52club said: I find it interesting that we hold individuals to high moral standards, but since large business/corporations continually screw people over they don't get held to the same standards. I understand two wrongs don't make a right. However, if those who bring up the moral issue believe a corporation wouldn't stick it to an individual to pad their bottom line they living in a dream world. No business or corporation screwed him over. He purchased his house with legitimate loans, but the market tanked. He could be in a bad situation when the ARM resets, but that was his decision. Having people walk away from their houses is going to cause more problems and hurt homeowners even more because prices will continue to decline rapidly.
Thanks for all the replies everyone, I appreciate all of the input. A quick clarification since it's come up in several posts -- the house next door is almost identical to mine, and in good condition (we live in a townhouse).
Most of the other assumptions have been correct. The 30k I am willing to put down would NOT wipe out our savings. We currently have about $45k liquid among other assets such as stocks ($15k) and our 401k ($60k).
The downside to walking away is that both my wife and I are on the loan, which means both of our credit scores would take a hit. At the time I would not have been able to qualify for the loan by myself, hence the joint app.
pringle said: Thanks for all the replies everyone, I appreciate all of the input. A quick clarification since it's come up in several posts -- the house next door is almost identical to mine, and in good condition (we live in a townhouse).
Most of the other assumptions have been correct. The 30k I am willing to put down would NOT wipe out our savings. We currently have about $45k liquid among other assets such as stocks ($15k) and our 401k ($60k).
The downside to walking away is that both my wife and I are on the loan, which means both of our credit scores would take a hit. At the time I would not have been able to qualify for the loan by myself, hence the joint app.
Thanks again for all of the replies.
The only thing I would add, is that the 401k should really not be thought of as liquid. IMO, I dont think 401k money should be thought of as liquid. Its money that shouldn't really be touched until retirement.
Deadbeats existed before we were born, during our lives and will exist after we all die. I suggest you read the Basel II agreement. That agreement allowed banks to lend to deadbeats at a higher interest rate. In developing countries, people who don't pay back their loans will never get a loan again. If we were a developing country, deadbeats wouldn't probably get the loan and we will not have the housing mess we have now.
michal1980 said: after this thread, I'm going to rip everyone that says pay you bills dead beat. Same difference, the market changed for me... I bought stuff on credit thinking i'd have more money next month, but bad thing a,b,c, happened to me, if the big business can write it off, heck so should I.
Its funny when the difference is 100k+ its a smart buisness move, when its a few grand your a dead beat. Theres lots of true deadbeats that come in and ask for help, and people around here are probably correct to be cold as all hell. But I see now that its all just hot air, reach a limit and everyone wants to get out from the contracts they signed.
And why doesn't the following make sense:
Next time the housing market goes up, lenders should be allowed to re-write the loans for the higher value of the property.
If you are arguing it should be allowed to re-write the loans when the value goes down, then the opposite should be correct as well?
Now Scrawney, would you please come out and mention that you are a realtor that didnt make a sale in the last 8 months?
ScrawneyWallet said: NorthStar2020 said: Would you agree to tuck your tail between your legs and walk away if OP says the next door house is identical to his?
michal1980 said: And why doesn't the following make sense:
Next time the housing market goes up, lenders should be allowed to re-write the loans for the higher value of the property.
If you are arguing it should be allowed to re-write the loans when the value goes down, then the opposite should be correct as well?No one said the bank should rewrite the loan.
NorthStar2020 said: Now Scrawney, would you please come out and mention that you are a realtor that didnt make a sale in the last 8 months?
ScrawneyWallet said: NorthStar2020 said: Would you agree to tuck your tail between your legs and walk away if OP says the next door house is identical to his?
There were too many people - especially middle and low income people taking advantage of the BK laws in prior years that led to the reform.
Also, with so many unmarried couples, people were planning their BKs, taking trips running up debt, moving money to the g/f b/f s/o and then filing and then the g/f has $45K down payment for a house.
However, even though I think the OP can get out of this , walking away should be considered WITH ALL OF ITS CONSEQUENCES - financial, emotional, marriage, etc.
If, for example, you bought in a area that is going under AS A COMMUNITY, I would argue that you should stay put, not make a payment, save like the dickens, and wait until the sheriff knocks on the door.
