foreclosure, will you come?

I'm on the integrity side. He borrowed money, now he doesn't want what he spent the money on, so he is reneging on his word and his signature.

He is in a position to pay the money back, but he does not care about what he promised to do.

No matter how you slice the cake, he is now in the same league, and on par, with any low life he encounters. His word is worthless, his handshake is worthless, his signature is worthless.

He is a full blown low life. Your association with him can bring no good on your name.

-John
Dead spot-on!
I'll add that some people think they "own' a house once they sign the loan documents. They don't. They own a piece of the house if they put money down. After a while they may not own any of the house if the value goes down enough.
If you can't afford the payments, or you just don't think it's wise to continue to pay, get the hell out and rent. Too many people have an aversion to renting, they think they're above that sort of thing. Well, guess what, if you're upside-down and making payments, it's pretty much the same thing. If you're not making payments, like the subject of this thread, you're a thief.
 
I'm not quite following. Has some hardship befallen him that precludes him from making mortgage payments?

I had the same question, if he can make the payments, why walk away? You don't see people walking away from car loans when they get upside down, so why is it OK to do it with a home loan.:confused:
 
I'm on the integrity side. He borrowed money, now he doesn't want what he spent the money on, so he is reneging on his word and his signature.

He is in a position to pay the money back, but he does not care about what he promised to do.

No matter how you slice the cake, he is now in the same league, and on par, with any low life he encounters. His word is worthless, his handshake is worthless, his signature is worthless.

He is a full blown low life. Your association with him can bring no good on your name.

-John

John and I disagree on a lot of things, but this is certainly not one of them. I respect all of his beliefs, as wrong as some of them are, :D
but one thing I know for sure is that this man has integrity. I would trust my life in his hands more than I would the aforementioned law enforcement officer.
 
Too many people have an aversion to renting, they think they're above that sort of thing. Well, guess what, if you're upside-down and making payments, it's pretty much the same thing.
Not really considering it might cost a sizable sum to settle the negative equity and move - so it's a far worse position than renting.

Unfortunately "Getting the hell out" and renting is easier said than done.

Now if you short sell and avoid responsibility for the deficiency (and California doesn't allow deficiency judgements post short sell) then you're back to being a "thief".

Put differently, outside of California don't be surprised if you leave a short sale with a sizable amount of unsecured debt. Paying it would be a bitter pill, but the person is economically no worse of than if they stayed in the house (excluding transaction costs associated with any real estate transaction).
 
Last edited:
No they do not. They recover the amount of the loan, the rest of the proceeds to to any junior liens and the residual to the original borrower.

You are totally confused as to what a mortgage is about.

correct...
 
I have listed foreclosures that sat vacant, unpaid, etc for over 3 years. They do check on the properties, and maintained occupied residence will get foreclosed on after a vacant mess.

Have him get in touch with an experienced short sale agent and he may be able to avoid the foreclosure and bankruptcy. Shoot me a pm if you want but atleast get someone who is cdpe certified or find an agent that has close short sales in the bay area recently...

I had a client who just had a modification done to their mortgage that was very competitive and brought the costs down significantly.
 
John and I disagree on a lot of things, but this is certainly not one of them. I respect all of his beliefs, as wrong as some of them are, :D
but one thing I know for sure is that this man has integrity. I would trust my life in his hands more than I would the aforementioned law enforcement officer.

This was going great until I got to the part with the crazy talk, but thanks for the rest of it. :rolleyes:

-John
 
I had the same question, if he can make the payments, why walk away?

Well, I don't know about this guy, and I don't have kids.

But if I was in a position where if I walked away, the bank gets screwed and I can pay for my kids to go to college, or I stay and I can't, then the question would be what's more important to you. Honoring a contract or your kids future?

Where this guy is really in the wrong, is not moving, and choosing to live somewhere and not paying for it. I was underwater after the first year I bought the house, but I still lived there and paid for it. I would still be doing so if we did not chose to leave the state for employment reasons.

But again, I don't have kids. If I did, and one choice or the other means I could better provide for them, it would be a lot more difficult choice.

Again, not saying this is going through this guys head, but you asked "why walk away".
 
But if I was in a position where if I walked away, the bank gets screwed and I can pay for my kids to go to college, or I stay and I can't, then the question would be what's more important to you. Honoring a contract or your kids future?

