You're kidding us, right? I would never think of doing that, agreements are agreements........
A man’s word means diddly squat these days.
>>You’re kidding us, right? I would never think of doing that, agreements are agreements........<<
Yes they are. It is why, before recently, loans required a downpayment. If you pay 20% down on a $100,000 home, you have $20,000 skin in the game. The contract virtually always says that you are promising to do one of two things: pay off the loan or give back the property. And since real estate always went up or, if it did go down it really never approached the 20% mark, the banks were happy with these agreements. Only people that were really, REALLY in trouble would give their house back, and the bank could recoup their investment, PLUS all those “mostly interest” payments the “homeowner” made before they defaulted.
So, now we have an environment where the bank was playing by the exact same rules, but not protecting themselves from the shift in prices - caused by their on sloppy loan practices. So the “homeowner” today sees that he is paying $3,500 a month on a home he could rent for $1,600 a month, and it is worth $200,000 less than what he owes. He simply exercises the “plan B” in his contract and gives the house back.
The bank risked it’s own money and lost. There is nothing whatsoever immoral about what the lendee on the home loan did. The fully honored the contract by giving the bank the home back. It’s not their fault that the home lost value to the point that the home was worth less than the skin they had in it. It was the banks responsibility to adequately protect their investment from market forces.
You signed an agreement that says you will drive yourself into penury?
Why?
As for mortgages, they contain provisions that cover your inability or unwillingness to continue paying.
As long as you don't violate those, steal all the fixtures, tear out the plumbing, start black mold cultures, etc., you've lived up to your end of the "agreement."