Posted on 01/12/2015 8:45:57 AM PST by SeekAndFind
No no no....it is not a clause all agreed to. It is the contract in DEFAULT by one party. Your sister failed to meet the terms of the contract so the Bank is able to take back the property. That is not just semantics. Your sister is in default. She has broken the terms of the contract. The bank has to try and recover its loss.
Reminds me of a neighbor I had who used to excuse shoplifting by saying the business just wrote it off.
It's such a mess that we can't keep people away? You sound a little like Yogi Berra.
I don’t know anyone who thinks, “Gosh, when I retire I hope I can afford to retire and live on Manhattan!”
Cities are for liberals, and who can figure out the stupid mind of a liberal.
P.S. Yes, a mess. Any place that has to violate private property rights with such nonsense as “tenant protection” laws is a mess.
I’m sure you don’t know any of those people.
You don’t know NYC landlords like I do. The articles on Ten Worst Landlords would make your hair stand on end, and those are only the Ten Worst. The icing. Then comes the cake.
Depends on the state. If the bank has more recorse to get their money, fine. But if the house is all there is, it’s plan b. It’s why banks used to require 20% down. They would always come out ahead if the person exercised plan b.
Banks do not get the 20% down money. The seller gets that. The money down is just to protect the collateral value somewhat. But it is not plan b. Your sister is passing off her misfortune on the bank by defaulting on her loan. She wants a no risk investment where if thing so bad, she can stick it to someone else. May she never ever get another loan.
Does she pay her credit cards? Her car loans? Or will that be one day inconvenient for her as well?
You can justify defaulting on a loan by calling it plan b. Lots of people do. But it is greed and dishonesty that justifies oneself that way. The truth does not change. Your sister is stealing money to recover her own loss and now squatting on someone else’s property.
Banks do not get the 20% down money.
The bank is out $80k and buyer is out $20k.
Buyer defaults.
Bank sells house for $100k. Bank gets their investment back.
But the banks were doing MASSIVE predatory lending and they got burned.
No. Buyers default because the home value has dropped to say $50,000.
You paint it like the bank comes out ahead and then you say the bank got burned. Right in your post you are twisting and justifying the facts.
The bank did not buy a house. The bank offered a loan service to the customer who promised to pay back with interest. The customer expected the home to appreciate. It did not. So the customer defaults on the loan agreement and squats on the property for free until the paperwork can be completed to repossess and evict the now deadbeat squatter (no longer a customer but a holdup artist). The “customer” might just as well have gone in with a gun and robbed the bank. It is just as honest.
Whether the bank offered great loans or not is not the issue. The customer agreed to pay. The customer is not paying solely because the home value unexpectedly depreciated, their loan is for more than the current value, and they seize the opportunity to hang their own loss on the bank.
Tarring the reputation of the bank as some sort of justification is deplorable. It is also irrelevant. If the bank was so horrible why get a loan there?
Defaulting on a loan just to evade the consequences of your own bad investment is revolting.
No. Buyers default because the home value has dropped to say $50,000.
The banks were a major part of the housing bubble and got holding the bag with smart buyers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.