Timm Simpkins wrote in
message ...
Rod Speed wrote
Barry Gold wrote
Bob Ward wrote:

OK, professor - now explain second mortgages. How does
one borrow additional money against an unowned asset?

You borrow against your equity -- the difference
between the current value of the house and what
you owe on the first mortgage.

Not necessarily.

But I think nowadays most loans are
made on "trust deeds", not "mortgages".

Wrong.

Under a trust deed, the borrower remains(*) the owner,

Just like they do with a mortgage too.

but the lender is a "trustee", with the power to sell
the house if the buyer breaks the loan contract.

Just like with mortgages too.

The lender obviously aint the owner because in
the absence of a default, they cannot do what
they like with the property they purportedly own.

Hence the buyer can take out a second
trust deed, using the same asset.

Or can have a second mortgage without that
producing anything different ownership wise.

A mortgage is a lien, not ownership.

Yes, you are correct,

As always.

but it is more than that because a regular lien doesn't allow the
lien holder to take control of the property under any circumstances.

Irrelevant to who owns it.

A lien generally prohibits the sale of
property until some legal claim is satisfied.

Correct. As so does the usual method of financing a car purchase too.

That is what secured loans are about.

A mortgage is a secured loan, NOT transfer of ownership.

As far as I know the only other type of lien that
can allow for the forfeiture of property is a tax lien.

That is just plain wrong with any secured loan.

A LEASE does involve the operation writing the
lease owning the property until the end of the lease.

While a mortgage only allows the bank the right to take control
of the property after default, the mortgage does dictate actions
that must be taken by the buyer. Try to bulldoze a perfectly
good building when the bank owns it and see what happens.

Separate issue entirely to who OWNS it.

If you're actually the owner the bank
should have no say in the matter.

Wrong again.

AND in some circumstances even if you do own the property
outright, you may not be able to bulldoze a perfectly good
building, particularly one that is heritage listed etc.

Thats an entirely separate issue to ownership.