But the OP , if he is a real FWF member, should be able to shake this off. But paying $2.5K per month on a home that you will be underwater in for the next 20 years is foolish.
Walking away should be considered and ,,,, planned if it is the wisest option.
Remember, permabulls and permabears, this market will change. People will still want to live in CA and FL rather than Missouri, and there will be stories of people who bought on the cheap. Those without crdit or cash will not be participants in this move up.
fredEcat
Senior Member
posted: Mar. 11, 2008 @ 10:30a
dixitsantosh said: I came across this . I do not have any personal experience with this so it is only for information. They are featured on several news media.
I noticed this line in their description of their service:
3. All the state laws pertaining to your foreclosure assuring you that they will be barred by the law from coming after you for any money. (select states only)
The select states only bit is really the crux of the matter. Is it really "walking away" if the lender can come after you for the difference?
"Walking away" makes it sound like a reasonable choice: you take the foreclosure hit but don't owe anymore on the house. Is it possible that phrase may be doing a lot of harm to people who aren't in select states?
patch96 said: There were too many people - especially middle and low income people taking advantage of the BK laws in prior years that led to the reform.
Also, with so many unmarried couples, people were planning their BKs, taking trips running up debt, moving money to the g/f b/f s/o and then filing and then the g/f has $45K down payment for a house.
However, even though I think the OP can get out of this , walking away should be considered WITH ALL OF ITS CONSEQUENCES - financial, emotional, marriage, etc.
If, for example, you bought in a area that is going under AS A COMMUNITY, I would argue that you should stay put, not make a payment, save like the dickens, and wait until the sheriff knocks on the door.
But the OP , if he is a real FWF member, should be able to shake this off. But paying $2.5K per month on a home that you will be underwater in for the next 20 years is foolish.
Walking away should be considered and ,,,, planned if it is the wisest option.
Remember, permabulls and permabears, this market will change. People will still want to live in CA and FL rather than Missouri, and there will be stories of people who bought on the cheap. Those without crdit or cash will not be participants in this move up.
Ahhh Just like when I ran up my c.c. back in the day, then lost my job and the choice was pay the C.c. company or eat. I should have had them forgive my debt because my market conditions changed. My c.c. score still begs to differ. And If I would have posted that here back then, I'd be beat down as a deadbeat.-
I get it though. Walk away from Big 'losses' = Smart Financial Planning. Walk away from bills you just don’t have money to pay for = Deadbeat.
Just admit the hypocrisy and move on, everything else is just rationalizing.
If we're truly trying to make a business decision here.....
Why not offer $250k for the other townhouse while the credit is still good, perhaps rent it for six months if you need to show income. Then let the first home go into foreclosure.
You'll end up with the same house for a much lower payment and since you'll already have the loan, dealing with the trashed credit might be easier.
BobM73 said: If we're truly trying to make a business decision here.....
Why not offer $250k for the other townhouse while the credit is still good, perhaps rent it for six months if you need to show income. Then let the first home go into foreclosure.
You'll end up with the same house for a much lower payment and since you'll already have the loan, dealing with the trashed credit might be easier.
I have heard of this; however, many homeowner's credit is too tight to accomplish this feat.
I have learned through past failures (and i mean FAILURES) that the OP should ACT NOW on his own - rather than let market forces act on him.
He needs INFORMATION. He needs to get info on WHY that neighbor is selling so low.
I would not touch savings and would put an end to that 2nd mortgage at 7.5%
"Efficient Breach" whereby a party to a contract wilfully breaches that contract when the economic loss associated with the breach is less than the economic cost of performing the contract.
This will become widespread in America as there is no "community" and nobody "knows" you anymore. There is very little shame when noone knows your name.
jackelpina
Member
posted: Mar. 11, 2008 @ 11:09a
If you like the home, the neighborhood, the schools and the general area then just ride it out. I would hold back on paying the second off in advance unless your making a tom less on it then the note rate.
Real estate will advance before you know it. If you did a walk away, it will bite you for the next round in real estate. Next time, don't buy when everyone else is buying....
DealWinners
Senior Member
posted: Mar. 11, 2008 @ 11:15a
BobM73 said: If we're truly trying to make a business decision here.....
Why not offer $250k for the other townhouse while the credit is still good, perhaps rent it for six months if you need to show income. Then let the first home go into foreclosure.
