If everyone could afford the homes they lived in there wouldn't be a need for loans in the first place. People find themselves in debt because they can't shovel out 100,000 (the average 3 bed 2 bath small brick home in my town).

Just because you call it theft doesn't make it so. Until the bank/court rules that it is not the individual's property anymore, which is what repossession is, they're only in possession of their own property.

Theft is a legal term, not something people get arrested for because you think it's not fair.

This.

Again,

I didn't say they had any chance of being convicted of theft. I said they are thieves and should be incarcerated. The law just needs to be tightened up.

Except you're wrong. They're not in possession of stolen property. Unless they refuse to leave the premises upon notice of eviction they're not thieves by any definition. And even then I'm not sure they wouldn't be charged with trespassing instead.

Just because you want it to be true doesn't make it so. Call them dishonorable, call them untrustworthy, call them whatever you like, but the only way to throw them in jail would be to bring back true debtors prisons.

Besides, how would you even begin to 'tighten up' the law in such a way?

That's exactly what I was thinking. lol

You don't want debtors prisons. Nothing good can come from that.

Should we ship them off to Australia when they can't pay? Oh wait, we don't own that. Guam then maybe?

People were locked up until their family paid their debts and often died. Later they were often required to pay for their keep too.

You mostly sound personally affronted that they had the audacity to make a choice different than yours and HOW DARE THEY.

Garnishment of wages for money owed during the time they stay without paying is sufficient.

Not at all.

Garnishing wages (and if there aren't any wages to garnish?) is better than a debtors prison. :)

But that's not how these debts work, and that's the matter of a private contract, not the law. The house is what secures the debt, no pay, no house. Beyond that, if they could afford to pay they probably would, even people playing the system don't make that kind of choice for shits and giggles.

Sorry if it makes you feel like a sucker for working hard, having good credit and getting to keep your house, though I'm not sure why it would, but this is all a civil matter and no one's a thief by any sense of the word.

Lack of wages didn't seem to be a problem for Alex and Susan unless they're secretly wealthy and it's a scheme to spark a reaction.

Well, at least somebody is as outraged as I am...

Thos of you who are saying they arent a thieves due to a technicality of the term - :rolleyes:. If you take something without paying for it, and it was not a gift to you, then it is considered stealing.

If you have money to go to Outback, and boating, and gambling, then you have money to pay your mortgage.

The good news is, thanks to asshats like these, the lenders have finally toughened up to where they should have been all along. Because my husband is not working full time, and only acquired his part time job 3 months ago, the lenders will not count his income as income, Therefore, for us to buy a house, we have to rely on my income alone. By myself, I qualified to a whole $100K. My credit is high (no credit card debt) but I have student loan debt. So as disappointing as it is that I cant look in the 130-150K price bracket that I wish for, at least I know what I'm capable of for now. So I can either get a home at 100K, or I can wait until I have some of these student loans out of the way, or for my husband to graduate and get a full time job so that we can qualify for more.

As hacked off as I am at these irresponsible freaks, at least I know I'm not going to be like them - because I am restricted to what I truly CAN afford, and not just on a dream.

Be pissed, but no matter how much you try to change the definition of the word, you're talking about people in a private contract who will lose their homes. Not thieves even if you wish they were.

"'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'"

Through the Looking Glass, Chapter VI.

Words have meaning. Recognizing that isn't a technicality; it's good communication.

Good. They deserve to lose their homes if they dont pay. Yes, even if they've paid 3 times the purchase price already due to stupidity in by refinancing, and just being dumb.

Has anyone suggested otherwise, at least for those who aren't making a good faith effort to meet their obligations and who are eating overpriced restaurant food?

Did you forget where I said If you take something without paying for it, and it was not a gift to you, then it is considered stealing? So because a house can't be physically picked up, it's not considered stealing? riiight. Until the mortgage is paid in full, it belongs to the bank. If the borrower of the money to purchase that house stops repaying the bank, s/he his stealing.

(Notice that stealing is a component of, but not synonymous with, theft under the criminal law)

I'm still missing how they're getting away with anything that can't be handled by the bank. Do they get to keep a lump sum of money and/or a house to show for their
stealing?

Drolefile once told me to not get stuck in the literal (despite how words and phrases have meanings) because you miss the general point that is being made. :) People are debating the "theft" and "steal" parts of this when we all agree that it's not a good thing what these people are doing. What are some solutions to this problem that don't involve extremes of labeling these people based on the criminal code (because, as was said already, all of the people in debt aren't spending money at Outback)?

Except that the house doesn't belong to the bank until the mortgage is paid in full. You're starting with a false premise.

