Walking away from your mortgage

[manifold]

Most of it. Where does it say they get to keep the house?

"A growing number of homeowners — particularly those whose properties have plunged in value in recent years — are voluntarily ceasing payments on their mortgages and telling banks, "Force me out if you can,"

Are they living there forever? No. But whatever period of time they are there, they're not paying the mortgage and are still in the house saying 'fuck you' to the bank. Did I misread this?

So they don't get to keep the house.


I still fail to see the problem. If the roles were reversed - a financially ruined corporation occupying a building owned by an individual investor - the individual investor would almost surely have to hire attorneys to force the corporation to vacate.

It's only a problem if taking what doesn't belong to you violates your personal code of ethics.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

"A growing number of homeowners — particularly those whose properties have plunged in value in recent years — are voluntarily ceasing payments on their mortgages and telling banks, "Force me out if you can,"

Are they living there forever? No. But whatever period of time they are there, they're not paying the mortgage and are still in the house saying 'fuck you' to the bank. Did I misread this?

So they don't get to keep the house.


I still fail to see the problem. If the roles were reversed - a financially ruined corporation occupying a building owned by an individual investor - the individual investor would almost surely have to hire attorneys to force the corporation to vacate.

It's only a problem if taking what doesn't belong to you violates your personal code of ethics.

Corporations take what doesn't belong to them all the time. Wendy's shook my Aunt down for a $1.83 the other day. She had change from her gift card (the bigger question I suppose is who the f gave her a gift card to Wendy's), and the contract on the card said they were supposed to pay her the change. But because their "computers" did not like this, the refused to pay her. So she refused to leave the drive through line, and instead of simply paying her the $1.83 that they certainly had and that they themselves admitted to owing her, they called out the local PD at the taxpayers expense. So John Q. taxpayer had to pay the police to come help Wendy's take $1.83 from an old lady.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Most of it. Where does it say they get to keep the house?

"A growing number of homeowners — particularly those whose properties have plunged in value in recent years — are voluntarily ceasing payments on their mortgages and telling banks, "Force me out if you can,"

Are they living there forever? No. But whatever period of time they are there, they're not paying the mortgage and are still in the house saying 'fuck you' to the bank. Did I misread this?

So they don't get to keep the house.


I still fail to see the problem. If the roles were reversed - a financially ruined corporation occupying a building owned by an individual investor - the individual investor would almost surely have to hire attorneys to force the corporation to vacate.

No, they don't get to keep the house. They just live there, payment free, for however long it takes the bank to get around to evicting them. How is this ok?

If it were a car and you defaulted on your payments the repo man would come and take your car away. Are you saying that it's ok to stop payments but still keep the car? This is the same thing. You don't own it, you owe on it . . . it isn't yours and won't be until it's paid off.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

No, they don't get to keep the house. They just live there, payment free, for however long it takes the bank to get around to evicting them. How is this ok?

How is it not?

Are you saying that it's ok to stop payments but still keep the car?

Depends. Does my family go homeless if I return the car? Do I need the car for work or is there another way to get to work?

 

[manifold]

So they don't get to keep the house.


I still fail to see the problem. If the roles were reversed - a financially ruined corporation occupying a building owned by an individual investor - the individual investor would almost surely have to hire attorneys to force the corporation to vacate.

It's only a problem if taking what doesn't belong to you violates your personal code of ethics.

Corporations take what doesn't belong to them all the time. Wendy's shook my Aunt down for a $1.83 the other day. She had change from her gift card (the bigger question I suppose is who the f gave her a gift card to Wendy's), and the contract on the card said they were supposed to pay her the change. But because their "computers" did not like this, the refused to pay her. So she refused to leave the drive through line, and instead of simply paying her the $1.83 that they certainly had and that they themselves admitted to owing her, they called out the local PD at the taxpayers expense.

Like I said, it's only a problem if taking what doesn't belong to you violates your personal code of ethics. I can only speak for myself but I certainly do not model my personal ethical decisions on the behavior of corporations.

