Better to just stop paying mortgage??
08-10-2010, 01:00 PM
#241
most people dont work for the federal government so its a moot point. There are other exceptions as well listed in the article such as jobs with security clearance, etc. But for private sector employees who are in the midst of financial hardships OR those choosing to make a prudent financial move and strategically default, this is a huge win and also a huge win for privacy in general.
08-10-2010, 01:09 PM
#242
most people dont work for the federal government so its a moot point. There are other exceptions as well listed in the article such as jobs with security clearance, etc. But for private sector employees who are in the midst of financial hardships OR those choosing to make a prudent financial move and strategically default, this is a huge win and also a huge win for privacy in general.
08-10-2010, 01:37 PM
#243
Team Owner
08-10-2010, 02:50 PM
#245
Team Owner
Ok, I read the wiki on that guy. You may continue with your credit checks. 
Now can you see why I'm concerned?
08-12-2010, 08:35 PM
#247
I feel the need...
`Buy and Bail' Homeowners Get Past Loan Restrictions
Harvey Collier, a mortgage broker in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, says he gets as many as 10 calls a month from people planning to default on their loans. The twist: They first want financing to buy another home.
Real estate professionals call it “buy and bail,” acquiring a new house before the buyer’s credit rating is ruined by walking away from the old one because it’s “underwater,” or worth less than the mortgage. It’s an attempt to escape payments on a home whose value may never recover while securing a new property, often at a lower price with a more affordable loan.
The practice, which constitutes fraud if borrowers lie on loan applications, is continuing even after Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the biggest U.S. mortgage-finance companies, beefed up standards to prevent it, according to brokers such as Collier and Meg Burns, senior associate director for congressional affairs and communications at the Federal Housing Finance Agency. Whether driven by greed or desperation, the persistency of buy and bail underscores the lingering impact of the worst housing crash since the Great Depression.....
Real estate professionals call it “buy and bail,” acquiring a new house before the buyer’s credit rating is ruined by walking away from the old one because it’s “underwater,” or worth less than the mortgage. It’s an attempt to escape payments on a home whose value may never recover while securing a new property, often at a lower price with a more affordable loan.
The practice, which constitutes fraud if borrowers lie on loan applications, is continuing even after Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the biggest U.S. mortgage-finance companies, beefed up standards to prevent it, according to brokers such as Collier and Meg Burns, senior associate director for congressional affairs and communications at the Federal Housing Finance Agency. Whether driven by greed or desperation, the persistency of buy and bail underscores the lingering impact of the worst housing crash since the Great Depression.....
I say make 'buy & bail' a felony, that outta nip these kind of stories in the bud.
08-13-2010, 08:36 AM
#249
Suzuka Master
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-0...e-freddie.html
I say make 'buy & bail' a felony, that outta nip these kind of stories in the bud.
I say make 'buy & bail' a felony, that outta nip these kind of stories in the bud.
I know a girl who did this.
When I found out, I was like "WTF, how is that even legal?". It's an obvious attempt to defraud the bank, I don't know how it isn't theft. 
08-13-2010, 10:34 AM
#250
Fannie Mae sent out a press release titled “Fannie Mae Increases Penalties for Borrowers Who Walk Away, Seven-Year Lockout Policy for Strategic Default”.
Before we discuss Fannie Mae’s, lobbyist induced policy let’s make a few points about Fannie Mae a company that is 80% owned by U.S. taxpayers and part of the largest taxpayer bailout in US History.
Fannie-Freddie Fix at $160 Billion With $1 Trillion Worst Case.
Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Bailouts Could Cost $1 Trillion.
Fannie Mae stock will be delisted from the New York Stock Exchange.
Enough said on that. Now on to the most important parts of Fannie Mae's new policy to attempt to punish strategic defaulters. These are the key parts of the policy:
1. If a borrower walks away and a.) had the capacity to pay or b.) does not complete a work out in good faith (workouts are defined as loan mods, short sales, and deed-in-lieu), then the borrower will be ineligible for any new Fannie Mae backed mortgage loan for a period of seven years from the date of foreclosure.