Sure. But that's not the case here. As the OP confirmed, nothing has changed in the borrowers circumstances since he purchased the house other than the home declining in value.
 
Not in my opinion. Read the mortgage contract. If you don't pay, they foeclose. It's you're right to not pay (default) and they have the right to foreclose if you do. There's nothing "patriotic" about staying in an underwater house. The banks caused this mess, you don't owe them a penny. We already bailed them out once, By continuing to pay, you're bailing them out for a second time.

While SOME banks may have contributed to the mess, they didn't cause it. And, many banks neither caused it nor contributed to it. The cause was ultimately bad public policy compounded over the years. It was the politicians (from both parties) who caused the problem by encouraging and sometimes mandating bad behavior.

However, the value of the property and the obligation to repay the loan are two completely separate and unrelated issues. If you sign for a mortgage and the property value drops to zero, that has absolutely no impact on your obligation to repay the loan, on time, and in full. To do otherwise demonstrates a complete lack of YOUR integrity, and not the bank. At some point, the property value will rebound. If you're buying a house as an "investment" rather than a required place to live, you're risking that investment going underwater, just like any other investment. That risk is and should be entirely held by the home buyer.

Furthermore, failing to repay the loan while continuing to live in the house is essentially theft. I'd have a hard time EVER doing business with someone (including hiring them, OR continuing to keep them employed) who decided that their promise to repay a loan is null and void, just because it isn't presently in their financial best interest. Their word only goes as far as they deem it to be in their own self interest. A dishonorable and certainly untrustworthy person, indeed.

Interesting that he continues to pay the condo fee, likely because the condo association would take him to court in an instant, and he knows that the bank will probably take a while to sift through the paperwork to get to him. Good luck getting the next loan.


JKG
 
Last edited:
Just a comment on the idea that the collapse of the market in 08 was a complete surprise...
There were many people who saw the warning signs by early to mid 2007... My broker and I were very nervous by the start of 4th Q 07 and I bailed completely out of the market the last week of the 07 and first week 08 selling every security I held and putting it into cash... Now this was not a rash decision, some of those bonds and stocks had been held for 30+ years and were the culmination of a long and determined strategy of monthly purchases to buy and hold and selling them all at once had significant tax consequences - very painful financially, but not as painful as the consequences of holding the securities a few more months would have been... Up to that point I hand never sold a single share of stock in my entire life, only purchased...
The market collapse came as a shock only to those who were determined to whistle past the graveyard (shrug)...

And I have not put a penny back into securities since... The market is 13,000 plus today and there is not even a tiny stick holding it up at those ridiculous numbers...

When those who manipulate the markets have generated enough profits from their purchases of dirt cheap securities at the bottom of the market 08 and 09 will take their profits and step back (again) and the market will fall hard (again)...

At this point in time, and with Bernanke determined to add another 30% to the circulating money supply the best place for your money is farm land... A dozen of you guys pool your money and start investing in land and you will be smiling so hard your face will hurt 20 years from now...
 
It is some difficult times we live in.. BUT...

He put his signature on a mortgage and promised to pay it in good faith... Now he has cold feet and quits paying 10 months ago and continues to live in the property. To me that is FRAUD and as a LEO he is sworn to uphold the law... Apparently he is above the law. IMHO. YMMV.:mad:

I agree with you completely. What ever happened to integrity and keeping with a deal made?
 
At this point in time, and with Bernanke determined to add another 30% to the circulating money supply the best place for your money is farm land... A dozen of you guys pool your money and start investing in land and you will be smiling so hard your face will hurt 20 years from now...

The idea that the markets should provide some "guarantee" of performance seems to be commonplace these days, but that is contrary to how markets work. They are inherently speculative, and always will be. There is and always will be risk. When regulators start trying to "protect" people against normal risk by manipulating the markets, those actions are certain to cause problems.


JKG
 
Ultimately, it's the voters who decided to retain all those congressmen who endorsed the bailout after getting shafted so many times.

Over 60 seats switched sides in the House in the last election, and six in the Senate.

It remains to be seen if those voted in actually "get it", as it pertains to the message the public was sending, however.
 
I bailed completely out of the market the last week of the 07 and first week 08 selling every security I held and putting it into cash..