You'll end up with the same house for a much lower payment and since you'll already have the loan, dealing with the trashed credit might be easier.Your idea sounds very good. But after foreclosure your Credit rating will be drowned. That time your second mortgage company can come and say that you agreed to maintain a good credit rating and you failed on one of the mortgages with other bank. Now we are going to increase your rates because you are a risky person. I may be wrong but please post your comments. My WAMU account was recently closed just because I had $7K balance on one credit card (WAMU had $0 balance) for one month. I had $40K AOR debt on other cards up to two months before.
kenblakely
Senior Member - 2K
posted: Mar. 11, 2008 @ 11:17a
michal1980 said: I get it though. Walk away from Big 'losses' = Smart Financial Planning. Walk away from bills you just don’t have money to pay for = Deadbeat.
Just admit the hypocrisy and move on, everything else is just rationalizing. Everyone has different definitions, but I would hazard that a deadbeat is someone who refuses to pay debts that he *can* reasonably pay, particularly if the refusal to pay is planned beforehand, and particularly if the thing being paid for is sunk.
ie, someone who picks up a candybar and eats it and then refuses to pay is a deadbeat (and a thief). Someone who sneaks into a movie and watches it, then refuses to pay is a deadbeat (and a thief and a trespasser) Someone who intentionally runs up debt, goes on luxury holidays and then declares BK is a deadbeat (but well-tanned)
A mortgage on the other hand is collateralized. Someone who surrenders the collateral on a loan because they choose not to pay the loan is not a deadbeat. It may or not be a good business decision, but that's all it is - a business decision.
If you have a fixed rate mortgage, there's no provision for increasing your interest rate....that's why it's called "fixed". Dont' confuse credit cards and mortgages.
I agree with the poster that said to find out why the TH next door is only asking $290.
Responsibility exists on both sides of the contract. The bank also has some responsibility to adequately investigate the viability of a loan.
If I give a bum $500 because he promised to pay me back in a day and I never see him again, it's as much my fault as the bum's.
kenblakely said: michal1980 said: I get it though. Walk away from Big 'losses' = Smart Financial Planning. Walk away from bills you just don’t have money to pay for = Deadbeat.
Just admit the hypocrisy and move on, everything else is just rationalizing. Everyone has different definitions, but I would hazard that a deadbeat is someone who refuses to pay debts that he *can* reasonably pay, particularly if the refusal to pay is planned beforehand, and particularly if the thing being paid for is sunk.
ie, someone who picks up a candybar and eats it and then refuses to pay is a deadbeat (and a thief). Someone who sneaks into a movie and watches it, then refuses to pay is a deadbeat (and a thief and a trespasser) Someone who intentionally runs up debt, goes on luxury holidays and then declares BK is a deadbeat (but well-tanned)
A mortgage on the other hand is collateralized. Someone who surrenders the collateral on a loan because they choose not to pay the loan is not a deadbeat. It may or not be a good business decision, but that's all it is - a business decision.
except for the fact that to do it. The bank will ethier have to forgive 120+k, or the seller needs to come up with that money.
Or are you proposing this is the new no risk way to invest. If the mark gets hot, you make out like a bandait. If it gets cold, heck, just give it up and walkway... Can I get that kind of insurance on buying stocks?
I have a hunch metal prices will go up... I'll buy up tons of gold/platinum, if the price goes up, I make money and pay the bank back, It crashes, I'll just give the gold to the bank. We both win right?
But heck, i'll give you back a half eaten candy bar if you catch me eating it before I pay. Just dont expect me to give you the buck. After all I gave it back.
BobM73 said: If you have a fixed rate mortgage, there's no provision for increasing your interest rate....that's why it's called "fixed". Dont' confuse credit cards and mortgages.
I agree with the poster that said to find out why the TH next door is only asking $290.
Responsibility exists on both sides of the contract. The bank also has some responsibility to adequately investigate the viability of a loan.
If I give a bum $500 because he promised to pay me back in a day and I never see him again, it's as much my fault as the bum's. Looks likes the OP can afford to pay, he may not want to, but he can afford to pay. The Bank did their due diligence and should not be punished for a weak Real-Estate market.
michal1980 said: kenblakely said: michal1980 said: I get it though. Walk away from Big 'losses' = Smart Financial Planning. Walk away from bills you just don’t have money to pay for = Deadbeat.