2. Fannie Mae will actively take legal action to recoup outstanding mortgage debt from borrowers who strategically default in jurisdictions that allow for deficiency judgments. Fannie Mae will be instructing servicers and lenders to essentially SPY on delinquent loans facing foreclosure and ask these same servicers and lenders put forth recommendations for cases that warrant deficiency judgments.
This is Fannie Mae's rationale "We're taking these steps to highlight the importance of working with your servicer," said Terence Edwards, executive vice president for credit portfolio management. "Walking away from a mortgage is bad for borrowers and bad for communities and our approach is meant to deter the disturbing trend toward strategic defaulting.”
Well let’s see. Basically Fannie Mae intends to ban strategically defaulting taxpayers from obtaining a mortgage loan from a company that is owned and financed by taxpayers because taxpayers have decided to stop paying their mortgage. On top of that Fannie Mae will get servicers and lenders to SPY on taxpayers to determine if they are strategically defaulting.
The primary ways in which to determine if a taxpayer strategically defaults are the review of tax returns, bank statements, income, savings, and investments. Then balance that against their expenses and liabilities. HMMMM…how can a servicer or bank get that information? The servicer or bank will request the borrowers financial information in order to process a loan modification, short sale, or deed-in-lieu. It get’s the info by PRETENDING to offer a loan modification by taking monthly TRIAL PAYMENTS and then denying the modification anyway…AKA Making Home Affordable Program (HAMP). It get's the info by PRETENDING to offer a deed-in-lieu and then denying it. It get's that info by PRETENDING to allow for a short sale and then denying it.
Can Fannie Mae, a servicer, or lender use financial information collected from a borrower against them in a proceeding for a deficiency judgment?
Of course the missing piece to the puzzle is: Underwater Properties.
What happens if a taxpayer homeowner can establish that their property is underwater thereby establishing it makes economic sense not to pay the mortgage? Which is what Fannie Mae basically did when it was bailed out on its poor investment choice of purchasing and holding worthless mortgage backed securities. It looks like lenders are hoping that the government will shift more of the loss of valueless homes on to taxpayers.
This comes on the heels of the United States House of Representatives introducing a potential law that has a provision barring "government-backed loans for borrowers who had strategically defaulted–walked away from their homes when they could still afford the mortgage payments."
What about basic contract principles? A mortgage loan is a contract between a borrower and the lender. If the borrower stops paying then the lender has specific rights and remedies contained in the contract. Why is Fannie Mae interfering with a borrowers contractual rights?
Can you say "Easily Influenced By Banking Lobbyist?
Can this be legal?
Is this even CONSTITUTIONAL?
Most importantly, WHY DOESN’T THE GOVERNMENT PUNISH LARGE BAILED OUT BANKS AND BUSINESSES THAT HAVE STRATEGICALLY DEFAULTED?
Why is the GOVERNMENT enforcing ECONOMIC Slavery? Why should any taxpayer waste their money on an asset that has no value. Businesses, investors, governments, and countries strategically default all the time.
Oh I see...our government believes banks and business are too big to fail while taxpayers, ordinary citizens are too small to succeed or protest.
Can you tell I am mad. You should be too
Before we discuss Fannie Mae’s, lobbyist induced policy let’s make a few points about Fannie Mae a company that is 80% owned by U.S. taxpayers and part of the largest taxpayer bailout in US History.
Fannie-Freddie Fix at $160 Billion With $1 Trillion Worst Case.
Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Bailouts Could Cost $1 Trillion.
Fannie Mae stock will be delisted from the New York Stock Exchange.
Enough said on that. Now on to the most important parts of Fannie Mae's new policy to attempt to punish strategic defaulters. These are the key parts of the policy:
1. If a borrower walks away and a.) had the capacity to pay or b.) does not complete a work out in good faith (workouts are defined as loan mods, short sales, and deed-in-lieu), then the borrower will be ineligible for any new Fannie Mae backed mortgage loan for a period of seven years from the date of foreclosure.
2. Fannie Mae will actively take legal action to recoup outstanding mortgage debt from borrowers who strategically default in jurisdictions that allow for deficiency judgments. Fannie Mae will be instructing servicers and lenders to essentially SPY on delinquent loans facing foreclosure and ask these same servicers and lenders put forth recommendations for cases that warrant deficiency judgments.