 

[Zoom-boing]

So they don't get to keep the house.


I still fail to see the problem. If the roles were reversed - a financially ruined corporation occupying a building owned by an individual investor - the individual investor would almost surely have to hire attorneys to force the corporation to vacate.

It's only a problem if taking what doesn't belong to you violates your personal code of ethics.

Corporations take what doesn't belong to them all the time. Wendy's shook my Aunt down for a $1.83 the other day. She had change from her gift card (the bigger question I suppose is who the f gave her a gift card to Wendy's), and the contract on the card said they were supposed to pay her the change. But because their "computers" did not like this, the refused to pay her. So she refused to leave the drive through line, and instead of simply paying her the $1.83 that they certainly had and that they themselves admitted to owing her, they called out the local PD at the taxpayers expense. So John Q. taxpayer had to pay the police to come help Wendy's take $1.83 from an old lady.

The house belongs to the bank until it's paid off.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

It's only a problem if taking what doesn't belong to you violates your personal code of ethics.

Corporations take what doesn't belong to them all the time. Wendy's shook my Aunt down for a $1.83 the other day. She had change from her gift card (the bigger question I suppose is who the f gave her a gift card to Wendy's), and the contract on the card said they were supposed to pay her the change. But because their "computers" did not like this, the refused to pay her. So she refused to leave the drive through line, and instead of simply paying her the $1.83 that they certainly had and that they themselves admitted to owing her, they called out the local PD at the taxpayers expense. So John Q. taxpayer had to pay the police to come help Wendy's take $1.83 from an old lady.

The house belongs to the bank until it's paid off.

No, that would be a rent-to-own situation. The title is in in the name of the homeowner (hence the term "homeowner"). The bank has an encumberance on the title.

 

[manifold]

But hey, look on the bright side...

The ebb and flow of free-market, economic cyclicality is always a breeding ground for new business opportunities.

index | You Walk Away - Strategic Default Help - Foreclosure Protection - Strategic Default Assistance

 

[Zoom-boing]

Corporations take what doesn't belong to them all the time. Wendy's shook my Aunt down for a $1.83 the other day. She had change from her gift card (the bigger question I suppose is who the f gave her a gift card to Wendy's), and the contract on the card said they were supposed to pay her the change. But because their "computers" did not like this, the refused to pay her. So she refused to leave the drive through line, and instead of simply paying her the $1.83 that they certainly had and that they themselves admitted to owing her, they called out the local PD at the taxpayers expense. So John Q. taxpayer had to pay the police to come help Wendy's take $1.83 from an old lady.

The house belongs to the bank until it's paid off.

No, that would be a rent-to-own situation. The title is in in the name of the homeowner (hence the term "homeowner"). The bank has an encumberance on the title.

While the owner has the title, any encumbrance is usually on record and must be paid for at some point. If you want to walk from the mortgage ok, but living there mortgage free for however long it takes the bank to get you out is wrong.

 

[Nonelitist]

Spidey is indeed one of the most disgusting human beings I have ever run across. There are certain words that describe such a person that I will not use.

 

[Zander]

If you "walk away" there are a number of negatives:

1) The bank can still go after your assets and seize them to satisfy the debt. Some states are non-recourse states (like California) where the bank only has the home as collateral, but most states allow it.

2) Your credit rating is screwed for 10 years minimum. You may not think this is a big deal now, but when you really need credit and cannot get it, it hurts.

3) You will still have to find somewhere else to live -How much are you really saving? A few months of payments? Foreclosures take about 90days - 180 max for most people. By the time the banks forecloses your credit is screwed. Good luck finding a rental.

4) Property taxes - you will still be responsible for them up to the day you are foreclosed on. Tax liens are a bitch. Wage garnishments and asset seizures are common remedies.

