"The North Las Vegas City Council voted to move forward with a
controversial plan to help homeowners whose property is worth less
than they owe."

[...]

"Mortgage Resolution Partners wants the city to use eminent domain
laws to buy underwater homes at the current market price which is a
lot less than what homeowners paid for the property. The home would
then be refinanced back to the original owner at a vastly reduced
principal.

The company would help those homeowners refinance their houses and get
a fee for the effort. The city would also benefit by getting money
from fees."

http://northlasvegas.8newsnow.com/news/housing/225222-nlv-votes-move-forward-underwater-home-plan

On 6/21/2013 12:40 PM, Oren wrote:
"The North Las Vegas City Council voted to move forward with a
controversial plan to help homeowners whose property is worth less
than they owe."

[...]

"Mortgage Resolution Partners wants the city to use eminent domain
laws to buy underwater homes at the current market price which is a
lot less than what homeowners paid for the property. The home would
then be refinanced back to the original owner at a vastly reduced
principal.

The company would help those homeowners refinance their houses and get
a fee for the effort. The city would also benefit by getting money
from fees."

http://northlasvegas.8newsnow.com/news/housing/225222-nlv-votes-move-forward-underwater-home-plan


This smells like a huge scam.

What's the catch?

On 6/21/2013 2:44 PM, Jerrod wrote:
On 6/21/2013 12:40 PM, Oren wrote:
"The North Las Vegas City Council voted to move forward with a
controversial plan to help homeowners whose property is worth less
than they owe."

[...]

"Mortgage Resolution Partners wants the city to use eminent domain
laws to buy underwater homes at the current market price which is a
lot less than what homeowners paid for the property. The home would
then be refinanced back to the original owner at a vastly reduced
principal.

The company would help those homeowners refinance their houses and get
a fee for the effort. The city would also benefit by getting money
from fees."

http://northlasvegas.8newsnow.com/news/housing/225222-nlv-votes-move-forward-underwater-home-plan



This smells like a huge scam.

What's the catch?


Original mortgage and homeowner loans would still have to be paid off if
house is sold. That money can not just evaporate. Is a city full of
drunks, hookers and gamblers dumb enough to fall for this?

"Frank" wrote in message
...
On 6/21/2013 2:44 PM, Jerrod wrote:
On 6/21/2013 12:40 PM, Oren wrote:
"The North Las Vegas City Council voted to move forward with a
controversial plan to help homeowners whose property is worth less
than they owe."

[...]

"Mortgage Resolution Partners wants the city to use eminent domain
laws to buy underwater homes at the current market price which is a
lot less than what homeowners paid for the property. The home would
then be refinanced back to the original owner at a vastly reduced
principal.

The company would help those homeowners refinance their houses and get
a fee for the effort. The city would also benefit by getting money
from fees."

http://northlasvegas.8newsnow.com/news/housing/225222-nlv-votes-move-forward-underwater-home-plan



This smells like a huge scam.

What's the catch?


Original mortgage and homeowner loans would still have to be paid off if
house is sold. That money can not just evaporate. Is a city full of
drunks, hookers and gamblers dumb enough to fall for this?

Not necessarily so. Most eminent domains actions (much like some tax sales)
clear the mortgage claims.

In article , "NotMe"
wrote:

"Frank" wrote in message
...
On 6/21/2013 2:44 PM, Jerrod wrote:
On 6/21/2013 12:40 PM, Oren wrote:
"The North Las Vegas City Council voted to move forward with a
controversial plan to help homeowners whose property is worth less
than they owe."

[...]

"Mortgage Resolution Partners wants the city to use eminent domain
laws to buy underwater homes at the current market price which is a
lot less than what homeowners paid for the property. The home would
then be refinanced back to the original owner at a vastly reduced
principal.

The company would help those homeowners refinance their houses and get
a fee for the effort. The city would also benefit by getting money
from fees."

http://northlasvegas.8newsnow.com/ne...otes-move-forw
ard-underwater-home-plan



This smells like a huge scam.

What's the catch?


Original mortgage and homeowner loans would still have to be paid off if
house is sold. That money can not just evaporate. Is a city full of
drunks, hookers and gamblers dumb enough to fall for this?