This is Fannie Mae's rationale "We're taking these steps to highlight the importance of working with your servicer," said Terence Edwards, executive vice president for credit portfolio management. "Walking away from a mortgage is bad for borrowers and bad for communities and our approach is meant to deter the disturbing trend toward strategic defaulting.”
Well let’s see. Basically Fannie Mae intends to ban strategically defaulting taxpayers from obtaining a mortgage loan from a company that is owned and financed by taxpayers because taxpayers have decided to stop paying their mortgage. On top of that Fannie Mae will get servicers and lenders to SPY on taxpayers to determine if they are strategically defaulting.
The primary ways in which to determine if a taxpayer strategically defaults are the review of tax returns, bank statements, income, savings, and investments. Then balance that against their expenses and liabilities. HMMMM…how can a servicer or bank get that information? The servicer or bank will request the borrowers financial information in order to process a loan modification, short sale, or deed-in-lieu. It get’s the info by PRETENDING to offer a loan modification by taking monthly TRIAL PAYMENTS and then denying the modification anyway…AKA Making Home Affordable Program (HAMP). It get's the info by PRETENDING to offer a deed-in-lieu and then denying it. It get's that info by PRETENDING to allow for a short sale and then denying it.
Can Fannie Mae, a servicer, or lender use financial information collected from a borrower against them in a proceeding for a deficiency judgment?
Of course the missing piece to the puzzle is: Underwater Properties.
What happens if a taxpayer homeowner can establish that their property is underwater thereby establishing it makes economic sense not to pay the mortgage? Which is what Fannie Mae basically did when it was bailed out on its poor investment choice of purchasing and holding worthless mortgage backed securities. It looks like lenders are hoping that the government will shift more of the loss of valueless homes on to taxpayers.
This comes on the heels of the United States House of Representatives introducing a potential law that has a provision barring "government-backed loans for borrowers who had strategically defaulted–walked away from their homes when they could still afford the mortgage payments."
What about basic contract principles? A mortgage loan is a contract between a borrower and the lender. If the borrower stops paying then the lender has specific rights and remedies contained in the contract. Why is Fannie Mae interfering with a borrowers contractual rights?
Can you say "Easily Influenced By Banking Lobbyist?
Can this be legal?
Is this even CONSTITUTIONAL?
Most importantly, WHY DOESN’T THE GOVERNMENT PUNISH LARGE BAILED OUT BANKS AND BUSINESSES THAT HAVE STRATEGICALLY DEFAULTED?
Why is the GOVERNMENT enforcing ECONOMIC Slavery? Why should any taxpayer waste their money on an asset that has no value. Businesses, investors, governments, and countries strategically default all the time.
Oh I see...our government believes banks and business are too big to fail while taxpayers, ordinary citizens are too small to succeed or protest.
Can you tell I am mad. You should be too
08-13-2010, 10:41 AM
#251
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-0...e-freddie.html
I say make 'buy & bail' a felony, that outta nip these kind of stories in the bud.
I say make 'buy & bail' a felony, that outta nip these kind of stories in the bud.
You do come dangerously close though by making statements such as this...making "buy and bail" activity a FELONY? so essentially, you are saying that when a family or a person who sees there is no end to the loss they are taking, they should remain in economic slavery, just because you say so or because you think its the right thing to do? To me this sounds like a very passive aggressive attitude because you are most likely also in a poor situation with your home (i.e. upside down, lost tons of value, etc) and dont have the guts to do what these people are doing in an effort to improve their lives.
Why do you think the private citizens should go to prison for taking action to save their financial future, actions that our goverment and thousands of businesses do each and every day across our nation and throughout the world?
I really dont want to argue with you but all i hear are these really angry statements from you, either calling names or saying people should be punished and thrown in jail. You never make a case for your statements other than to dance around the fact you think "its just the right thing to do". Well im sorry but that is just not good enough. A mortgage has nothing to do with morality, its a contract. A contract that has language that describes exactly what can and will happen in the event of a default. People walking away are abiding by their contract by vacating the property and returning it to the bank, thats what the contract calls for, where is the problem here? I just dont see it.
