Walking away from your mortgage

[SpidermanTuba]

So . . . that makes it right?

There is no right and wrong when dealing with mega-corporations. Get as much as you can out of them. They'll be doing the same to you, trust me.

Speaks volumes about you.

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.

 

[rightwinger]

This is so ridiculous. Does anyone even have the desire to be honest nowadays? And we wonder why corruption is rampant.

I fail to see the dishonesty. Are they attempting to conceal the fact they do not intend to pay on the note? Isn't telling the bank you're not going to pay actually called "honesty" ?


What should these people do? Go back in time and sign a different note? Load up the kids into the minivan and sell it on the way to the homeless shelter? Sorry but if I've got a family in this situation I'm not going to give a shit about a bank - they don't give a shit about me, so why not return the favor?

The banks are their own worst enemies in some of these cases. Both the banks and the homeowner made bad investments. However, the banks are typically unwilling to renegotiate the terms of the loan. If the homeowner could say, "look, I owe $300,000 on a house worth $250,000.....lets tear up the note, renegotiate the length and both accept some of the loss......otherwise, I will walk away"

 

[SpidermanTuba]

This is so ridiculous. Does anyone even have the desire to be honest nowadays? And we wonder why corruption is rampant.

I fail to see the dishonesty. Are they attempting to conceal the fact they do not intend to pay on the note? Isn't telling the bank you're not going to pay actually called "honesty" ?


What should these people do? Go back in time and sign a different note? Load up the kids into the minivan and sell it on the way to the homeless shelter? Sorry but if I've got a family in this situation I'm not going to give a shit about a bank - they don't give a shit about me, so why not return the favor?

The banks are their own worst enemies in some of these cases. Both the banks and the homeowner made bad investments. However, the banks are typically unwilling to renegotiate the terms of the loan. If the homeowner could say, "look, I owe $300,000 on a house worth $250,000.....lets tear up the note, renegotiate the length and both accept some of the loss......otherwise, I will walk away"

Oh, but that wold be "immoral" Says so right in the Bible "Individuals may not use hardball tactics when negotiating with corporations, only the reverse is allowed"

 

[Zoom-boing]

There is no right and wrong when dealing with mega-corporations. Get as much as you can out of them. They'll be doing the same to you, trust me.

Speaks volumes about you.

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 and raise the damn bar back up.

 

[Zoom-boing]

This is so ridiculous. Does anyone even have the desire to be honest nowadays? And we wonder why corruption is rampant.

I fail to see the dishonesty. Are they attempting to conceal the fact they do not intend to pay on the note? Isn't telling the bank you're not going to pay actually called "honesty" ?


What should these people do? Go back in time and sign a different note? Load up the kids into the minivan and sell it on the way to the homeless shelter? Sorry but if I've got a family in this situation I'm not going to give a shit about a bank - they don't give a shit about me, so why not return the favor?

The banks are their own worst enemies in some of these cases. Both the banks and the homeowner made bad investments. However, the banks are typically unwilling to renegotiate the terms of the loan. If the homeowner could say, "look, I owe $300,000 on a house worth $250,000.....lets tear up the note, renegotiate the length and both accept some of the loss......otherwise, I will walk away"

Trying to negotiate new terms is fine. Saying 'I'm not going to pay but I'm not getting out either'? Just flat out wrong. From the article:

"You can't walk away forever: Underwater homeowners may think it's a good idea to "milk the system" now, says Brad Tuttle in Time. But there are consequences to "squatting and lawyering up until somebody forces them out." Their credit score will become toxic, and lenders may come after them for full payment "years after the fact." And why not? Nobody forced them to take out an unaffordable loan."

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Speaks volumes about you.

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?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Trying to negotiate new terms is fine. Saying 'I'm not going to pay but I'm not getting out either'? Just flat out wrong. [./quote]

Wrong how?

 

[Zoom-boing]

Trying to negotiate new terms is fine. Saying 'I'm not going to pay but I'm not getting out either'? Just flat out wrong.

Wrong how?

You owe xxx on your mortgage, you can no longer afford to pay the xxx on your mortgage, but you should be allowed to keep your house anyway . . . and buy some luxuries to boot (according to the article)? How's that right?

 

[strollingbones]

People feel screwed by the banks, as they should, because many of them were.

I know in my state, I dunno how it is elsewhere, but the bank can sell a house without any inspections or repairs being done, etc. However, you need to have your house up to a certain code before doing so.

any one purchasing a home without a prior home inspection by a professional inspector is a fool...he is the only person working for you unless you have a buyer agent which most people dont.

isnt it odd that finance is not taught in high school...not one basic course in finance that demonstrates simple interest....a lot of people refi'ed their homes to buy cars etc....you cannot load your home with personal debt...a few years down the road that car etc is depricated while the loan is going up..

 

[Zoom-boing]

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?

You don't have to be insulting, so knock it off.

Stop doing business with them but if you owe them money because you signed a contract then you still owe them money. You don't get to stop payments AND remain in the house, living there mortgage free.

 

[manifold]

I see no ethical problem with walking away and giving the house to the bank. The property is the collateral backing the loan and it is the contractual right of the borrower to surrender the property in lieu of fulfilling the loan obligations. This is the risk the bank assumes when they underwrite the loan. But staying in the house and telling the banks to boot you when they can legally get around to it seems a bit scummy to me.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

You owe xxx on your mortgage, you can no longer afford to pay the xxx on your mortgage, but you should be allowed to keep your house anyway . . .

LOL! What makes you think the banks are going to just let them keep the house?

 

[Zoom-boing]

You owe xxx on your mortgage, you can no longer afford to pay the xxx on your mortgage, but you should be allowed to keep your house anyway . . .

LOL! What makes you think the banks are going to just let them keep the house?

Did you read the article?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

You owe xxx on your mortgage, you can no longer afford to pay the xxx on your mortgage, but you should be allowed to keep your house anyway . . .

LOL! What makes you think the banks are going to just let them keep the house?

Did you read the article?

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

 

[manifold]

LOL! What makes you think the banks are going to just let them keep the house?

Did you read the article?

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

They don't get to keep it. They get to stay in it until the bank legally evicts them, which can take months if not years.

 

[Yukon.]

Bush Junior created the sub-prime mess.

 

[Zoom-boing]

LOL! What makes you think the banks are going to just let them keep the house?

Did you read the article?

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 '**** you' to the bank. Did I misread this?

 

[Zoom-boing]

Did you read the article?

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

They don't get to keep it. They get to stay in it until the bank legally evicts them, which can take months if not years.

Exactly. And they're living there not paying what they owe, correct?

 

[manifold]

Did you read the article?

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 '**** you' to the bank. Did I misread this?

No, you read it right.

They're not paying the mortgage, not paying any rent and most likely not paying the property taxes either. And the banks are so backed up that many will get away with it for several months.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Did you read the article?

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 '**** 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.