Just admit the hypocrisy and move on, everything else is just rationalizing. Everyone has different definitions, but I would hazard that a deadbeat is someone who refuses to pay debts that he *can* reasonably pay, particularly if the refusal to pay is planned beforehand, and particularly if the thing being paid for is sunk.
ie, someone who picks up a candybar and eats it and then refuses to pay is a deadbeat (and a thief). Someone who sneaks into a movie and watches it, then refuses to pay is a deadbeat (and a thief and a trespasser) Someone who intentionally runs up debt, goes on luxury holidays and then declares BK is a deadbeat (but well-tanned)
A mortgage on the other hand is collateralized. Someone who surrenders the collateral on a loan because they choose not to pay the loan is not a deadbeat. It may or not be a good business decision, but that's all it is - a business decision.
except for the fact that to do it. The bank will ethier have to forgive 120+k, or the seller needs to come up with that money.
Or are you proposing this is the new no risk way to invest. If the mark gets hot, you make out like a bandait. If it gets cold, heck, just give it up and walkway... Can I get that kind of insurance on buying stocks?
I have a hunch metal prices will go up... I'll buy up tons of gold/platinum, if the price goes up, I make money and pay the bank back, It crashes, I'll just give the gold to the bank. We both win right?
But heck, i'll give you back a half eaten candy bar if you catch me eating it before I pay. Just dont expect me to give you the buck. After all I gave it back.
Sure you can get that with stocks....buy on margin and declare bankruptcy.
The investment houses are just smart enough to require 200% equity on borrowed money.
HumDoHamaraDo said: BobM73 said: If you have a fixed rate mortgage, there's no provision for increasing your interest rate....that's why it's called "fixed". Dont' confuse credit cards and mortgages.
I agree with the poster that said to find out why the TH next door is only asking $290.
Responsibility exists on both sides of the contract. The bank also has some responsibility to adequately investigate the viability of a loan.
If I give a bum $500 because he promised to pay me back in a day and I never see him again, it's as much my fault as the bum's. Looks likes the OP can afford to pay, he may not want to, but he can afford to pay. The Bank did their due diligence and should not be punished for a weak Real-Estate market.
In that case, the Seller did his due dillegance and should not be punished by a weak Real Estate market.
Whether he can afford to pay or not is irrelevant to THIS thread. The question is: What is he legally bound to do by the contract that WAS DRAFTED by the bank.
THEY wrote the terms, they left the loophole. We're just trying to figure out how to exploit it to the OP's benefit.
I fail to see how this is any different than an AOR. It's a financial strategy that will cost the bank money and was not anticipated when the offer was made.
Can we please drop the ethical arguments, they belong in another thread. This thread should focus on the financial and legal ramifications of such a move.
The key one as I see it are "deficiency judgements", wherein the borrower is liable for the difference between selling price and amount owed (or fair market value) depending on state. The applicability of this (or even existance) is widely variable from state to state. Has anyone found a good summary of the laws on this type of judgement?
michal1980 said: Ahhh Just like when I ran up my c.c. back in the day, then lost my job and the choice was pay the C.c. company or eat. I should have had them forgive my debt because my market conditions changed. My c.c. score still begs to differ. And If I would have posted that here back then, I'd be beat down as a deadbeat.-
I get it though. Walk away from Big 'losses' = Smart Financial Planning. Walk away from bills you just don’t have money to pay for = Deadbeat.
Just admit the hypocrisy and move on, everything else is just rationalizing.I'm also more on your side of this side-argument regarding debt ethics, but I think the apparent hypocrisy of the FW crowd is a bit more complex than you are considering.
FWf values frugality, investment, and savings. Inability to separate needs from wants of consumer goods is frowned upon. Financial irresponsibility to insure a successful date is scorned -- and in a stepwise fashion, spending patterns that "ass-u-me" future unearned income is criticized.
And yet, I bet many people here have no problem with businesses taking tax deductions for losses.
So, is walking away from a home mortgage closer to a business debt, or closer to a teenager running up a credit card ?
Boy no one likes Realtors on FW. For the record, I am one and I did sell 12 homes last year so I didn't do too badly. Lately all I've been doing have been foreclosures and shorts sales. Some short sales go through and some don't. Our office also has a mortgage office next door and we know how difficult it is to do loans nowadays. No more stated income loans so buying another home in the same development wouldn't qualify as it'd be considered an investment property and probably require 10-20% downpayment minimum, probably more like 20%. Has to be a certain distance from the first home.