08-13-2010, 10:45 AM
#252
Senior Moderator
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: May 2000
Location: where the weather suits my clothes
Age: 55
Posts: 27,921
Received 1,080 Likes
on
661 Posts
Nope not mad because I have no sympathy for strategic defaulters (can you tell) 
Look, you keep going back to this argument:
The simple answer is DO NOT SELL!!!!!. You want your cake and eat it too. Guess what, TS. Life is tough, own up to your responsibilities.
Based on your quote, you still want to consider your home an investment. Well them how is this scenario any different than my 401K which lost a ton of money in the past few years? Why can't I call my FA and ask him to give me a mulligan and return all of the money I lost?
Please show me where in your mortgage contract it says your home is guaranteed to increase in value? I'll wait.
Look, you keep going back to this argument:
What happens if a taxpayer homeowner can establish that their property is underwater thereby establishing it makes economic sense not to pay the mortgage?
Based on your quote, you still want to consider your home an investment. Well them how is this scenario any different than my 401K which lost a ton of money in the past few years? Why can't I call my FA and ask him to give me a mulligan and return all of the money I lost?
Please show me where in your mortgage contract it says your home is guaranteed to increase in value? I'll wait.
08-13-2010, 10:48 AM
#253
Nope not mad because I have no sympathy for strategic defaulters (can you tell)
Look, you keep going back to this argument:
The simple answer is DO NOT SELL!!!!!. You want your cake and eat it too. Guess what, TS. Life is tough, own up to your responsibilities.
Based on your quote, you still want to consider your home an investment. Well them how is this scenario any different than my 401K which lost a ton of money in the past few years? Why can't I call my FA and ask him to give me a mulligan and return all of the money I lost?
Please show me where in your mortgage contract it says your home is guaranteed to increase in value? I'll wait.
Look, you keep going back to this argument:
The simple answer is DO NOT SELL!!!!!. You want your cake and eat it too. Guess what, TS. Life is tough, own up to your responsibilities.
Based on your quote, you still want to consider your home an investment. Well them how is this scenario any different than my 401K which lost a ton of money in the past few years? Why can't I call my FA and ask him to give me a mulligan and return all of the money I lost?
Please show me where in your mortgage contract it says your home is guaranteed to increase in value? I'll wait.
08-13-2010, 10:50 AM
#254
Senior Moderator
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: May 2000
Location: where the weather suits my clothes
Age: 55
Posts: 27,921
Received 1,080 Likes
on
661 Posts
I really dont want to argue with you but all i hear are these really angry statements from you, either calling names or saying people should be punished and thrown in jail. You never make a case for your statements other than to dance around the fact you think "its just the right thing to do". Well im sorry but that is just not good enough. A mortgage has nothing to do with morality, its a contract. A contract that has language that describes exactly what can and will happen in the event of a default. People walking away are abiding by their contract by vacating the property and returning it to the bank, thats what the contract calls for, where is the problem here? I just dont see it.
Can't wait for the first person who strategic defaults on their loan, gets their ass handed to them and then comes back and cries woe is me....
Sorry, no sympathy here.
08-13-2010, 10:55 AM
#255
no, there is no "parade" nor do i even understand your reasons for saying such a ridiculous thing. What the lenders should do is work through the steps outlined in the contract and accept the property into their portfolio. That is how the mortgage contract is written.
would you say something stupid like "what do the borrowers do when they pay off their mortgage??? HAVE A PARADE???!" It just sounds stupid....and you, among others here are way to wrapped up emotionally and ethically in the mortgage issue that it is clouding your vision.
would you say something stupid like "what do the borrowers do when they pay off their mortgage??? HAVE A PARADE???!" It just sounds stupid....and you, among others here are way to wrapped up emotionally and ethically in the mortgage issue that it is clouding your vision.
08-13-2010, 11:06 AM
#256
My responsibility is limited to abiding by the contract, whether that be by continuing to pay the payments and in doing so, ruining my current and future financial outlook, OR by defaulting and accepting the consequences of that action, i.e. temporary credit score damage and loss of the property. Either way, i am fulfilling my responsibility, as is the lender. End of story.
