or even simpler......you rent it from the government.
Whereas I agree with the above comments, disgust, distrust, etc., perhaps there is a point of practicality we should look at.
If a mortgage holder would look realistically at what the property will be worth 6 or 8 months after foreclosure (it takes a while to foreclose, take possession, advertise for sale and complete the sale), put that number on the value of the property and reduce the principal of the loan to that number, here would be the advantages.
First, the mortgage holder will not get any more than that number after foreclosure.
Second, the mortgage holder does not have to take possession, which has legal expenses.
Third, the property will not go to ruin as it will during a 6 months or more standing empty.
Third, the mortgage holder would still be collecting interest on something, rather than a negative cash flow (expensed involved in protecting, advertising, selling, etc.)
The comments made by the posters above certainly are correct in theory in a properly functioning economic system but that is not where we are today.
It is called cutting your losses. So what is the best way to do that? Reduce the principal or have thousands of empty decaying properties on your hands?
I believe the banks should reduce the principal on the loans for their own benefit, the hell with the debtor. Neither of them deserve any sympathy, but the banks and other mortgage holders need to do what is best for their stockholders and depositors.
CSSJR
If we do not wish to lose our freedom, we must learn to tolerate our
neighbor’s right to freedom even though he might express that freedom
in a manner we consider to be eccentric.