Posted on 10/11/2010 9:13:41 AM PDT by ex-Texan
Debt and secured debt are importantly different in that
the asset (car, house) securing the secured debt can
be seized by the lender. That’s why there’s the horrific
scandal about illegal foreclosures; banks are taking houses
they cannot prove they have a right to take.
Both involve people taking something and then not paying for it. If you will do something like that, then who would be dumb enough to employ you?
I wasn’t looking at the culpability of the debtor, but
the culpability of those who allege they hold the debt.
If they don’t, and that is the gravamen of all the AG
actions, they are committing crimes when they take over
houses.
That’s fine, the banks are culpable, but so are those who default, and especially those who walk away. As I said earlier, if you lose your job, or you suffer a catastrophic illness, that is one thing, but to walk away because you are underwater....sorry, I hope their credit is marked and they never qualify for a mortgage again. I’m tired of paying for the deadbeats of this world.
Oh for goodness sake, we've reached maximum density. I don't disagree with your statement. Here was my point as clear as I can make it:
You sign your name on something that says pay the bank or the bank gets the house. If you don't pay and don't give the house back, then you broke your word. Shame on you.
If you don't pay and give the house back, you have lived up to your end of the deal. Legal, moral and ethical.
I think all those looking down their nose at anyone deciding to walk away from a bad deal must either be a renter, or still have net equity in their house. God bless them and I pray they do not have their convictions tested by the adverse circumstances that many find themselves in.
Oh, so that’s how it works. Remind me to buy stuff from you because after I use it I can just give it back and not pay for it.
>>I think all those looking down their nose at anyone deciding to walk away from a bad deal must either be a renter, or still have net equity in their house. God bless them and I pray they do not have their convictions tested by the adverse circumstances that many find themselves in. <<
JTHomes, I think I would take the write up about your being a realtor off your homepage. Giving this advice is not very ethical. And as many of us know, it is easy to find out who you are and contact your employer. It happened to Buckhead and it can happen to you.
i feel that way and fit none of your assertions......
you really don't realize how f'd up your thinking is do you???? or that that type thinking is at the core of America's dysfunction
You might also be forgetting something. In many of these cases the Government as encouraged banks to forgive the negative equity difference. They aren’t just walking away from a bad deal but they are getting a huge gift in the process.
I don’t give advice, only analysis. People can agree or disagree and decide accordingly. And whether that is a well intentioned warning or some kind of veiled threat, I stand behind every transaction I’ve been a part of. I’ve walked away from several shady deals that came across my desk as well as told the truth to buyers who were lied to by dishonest mortgage brokers about what the loan would really cost them. I’ve left tens of thousands of dollars of commissions on the table standing up for ethical standards during what we all know was a very lose and fraud filled industry for years.
I disagree it is just deadbeats....it's a scam being played by many now...everyman is for himself in order to move away from the mess..and this is at all levels of society in this real-estate scam. From buyers to sellers and the lot of those maneuvering the fiasco.
Try making an argument, not just hurling insults. And argue the main point, not some ancillary post script comment. But if you want to debate that point, I was simply trying to tie in an underlying inconsistency that otherwise freedom loving people on this thread have exposed in themselves, that it's easy for people sitting fat and pretty to sit on a moral high horse and spout some imagined ideal of how they think others should act. Many on this thread have expressed concern that they might be hurt because others let their house go to foreclosure. So the alternative is to force those people to keep paying the bank no matter what? Even when the contract they signed allows them to stop paying and leave the house? That sounds like the opposite of liberty. Besides, the foreclosures are not causing lower prices, they are happening because houses became overvalued, because of easy money from the FED, from the secondary mortgage and security market, and government meddling.
True enough, and I think the government has done enough damage and should stay out of it. But in non-recourse states, after the foreclosure, the lender has no right to the full value of the note. They get the house and that's were it ends. If the former home owner had negative equity, the debt forgiveness could be called a gift, but it's not like they got cash. I'm not saying there are people who didn't game the system with home equity or 125% loans etc, but most people I know who have been through a foreclosure don't feel like they came out ahead.
>>And whether that is a well intentioned warning or some kind of veiled threat,<<
Dude, perhaps you should consider which site you are on. This is not the DU. We here at FR don’t threaten our fellow FReepers. You’ve gone a bit off on this argument and need to remember who you are talking to.
However, any of us who have lived through the various witch hunts against our FRiends, know the facts. While you are selling houses to people who must get bank loans, you are recommending that they walk away from their obligations if things get too tough, ruining their credit and screwing a good faith agreement.
It’s not me you have to worry about.
You’re right, I got a little defensive there for a second. I know we can debate on this site and keep things on a civil level. But I also want to make it clear that I don’t recommend people walk away from a house. Or stay in a house they can’t afford either. There are consequences either way. People have to decide what they can live with.
I’m sure many people don’t feel like they came ahead. But in this entitled filled society many people think they should a better than fair shake.
How many of these people kept their mortgage payments in their pockets for 6,8,12,18 months before they were finally foreclosed on as well?
Their are many ways to skin a cat.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.