oz Bud.

YANNO.. Haven't thought of that.. but if it's possible for this to be funny, THAT would be. And sure, why couldn't one person have done this? All 40 didn't burn down, they all had different amounts of damage.. so why not?

 

[itsbob]

Better yet, if you have a contract on one of these houses, do you really want to still live there?

Don't think I would want to... and would be finding a way out.

 

[flowerchild]

If the house was a loss.. the contract is null and void, they can take their money and close on a house in a different neighborhood, or anywhere else they want, and be in a different house in a couple of weeks. I'm fairly certain that somebody that can afford a 500K house can afford to stay in a hotel for two or three weeks..

Now when these houses are re-built, would they be considered Stigmatized properties? Would you buy a house that was victim to a terrorist attack, and may well be again after you move into it?

Sweet Jesus, it's worse than I thought, you've been to the licensing class! you're gonna use every term in the glossary in this thread aren't you?

 

[Hessian]

Gaps & Lawyers...

I recall signing page after page of Documents in the purchase of my house and many of them were guarantees that the loaning Co. gets their money: one way or the other. There were also agreements that had time frames attached. I can't imagine in this heavily litigated age that the prospective buyers of the houses can't get out from the burden of a burned out shell. (Or even the builder getting a load of compensation from the insurance corps. The problem lies with the true cost of the house.)

The builder likely paid 90 K to build the house on top of the cost of the land...he will only get compensated that 90 K...not the market value of "475,000." I don't know where they find the $$ to do the destruction & regrading work...more than likely they'll just dig a hole & bury it on the .25 acre lot.

And to allay any accusations...I was still asleep in my humble Lusby Ranch at 5 am Monday. whoever torched the houses: planned carefully and likely worked with team of several matchmen. The problem is that footprints are obliterated by the fire-crews, and if they firebugs moved fast: they left little trace.--Best to check the homes that did not catch (which is what the 50 ATF-FBI-Fire Marshall-Insurance fraud inspector guys are already doing)

 

[itsbob]

Sweet Jesus, it's worse than I thought, you've been to the licensing class! you're gonna use every term in the glossary in this thread aren't you?

Naaah, about done in this thread.. my damage is done.. (maybe)

 

[BadGirl]

Naaah, about done in this thread.. my damage is done.. (maybe)

Thank God.

 

[flowerchild]

Everyone seems to be pointing a finger at the environmentalists and some disgruntled carpenter or dry wall guy is kicking back laughing his azz off while he slurps his 10oz Bud.

Eco-Terrorism Suspected in Md. Fires
UPDATED - Tuesday December 07, 2004 5:28pm


eVideo: Eco-Terrorism Suspected in Md. Fires

Indian Head, Md. (AP) - Fire investigators are searching for evidence in the rubble of dozens of torched houses that were being built in an upscale Charles County neighborhood.

Official say arson caused the fires in seven of the 41 homes that were damaged or destroyed at the Hunters Brooke subdivision, near Indian Head. Damage is estimated at $10 million.

More than 20 federal, local and state investigators were on site Tuesday, searching for forensic evidence.

The ATF says investigators aren't looking into a link with a serial arsonist believed to have started 45 fires in the Washington region since March 2003.

The development was the subject of a lawsuit between environmentalists and the Army Corps of Engineers.

The FBI (website) says ecoterrorism - suspected in the torching of a housing development near a sensitive wetland - is a growing national threat. The radical campaign gets less publicity than animal rights activism. But the FBI, which dubs both movements "special interest extremism," blames them for 1100 criminal acts that have caused $110 million worth of damage since 1976.
WWW.WJLA.COM

It's like the people who go to abortion clinics and shoot the people who work there to make a point about the senseless taking of lives.

 

[FIREMAN]

whoever torched the houses: planned carefully and likely worked with team of several matchmen. The problem is that footprints are obliterated by the fire-crews, and if they firebugs moved fast: they left little trace.--Best to check the homes that did not catch.

Ding Ding we got winner.

I don't think the foot prints would have gave much insite on who was setting the fires. It may have gave the different number of people involved. You don't have to move fast when your main fuel for the fire is the propane fire places inside each home and a bucket of accelarent.