Not necessarily so. Most eminent domains actions (much like some tax sales)
clear the mortgage claims.

The big thing is that NLV had better put up a BIG budget for atty fees.
You know darn well that every mortgage holder is going to go to court to
see if it is constitutional. If that is okayed, then they go back to see
if it is legal under NV law. If that cleared every last one of them will
go to court to fight the fairness of the offer.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 17:58:22 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article , "NotMe"
wrote:

"Frank" wrote in message
...
On 6/21/2013 2:44 PM, Jerrod wrote:
On 6/21/2013 12:40 PM, Oren wrote:
"The North Las Vegas City Council voted to move forward with a
controversial plan to help homeowners whose property is worth less
than they owe."

[...]

"Mortgage Resolution Partners wants the city to use eminent domain
laws to buy underwater homes at the current market price which is a
lot less than what homeowners paid for the property. The home would
then be refinanced back to the original owner at a vastly reduced
principal.

The company would help those homeowners refinance their houses and get
a fee for the effort. The city would also benefit by getting money
from fees."

http://northlasvegas.8newsnow.com/ne...otes-move-forw
ard-underwater-home-plan



This smells like a huge scam.

What's the catch?


Original mortgage and homeowner loans would still have to be paid off if
house is sold. That money can not just evaporate. Is a city full of
drunks, hookers and gamblers dumb enough to fall for this?

Not necessarily so. Most eminent domains actions (much like some tax sales)
clear the mortgage claims.

The big thing is that NLV had better put up a BIG budget for atty fees.
You know darn well that every mortgage holder is going to go to court to
see if it is constitutional. If that is okayed, then they go back to see
if it is legal under NV law. If that cleared every last one of them will
go to court to fight the fairness of the offer.

Interesting you mention that. NLV is basically already broke
financially.

"...After five years of declining property taxes, massive layoffs and
questionable spending, leaders of the blue-collar, family-oriented
city outside Las Vegas declared a state of emergency, invoking a
rarely used state law crafted for unforeseen disasters.

No matter that the statute, which allows municipalities to suspend
union contracts and avoid paying scheduled salary increases, doesn't
actually include fiscal emergencies among the list of potential
disasters."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/22/north-las-vegas-state-of-emergency_n_1619344.html

Police and Fire (unions) have fought with them over layoffs and budget
cuts to city services.

Three card monty

Oren,

Mortgage Resolution Partners has been pitching this idea for years.
There's a good chance that it will be challenged with law suits.

Dave M.

We don't have eminent domain in Canada.

Only in the so-called "free" land of the US can you be forced to sell
your property for the benefit of a third party for private use.

"Home Guy" wrote in message ...
We don't have eminent domain in Canada.

Only in the so-called "free" land of the US can you be forced to sell
your property for the benefit of a third party for private use.

You haven't heard of expropriation in Canada, once the expropriation entity
forces you to sell to them, despite the fact that they had to have a
legitimate reason to expropriate the land, they can do what they want with
it once they own it.

Actually, at least in Ontario, you do not own your own land, the crown owns
it, your deed will list you as a tenant. Once you stop paying your property
taxes, your lease is up and the authorities can seize it in the name of the
crown.

"EXT" wrote in message
b.com...
You haven't heard of expropriation in Canada, once the expropriation
entity forces you to sell to them, despite the fact that they had to have
a legitimate reason to expropriate the land, they can do what they want
with it once they own it.

Actually, at least in Ontario, you do not own your own land, the crown
owns it, your deed will list you as a tenant. Once you stop paying your
property taxes, your lease is up and the authorities can seize it in the
name of the crown.

Sounds about like what is going on in the US. While you own the land, if
you do not pay the taxes on it, it is auctioned off to the highest bidder
and the taxes come out of the sale.

WhileI can see taking the land if a road or river is damed up, they should
be forced to pay the highest price that has been payed in the county for an
equal ammount of land. It should not be taken if a factory or store wants
the land.

Getting back to the origional part of the posting, if someone can make a
buck the will scam someone else out of it.

On Friday, June 21, 2013 12:14:25 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 14:44:27 -0400, Jerrod wrote:



On 6/21/2013 12:40 PM, Oren wrote:

"The North Las Vegas City Council voted to move forward with a

controversial plan to help homeowners whose property is worth less

than they owe."



