Foreclosures and Irresponsible Home THIEVES

[srmom]

Maybe it's a generational thing, or maybe it's just a symptom of this economy, but I do feel it is inherently dishonorable to default on a loan. It's just something that was ingrained in me, but I understand your point. I just think I'd do absolutely everything to keep paying my mortgage even if I had to default on a car loan or much less forego restaurant visits and trips. I've always thought that your mortgage is the #1 most important thing to pay - home and hearth and all that

My grandfather would roll over in his grave if he knew I had walked away from a debt or a signed contract. I still feel guilty at 46 when I do things I think he'd disapprove of, but that's my issue

It is definitely a decision that is made higher up (my son is at the absolute BOTTOM of the totem pole), and they may just be filling him a line of bull about regulations, but he does say that the bank does not want to foreclose and will go to great lengths to keep people from defaulting. It's much cheaper for them to take some $ off the balance or lower the interest rate than it would be to sell at foreclosed rate or even short sales.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by srmom

Maybe it's a generational thing, or maybe it's just a symptom of this economy, but I do feel it is inherently dishonorable to default on a loan. It's just something that was ingrained in me, but I understand your point. I just think I'd do absolutely everything to keep paying my mortgage even if I had to default on a car loan or much less forego restaurant visits and trips. I've always thought that your mortgage is the #1 most important thing to pay - home and hearth and all that

I think for me it's a difference between walking away and not caring and having to make a principled decision to do it. I think very few people don't care and most would rather pay but have had to decide that they cannot.

I also think that it's a result of it being so increasingly common due to the housing bubble/crisis/whathaveyou.

It is definitely a decision that is made higher up (my son is at the absolute BOTTOM of the totem pole), and they may just be filling him a line of bull about regulations, but he does say that the bank does not want to foreclose and will go to great lengths to keep people from defaulting. It's much cheaper for them to take some $ off the balance or lower the interest rate than it would be to sell at foreclosed rate or even short sales.

I suspect the gap lies between the owner's perspective of "great lengths" and the bank's, fairly or not. Not that all banks are bad, but I hear one more story about how BoA forecloses on a home that isn't even theirs, and I'm starting to consider getting a mortgage just to default on it. (They've done it several times now, sometimes destroying property in the process.)

[srmom]

Luckily my son's not at BofA but, probably all big banks are the same.

He does really try to help those that want help, and he does what he can when he can, but obviously not too many decisions are left up to him.

At the same time that he deals with a ton of a-holes, he also deals with some pretty great people who've just either gotten in over their heads or hit rough times, and they work with him (and sometimes pray for him for helping them - which is good, we all need prayers ), those people make the day not a total disaster!

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by srmom

Maybe it's a generational thing, or maybe it's just a symptom of this economy, but I do feel it is inherently dishonorable to default on a loan. It's just something that was ingrained in me, but I understand your point. I just think I'd do absolutely everything to keep paying my mortgage even if I had to default on a car loan or much less forego restaurant visits and trips. I've always thought that your mortgage is the #1 most important thing to pay - home and hearth and all that

Considering many people who are foreclosing out of having bought too much house or using their house as a piggy bank are in their 50s and 60s, I can't really call it generational. I won't even call it family-based: even after having been raised by the same parents who were big about paying off mortgages early and investing wisely for retirement, my sister and I have almost exactly opposite financial experiences and perspectives.

Basically, people wanted more house than they could afford and thought the party was going to last forever. That goes beyond generational or family mores.

[MysticCat]

Some people will abuse the system.

Some people will be abused by the system.

The sun rose again this morning.

And the rain is falling on the just and the unjust alike.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Some people will abuse the system.

Some people will be abused by the system.

The sun rose again this morning.

And the rain is falling on the just and the unjust alike.

I thought the just got umbrellas. No? My bad.

[Jill1228]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

I know why, but shouldn't as much documentation be required? It goes to show that if you didn't have to put any work into getting a mortgage--not saving $$, not maintaining a good credit score, not even giving any proof that you have a job--what's keeping you from walking away? In the case of these people, nothing.

Out here in Northern Cali, it is a hot mess too. During the time of NINJA loans, people were buying scads of houses. There was a family on my block that bought 3 houses. And this was at the peak of housing in Cali (2006). These houses were 2700-3200 sq feet at 600-800K a pop. Thought they were going to rent them out and get PAID!

You know where this is going right? Market went to hell in a handbasket. All 3 houses were foreclosed on

When we moved here in August 2006, it was at the point that people were BEGGING us to rent their houses


Yup, folks took out equity loans or got NINJA loans...ain't that a bitch?

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by AnchorAlum

The real suckers are those of us who just sent in our mortgage payment.

Absolutely. The fact that the folks in the story had the nerve to go out to eat in the first place disgusts me, Outback or not. I'm sitting in a piece of crap house, scrimping and saving to pay it off as quickly as possible, so I can upgrade. I chose this house because I knew that, if my husband and I lost our jobs and had to work in very low-paying jobs, we could still make our mortgage payments.

If you have no business being in a house you really can't afford, I have no sympathy WHAT-SO-EVER when the bank takes it back. It's the people who cut back and cut back some more only to find they can't keep their homes. My heart goes out to them and anyone who makes sound financial decisions and is responsible with money, but falls on bad times.

Alex Pemberton and Susan Reboyras should be imprisoned.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

Absolutely. The fact that the folks in the story had the nerve to go out to eat in the first place disgusts me, Outback or not. I'm sitting in a piece of crap house, scrimping and saving to pay it off as quickly as possible, so I can upgrade. I chose this house because I knew that, if my husband and I lost our jobs and had to work in very low-paying jobs, we could still make our mortgage payments.

If you have no business being in a house you really can't afford, I have no sympathy WHAT-SO-EVER when the bank takes it back. It's the people who cut back and cut back some more only to find they can't keep their homes. My heart goes out to them and anyone who makes sound financial decisions and is responsible with money, but falls on bad times.

Alex Pemberton and Susan Reboyras should be imprisoned.

I don't think they want your sympathy, they seem to be acknowledging that they'll eventually be evicted. And what exactly would you imprison them for besides living their life in a way you disapprove of?'

ETA: And you have the choice not to be a "sucker." But I suspect you find making your payments both possible and preferable to eviction.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

And what exactly would you imprison them for besides living their life in a way you disapprove of?'

Exactly what the thread title indicates. They are stealing. Just because they're getting away with it, doesn't mean it's not thievery.

[AXiDa22]

If you have no business being in a house you really can't afford, I have no sympathy WHAT-SO-EVER when the bank takes it back.

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).

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

Exactly what the thread title indicates. They are stealing. Just because they're getting away with it, doesn't mean it's not thievery.

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Just because you call it theft doesn't make it so. . . .

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

This.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by AXiDa22

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).

Again,

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

I'm sitting in a piece of crap house, scrimping and saving to pay it off as quickly as possible, so I can upgrade. I chose this house because I knew that, if my husband and I lost our jobs and had to work in very low-paying jobs, we could still make our mortgage payments.

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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

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.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

Exactly what the thread title indicates. They are stealing. Just because they're getting away with it, doesn't mean it's not thievery.

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

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?