Update: Here’s the latest about that [tag-tec]foreclosure[/tag-tec] buy from you know where.
As we remember Michael Acciardi of Saddle River, NJ purchased the [tag-ice]foreclosure[/tag-ice] manse for 2.6 million only to discover 142 live cats and dogs and 23 dead ones on the premises.
The house was in such bad shape that it was condemned.
A Superior Court Judge has ruled the [tag-self]foreclosure[/tag-self] involved too much of an element of surprise.
In other words, the bank had left too many facts to be discovered by the buyer. This was not a simple case of buyer beware.
Some people are lamenting the judge’s ruling is dangerous. Their reasoning is banks can not be responsible for satisfying the “customer”, or foreclosure investor.
Yes, they’re right to a certain extent. Risk does go with this type of lucrative real estate investment, but Acciardi’s case was the exception.
In my opinion, the judge ruled correctly.
No bank should expect to unload a dog dump to the tune of 2.6 million dollars that is unfit for human habitation on an unwary buyer.
I think the bank really should have been more concerned about public relations and its reputation.
This was not good advertising, but maybe that’s just me. I grew up in retail and keeping customers reasonably happy is in my DNA, I suppose. And we were small business people. Maybe big banks like the one in question can take a different approach.
I have expressed my opinion about this bad foreclosure deal. What is yours? Do you agree or disagree? Let me hear from you.
If you want to read the opposite opinion, check out the blog E Finance Directory. They think the judge’s ruling was terrible.