08-13-2010, 12:03 PM
#260
Senior Moderator
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: May 2000
Location: where the weather suits my clothes
Age: 55
Posts: 27,921
Received 1,080 Likes
on
661 Posts
Well then I see no reason why the mortgage company shouldn't go after you with great vengeance and furious anger (man I love that movie).
accept the property into their portfolio
08-13-2010, 12:22 PM
#261
Team Owner
OP are you going to do it or do you just like arguing?
08-13-2010, 07:18 PM
#264
I feel the need...
"closed minded" Thanks for the compliments, I guess.
You do come dangerously close though by making statements such as this...making "buy and bail" activity a FELONY? so essentially, you are saying that when a family or a person who sees there is no end to the loss they are taking, they should remain in economic slavery, just because you say so or because you think its the right thing to do?
To me this sounds like a very passive aggressive attitude because you are most likely also in a poor situation with your home (i.e. upside down, lost tons of value, etc) and dont have the guts to do what these people are doing in an effort to improve their lives.
Why do you think the private citizens should go to prison for taking action to save their financial future, actions that our goverment and thousands of businesses do each and every day across our nation and throughout the world?
I really dont want to argue with you but all i hear are these really angry statements from you, either calling names or saying people should be punished and thrown in jail. You never make a case for your statements other than to dance around the fact you think "its just the right thing to do". Well im sorry but that is just not good enough. A mortgage has nothing to do with morality, its a contract. A contract that has language that describes exactly what can and will happen in the event of a default. People walking away are abiding by their contract by vacating the property and returning it to the bank, thats what the contract calls for, where is the problem here? I just dont see it.
08-25-2010, 01:48 PM
#265
Team Owner
It's Okay To Walk Away: Let's End The "Morality" Double-Standard On Mortgage Defaults
http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker...ts-535365.html
http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker...ts-535365.html
More and more commercial real-estate companies are doing what many indebted homeowners would like to do: Walk away from mortgages on properties that are now worth a lot less than they paid for them.
Today's Wall Street Journal highlights three major developers - Macerich, Vornado Realty Trust and Simon Property Group - that have recently decided to default on mortgages.
When companies do this, no one bats an eye--it's just "smart business."
When ordinary homeowners think about doing it, meanwhile, the mortgage industry and government begin moaning that a mortgage is more than a business contract. It's a social contract, in which homeowners have a "moral obligation" to pay.
That's bunk. An individual mortgage is no different than a corporate mortgage. If corporations are allowed to walk away from mortgage obligations without feeling shame and guilt, then individuals should be able to do so, too.
Today's Wall Street Journal highlights three major developers - Macerich, Vornado Realty Trust and Simon Property Group - that have recently decided to default on mortgages.
When companies do this, no one bats an eye--it's just "smart business."
When ordinary homeowners think about doing it, meanwhile, the mortgage industry and government begin moaning that a mortgage is more than a business contract. It's a social contract, in which homeowners have a "moral obligation" to pay.
That's bunk. An individual mortgage is no different than a corporate mortgage. If corporations are allowed to walk away from mortgage obligations without feeling shame and guilt, then individuals should be able to do so, too.
Importantly, the lender voluntarily entered into the contract--and it did so because it thought doing so was a smart business decision. That it actually turned out to be a lousy business decision is not the homeowner's fault. It's the lender's fault. And the borrower, who is already feeling plenty of pain his or herself, should not have to bear the burden of guilt and shame on top of everything else.
08-25-2010, 02:51 PM
#267
Drifting
I agree that there should not be a double-standard but who says there's no stigma in a corporation walking away from a loan? The corporation will most-likely burn that bridge with the bank holding the loan. Corporations usually need to put money down and pay higher interest rates than normal homeowners because there is more risk in speculative loans too. The Corps profiled in the link above are in the business of renting commercial real estate to stores. What do you think happens when there is a 30% vacancy factor in the mall the corporation owns or tenants demand a rent reduction ? The loss rental revenue will impact the corporation's ability to make the payments on the loan. This does become a business decision for a company and is completely different from what the start of this thread indicated.
