For the life of me I just don’t understand why a bank would rather have a property sit vacant than rent it out to a willing and able tenant.
Take a break and watch this AlJazeera interview with the Dabner family. It’s only 2:42.
What really bothers me about the Dabner’s situation is that they actually paid their rent. They were forced out of their home due to no fault of their own.
Their landlord quit paying the mortgage but continued collecting the rent month after month. When the home was finally foreclosed on the Dabner famiy was given 3 days to vacat the property.
Granted, I don’t know the Dabner family personally but if the interview is correct they could afford to pay their rent. If that is indeed the case why wouldn’t the bank just rent the property directly to the Dabener’s?
Even if the Dabner’s rent payments were only 3/4 of the monthly mortgage payment would that be better for the bank than having the property sit vacant?