Comedian Chris Tucker Facing Foreclosure on Florida Manse

The reason why banks wont go after the 1.6 amount is because it does not make sense to them when they want to rape all homeowners and make money at all costs.

I agree with you. My house is now worth $165,00 but was worth $235,00 when I bought it. Where is the bank?????? They foreclosed and are selling it for even less -- how's that serving their shareholders? Why didn't they just respond to requests to modify? They ignored all calls and correspondence and just chose to foreclose -- yet now they want $5.00 for debit card use. It's almost surreal.

I cannot believe some of these comments saying they the bank should eat the lose we bailed them out. Sorry if is his responsiblity. If you people do not know we are the bank the goverment that will have to eat that money no if the man was poor and had not assets I would feel for him but In this case I think he is trying to get out of the paying the money. A house is like any investment you buy it and hope it goes up but when it goes down you eat it. It is the goverments fault that open up the morgages to any one and said that they will back it up and its the greedy bankers that said hey joe you need a 500,000 dollar house and only make 40 grand a year no problem. So the goverment shoud go after chris I do not feel like paying him 3 million dollars

...Why should the bank only go after what the house is now worth? The lender did not cause the value of Mr. Rocks house to drop! They loaned him the money...in good faith. You borrow it...you pay it back. You cannot pay back, and you lose the asset and are responsible to make up the difference. Mr. Rock also has several options. It appears he can simply let the bank repo the house and walk away. (albeit with a tarnished credit rating) He will still be sued civilly for the difference in the selling price and the amount owed.

Now explain to me once again, why I should feel sorry for Mr. Rock? He make a stupid investment decision. Ever heard of the late Issac Hayes? M.C. Hammer ring a bell? You cannot buy wisdom.

Excuse me, the bank loaned him over 4 million to purchase the property & therefgore paid out that huge sum to the property seller - therefore, the $$$$$$$ is GONE. The bank should not be held liable for someone who spent way beyond their ability to pay for that loan! If he's such a successful entertainer then he should have paid cash for it!

you are an idiot, you owe, you pay, you buy a new car for 30,000 and drive it off the lot and it is then worth only 20,000. Should you only owe 20,000. you people think you are entitled to everything. pay up or leave.

If you lent someone 6 million dollars to buy something would you not expect them to pay you back? I suspect you would. Why then should the bank not expect the same?

Yes Sir, I am sure the bank has given more in bonuses from our taxes we used to bail them out with. I am not felling anything for the bank and I will tell them the same thing they tell us " it's tough times right now". HA HA HA

Ah, to live in that world you dream of, right? Doesn't work that way, never has, never will.

what a shame. The banks are the ones that are governing united states. I cannot remember if it was Benjamin Franklin who said that "The Banks would be the doown fold of United States; "he was so right" "God Bless America" more than ever.

I think you need to take a class about mortgages, banks, money!
You have a good idea, Witchypoo, BUT, that's not how it works, AND I'll bet it never will!

I'm guessing though the house is NOW only worth 1.6mm, the bank actually loaned him 4.4mm to buy it whenever that was. So he actually owes the 4.4mm. That the house is now only worth 1.6mm is his bad luck.

If the house is/was collateral for the loan, he's best off just letting them take it. As many people have done.

The banks have paid off their TARP loans in full with 5% interest (the government and taxpayers actually made a profit on the loans to the banks). So if the banks paid off their loans, why shouldn't the homeowners pay off their loans?

What if you own a car dealership. You sell a car for $35.000. The car is driven off the lot and the value instantly goes down $5,000. Would you expect the buyer to pay you $30,000 for your $35,000 car? It's called a contract...you pay the agreeded price when you sign the contract.

he's responsable because the bank paid the 6 million to the seller.....he borrowed it......pay it back.....

Are you dumb or just on something? When he bought the house it was worth 4 million not 1.5 million. The value of the house went DOWN. If he bought the house for 1.5 million and the value went up to 4 million would you require him to sell the 4 million dollar house for only 1.5 million? You need to go back to school and soon.

Bernie,
You are correct it is business. And bad business if banks do not pursue their contractual right to go after the collateral that is well within their right to do so. And if Tucker or any other homeowner chooses that it doesnt make sense to honor their obligations then they deserve to lose their property. Now if they cannot AFFORD to pay the mortgage then that is another case.. somehow I think someone who drives a ferrari and gets upwards of $5 million a film is not in this category.
If he chooses to jeopardize/tank his credit because of a poor business decision (he obviously doesnt live in the home and took it as an investment) then he deserves to be foreclosed on. Another example of "house"owners.. not HOME owners who bought a second residential property at the height of a bull market and now are tossing their hands up saying "woe me". Sorry no sympathy here.. I have one mortgage and one home and I pay my bills on time.. I have to. I not only consider it a contractual obligation but a moral one. Plus I care about my credit history. Its not worth tanking my credit for 10 years.

Mr. Tucker paid $6M for a house that was probably worth $6M
at the time he bought it! No one had a crystal ball to predict
that the housing market was going to implode!