Now the problem here is if he tries to do a short sale. The problem here is that he probably won't qualify as you have to build a story to the bank that says he can't afford the mortgage. With the assets that he has, he clearly can't, he'll have to gamble or hide it somehow or just lie about not having it.
Also someone else mentioned the reset rate. He can just wait it out, he has a couple more years before he has to worry about the new rate. He still hasn't said what the reset terms will be so he doesn't even know how high it will potentially go.
As for that other property, this may just be a phase that the development is going through, I've seen some developments where the prices kept dropping like his, then stabilized after those sales were gone. If no one else is selling, then that 290k price becomes a blip this year and maybe next year things could shoot back up to 320-350k as no seller who bought in the 400k range will go as low as 290k. Sounds like 290k might be a short sale or they've held onto it for a long while.
Also don't forget that if you walk away from the loan, you're usually destitute, some IRS publication allows forgiveness on the 1099 that he will receive from the bank on the 80k-90k that was lost. However, if he's not and he clearly has assets, then the bill comes due and you can't pay it all, then you're into the IRS for 14% interest or whatever on that 80k-90k worth of income you walked away from.
Before jumping off the cliff, you could try contacting the lender and see if they'll convert the loan into a regular 30 year instead of doing any type of refinance. Sorta depends on who the lender is. Also they're probably not too interested in doing this now as they're probably busy, but it's probably worth a shot.
Also try doing the math on the rental alternative. Say you have to rent for 5 years, what's the going rent in the area for a 2005 400k type home? 2000? That's 2000 x 12 months x 5 years=120k. So it's not a great investment anymore, but it's still shelter. Something that many people seem to forget.
ilikebtmoney
Senior Member - 1K
posted: Mar. 12, 2008 @ 8:34a
You can't be sure that house nextdoor is the same until you do a walkthrough. For all you know it looks great on the outside, then you go inside and notice 100 cats lived here without human care and everything destroyed and smells beyond belief, or the dummies let their tub leak for months ruining all sorts of things, or... the list goes on.
But for fun, let's entertain the idea YOUR house is only worth $290K. So what? It's like anything else you buy. The problem is with homes everyone has had it ingrained into their head that a HOME is an APPRECIATING asset. Of course, that's what my financial advisor told me of the great list of 5-star mutual funds I'm in that's down 30% in the past 6 months. They have their time.. it's down now, but will be up later.
The most important thing is that I'm not sure I read.. do you want to live here a long time? If so, who cares what the value is today just like any long-term investment. Ride it out! If it was worth what you paid for it a few years ago it will someday again too. Just be glad it's not like some things you can purchase like a specialty interest customized vehicle that depriciates 50% with no chance of recovery after using it, or a stock that is at it's peak and it loses bigtime to never recover, or.. the list goes on.
Point is, it's YOUR house, don't worry about the market. Just live there and enjoy it. As for your problem on the financing, well, you chose to sign up for the ARM and took the initial lower interest rate based on the risks. From the beginning, you had a minimal amount of equity in your home and used multiple loans to avoid the PMI so you couldn't have afforded it then. It's great you can afford it now, and I suggest you keep avoiding it. Don't pay down anything yet, keep the money in savings earning interest (it's not difficult to earn more than 8%/yr in savings beating your interest, plus those loans interest are tax writeoff's for you so you don't even need to make 8% to cover it).
When it's close to resetting, see how the market is and decide four months early if it will be necessary to refi. That will give you enough time to pay something off, have it reflect on your credit reports, and get the ball rolling on a new loan if needed. A lot can happen in that time frame. As long as you keep building your nest egg then you can do with the money as you need to at that time.
All-in-all, I'd say what you owe is what you agreed to pay and that's not negotiable. Just keep up the payments, don't overpay the mortgage, and build a strong nest egg!
golfer79
Senior Member
posted: Mar. 12, 2008 @ 8:56a
I am in a very similar situation except with less money (paid 160K in 2003 and value is now $125K probably lower). I had a 3 year ARM when I bought back then. I was about to refinance a few months ago with Huntington and they were able to use the original value of my home. I paid 2k in refi fees and that was it. I would suggest trying this as it may work, but you are sill going to be under. My loan is now at 142k so I am under at least 20. Even if I rent it out we would still be losing about $150 a month from the current rental market. We have been trying to move for the past year and half but obviously can’t because of the market conditions in Michigan. We are having a child soon and we will not be able to fit in our condo anymore.