[...]



"Mortgage Resolution Partners wants the city to use eminent domain

laws to buy underwater homes at the current market price which is a

lot less than what homeowners paid for the property. The home would

then be refinanced back to the original owner at a vastly reduced

principal.



The company would help those homeowners refinance their houses and get

a fee for the effort. The city would also benefit by getting money

from fees."



http://northlasvegas.8newsnow.com/news/housing/225222-nlv-votes-move-forward-underwater-home-plan





This smells like a huge scam.



What's the catch?



The people holding the mortgages get screwed. I wonder how many are

Freddy/Fannie insured?

Me thinks they richly deserve it:

http://www.foxbusiness.com/industrie...s_picks =true

EXT wrote:

We don't have eminent domain in Canada.

Only in the so-called "free" land of the US can you be forced to
sell your property for the benefit of a third party for private
use.

You haven't heard of expropriation in Canada, once the expropriation
entity forces you to sell to them, despite the fact that they had
to have a legitimate reason to expropriate the land, they can do
what they want with it once they own it.

Cities and towns have the ability to force you to essentially force you
to sell part of your land if, for example, they need to build a road
through your property or widen an existing road running adjacent to it.
About the only other time that some level of gov't has expropriated
private land is for the construction of airports.

In the US, a city council can declare your house or all the homes on
your street as "economically blighted" and force the properties to be
put up for sale - so that a private entity can build a big-box store or
a parking lot on the site. This has happened many times in several US
states - but that sort of thing has never happened in Canada.

Actually, at least in Ontario, you do not own your own land, the
crown owns it, your deed will list you as a tenant.

Wrong.

Canadians own the surface rights to the land, but they don't
automatically own the sub-surface (mineral or oil) rights. If we are
talking about urban property (ie - typical city house and yard) then
sub-surface rights are a moot point because zoning will prohibit mining
activity.

Rural and cottage owners can (and do) obtain the mineral rights (stake a
claim) on their own land - for a very cheap price (typically less than
$1 per acre) and therefore they effectively have full or complete
property rights.

Once you stop paying your property taxes, your lease is up and
the authorities can seize it in the name of the crown.

Once you stop paying property taxes anywhere in US/Canada, a lien can be
put up against the property. Property is never seized by "the crown" -
if you mean the Canadian federal gov't. And even provincial gov'ts do
not directly apply, administer or collect property taxes - that is the
domain of municipalities (cities, towns, counties, etc).

The fact remains that when it comes to urban property, owners of such
property in Canada are completely immune to the creature known to
americans as "eminent domain".

When it comes to rural property, the only issue is sub-surface rights -
and who has them. Ontario has recently changed the laws in this regard,
more in favor of the property owners.

Note that in the US, if someone wants to run a pipeline or electrical
transmission line through your property - you have little to no ability
to prevent it - probably same as in Canada.

"Home Guy" wrote in message ...
EXT wrote:

We don't have eminent domain in Canada.

Only in the so-called "free" land of the US can you be forced to
sell your property for the benefit of a third party for private
use.

You haven't heard of expropriation in Canada, once the expropriation
entity forces you to sell to them, despite the fact that they had
to have a legitimate reason to expropriate the land, they can do
what they want with it once they own it.

Cities and towns have the ability to force you to essentially force you
to sell part of your land if, for example, they need to build a road
through your property or widen an existing road running adjacent to it.
About the only other time that some level of gov't has expropriated
private land is for the construction of airports.

In the US, a city council can declare your house or all the homes on
your street as "economically blighted" and force the properties to be
put up for sale - so that a private entity can build a big-box store or
a parking lot on the site. This has happened many times in several US
states - but that sort of thing has never happened in Canada.

Actually, at least in Ontario, you do not own your own land, the
crown owns it, your deed will list you as a tenant.

Wrong.

Canadians own the surface rights to the land, but they don't
automatically own the sub-surface (mineral or oil) rights. If we are
talking about urban property (ie - typical city house and yard) then
sub-surface rights are a moot point because zoning will prohibit mining
activity.