5) If you can afford to make the payments, but refuse to solely for financial gain, you are a scumbag. You'll have to live with yourself. If you are a scumbag and act with bad intentions, the universe has a way of paying you back. Often in ways you never imagined.

IMHO, In the long run the best thing to do is continue to pay down your mortgage with the goal of eventually owning the home outright. Real estate prices will slowly recover and at some point your mortgage will be paid off.

Of course, if you really cannot make the payments (lost job, rate reset, etc..) then talk to the bank about a loan modification, a short sale, or lastly foreclosure.

 

[boedicca]

Corporations do not operate with regard to moral standards. They operate only with profit motive. Please explain why their customers should not return that in kind.

So the corporations have lowered the bar and we should all follow suit? Nope. Stop doing business with those companies that treat customers as such, raise the damn bar back up.

That's exactly what these people are doing shit for brains.


BTW - ALL for-profit corporations have profit as their sole motive. Should we stop doing business altogether?

If anyone here has shit for brains, that particular distinction is all yours.

The homeowners are not stopping doing business with the corporations. The business deal has already been negotiated and completed. They are reneging on their legal commitment. If they wish to renegotiate the terms, fine. That's not what they are doing - they are refusing to comply with terms to which they voluntarily agreed.

You can try to spin this into something moral. It's not. It's dishonest.

 

[RDD_1210]

I'm going to have to agree that people who intentionally don't pay their mortgage AND then go and buy luxury items get no sympathy from me. I have no love for the banks but a deal is a deal and the homeowners should honor it if at all possible. If they can afford luxury items, then they can afford to tighten up and either make their mortgage payments or sell the house and move somewhere more affordable.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

The house belongs to the bank until it's paid off.

No, that would be a rent-to-own situation. The title is in in the name of the homeowner (hence the term "homeowner"). The bank has an encumberance on the title.

While the owner has the title, any encumbrance is usually on record and must be paid for at some point. If you want to walk from the mortgage ok, but living there mortgage free for however long it takes the bank to get you out is wrong.

Wrong how?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

So the corporations have lowered the bar and we should all follow suit? Nope. Stop doing business with those companies that treat customers as such, raise the damn bar back up.

That's exactly what these people are doing shit for brains.


BTW - ALL for-profit corporations have profit as their sole motive. Should we stop doing business altogether?

If anyone here has shit for brains, that particular distinction is all yours.

The homeowners are not stopping doing business with the corporations. The business deal has already been negotiated and completed. They are reneging on their legal commitment. If they wish to renegotiate the terms, fine. That's not what they are doing - they are refusing to comply with terms to which they voluntarily agreed.

You can try to spin this into something moral. It's not. It's dishonest.

So then the bank can get them out through legal means and a simple court order. What's the problem?

 

[boedicca]

So then the bank can get them out through legal means and a simple court order. What's the problem?

It's unethical if they have the ability to pay.

I hope they don't have children - what an awful example for them to see their parents engaged in what is essentially fraud.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I'm going to have to agree that people who intentionally don't pay their mortgage AND then go and buy luxury items get no sympathy from me.

What do they need your sympathy for? They have a roof over their head. Maybe they're trying to avoid needing your sympathy.


Banks fuck people all the time and force the people to lawyer up to undo the fucking. It is in no way wrong or immoral to to the same thing to a bank.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

So then the bank can get them out through legal means and a simple court order. What's the problem?

It's unethical if they have the ability to pay.

I hope they don't have children - what an awful example for them to see their parents engaged in what is essentially fraud.

Its not fraud, nor is it "essentially" fraud. Forcing someone to lawyer up to get what is legally theirs is something the corporations do all the time. Its not wrong for people to do it back to corporations. Its just business. Nothing personal.

 

[fyrenza]

blah, blah, blah...

yada, yada, yada...

Location: New Orleans, Louisiana

Oh, SNAP!

Now that I see where you're coming from,

I know where you're coming from, pal.

 

[boedicca]

WhinyManTuba's philosophy of life: Another wrong makes a right.