The idea of walking away sparks a little interest as the condo is only in my name and not my wife’s. We have about 55k in liquid savings right now (emigrant e-trade etc) She has good credit it is intriguing to think our new house could then be under her name. I wont need my credit for much of anything any time soon, as both of my cards are paid for already.
golfer79 said: I am in a very similar situation except with less money (paid 160K in 2003 and value is now $125K probably lower). I had a 3 year ARM when I bought back then. I was about to refinance a few months ago with Huntington and they were able to use the original value of my home. I paid 2k in refi fees and that was it. I would suggest trying this as it may work, but you are sill going to be under. My loan is now at 142k so I am under at least 20. Even if I rent it out we would still be losing about $150 a month from the current rental market. We have been trying to move for the past year and half but obviously can’t because of the market conditions in Michigan. We are giving a child soon and we will not be able to fit in our condo anymore.
The idea of walking away sparks a little interest as the condo is only in my name and not my wife’s. We have about 55k in liquid savings right now (emigrant e-trade etc) She has good credit it is intriguing to think our new house could then be under her name. I wont need my credit for much of anything any time soon, as both of my cards are paid for already.
Quoted for future.
now my comments.
Simple brilliant, you have the money to sell the house. Or pay it down to where the loan is less then its value.
Yet you want to steal 20k+. Oh wait I forgot, thats buisness planning. wheres that socialized thread again...
ilikebtmoney
Senior Member - 1K
posted: Mar. 12, 2008 @ 9:27a
michal1980 said: golfer79 said: I am in a very similar situation except with less money (paid 160K in 2003 and value is now $125K probably lower). I had a 3 year ARM when I bought back then. I was about to refinance a few months ago with Huntington and they were able to use the original value of my home. I paid 2k in refi fees and that was it. I would suggest trying this as it may work, but you are sill going to be under. My loan is now at 142k so I am under at least 20. Even if I rent it out we would still be losing about $150 a month from the current rental market. We have been trying to move for the past year and half but obviously can’t because of the market conditions in Michigan. We are giving a child soon and we will not be able to fit in our condo anymore.
The idea of walking away sparks a little interest as the condo is only in my name and not my wife’s. We have about 55k in liquid savings right now (emigrant e-trade etc) She has good credit it is intriguing to think our new house could then be under her name. I wont need my credit for much of anything any time soon, as both of my cards are paid for already.
Quoted for future.
now my comments.
Simple brilliant, you have the money to sell the house. Or pay it down to where the loan is less then its value.
Yet you want to steal 20k+. Oh wait I forgot, thats buisness planning. wheres that socialized thread again...
Yeah no kidding.. people keep trying to "avoid" the ethics, morality, etc of this practice but why do you think our government needed to agree to give $200B to the banks?? Yes I admit some of that was due to banks not properly screening loans, but this kind of attitude playing the "neener neener neener! you big bad bank can't touch me!" bullcrap is what's destroying our economy, and making our country look like a bunch of pansies. Toughen up, you bought it, and agreed to pay that price, now pay for it.
golfer79
Senior Member
posted: Mar. 12, 2008 @ 9:30a
ilikebtmoney said: michal1980 said: golfer79 said: I am in a very similar situation except with less money (paid 160K in 2003 and value is now $125K probably lower). I had a 3 year ARM when I bought back then. I was about to refinance a few months ago with Huntington and they were able to use the original value of my home. I paid 2k in refi fees and that was it. I would suggest trying this as it may work, but you are sill going to be under. My loan is now at 142k so I am under at least 20. Even if I rent it out we would still be losing about $150 a month from the current rental market. We have been trying to move for the past year and half but obviously can’t because of the market conditions in Michigan. We are giving a child soon and we will not be able to fit in our condo anymore.
The idea of walking away sparks a little interest as the condo is only in my name and not my wife’s. We have about 55k in liquid savings right now (emigrant e-trade etc) She has good credit it is intriguing to think our new house could then be under her name. I wont need my credit for much of anything any time soon, as both of my cards are paid for already.
