Walking away from your mortgage

[Avatar4321]

As long as they comply with any orders issued from a judge I fail to see any moral wrongdoing.

Of course you don't, hun.

Can you please explain why it is not fair for people to treat the banks as they have treated people? Why this double standard?

And what evidence do you have that the banks have treated any of these people the same way?

Since when does the guy down the street being dishonest justify your own? Does the fact that the guy down the street killing someone justify you doing so as well? Why or why not?

 

[Avatar4321]

Not you or a a single one of you would move out the day that you defaulted on a mortgage - and any of you that claim you would are lying.

First, simply because you are dishonest, doesn't mean everyone else is.

Second, most of us have the foresight and common sense not to enter into contracts we can't fulfilly and have the honesty to actually fulfill them to the best of our ability even if sometimes we have to sacrifice.

Third, honesty and ones good name is a heck of alot better than breaking ones word.

 

[Avatar4321]

Thanks for confirming your double standard.

I should be worried about how to morally treat the bank - whereas the bank is allowed to treat me any way it finds profitable.

**** that. Guess what? If I'm ever not able to pay a house note - I'M NOT MOVING MY FAMILY TO A HOMELESS SHELTER just to make same bank exec's day easier. You got a problem with it you can come throw me out yourself.

Well if you were wise enough to take a loan only for the amount you can afford, and the honesty to pay back your obligations, you wouldn't have to ever make the decision on wheather to go to a homeless shelter.

Of course, if you want to teach your children to be honest people and take responsibility for their own actions, like a parent is supposed to, you might be doing quite alot of different things.

 

[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?

They borrowed money and made a commitment to pay it back. They are refusing to even make an effort to do so. That is dishonest.

Dishonesty involves knowingly telling an untruth or obscuring relevant truth.

 

[Avatar4321]

Dishonesty involves knowingly telling an untruth or obscuring relevant truth.

No, it involves much more than that. It involves doing what you say you are going to do.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Dishonesty involves knowingly telling an untruth or obscuring relevant truth.

No, it involves much more than that. It involves doing what you say you are going to do.

In that case I don't think its fair to hold the banks customers to higher standards than the bank itself. By your definition of honesty, banks are generally severely lacking in that quality and certainly don't mind using dishonesty to make a buck or gain advantage. I fail to see what's wrong with the customer returning the favor.

Can you explain why you hold individuals to a different standard than corporations?

 

[Harry Dresden]

Really? I've had this happen to me a few times. Things mailed - one bill I mailed at the post office - failing to turn up to the company or person. My dad just sent my brother something recently and my brother never got it. I mailed the check, the recipient never received it, I have no idea where it is. Last I saw it, it was in the mailbox. The other mail sent that day along with the check was received by the recipients so . . . where's the check I mailed?

im sorry Zoom.....i thought they were my X-Mas gratuity....

 

[Rocky Top Lady]

Hey guys - quick question.


Let's say I have 85% equity on my home. I've fell on hard times, can no longer pay the payments, and default.

I decide to to whats "right" (lol) and move out the day I default.

The bank then takes the home and sells it.

Do you think they are going to refund to me my 85% equity minus their honest and legally entitled to expenses without a fight?


Answer:

NO

ST, I have very initmate knowledge of the banking/mortgage industry. It has been my career for the better part of 20 years.

<dodges eggs>

The sad fact is that there are but a few people left who have 85% equity in their homes. Home equity used to be a precious part of the American Dream, but unfortunately it's a fading part of history.

During the "glory daze" thousands of people refinanced their homes to consolidate debt at very high LTV, eating up their equity. Heck, back in the late 90's early 2000, we even had lenders who would lend up to 125% of the value of the home!! Can you imagine having that loan in today's market? Luckily those lenders weren't able to sell that product and that didn't catch on and was gone pretty quickly.

It's doubtful that the folks in the linked article have anywhere close to 85% equity, if any at all. But in the real world, if you were lucky enough to have that kind of sweet equity in your house, and you walked away (ie: 100k home you would in essence have $85k in cash in your hand) that's your bad. The bank wouldn't owe you anything at all and surely we can all understand that.

Another downside to everyone defaulting on their mortgage is that the housing market suffers with every foreclosure. When your neighbors start walking away from their mortgages it affects the value of every house in the neighborhood. Every house that sits on the market for longer than 30 or so days drags down the value of the houses around it and adversely effects the value of the homes in the neighborhood.