Rural and cottage owners can (and do) obtain the mineral rights (stake a
claim) on their own land - for a very cheap price (typically less than
$1 per acre) and therefore they effectively have full or complete
property rights.

Once you stop paying your property taxes, your lease is up and
the authorities can seize it in the name of the crown.

Once you stop paying property taxes anywhere in US/Canada, a lien can be
put up against the property. Property is never seized by "the crown" -
if you mean the Canadian federal gov't. And even provincial gov'ts do
not directly apply, administer or collect property taxes - that is the
domain of municipalities (cities, towns, counties, etc).

The fact remains that when it comes to urban property, owners of such
property in Canada are completely immune to the creature known to
americans as "eminent domain".

When it comes to rural property, the only issue is sub-surface rights -
and who has them. Ontario has recently changed the laws in this regard,
more in favor of the property owners.

Note that in the US, if someone wants to run a pipeline or electrical
transmission line through your property - you have little to no ability
to prevent it - probably same as in Canada.

If you own a ball team (Texas Ranges )and you have the proper political
connections ... like your dad is a former GOP US president you can obtain
property at farm/ranch land prices and turn it into a parking lot with some
obscene fees.

In article ,
"David L. Martel" wrote:

Oren,

Mortgage Resolution Partners has been pitching this idea for years.
There's a good chance that it will be challenged with law suits.

Dave M.

There is pretty much a 100% chance it will be challenged on
constitutional grounds (both US and NV), whether this fits under the ED
statute in NV. From my reading the most interesting will be that they
are trying to condemn the mortgage but not the house itself. Figuring
out which is the price that they need to pay will then be followed by
lawsuits challenging what they want to pay. I would call this the
"Attorney Full Employment Act". Members of the bar will be flocking to
LV like construction workers did between mid-1990s and 2007.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

Kurt,

From my reading the most interesting will be that they
are trying to condemn the mortgage but not the house itself.

I don't follow this. When a house is sold, usually at closing, the
mortgage lender gets paid off. This is not affected by the current market
value of the home. How does paying off the mortgage equal "condemning" it? I
can't grasp where the money is coming from or where it is going.

Dave M.

On Saturday, June 22, 2013 9:00:44 AM UTC-4, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,

"David L. Martel" wrote:



Oren,



Mortgage Resolution Partners has been pitching this idea for years.

There's a good chance that it will be challenged with law suits.



Dave M.



There is pretty much a 100% chance it will be challenged on

constitutional grounds (both US and NV), whether this fits under the ED

statute in NV. From my reading the most interesting will be that they

are trying to condemn the mortgage but not the house itself. Figuring

out which is the price that they need to pay will then be followed by

lawsuits challenging what they want to pay. I would call this the

"Attorney Full Employment Act". Members of the bar will be flocking to

LV like construction workers did between mid-1990s and 2007.

--


I'd go further. There is a pretty much 100% chance that
it will not only be challenged, but found to be totally
unconstitutional. The SC has given states reasonabl lattitude
in cases of eminent domain, but this is so far-out that
it won't even get to the SC.

In article ,
"David L. Martel" wrote:

Kurt,

From my reading the most interesting will be that they
are trying to condemn the mortgage but not the house itself.

I don't follow this. When a house is sold, usually at closing, the
mortgage lender gets paid off. This is not affected by the current market
value of the home. How does paying off the mortgage equal "condemning" it? I
can't grasp where the money is coming from or where it is going.

Dave M.

Condeming is the legal jargon for instituting ED and it has a
different meaning than the others.
They condemn if NLV (or other entity) comes in and takes it by legal
means rather than through a regular buyer-seller deal. They would be
paying off the mortgage at less than what the mortgage is worth
(otherwise why bother?).
You get into all sorts of weird **** because is that a "taking"
under the constitution? (My guess is about 90% chance of yes). If they
are taking the property, what are they taking, the property itself or
the mortgage? If the property does the taking erase the rest of the
mortgage (I took a quick look through findlaw doesn't really find
anything on point). If so, then is that also a taking under the
constititution (the government taking the difference between what they
are paying and what the mortgage is worth)? If you go for the mortgage,
you have the same problems in reverse.
Under the theory put forth, the money comes from NLV but then they
immediately sell the house back to the person at a lower cost and thus a
lower mortgage rate.
Of course, even over and above the legal concerns is the big one
nobody is mentioning. Who in their right mind is going to give someone a
mortgage after having their last one pulled out from under them? In
fact, why would anyone want to write ANY mortgage in NLV knowing that it
is essentially at the whim of the city.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 16:26:40 -0500, "NotMe" wrote:


