This Brent White is a prime example of what is wrong with our society, and why despite all the best efforts of Conservatives and moral people, America very well may be doomed. There is a difference between not being able to, and not wanting to, in any circumstance. I can’t decide which is worse, telling people that even though they can pay their mortgage they have no moral obligation to follow through on their contract so walking away is an option, or people taking the advice and doing it.
Maybe the best thing for the future of our country IS for it to all come crashing down. Let the grass hoppers starve to death through the long cold winter, so the ants can rebuild America like it was meant to be.
Interesting.
The talk of moral obligation is always directed towards the individual involved in a transaction with a corporation, but it never works the other way around corporation.
If you have a dispute your mortgage holder, a bank, credit card holder, car lien holder, and go into court and start talking about thier “moral obligation” to you, you’ll get laughed out of court. The only thing that matters as far as a corporation goes is its “legal obligation.”
If corporations don’t have a moral obligation towards an individual they are doing business with, why does the individual have a moral obligation towards the corporation for the same given transaction?
In my area, many homes have lost 2/3 of their value & still falling.
Many borrowers who had good incomes & qualified for their loans are no
w under or unemployed & no relief is on the horizon with Moonbeam back at the helm & a demtard legislature that can now pass any budget with a simple majority.
Hmmm, buy groceries & feed the kids or throw money at a near worthless asset? Tough choice.
I personally am not so quick to judge harshly.
The lenders are in the best position to help themselves—but instead of being willing to modify loans or accept short sales, they stonewall & stall until qualified buyers walk & make the modification process impossible.
*shrug* I’m treating mine as if it is a rental with a stringent lease. I no longer think of it as a property that I will be able to sell and get a profit.
I need a place to live no matter what, and the mortgage is still less than a comparable rental.
And who knows? the market may yet recover...
It would be interesting to find out what the political persuasion is of the folks that walk away from their underwater mortgages.
That said, if there is a moral obligation for the borrower to pay the negotiated price regardless of circumstance, then the entire transaction is inequitable. While I am certainly not condoning abandoning responsibility, the entire enterprise is apparently rigged for the lender.
So I agree to pay $100k for a house. The bank loans me money to pay for it, but states unequivocally that it will take the house if I don't honor my repayment terms. OK. So the remedy for the lender is to take possession of the property it financed in good faith if repayment terms are not honored.
However, in most states, the law not only provides for the lender to take possession of the property, but to seize additional assets in an attempt to recover any shortfall from auction/resale.
This, to me, seems like having your cake and eating it too. The other ancillary impacts (credit rating destructions, etc.) I find perfectly fine. But it just appears odd that the lender is not also assuming some value risk in the transaction. They are guaranteed options to be made whole, whereas the borrower is not.
Many mortgages are made with one bank/mortgage company but then it is sold to somene else, If it was sold to someone else do you still have an obligation to the new holder if you did not consent to the sale of your mortgage. Morally I mean, it is sold with out your knowledge or consent