This thread started out as a regular homeowner that bought a house to live in and got disenchanted with the house once it dropped in value and is worth less than the loan amount. The home purchase was never a business decision at the start- just a personal decision to buy a home to live in and hopefully have it appreciate in value. The OP has the ability to pay the mortgage and still lives/lived in the house- a completely different perspective than Macerich Co., Vornado Realty Trust and Simon Property Group have. These company's have cash-flow problems and need to lighten the load in most cases.
Someone always loses when a loan defaults in a down market- there is no getting around this obvious point.
This thread started out as a regular homeowner that bought a house to live in and got disenchanted with the house once it dropped in value and is worth less than the loan amount. The home purchase was never a business decision at the start- just a personal decision to buy a home to live in and hopefully have it appreciate in value. The OP has the ability to pay the mortgage and still lives/lived in the house- a completely different perspective than Macerich Co., Vornado Realty Trust and Simon Property Group have. These company's have cash-flow problems and need to lighten the load in most cases.
Someone always loses when a loan defaults in a down market- there is no getting around this obvious point.
08-25-2010, 04:21 PM
#268
Suzuka Master
I agree that there should not be a double-standard but who says there's no stigma in a corporation walking away from a loan? The corporation will most-likely burn that bridge with the bank holding the loan. Corporations usually need to put money down and pay higher interest rates than normal homeowners because there is more risk in speculative loans too. The Corps profiled in the link above are in the business of renting commercial real estate to stores. What do you think happens when there is a 30% vacancy factor in the mall the corporation owns or tenants demand a rent reduction ? The loss rental revenue will impact the corporation's ability to make the payments on the loan. This does become a business decision for a company and is completely different from what the start of this thread indicated.
This thread started out as a regular homeowner that bought a house to live in and got disenchanted with the house once it dropped in value and is worth less than the loan amount. The home purchase was never a business decision at the start- just a personal decision to buy a home to live in and hopefully have it appreciate in value. The OP has the ability to pay the mortgage and still lives/lived in the house- a completely different perspective than Macerich Co., Vornado Realty Trust and Simon Property Group have. These company's have cash-flow problems and need to lighten the load in most cases.
Someone always loses when a loan defaults in a down market- there is no getting around this obvious point.
This thread started out as a regular homeowner that bought a house to live in and got disenchanted with the house once it dropped in value and is worth less than the loan amount. The home purchase was never a business decision at the start- just a personal decision to buy a home to live in and hopefully have it appreciate in value. The OP has the ability to pay the mortgage and still lives/lived in the house- a completely different perspective than Macerich Co., Vornado Realty Trust and Simon Property Group have. These company's have cash-flow problems and need to lighten the load in most cases.
Someone always loses when a loan defaults in a down market- there is no getting around this obvious point.
When you agree to do something or pay something for something, there IS a moral contract involved, period. Some things obviously hold more weight than others and entering into a contract with the intention of fulfilling it, but not being able to are a completely different thing. We are talking about willfully entering a contract, then choosing to not fulfill it because it is not convenient.
08-25-2010, 08:44 PM
#269
The US government bailed out Fannie and Freddie... who is gonna bail out Martha and John from down the street?... this is getting beyond ridiculous!
...the American dream of being married, having kids, owing your own house and having a station wagon is just DEAD.... houses are now "holes in the ground" with an address... mine aint worth crap anymore and I started off with over 50K in equity when I bought it...
...the American dream of being married, having kids, owing your own house and having a station wagon is just DEAD.... houses are now "holes in the ground" with an address... mine aint worth crap anymore and I started off with over 50K in equity when I bought it...
08-26-2010, 06:06 AM
#270
Furthermore, please explain to me how and when it became my RESPONSIBILITY to suffer and remain shackled to an unwanted, unneeded, financially draining, underwater home that is preventing my ability to live happily and comfortably?
My responsibility is limited to abiding by the contract, whether that be by continuing to pay the payments and in doing so, ruining my current and future financial outlook, OR by defaulting and accepting the consequences of that action, i.e. temporary credit score damage and loss of the property. Either way, i am fulfilling my responsibility, as is the lender. End of story.