"Frank" wrote in message
...
On 6/21/2013 2:44 PM, Jerrod wrote:
On 6/21/2013 12:40 PM, Oren wrote:
"The North Las Vegas City Council voted to move forward with a
controversial plan to help homeowners whose property is worth less
than they owe."

[...]

"Mortgage Resolution Partners wants the city to use eminent domain
laws to buy underwater homes at the current market price which is a
lot less than what homeowners paid for the property. The home would
then be refinanced back to the original owner at a vastly reduced
principal.

The company would help those homeowners refinance their houses and get
a fee for the effort. The city would also benefit by getting money
from fees."

http://northlasvegas.8newsnow.com/news/housing/225222-nlv-votes-move-forward-underwater-home-plan



This smells like a huge scam.

What's the catch?


Original mortgage and homeowner loans would still have to be paid off if
house is sold. That money can not just evaporate. Is a city full of
drunks, hookers and gamblers dumb enough to fall for this?

Not necessarily so. Most eminent domains actions (much like some tax sales)
clear the mortgage claims.



Can you point to anything that says eminent domain wipes out prior
liens like a tax sale would?

On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 12:49:06 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:

Can you point to anything that says eminent domain wipes out prior
liens like a tax sale would?

Saw this video just now:

This company is trying this around the country, not just NLV.

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/2499144933001/use-eminent-domain-to-seize-underwater-mortgages/?playlist_id=937116503001

"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 16:26:40 -0500, "NotMe" wrote:


"Frank" wrote in message
...
On 6/21/2013 2:44 PM, Jerrod wrote:
On 6/21/2013 12:40 PM, Oren wrote:
"The North Las Vegas City Council voted to move forward with a
controversial plan to help homeowners whose property is worth less
than they owe."

[...]

"Mortgage Resolution Partners wants the city to use eminent domain
laws to buy underwater homes at the current market price which is a
lot less than what homeowners paid for the property. The home would
then be refinanced back to the original owner at a vastly reduced
principal.

The company would help those homeowners refinance their houses and get
a fee for the effort. The city would also benefit by getting money
from fees."

http://northlasvegas.8newsnow.com/news/housing/225222-nlv-votes-move-forward-underwater-home-plan



This smells like a huge scam.

What's the catch?


Original mortgage and homeowner loans would still have to be paid off if
house is sold. That money can not just evaporate. Is a city full of
drunks, hookers and gamblers dumb enough to fall for this?

Not necessarily so. Most eminent domains actions (much like some tax
sales)
clear the mortgage claims.

Can you point to anything that says eminent domain wipes out prior
liens like a tax sale would?

Over the past 50 years we've purchased a fair number of property at tax
sales in Louisiana Mississippi and Texas for the unpaid taxes. There may
(or may not) depending on the state an option for the registered owner to
buy back the property for the taxes plus interest. None to my memory allows
the loan holder to do that.

Someone mentioned the SC I'm assuming they are referencing the USSC and not
a state SC. In any case if the courts will allow a Ball Club to use eminent
domain process to buy land for a parking lot I don't see an automatic denial
of some government entity buying upside down homes under the same process.

Keep in mind our legal system is about the law not about fairness much less
justice.

In article , "NotMe"
wrote:


Over the past 50 years we've purchased a fair number of property at tax
sales in Louisiana Mississippi and Texas for the unpaid taxes. There may
(or may not) depending on the state an option for the registered owner to
buy back the property for the taxes plus interest. None to my memory allows
the loan holder to do that.


Diiferent set of laws and rules from ED.