Legally, the house belongs to the owner/borrower, whose name is on the deed. The bank has a secured loan, with the real property as the security. If the owner/borrower defaults on the loan, the bank has the right under the terms of the loan to initiate legal proceedings to take possession of the property (which wouldn't be necessary if the bank already owned the property) and have the property sold in order to satisfy the loan. But despite the fact that people say it all the time, the bank does not own the property unless and until it forecloses. Hence, no stealing.

Call them deadbeats, call them defaulters, call them useless. But thieves simply doesn't fit because they, not the bank, own the property.

Meanwhile, what Dr. Phil said.

Everything you said.

I don't have an outside solution as I think mostly this is all going to work itself out through some people getting modifications and others losing their homes. I don't think there's any reason to froth at the mouth over other people's choices.

Okay, I understand. Yes. They are useless deadbeat losers.

Have you been talking about foreclosures in general or people who stay in their homes without paying on them?

How common is it for people to stay in their homes without paying on them? It's a relative rarity.

That's clearly a problem and takes some HUGE cajones to even attempt. Wouldn't the police remove the people?

"Call the po-po, ho" ~ Madea

Just now, foreclosures in general, throughout the thread, people who cease paying their mortgages and wait until they're evicted to leave, no matter where they eat.

I do not get the outright personal affront that has been exhibited throughout this thread. It's very much a "how dare they when I'm working my ass off" conversation and I just do not think that makes any sense.

I'm all turned around now because I thought that's what the article was referring to.

I know people don't live their lives the way I do. My problem is that these people are effectively squatting which affects the bank which in turn affects rates/eligibility for everyone else.

Anyway, with foreclosures continuing to be a veritable epidemic, why are banks being stupid? Wouldn't it be better to rent the home back to the former owners for a then-fair market rate with the understanding that the house could be sold out from under them at any point?

That's logical, the outright RAGE at the beginning of this thread was not.

If they cannot pay, they cannot pay, and squatting or not they're going to affect the banks their rates the same way. With the fed keeping Prime low, it's going to make rates pretty good for the near future. As far as eligibility it was the bust that affected that and probably for the better since prior to that it was being handled haphazardly.

Banks don't have the resources to be landlords, they avoid it like the plague.

I don't cosign on anyone else's rage and I myself am not outraged.

Yes, the police do remove people. I know of a case where a family was renting a house and, unbeknownst to them, their landlord was not paying the mortgage, even though they were paying their rent. The police department showed up at midnight on the day that the bank was taking possession and told the people they had to leave immediately, with whatever possessions they could get out right away. The family living there had kids, etc. It was a horrible mess.

:)

But. But.

IF YOU'RE NOT OUTRAGED
YOU'RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION.

In south Florida it is very common. The bank my son works for won't start foreclosure proceedings for up to 12 months after the last payment was recieved. They try to work with the deadbeat, errr homeowner (JK) to modify or restructure the loan, but homeowners are catching on that they aren't going to be forcibly removed so they are staying (essentially) squatting for months to get the bank to make better offers.

It's not against the law, they are just using the system for their best benefit. Just as there are many honorable people who've just gotten in over their head, there are dishonorable people who are gaming the system as it stands and will continue to do so until the game changes.

The banks do not want to take ownership of those homes.

I actually work in real estate and am in frequent contact with people whose homes are underwater. Many of them attempt short-sales. The thing is that you cannot paint them all with the same brush.

Many of the people doing short-sales and being foreclosed on were people with a conventional, reasonable mortgage who had never missed a payment, but suffered horrible luck...perhaps a loss of a job combined with a huge medical bill. I really feel for those.

On the other hand, there are many families who were, to put it bluntly, wildly irresponsible. They took a liar's loan or a loan with a balloon payments, bought a house they would NEVER be able to afford otherwise, and then on top of that decided to take out a home equity line of credit and use their already poor investment as an ATM for Mastro's and the Bahamas! Some fault lies with the banks for even offering such absurd loans, but a lot of fault has to lie with those homeowners. I'm sorry. They make a horrifically risky and greedy financial decision and now, of course, there are consequences.

So some are unfortunate victims of the economy, and some are wildly irresponsible...and neither side has an outright majority. There are plenty of both.

My proclivity to hyperbolize is often mistaken for emotion, but usually I'm just talking mess.

lol @ your signature

:cool: I just couldn't resist quoting my favorite over-the-top bumpersticker.

Holy mercy! Just saw this and immediately thought of our discussion:

http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2010/0...-to-those-who/

Yeah, I've seen similar articles recently and I'm less than thrilled.

Beyond being moronic, it's an outrageous waste of taxpayer dollars.

Interesting but how is this any different from people who write hot checks serving a few days in jail?

One is fraud?