Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

So splain to me how one Walks away from a mortgage?


rocknrobn26
 Share

Recommended Posts

But seriously...these people aren't poor. They speculated on a second house (second one in 20 years) so how about maybe borrowing against their first house to satisfy the difference. Wait, lemme guess, they have no equity in their first house either. :bangshead:

 

Maybe sell their SUV. Ooops, upside-down there. Maybe a kidney? Nope, that went in the '98 recession.

 

:poorpeoplesuckthen:

 

I think you misunderstood RnR post. They borrowed on their 1st house to fix up the 2nd to sell.....they had to sell the 2nd at a loss and now cannot afford the 1st. Now they are walking away from their primary house to live with their kids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 94
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

you know what...this is about the most ignorant post I have read from you Tim. C'mon...where is the outright theft by the bank giving loans they shouldn't have. Where is the outrage of the practice banks use with appraisers to over appraise a house so they get their PMI? Where is the outrage and where is you call for their responsibility? It took two parties to create a mortgage....so the banks are equally as culpable in most of these scenarios.

 

I'll agree that the banks are also responsible, but at the end of the day...they own your mortgage, not you. They will own your house if you don't make the payments. You are risking being homeless and having zero credit if you can't afford it. I think that makes you ultimately more responsible for handling your finances properly. I'm aware of crooked appraisers and such. Everyone knew it was going on. The banks knew they would have no penalty for it because, in the bizarro world of business today, you can't steal $500,000, but you CAN steal $5 billion and get away with it with barely a slap on the wrist.

 

When I built my first house back in 1994, my mortgage company wouldn't let me borrow but X amount. When I built the house in 2006, the mortgage guy said pretty much anything you want. It was ridiculous (I've made several posts here about that) and it was basically up to me to limit myself. Now, if you have no self-control and gamble and lose it all, I'm not blaming the casino.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you misunderstood RnR post. They borrowed on their 1st house to fix up the 2nd to sell.....they had to sell the 2nd at a loss and now cannot afford the 1st. Now they are walking away from their primary house to live with their kids.

 

I see that. Yep, he's screwed. This kind of stuff puts me on tilt so bad. The point remains the same. You just can't make decisions that crush you. If you gamble, some will lose. Nobody held a gun to his head when he signed the closing papers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I built my first house back in 1994, my mortgage company wouldn't let me borrow but X amount. When I built the house in 2006, the mortgage guy said pretty much anything you want. It was ridiculous (I've made several posts here about that) and it was basically up to me to limit myself. Now, if you have no self-control and gamble and lose it all, I'm not blaming the casino.

Good info here. That said, the questions that should always be asked are "how much a month will I have to pay?" and "does the payment change at any point in the life of the mortgage?". It's amazing how many people couldn't ask these two simple questions or ignored the answers.

 

Mortgages are just another bill, no different to all the rest, so a call needs to be made on affordability. That call has migrated from the mortgage company to the mortgagee.

Edited by Ursa Majoris
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll agree that the banks are also responsible, but at the end of the day...they own your mortgage, not you. They will own your house if you don't make the payments. You are risking being homeless and having zero credit if you can't afford it. I think that makes you ultimately more responsible for handling your finances properly.You will get no argument here.....then I think I may have misunderstood your other post! yes, you are more responsible for your finances than a third party bank...fo sure! I'm aware of crooked appraisers and such. Everyone knew it was going on. The banks knew they would have no penalty for it because, in the bizarro world of business today, you can't steal $500,000, but you CAN steal $5 billion and get away with it with barely a slap on the wrist.Not to mention the banks did this because when you pay PMI, that mortgage is now insured...and the pressure then to sell the house for gobbs of money is reduced....I am sure someone more educated on PMI can give us the skinny.

 

When I built my first house back in 1994, my mortgage company wouldn't let me borrow but X amount. When I built the house in 2006, the mortgage guy said pretty much anything you want. It was ridiculous (I've made several posts here about that) and it was basically up to me to limit myself.However, this attitude is what is having banks receive what should be payments but instead are keys. As you acknowledged...it certainly cuts both way...I have no sympathy for banks....that said...you are correct for stating you are ultimately more responsible for your own finances than some bank. Now, if you have no self-control and gamble and lose it all, I'm not blaming the casino.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see that. Yep, he's screwed. This kind of stuff puts me on tilt so bad. The point remains the same. You just can't make decisions that crush you. If you gamble, some will lose. Nobody held a gun to his head when he signed the closing papers.

 

In this particular scenario, it is the borrowers fault more than the bank. But, a friend whom I play golf with owns a bank and doesn't even run credit checks on his borrowers. he sits with them...sizes them up. Looks at their last years worth of pay and then looks at the house PERSONALLY....his standard for lending. If you don't want to own the house, don't lend the money. If banks would do this...I think there would be less problems...and much lower housing prices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the questions that should always be asked are "how much a month will I have to pay?"