Someone mentioned the SC I'm assuming they are referencing the USSC and not
a state SC. In any case if the courts will allow a Ball Club to use eminent
domain process to buy land for a parking lot I don't see an automatic denial
of some government entity buying upside down homes under the same process.
I'm sort of torn. I don't see a likelihood of the SCOTUS saying no on
constitutional grounds to taking the land, especially after re-reading
Kevlo v City of New London. However, are they taking the land or the
mortgage. The latter hasn't been litigated yet. At least in Indiana, the
law says that ED payment is based on the worth of the land, etc., and
that has nothing to do with what is owed.
Under that scenario, they would have to take the mortgage or the
person might be on the hook for the rest.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

It looks like I was just asking the wrong questions. This is a very
good outline of the issues should anyone be actually interested.
http://www.duanemorris.com/articles/...ey_shopctr_sum
mer09.pdf
Basically says that the bank or mortgage holder gets what they can from
the ED settlement and if there is more owed tough toenails (this is
simplified but you get the drift).
However, the litigation is mostly related to the sovereign taking
the land and real property. Most of the discussions in this area are
related to the sovereign taking the mortgage as the property. This would
be another thing altogether.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

On Saturday, June 22, 2013 12:53:16 PM UTC-4, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,

"David L. Martel" wrote:



Kurt,



From my reading the most interesting will be that they

are trying to condemn the mortgage but not the house itself.



I don't follow this. When a house is sold, usually at closing, the

mortgage lender gets paid off. This is not affected by the current market

value of the home. How does paying off the mortgage equal "condemning" it? I

can't grasp where the money is coming from or where it is going.



Dave M.



Condeming is the legal jargon for instituting ED and it has a

different meaning than the others.

They condemn if NLV (or other entity) comes in and takes it by legal

means rather than through a regular buyer-seller deal. They would be

paying off the mortgage at less than what the mortgage is worth

(otherwise why bother?).

You get into all sorts of weird **** because is that a "taking"

under the constitution? (My guess is about 90% chance of yes).

My guess is 100%. The title passes to the govt, how in the world
could it not be taking?



If they

are taking the property, what are they taking, the property itself or

the mortgage?

It's the property. ED applies to taking property. There is no
ED procedure or law for "taking" a mortgage. Why would there be?
ED was enacted into law for the purpose of taking porperty that was
needed for a road, a dam, a govt facility, if necessary.



If the property does the taking erase the rest of the

mortgage (I took a quick look through findlaw doesn't really find

anything on point).

I would think it depends on how the taking occurs. The first
step is the govt tries to buy it through negotiations with the
owner. If they reach a price that is agreeable, then it's works
just like a normal sale. Any lien holders would have to be paid
off. Since these houses are underwater, the only way that would
work would be for the bank to accept a short sale, where they
take less than the full amount owed.

If that process fails to reach agreement, then the govt can
start condemnation proceedings. The end result of that is a
forced sale at a price the govt sets. It can be appealed, taken
to court, etc, but whatever the final price is, that's it. I
would think then the process is like a tax sale in that regard,
ie any liens not satisfied get wiped out. Wiped out that is from
being a lien on the property. The lien holders could still go
after the original property owners for the remaining debt.

On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 08:30:38 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article , "NotMe"
wrote:


Over the past 50 years we've purchased a fair number of property at tax
sales in Louisiana Mississippi and Texas for the unpaid taxes. There may
(or may not) depending on the state an option for the registered owner to
buy back the property for the taxes plus interest. None to my memory allows
the loan holder to do that.


Diiferent set of laws and rules from ED.

Someone mentioned the SC I'm assuming they are referencing the USSC and not
a state SC. In any case if the courts will allow a Ball Club to use eminent
domain process to buy land for a parking lot I don't see an automatic denial
of some government entity buying upside down homes under the same process.
I'm sort of torn. I don't see a likelihood of the SCOTUS saying no on
constitutional grounds to taking the land, especially after re-reading
Kevlo v City of New London. However, are they taking the land or the
mortgage. The latter hasn't been litigated yet. At least in Indiana, the
law says that ED payment is based on the worth of the land, etc., and
that has nothing to do with what is owed.
Under that scenario, they would have to take the mortgage or the
person might be on the hook for the rest.

Yes, I can see them in theory trying ED to get the mortgages at a
discount based on their current value but I don't see them winning in
court if the holders of the Mortgages call BS.