This campaign (the one in the linked article, which states that just because the owner is upside down in their property they are going to stop paying the mortgage and start buying toys for themselves, banks be damned!) is a very bad idea for anyone who is truly interested in our economic recovery. Ethics and morals aside, it's simply not good for the housing market.

Here's the simple truth. Your mortgage lender does not want your house. If you have a legitimate problem paying your mortgage payment, CONTACT YOUR LENDER EARLY. Do everything you can to avoid defaulting on the mortgage in the first place. No lender in their right mind will choose foreclosure over cooperation if the borrower is truly interested in paying the loan back. There are simply too many houses on the market right now for that to make sense to the investors. Foreclosure is expensive and time consuming and almost always comes at a loss to the lender. It's not in the lenders best interest right now to refuse a customer who wants to keep their home.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

It's doubtful that the folks in the linked article have anywhere close to 85% equity, if any at all. But in the real world, if you were lucky enough to have that kind of sweet equity in your house, and you walked away (ie: 100k home you would in essence have $85k in cash in your hand) that's your bad. The bank wouldn't owe you anything at all and surely we can all understand that.

Wow, what a perfect banker attitude! "My money is mine, and so is yours!"

Sorry bub but a mortgage isn't a rent to own contract. If there's money left over after the bank and everyone gets paid, its owed to the borrower.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Slow down for a moment. We bought a house and the bank stupidly sent us a document that allowed us to avoid the remaining $12,000 owed on our old house. No kidding. The administrative assistant to the VP blew the paperwork drill is what happened.

So I called the VP and told him "what will you give me" for tearing up the document. He told me "nothing", that "mistakes happen." What? I told him if the tables were reversed he would be holding our feet to the fire. He refused to admit he was wrong.

Called the lawyer and executive VP for the bank (same person), arranged a meeting to which the big Veep forced the little Veep to come and apologize and give us what we wanted. Good for the big Veep, piss on the little Veep.

Yeah, banks are not noted for honesty or compassion.

So, I say, let the defaulters stay if the banks don't want to rewrite the contracts. Screw them.

 

[Rocky Top Lady]

Wow, what a perfect banker attitude! "My money is mine, and so is yours!"
Sorry bub but a mortgage isn't a rent to own contract. If there's money left over after the bank and everyone gets paid, its owed to the borrower.

This is what you understood my post to say?? I see.

"bub"?

Anyway.....you are spot on that a mortgage is not a lease to purchase. However, I'm all in that neither contract will have a "refund upon default clause".

 

[Avatar4321]

Dishonesty involves knowingly telling an untruth or obscuring relevant truth.

No, it involves much more than that. It involves doing what you say you are going to do.

In that case I don't think its fair to hold the banks customers to higher standards than the bank itself. By your definition of honesty, banks are generally severely lacking in that quality and certainly don't mind using dishonesty to make a buck or gain advantage. I fail to see what's wrong with the customer returning the favor.

Can you explain why you hold individuals to a different standard than corporations?

You haven't provided any evidence of these banks being dishonest.

I hold everyone to the same standard. I just find it absolutely disgusting when someone tries to excuse their bad behavior because others engage in it as well and then b**** and moan when someone is dishonest with them.

Why the heck should a corporation be honest with you if you are going to hold yourself to a different standard? Stop expecting others to be the change we need in the world and start holding yourself up to higher standards.

 

[Nik]

No, it involves much more than that. It involves doing what you say you are going to do.

In that case I don't think its fair to hold the banks customers to higher standards than the bank itself. By your definition of honesty, banks are generally severely lacking in that quality and certainly don't mind using dishonesty to make a buck or gain advantage. I fail to see what's wrong with the customer returning the favor.

Can you explain why you hold individuals to a different standard than corporations?

You haven't provided any evidence of these banks being dishonest.

I hold everyone to the same standard. I just find it absolutely disgusting when someone tries to excuse their bad behavior because others engage in it as well and then b**** and moan when someone is dishonest with them.

Why the heck should a corporation be honest with you if you are going to hold yourself to a different standard? Stop expecting others to be the change we need in the world and start holding yourself up to higher standards.