Quoted for future.
now my comments.
Simple brilliant, you have the money to sell the house. Or pay it down to where the loan is less then its value.
Yet you want to steal 20k+. Oh wait I forgot, thats buisness planning. wheres that socialized thread again...
Yeah no kidding.. people keep trying to "avoid" the ethics, morality, etc of this practice but why do you think our government needed to agree to give $200B to the banks?? Yes I admit some of that was due to banks not properly screening loans, but this kind of attitude playing the "neener neener neener! you big bad bank can't touch me!" bullcrap is what's destroying our economy, and making our country look like a bunch of pansies. Toughen up, you bought it, and agreed to pay that price, now pay for it. Very easy for someone to say who is not in the same situation.
kenblakely said: Everyone has different definitions, but I would hazard that a deadbeat is someone who refuses to pay debts that he *can* reasonably pay, particularly if the refusal to pay is planned beforehand, and particularly if the thing being paid for is sunk.
ie, someone who picks up a candybar and eats it and then refuses to pay is a deadbeat (and a thief). Someone who sneaks into a movie and watches it, then refuses to pay is a deadbeat (and a thief and a trespasser) Someone who intentionally runs up debt, goes on luxury holidays and then declares BK is a deadbeat (but well-tanned)
A mortgage on the other hand is collateralized. Someone who surrenders the collateral on a loan because they choose not to pay the loan is not a deadbeat. It may or not be a good business decision, but that's all it is - a business decision.What about stopping paying your mortgage but planning on living there until the Sheriff kicks you out? Even if you can justify stopping paying and walking away, I'm not sure how someone can claim that living somewhere with no intention of paying is not stealing.
ilikebtmoney
Senior Member - 1K
posted: Mar. 12, 2008 @ 10:02a
golfer79 said: ilikebtmoney said: michal1980 said: golfer79 said: I am in a very similar situation except with less money (paid 160K in 2003 and value is now $125K probably lower). I had a 3 year ARM when I bought back then. I was about to refinance a few months ago with Huntington and they were able to use the original value of my home. I paid 2k in refi fees and that was it. I would suggest trying this as it may work, but you are sill going to be under. My loan is now at 142k so I am under at least 20. Even if I rent it out we would still be losing about $150 a month from the current rental market. We have been trying to move for the past year and half but obviously can’t because of the market conditions in Michigan. We are giving a child soon and we will not be able to fit in our condo anymore.
The idea of walking away sparks a little interest as the condo is only in my name and not my wife’s. We have about 55k in liquid savings right now (emigrant e-trade etc) She has good credit it is intriguing to think our new house could then be under her name. I wont need my credit for much of anything any time soon, as both of my cards are paid for already.
Quoted for future.
now my comments.
Simple brilliant, you have the money to sell the house. Or pay it down to where the loan is less then its value.
Yet you want to steal 20k+. Oh wait I forgot, thats buisness planning. wheres that socialized thread again...
Yeah no kidding.. people keep trying to "avoid" the ethics, morality, etc of this practice but why do you think our government needed to agree to give $200B to the banks?? Yes I admit some of that was due to banks not properly screening loans, but this kind of attitude playing the "neener neener neener! you big bad bank can't touch me!" bullcrap is what's destroying our economy, and making our country look like a bunch of pansies. Toughen up, you bought it, and agreed to pay that price, now pay for it. Very easy for someone to say who is not in the same situation.
You don't think I made stupid financial decisions in my lifetime? I've made plenty! I have no problem admitting that. I learned from them by toughing it out. My parents didn't bail me out, nor my banks, nor friends, nor a court. Did you buy your house to live in.. or as an investment? Either way, you're doing fine and you should be thankful the banks helped you out when they didn't have to do that (probably anyways, in my state it's 2 years for using the last sale price as the value). You're in a good position and you're still considering ripping them off based on a CURRENT value. You don't NEED to sell. Don't let greed take control of this so you can turn into another statistic and contribute further to the decline of our economy.
Homeowner debates walking away from home = Weasley theif.
Donald Trump sheds billions in debt by playing hardball with banks = Shrewd negotiator.
No one says the Government has to bail out anyone or any entity.
You may not like the rules of the game, but they are what they are - and the rules say you can walk away from a mortgage if you accept the consequences.