My responsibility is limited to abiding by the contract, whether that be by continuing to pay the payments and in doing so, ruining my current and future financial outlook, OR by defaulting and accepting the consequences of that action, i.e. temporary credit score damage and loss of the property. Either way, i am fulfilling my responsibility, as is the lender. End of story.
It became your responsibility to legally pay back the loan when you signed for it. You can't argue against this point. You knew how much you were going to take out, and when the market drops, you still owe that money.
08-26-2010, 09:27 AM
#271
Карты убийцы
If everyone was ethically and morally obligated to "live up to the deal," then we would not need contracts. A handshake would do. Contracts are made to be honored and broken filled full of promises and consequences.
I see no diifference in a strategic default like a recent contract I had with ATT.
We (ATT and myself) signed a contract to install ATT Uverse. Unfortunately, when the tech's arrived, I was at 3400 ft. (the limit) from the VRAD. They could have extended the range another 1000 feet with a pair bonding technique but at great costs.
ATT made a strategic decision not to spend the extra money and not complete the installation. So I guess they are crooks and I should get a lawyer and carry the case to the SCOTUS.
Instead we both agreed to void the contract and ATT gave me a $100 visa card for my trouble.
In so many of these posts, I think people think the terms "contract, charity, honor, responsibility, etc." are not mutually exclusive.
I see no diifference in a strategic default like a recent contract I had with ATT.
We (ATT and myself) signed a contract to install ATT Uverse. Unfortunately, when the tech's arrived, I was at 3400 ft. (the limit) from the VRAD. They could have extended the range another 1000 feet with a pair bonding technique but at great costs.
ATT made a strategic decision not to spend the extra money and not complete the installation. So I guess they are crooks and I should get a lawyer and carry the case to the SCOTUS.
Instead we both agreed to void the contract and ATT gave me a $100 visa card for my trouble.
In so many of these posts, I think people think the terms "contract, charity, honor, responsibility, etc." are not mutually exclusive.
08-26-2010, 09:44 AM
#272
If everyone was ethically and morally obligated to "live up to the deal," then we would not need contracts. A handshake would do. Contracts are made to be honored and broken filled full of promises and consequences.
I see no diifference in a strategic default like a recent contract I had with ATT.
We (ATT and myself) signed a contract to install ATT Uverse. Unfortunately, when the tech's arrived, I was at 3400 ft. (the limit) from the VRAD. They could have extended the range another 1000 feet with a pair bonding technique but at great costs.
ATT made a strategic decision not to spend the extra money and not complete the installation. So I guess they are crooks and I should get a lawyer and carry the case to the SCOTUS.
Instead we both agreed to void the contract and ATT gave me a $100 visa card for my trouble.
In so many of these posts, I think people think the terms "contract, charity, honor, responsibility, etc." are not mutually exclusive.
I see no diifference in a strategic default like a recent contract I had with ATT.
We (ATT and myself) signed a contract to install ATT Uverse. Unfortunately, when the tech's arrived, I was at 3400 ft. (the limit) from the VRAD. They could have extended the range another 1000 feet with a pair bonding technique but at great costs.
ATT made a strategic decision not to spend the extra money and not complete the installation. So I guess they are crooks and I should get a lawyer and carry the case to the SCOTUS.
Instead we both agreed to void the contract and ATT gave me a $100 visa card for my trouble.
In so many of these posts, I think people think the terms "contract, charity, honor, responsibility, etc." are not mutually exclusive.
08-26-2010, 09:54 AM
#273
Suzuka Master
That is the difference, plain and simple. You BOTH agreed to void the contract. You think the bank is going to let someone just walk away from a contract without a fight? Sometimes that happens, but the majority of banks won't do that. They will come after the defaulted homeowner.
One of the big problems in the US today is people have no honor, all they are concerned with is what are other people doing, and what is in it for me. It's obvious from this thread alone that some people don't even understand the concept of personal honor or what it means to keep your word. It's all about "well, they would do it to me..."
Sad really, I'm guessing a lot of these kids learn it in school....
