Posted on 05/02/2011 12:32:17 PM PDT by Notary Sojac
“Well this is a test of whether we’re consistent in our ethics.”
I agree with you.
Either a contract is going to continue to mean something or it will end up being a complete joke with no promise of protection for anyone.
I’m talking about contracts in general. Things aren’t working out with the mortgage? Tough toenails. I’m not a happy camper either but I will stick it out BECAUSE I SAID I WOULD.
Nobody has a right to pass moral judgments on lenders. That’s just a bunch of post-hoc rationalization for irresponsibility, IMHO.
Conservatives hated it when Obozo’s thugs crapped all over automaker bonds two years ago as well as agreements made with auto dealers. Was that because of the parties involved or because a contractual deal is supposed to have meaning?
Big banks do this ALL the time.
So, people need to understand that some people have legitimate reasons to walk away. If the collateral is returned, they have followed the deal they made. They lost whatever equity was in that house.
So, are all the people who think that people should be made to economically damage themselves, even be unable to feed their families, ALSO think that no fault divorce should be done away with? Marriages are a vow. Walk away marriages are okay with lots of people.
Do vows only count when it comes to money? Really?
Yes. Debt deflation is not the cause of the problem. It’s part of the solution.
No, the contract is the entirety of the contract. Not selected parts of it.
The whole contract contains specifications that you either:
1. Make timely payments, or
2. Surrender the property, which was posted as collateral to the lender.
That’s the contract. That’s the function of collateral to the loan.
Either pay or give up collateral.
Sounds to me like a business decision, not a moral issue.
If the banks have a problem with the value of the collateral, they should not have lent so much money.
Both borrower and lender took a risk, both lost.
Such is the nature of capitalism. You win some. You loose some.
I get something in the mail saying that I may qualify for some government program. Fine, says I.
So, I fill everything out and send it all in. Get a call from the mortgage company saying that pending approval, I am able to make 50% payments. Great says I.
Three months later I get a call that says I was not approved, but more they want the rest of the payments lump sum and current payment. So, what they want is 2 and a half payments all at once. I say, I can't do that. I ask can I make a partial payment? They say they cannot except anything but payment in full. Again I explain I can't do that. So, each month the arrears are growing and they only will accept payment in full.
Two and a half, Three and half, etc. I am now financially locked out of paying my mortgage. Three months later I'm am in default and of course foreclosure and sheriff sale.
All because I tried one of those programs. Big mistake for me. They may help some people, but it sunk me.
Exactly. And the banks chose to try passing the risk onto someone and everyone else, including the US taxpayers when they pawned these notes off on Fannie, Freddie and the FHA.
This is why the bankers made loans with absurd levels of risk to people they knew, a priori, could not possibly repay them: because the bankers knew that they would be keeping only the fees and origination, and passing the risk on to someone else.
One thing to consider is whether the people walking awy from their mortgages are people who do things like this all the time or people who have always paid their bills before this situation.
And do not buy into that guilt trip BS from the banks they should have lived up to their obligations without tarp. Otherwise tell them to stick it. And as an additional note, deeding back is not walking away, it is surrendering the loan collateral.
And do not buy into that guilt trip BS from the banks they should have lived up to their obligations without tarp. Otherwise tell them to stick it. And as an additional note, deeding back is not walking away, it is surrendering the loan collateral.
Mare? That’s a horse. I’d expect that to be more expensive.
I guess I don’t get it. I love my cat. He’s an amazing little weirdo. But, I’m sorry, my limit would be $1000. And then only if it’s a 100% cure.
I better make sure he’s not in the room seeing me type that.....
This same buddy of mine spent $2500.00 on a rabbit’s vet bills. And it died anyway. Not like he’s a rich guy either.
Yep - Ginger was a beautiful Canadian purebred horse. 5 years old and we lost her to torsion colic. We agreed to never to spend anything like that again.
You’re yet another victim of the deliberate scam by the banks. It was no accident that they did this to you. The banks have a consistent pattern of predatory behavior, forcing people into foreclosure under these programs, because they get paid for every person they sucker into these government ‘assistance’ programs.
What someone should do is sue the banks for “fraud in the inducement,” ie, they perpetrated a fraud by inducing you to sign up for a program which defrauds you of your home.
This is why, as far as I’m concerned, people who talk about “morality” when dealing with bankers are so far out in their own field. Bankers are predators, not innocent sheep, and they should be dealt with as such. When I had issues with my mortgage lender playing games with our mortgage payment, I ended up getting the VP of the lending division on the phone after working my way through the maze. I then gave him a choice: They’re either incompetent, because they can’t seem to settle on a mortgage payment amount, or they’re trying to defraud us. In case 1, they’re in violation of their “Truth in Lending” agreement, and that’s actionable in court, or, 2, they’re perpetrating mail and wire fraud, annnnnnd.... that’s also actionable in court. Since both are federal statutes here, I guess I’m going to have to call the US Attorney’s office, and let them figure out which way to handle this, eh?
All of a sudden, they were steppin’ and a fetchin’ and fixed the problem that week.
Funny thing, that.
There is no “morality” when dealing with banks and bankers. There are only threats, intimidation, lawyers and force.
Well said
She’s right that for many people in their late 30’s or older, they will never see their home regain the valuation it had in 2006/2007. The US real estate market, and California in particular, still hasn’t hit bottom. The only sector of real estate going up is ag real estate.
The only way that real estate prices will re-attain their prior peak levels with tighter lending standards will be for household incomes to rise and increase borrowing/buying power. Since household incomes are not going up, well, that’s going to be a problem going forward unless bankers once again loan money to anyone who can fog a mirror and a few who can’t.
What is the problem, the homeowners are just making a “business decision” - or are us serfs not afforded that privilege?
There is a little more. When I asked, what will happen if I am not approved, they initially said they would take the arrears and tack them on to the ‘end’ of the mortgage.
Fine says I. No risk right?
Then when the non-approval came, they demanded payment in full.
This part is sadly funny, I say, but that is not what I was told! and demanded to speak to the agent who processed the deal. They respond with, oh he doesn't work anymore, or got transferred, or whatever. They say, We don't know what He told you.
Viola’, they win. I lose.
Somehow, it will work out. Everything is in the hands of God.
So if I know I am going to lose my house because of employment or medical reasons and I voluntarily hand the bank my keys and vacate then this doesn’t apply?
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.