Timm Simpkins wrote in
message ...

A mortgage lien has more power than all but a tax lien. No other
lien gives the lien holder the power the right to take control of
property, but prevents its sale until legal claims are taken care of.

Now, we're talking about semantics here. A mortgage contract is MUCH more
than a lien. It can proscribe anything the bank wants, and it can prescribe
anything they want as well. Try getting away without paying homeowner's
insurance or flattening your house. You'll have to answer to the bank. If
I own property, the only person I have to answer to is myself.

Not true. You normally have to answer to the local council etc as well,
particularly with substantial changes to the property, even just legal use.

Separate issue entirely to ownership.

Now I agree that the legal definition of their
status is not an owner, but a lien holder, but
the actual effect of their status is owner

Nope. It is with a LEASE tho.

since it is much greater than lien holder.

Doesnt change ownership.


"doubter" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 03:04:24 -0600, "Timm Simpkins"
wrote:

The lender is actually the owner of the house, but by contract they
cannot
do anything unless the buyer breaks their contract. Once the contract is
fulfilled the buyer owns the house "outright," which gives little extra
legal latitude over a person who still owes money to a bank.

This single statement destroys any credibility you may have had. The
lender has
a lien on the house, no more, no less. That is a far cry from owning it.
Now
tell us again about all the property you own and have bought and sold.
Right!