Skip to comments.They Bailed On Their Homes -Now They Want Back In
Posted on 02/22/2013 1:12:45 PM PST by ExxonPatrolUs
Home sales are slowly climbing back, thanks to investor demand, improving consumer confidence in housing, and the surprising return of former homeowners who once walked away from their commitments.
These so-called, "strategic defaulters," some of them investors and some owner-occupants, are coming back to the market, despite damaged credit, and apparently the market is welcoming them back.
Crashing home prices and sketchy mortgage products caused millions of Americans to default on their loans and eventually lose their homes. For some, it was a tragic fight to the end to keep their single investment; for others it was a conscious decision to walk away from their mortgage commitments, given the real fact that they would likely not see home equity again for many years to come.
Some saw this as morally reprehensible, others as a sensible business decision.
(Excerpt) Read more at m.cnbc.com ...
Playing by the rules is for suckers.
I owe you money? [shrug] Why should I pay my debt? I'll just walk away and borrow more money next year. It's cool, bro. I can play this game my whole life and never actually adhere to fiscal conventions. The government will always bail me out. And why? Why will the government always rescue me? Because I am nonproductive and a loser. That's why I get special treatment.
You productive, tax-paying, law-abiding citizens -- what fools you are!
The business deal was: pay your mortgage on time, or we repossess the house. I don't see how intentionally letting the bank (mortgage holder) to repossess is morally reprehensible.
It's so damned disheartening, isn't it? I think they're trying to beat us down and make us give in, but I won't do it. I know right from wrong and I won't let obama or any of his corporate cronies tell me otherwise.
After all, such an unfair, oppressive country has alot of making up to do.
I know of a family here who allowed their large, high-end home to be re-possessed. But before they were evicted, they bought another using all cash and added a wing. To add insult to injury, they trashed the house where they were foreclosed and removed EVERYTHING of any value from it.
The new wing is for her parents (Dutch) who take care of the children. She is a doctor (psychiatrist) — I don’t know what he does. I just think it is unconscionable.
It sure feels like we are being played for SAPS!
Because the deal was made with both side intending on completing the arrangement. Both sides know that defaulting is highly disadvantageous for the lender, which is why the borrower's credit takes a huge hit for allowing it to happen. Those who default intentionally are intentionally harming the bank, and harming the rest of us borrowers, since the bank has to make it up by raising fees and percentages against their other borrowers.
Anyone who fails to see immorality in intentionally raising costs on others while shirking on their own promises clearly has no morality of their own.
Hint: A moral code guides one to live a good life where they minimize harm to others. Harming the bank, and their customers, AND expecting to re-enter the home afterwards, clearly show a very immoral person... whether the rules allow it or not.
It’s a straight up business decision. A company with a commercial lease or mortgage-like arrangement, if it’s losing money, would walk away from it if it made financial sense to do so. There’s nothing wrong with it - both parties entered into the transaction knowing there was a risk of default.
The “rule” is you either pay your mortgage, or breach and pay the consequences from that.
Yep. You nailed it there.
Yeah. Except there appear to not only be no consequences for defaulting, but various entities encouraging them to be welcomed back with open arms.
Yes. IMMORAL. And this doesn't even mention the harm this does to those good, responsible citizens and neighbors who did it right, paid their bills, and saw their property values damaged because the abandoned houses next to them turned into vandalized eyesores.
This isn't about people who COULDN'T do make their payments. It is about SCUMBAGS who COULD, and decided to screw everyone around them and piss in the water upstream of them.
To those a-holes, it is all about ME-ME-ME.
There is nothing as good for the economy as giving new loans to people who defaulted on the old ones.
No, the deal was “Pay your mortgage on time”, not “Pay your mortgage on time, unless the property decreases in value”.
The “strategic defaulters” want the lender to eat the loss on declining asset value, but there’s not a chance in hell they would have shared the appreciation with the lender had the house continued to appreciate.
“Heads I win, tails you lose” - that’s morally acceptable?
I don’t see how intentionally letting the bank (mortgage holder) to repossess is morally reprehensible.
The Mortgage Bankers Assn. agrees with you , they defaulted intentionally on their newly constructed Washington D.C. headquarters ... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704829704575049111428912890.html stiffed the lender for a cool $38,000,000.00
Please see post #17 , it is PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE to the trade group involved , the Mortgage Bankers Association.
“...theres not a chance in hell they would have shared the appreciation with the lender had the house continued to appreciate.”
If you feel bad about having positive equity in your property you can write me a check for half and I’ll give you a nice thank you note since you seem to disapprove of accumulating wealth.
I just refinanced a 30 year note at 2.7% with only 5 years into the house. Dropped my payments by $1000.00
you read that right, $1000.00
I have no problem with accumulating wealth, moron.
I have a problem with people who want to capture all the benefits in a potentially risky situation while taking the risk out of someone else’s hide.
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.