 

I hate that question....because people will take that question and apply it to most big purchases.....I always ask, how much is this going to cost me...look at the end cost. If that seems reasonable...then go to the monthly reality. Most people don't understand that financing a house costs them three times what the house is worth....but I see your point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate that question....because people will take that question and apply it to most big purchases.....I always ask, how much is this going to cost me...look at the end cost. If that seems reasonable...then go to the monthly reality. Most people don't understand that financing a house costs them three times what the house is worth....but I see your point.

I was trying to keep it simple because it isn't the total you pay out that gets you, it's your inability to make the payments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do feel bad for the guy losing his house for a 2nd lien. This is reason number one why you never ever ever put your house at risk with an equity line or use it as collateral for something else without having an escape plan or some way to not lose your house for something completely unrelated to your house. It was a dangerous game he played. It'll take a long while to dig out of that 480 FICO score he'll get in, and you'd think he would've learned his lesson the first time around. If he were my friend, I'd enroll him in the Dave Ramsey plan where you don't borrow money for anything. Really.

 

Borrowing can be a fine tool if you know what you're doing, but this guy has blown it big time...twice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A friend of my mother-in-law, who works at a major bank in CT, told her that they were under pressure from lawmakers to carry a higher percentage of high-risk mortgages (so that more people would have access to the American Dream, etc.). I have no idea if this is true or not, and it's certainly doesn't excuse their predatory tactics. But it would (partially) explain why the government is moving swiftly to rescue them from bankruptcy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hugh hugh problem in Arizona - peeps are leaving houses and bailing on mortgages, BUT not before stripping of the copper piping and other valuable parts of the house like a bunch of wilding thieves.

 

I heard that some real estate agents were offering cash money if the defaulter left without effing up the property - real nice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hugh hugh problem in Arizona - peeps are leaving houses and bailing on mortgages, BUT not before stripping of the copper piping and other valuable parts of the house like a bunch of wilding thieves.

 

I heard that some real estate agents were offering cash money if the defaulter left without effing up the property - real nice

 

 

friend from the detroit area says they are having foreclosure parties there. the night before they leave, they have a party and basically destroy the house. because it was the banks fault they bought something they couldnt afford.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A friend of my mother-in-law, who works at a major bank in CT, told her that they were under pressure from lawmakers to carry a higher percentage of high-risk mortgages (so that more people would have access to the American Dream, etc.). I have no idea if this is true or not, and it's certainly doesn't excuse their predatory tactics. But it would (partially) explain why the government is moving swiftly to rescue them from bankruptcy.

 

I think there is something to this Bill. I am not an expert, but the equal lending laws...or making banks accessible rules have something to do with this!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

friend from the detroit area says they are having foreclosure parties there. the night before they leave, they have a party and basically destroy the house. because it was the banks fault they bought something they couldnt afford.......

 

They were at least a 50% partner in the transaction that probably shouldn't have happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is becoming very common, unfortunately. Right now, a bank in Northwest Arkansas has about 100 properties on a website for online bidding before a live auction where they are going to sell all of them. Almost all are from people just handing over the keys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A friend of my mother-in-law, who works at a major bank in CT, told her that they were under pressure from lawmakers to carry a higher percentage of high-risk mortgages (so that more people would have access to the American Dream, etc.). I have no idea if this is true or not, and it's certainly doesn't excuse their predatory tactics. But it would (partially) explain why the government is moving swiftly to rescue them from bankruptcy.

 

 

I think there is something to this Bill. I am not an expert, but the equal lending laws...or making banks accessible rules have something to do with this!

I've heard this about the credit union that I bank with. Basically, there was an accusation of discrimination based solely on the fact that the foreclosure rate was below the magic number that they look for. :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've heard this about the credit union that I bank with. Basically, there was an accusation of discrimination based solely on the fact that the foreclosure rate was below the magic number that they look for. :wacko:

 

OK, so what I've heard isn't completely out of left field.

 

Not to discount the routine lack of ethics in the corporate world, but it's somewhat surprising that so many banks are in trouble for throwing money at people who can't repay. I have a difficult time believing that all of these lenders chose to finance so many high-risk people completely on their own. Even if they were 100% certain that the government would bail them out in a worst-case scenario, going bankrupt, having their stock tank, having to lay off employees, and essentially ruining their reputation and their ability to do business in the future sounds is a hell of a price to pay. I would think that most lenders would have behaved a little more conservatively and that the "mortgage crisis" would be limited to a much smaller number of institutions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A friend of my mother-in-law, who works at a major bank in CT, told her that they were under pressure from lawmakers to carry a higher percentage of high-risk mortgages (so that more people would have access to the American Dream, etc.). I have no idea if this is true or not, and it's certainly doesn't excuse their predatory tactics. But it would (partially) explain why the government is moving swiftly to rescue them from bankruptcy.

 

What law did they make to put this pressure on?

 

Or did a congressman call every bank to put the screws to them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information