08-26-2010, 09:59 AM
#274
And even if you did not both agree, and they just violated the contract, in what kind of bizarro world does that make it ethically the right thing to do to void contracts with other people.
One of the big problems in the US today is people have no honor, all they are concerned with is what are other people doing, and what is in it for me. It's obvious from this thread alone that some people don't even understand the concept of personal honor or what it means to keep your word. It's all about "well, they would do it to me..." Sad really, I'm guessing a lot of these kids learn it in school....
One of the big problems in the US today is people have no honor, all they are concerned with is what are other people doing, and what is in it for me. It's obvious from this thread alone that some people don't even understand the concept of personal honor or what it means to keep your word. It's all about "well, they would do it to me..."
Sad really, I'm guessing a lot of these kids learn it in school....It does not make it right because a contract was signed. They would have been legally obligated to perform the installation.
I guess both wanted out. I agree with you though.
08-26-2010, 10:07 AM
#275
Suzuka Master
08-26-2010, 10:21 AM
#277
Карты убийцы
Let's look at it another way.
When you get married, aren't you entering into a contract? But isn't there an option to break the contract call divorce?
What I am saying is that the reason one breaks the contract is a moot point. The contract should be structured in such a way that if either party breaks the contract, the other party is made whole.
Again if honor and ethics were so strong, we'd never need a written, legal, agreement.
When you get married, aren't you entering into a contract? But isn't there an option to break the contract call divorce?
What I am saying is that the reason one breaks the contract is a moot point. The contract should be structured in such a way that if either party breaks the contract, the other party is made whole.
Again if honor and ethics were so strong, we'd never need a written, legal, agreement.
08-26-2010, 02:55 PM
#278
Drifting
^ Yes, but I don't ever hear about the poor homeowners who violate their 'contracts/marriages' ever paying the equivalent of alimony to the bank holding the note. To honor the 'contract' should that be done?
I think the Bubba-style defaults would vanish if the government disallowed certain tax credits from these individuals and routed them back to the banks- like a lien type of thing. They could also withhold Tax refunds and certainly renters credits to pay off these obligations.
What's going on hurts everybody- not just the bank. If the penalties were harsher, these defaults would stop and perhaps the market could find some traction to recover or slow the drop at least.
I think the Bubba-style defaults would vanish if the government disallowed certain tax credits from these individuals and routed them back to the banks- like a lien type of thing. They could also withhold Tax refunds and certainly renters credits to pay off these obligations.
What's going on hurts everybody- not just the bank. If the penalties were harsher, these defaults would stop and perhaps the market could find some traction to recover or slow the drop at least.
08-26-2010, 03:16 PM
#279
Карты убийцы
^ You hit the nail on the head... make the contract stringent enough and the problem dissapears. This concept could be applied to marriage as well. Make the consequences of a divorce is that each spouse gets a hand cut off and the divorce rate drops to zero. No more no-fault divorces.
Back to the mortgage contracts, I could foresee the insurance industry coming up with products to cover the banks loss if you decide to strategically default.
Back to the mortgage contracts, I could foresee the insurance industry coming up with products to cover the banks loss if you decide to strategically default.
08-26-2010, 08:42 PM
#280
Drifting
^ I think that is what PMI is: Principal Mortgage Insurance. I hated PMI but had it on my first home's loan. I remember paying about $100/month for this insurance and it's not tax deductible either.
I would expect the industry to catch a clue and charge much higher fees to a past strategic defaulter- much like an accident/dui raises your rates in car insurance.
I don't think there are any free rides for anyone. The government still owns large percentages of banks and I wouldn't assume a cash-strapped government would not decide to penalize some of the people that partly caused the bank issues in the first place. Social Security would also be a great way to recover some of those losses and that is also in financial trouble too.
I would expect the industry to catch a clue and charge much higher fees to a past strategic defaulter- much like an accident/dui raises your rates in car insurance.
I don't think there are any free rides for anyone. The government still owns large percentages of banks and I wouldn't assume a cash-strapped government would not decide to penalize some of the people that partly caused the bank issues in the first place. Social Security would also be a great way to recover some of those losses and that is also in financial trouble too.