I think not.
Post it here.
These people are proposing an and to orderly society and economic ruin.
Pay your bills. That’s how it works. Don’t pay, pay the price and they do not forgive.
Sounds like a faulty premise. The homeowner should be able to secure quiet title by going to court.
Why not just post it? Blogs usually have a bunch of flash and malware.
Just curious....my mortgage was originally with Countrywide. How would I find out if the title is ‘clouded’?...I’m not looking to stop my payments or anything like that...just don’t want to get ripped off in the end.
When I make a legal commitment, I have a moral obligation to follow through. Bankruptcy clears the legal commitment, but the court lacks the moral authority to clear a moral obligation. I don’t see how it could be moral to default by choice, nor do I see any room for discussion on that issue. It is certainly legal and moral to default when you are incapable of satisfying your legal commitment (how could it be immoral to fail in an impossible task?), but to do this as a choice to maximize profit strikes me as the act of a social parasite, not of a decent person. Obtaining clear title is an entirely different question, but it should be settled separately from the question of repaying a valid debt.
Maybe it’s just me, but couldn’t the author have made his point using about 25% of the words he used? And made his sentence structure a little easier to digest?
I shouldn’t have had to work so hard to wade through this seemingly never ending molasses posing as erudition.
Owning RE involves simple contract law. Both sides have to honor a signed contract. If the contract is not followed then it can become a court matter. Let the Courts figure it out as it makes no sense to make payments towards a fictitious lien.
I think strategic default is wrong, period. I wouldn’t do it under any circumstances and consider it little different from theft.
However, there are circumstances where people lose a job, get sick, etc. and can’t pay back a loan. In those circumstances, I don’t have a problem with the person defaulting. And I also don’t have a problem with them doing so in such a way that preserves as much of their assets as possible.
Said another way, I don’t believe that individuals should be held to a different legal standard in default than a corporation would be held to in a bankruptcy.
Is it ethical for the American homeowner whose mortgage has been securitized to default, even If they are not financially distressed?
****************************************************
They should continue to pay while pursuing a Quiet Title action , if they win the QT they should then sue for the return of all monies paid in.
Back when I was a kid, and even when I bought my first house in the '80s, making a mortgage was all about the borrower. Did the borrower have the income and sound financial history to make the loan a good investment for the bank?
Sometime about 10-12 years ago, the mortgage became less and less about the borrower and more about the house. The rise in the value of the collateral (after all, "Housing Always Goes Up") would ensure the viability of the loan regardless of borrower conduct. Hence the half-million dollar loans to strawberry pickers.
This went hand in hand with the change in the mortgage industry's business model. Where mortgage companies historically relied upon the income streams from held mortgages, by the early 2000's this had largely been replaced by one-time origination and processing fees, which were followed immediately by flogging the note off to some successor purchaser.
One did not have to be a financial genius to see this was the road to disaster. I sold my house in 2006 for $450,000, you could probably buy it for half that amount today. And believe me, I'm no genius. I'm just smart enough not to drink the asset bubble Kool-Aid.
So as far as I am concerned, the people who currently hold all these mortgage backed securities were dumber than me.
And if they can't prove they have clear title to the homes, then they should lose their ability to foreclose. Not because they are evil, but because they are incompetent.