RobRoy is correct but let me add to it that calling a contract a “man’s word” does it disservice.
A contract is entered into by 2 (or more parties) and everyone should understand the risks associated with that contract. If a homeowner opts to walk away, then they honored the clause in the contract providing that option. The bank knows the risk they took and certainly knows the rewards of interest. They borrow at a low amount, lend at a higher amount and hope for the best.
When I promised my friend I would pay for a charitable gift, that is my word to him. It isn’t a contract but I honor that debt. A mortgage? Between me, my wife, and the bank.
BTW, I have never missed a payment and don’t intend on doing so but this is not an ethical issue. It is merely a contractual issue.
>> this is not an ethical issue. It is merely a contractual issue.
I disagree.
I have never undertaken a significant financial obligation that was not backed by what is called a “promissory note”.
The “promissory” verbage is (ethically) important. It is worded that way because the borrower is PROMISING to repay the money they borrowed as agreed.
It is extremely clear in any promissory note that the essence of entering this contract is that the borrower will pay it back as agreed.
Giving back the collateral because of non-payment is never viewed by EITHER party GOING INTO the contract as an acceptable option. It is a REMEDY in the event that the borrower does NOT uphold the agreement.
You know this as well as I do.
Your position is playing games with semantics and demanding that others see the world through your distorted glasses. Sorry, but I know better.