Corporations will never be honest to you because they have no special duty to you. They do, however, have a legally enforced duty to their shareholders.

Now, can corporations be given an incentive to act honestly? Yes. But if you think that being honest and hoping the corporation is honest in return is an actual possibility you are being hopelessly naive.

This is what happens when capitalism gets too big. This is what happens when corporations get too much power. I have no compunction at all about screwing over a corporation that would not hesitate in a second to screw me over if it benefited themselves. This is capitalism, after all. If you don't like something, legally mandate against it. If its not illegal, well its going to happen in a society such as ours.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

My #1 obligation will always be to my family.

Food shelter and clothing...like I said...learn to deal with banks, be a responsible citizen and pay your bills....it would set a good example for your offspring...you know...being a father and a good husband instead of an irresponsible buffoon who flouts the law and sets a piss poor example of what a man is and should be to his family.

I deal with credit unions and I do pay my bills, but thanks for checking in on me daddy.

No problem...after all...someone has to coddle you from cradle to grave...it's common knowledge dipshits such as yourself can't function without government help.

 

[Avatar4321]

S.T.

I've been thinking and I have been rather harsh to you today. I've written out of anger and that's not the type of person I want to be. I apologize for my rude and uncivil behavior. Honesty is something I've been passionate and I clearly haven't had my passions under control today. I hope we can continue having discussions about this and many other things without my passions and behavior getting in the way.

 

[Old Rocks]

Thanx for the link! I posted a comment to the article.

We've truly moved into an age of complete lawlessness, but considering the leader we have, I don't suppose that should come as any surprise.

What a mess.

Bush ain't President anymore.

 

[nraforlife]

Slow down for a moment. We bought a house and the bank stupidly sent us a document that allowed us to avoid the remaining $12,000 owed on our old house. No kidding. The administrative assistant to the VP blew the paperwork drill is what happened.

So I called the VP and told him "what will you give me" for tearing up the document. He told me "nothing", that "mistakes happen." What? I told him if the tables were reversed he would be holding our feet to the fire. He refused to admit he was wrong.

Called the lawyer and executive VP for the bank (same person), arranged a meeting to which the big Veep forced the little Veep to come and apologize and give us what we wanted. Good for the big Veep, piss on the little Veep.

Yeah, banks are not noted for honesty or compassion.

So, I say, let the defaulters stay if the banks don't want to rewrite the contracts. Screw them.

Got to agree here. Corporate America has pillaged the Real America for generations. Returning the favour has become a virtual necessity for survival.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Wow, what a perfect banker attitude! "My money is mine, and so is yours!"
Sorry bub but a mortgage isn't a rent to own contract. If there's money left over after the bank and everyone gets paid, its owed to the borrower.

This is what you understood my post to say?? I see.

"bub"?

Anyway.....you are spot on that a mortgage is not a lease to purchase. However, I'm all in that neither contract will have a "refund upon default clause".

It doesn't matter. "Equity" means ownership. When the bank forecloses on your home, if after the auction and the banks expenses (taxes, attorneys, etc), they paid more than your equity is worth - you owe them money. If after the auction and the banks expenses, there is money left over - they owe you money. Otherwise "equity" wouldn't actually mean anything until you had 100%

It's doubtful that the folks in the linked article have anywhere close to 85% equity, if any at all. But in the real world, if you were lucky enough to have that kind of sweet equity in your house, and you walked away (ie: 100k home you would in essence have $85k in cash in your hand) that's your bad. The bank wouldn't owe you anything at all and surely we can all understand that.

Your statement here is proof that the prevailing attitude of a bank is "my money is my money, and so is yours" You actually think that if a bank owns any percentage of a property, anything between just above 0% and 100% - that its right and proper they should have the right to 100% of the proceeds from a foreclosure. Why? Its no wonder that people with high enough equity to be owed money after foreclosure have to jump through hoops to get paid - bankers like you think that money belongs to you for some reason!

 

[SpidermanTuba]

You haven't provided any evidence of these banks being dishonest.

Have you been following the news for the past couple years?

 

[Avatar4321]

You haven't provided any evidence of these banks being dishonest.

Have you been following the news for the past couple years?

Yes. I wasn't aware that some banks having a financial problem due to dishonest practices means that all banks are lying to everyone. That doesn't seem logical.

What evidence is there that any of these banks lied to these people?