Stealing is at best hyperbole and at worst outright fabrication.
Please let this thread remain on topic. Save your emotional derails for another thread.
golfer79
Senior Member
posted: Mar. 12, 2008 @ 10:37a
You don't think I made stupid financial decisions in my lifetime? I've made plenty! I have no problem admitting that. I learned from them by toughing it out. My parents didn't bail me out, nor my banks, nor friends, nor a court.
Agreed but should I lose 50k?
Did you buy your house to live in.. or as an investment? To live in
You're in a good position and you're still considering ripping them off based on a CURRENT value.
Based on reading this thread it crossed my mind, yes. The current value is 125k based on my tax assesment. However there are 3 other in forclusure right now selling for 115K
You don't NEED to sell
Correct, we can afford it we are not moving out of state, but we can not fit in this condo with a newborn. There is also a yappy POS little dog that constantly barks above us.
Don't let greed take control of this so you can turn into another statistic and contribute further to the decline of our economy.[/
I agree with this, but as mentioned there are already 3 other forclosures in our sub. These are condo's they are all bascially the same. This is not a greed factor this would be a financial decision and bring peace of mind. By me continuing to pay our mortgage and living in our condo for another 2 years what do I gain out of.
BobM73 said: Homeowner debates walking away from home = Weasley theif.
Donald Trump sheds billions in debt by playing hardball with banks = Shrewd negotiator.
No one says the Government has to bail out anyone or any entity.
You may not like the rules of the game, but they are what they are - and the rules say you can walk away from a mortgage if you accept the consequences.
Stealing is at best hyperbole and at worst outright fabrication.
Please let this thread remain on topic. Save your emotional derails for another thread.
then from now I, we should as FWF stop calling people deadbeats, Its obivous they made a business descion not to pay for (fill in the blank).
And i'd say letting people lose money over and over again, and letting them get away with it, like mr trump is just as wrong. But we for some reason choose not to punish those that burn billions, yet a bucks and your a scumbag.
ilikebtmoney
Senior Member - 1K
posted: Mar. 12, 2008 @ 10:44a
Golfer,
You only lose $50K if you sell today. Tough it out a few years and there's very little chance it'll still be that low.
How small is this condo? My cousin is married and has three kids in an apartment the size of my great room, no joke. So just because it's not overly convenient doesn't mean it's not doable.
golfer79
Senior Member
posted: Mar. 12, 2008 @ 11:32a
ilikebtmoney said: Golfer,
You only lose $50K if you sell today. Tough it out a few years and there's very little chance it'll still be that low.
How small is this condo? My cousin is married and has three kids in an apartment the size of my great room, no joke. So just because it's not overly convenient doesn't mean it's not doable.
You are correct that is doable its 1085 sq ft ranch with no basement 2 bedroom 2 bathroom. The no basement is huge, and again the fact the the upstairs non english speaking neighbor has a yappy little dog
If you ever refinanced then it became a recourse loan and they can come after any of your assets.
demingy
Senior Member
posted: Mar. 12, 2008 @ 1:02p
golfer79 said: ilikebtmoney said: Golfer,
You only lose $50K if you sell today. Tough it out a few years and there's very little chance it'll still be that low.
How small is this condo? My cousin is married and has three kids in an apartment the size of my great room, no joke. So just because it's not overly convenient doesn't mean it's not doable.
You are correct that is doable its 1085 sq ft ranch with no basement 2 bedroom 2 bathroom. The no basement is huge, and again the fact the the upstairs non english speaking neighbor has a yappy little dog
A newborn doesn't take much room. Even a toddler doesn't take too much room.
If you were to "walk away" and ruin your credit - are you absolutely sure your wife could qualify for a larger mortgage in this market by herself? You said she has good credit, but does she make enough money?
golfer79
Senior Member
posted: Mar. 12, 2008 @ 1:29p
HumDoHamaraDo said: If you ever refinanced then it became a recourse loan and they can come after any of your assets.
I thought that was only if there was equity taken out or a second taken after the purchase.
Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.
Members of our community may attach files to a post in accordance with the User Agreement. FatWallet is not responsible for the content, accuracy, completeness or validity of any information contained in any attached file. Files have *not* been scanned for viruses. Be especially wary of Excel files which may contain malicious content.