I did that with my 401k.

People all around me were losing half their value, but I did ok.
 
While SOME banks may have contributed to the mess, they didn't cause it. And, many banks neither caused it nor contributed to it. The cause was ultimately bad public policy compounded over the years. It was the politicians (from both parties) who caused the problem by encouraging and sometimes mandating bad behavior.

However, the value of the property and the obligation to repay the loan are two completely separate and unrelated issues. If you sign for a mortgage and the property value drops to zero, that has absolutely no impact on your obligation to repay the loan, on time, and in full. To do otherwise demonstrates a complete lack of YOUR integrity, and not the bank. At some point, the property value will rebound. If you're buying a house as an "investment" rather than a required place to live, you're risking that investment going underwater, just like any other investment. That risk is and should be entirely held by the home buyer.

Furthermore, failing to repay the loan while continuing to live in the house is essentially theft. I'd have a hard time EVER doing business with someone (including hiring them, OR continuing to keep them employed) who decided that their promise to repay a loan is null and void, just because it isn't presently in their financial best interest. Their word only goes as far as they deem it to be in their own self interest. A dishonorable and certainly untrustworthy person, indeed.

Interesting that he continues to pay the condo fee, likely because the condo association would take him to court in an instant, and he knows that the bank will probably take a while to sift through the paperwork to get to him. Good luck getting the next loan.


JKG
I agree with everything you said except with what I highlighted. Purchasing a home is always an investment, otherwise, rent. If a person knew that a home he or she bought would drop in value, they wouldn't buy it, plain and simple. Classic definition of an investment.
And I'll say it again, the subject of this thread is a thief, a squatter.
 
Last edited:
I agree with everything you said except with what I highlighted. Purchasing a home is always an investment, otherwise, rent. If a person knew that a home he or she bought would drop in value, they wouldn't buy it, plain and simple. Classic definition of an investment.
And I'll say it again, the subject of this thread is a thief, a squatter.

Houses are sold that way, but isnt guaranteed by god or govt. And the market has asurprise for all those folks that planned on selling their*cough* expensive suburban homes downsizing and using the money to fund retirement.
 
I agree with everything you said except with what I highlighted. Purchasing a home is always an investment, otherwise, rent. If a person knew that a home he or she bought would drop in value, they wouldn't buy it, plain and simple. Classic definition of an investment.
And I'll say it again, the subject of this thread is a thief, a squatter.

I'm not sure that we disagree.

Of course a house is an investment, but like ALL market-based investments, there are no guarantees of performance. The investments could go underwater. The problem is that folks believed that housing was a "safe" market, and that values would never materially decrease, which was both an irrational perspective and obviously proven to be incorrect.

Most folks probably wouldn't take the contents of their bank accounts AND their paychecks and risk everything in the stock market, but many folks had no problem buying WAY more house than they could afford. When the value tanks and banks start calling in loans (which should be no surprise), they can't pay. Too bad for them. No one to blame but themselves and their own absent-minded decisions.

Some folks have apparently forgotten or never learned the idea that even when the other guy does wrong, they have an obligation to do right. Now, they use the mere PERCEPTION of wrongdoing on someone else's part to justify wrongdoing on theirs. A convenient way to shun personal responsibility, I suppose, but one that will eventually come back to bite them.


JKG
 
Well, I don't know about this guy, and I don't have kids.

But if I was in a position where if I walked away, the bank gets screwed and I can pay for my kids to go to college, or I stay and I can't, then the question would be what's more important to you. Honoring a contract or your kids future?

Where this guy is really in the wrong, is not moving, and choosing to live somewhere and not paying for it. I was underwater after the first year I bought the house, but I still lived there and paid for it. I would still be doing so if we did not chose to leave the state for employment reasons.

But again, I don't have kids. If I did, and one choice or the other means I could better provide for them, it would be a lot more difficult choice.

Again, not saying this is going through this guys head, but you asked "why walk away".

For those who are keen on the ethics part of this discussion, how about a different scenario. Suppose that an ordinary man living a lower income life with minor children and a working wife is diagnosed with a severe medical condition that requires expensive surgery and post surgery recovery. Maybe $100,000+ which I think is not unusual. This man, like many in his economic position, does not have health insurance although his children are covered by the state's plan that covers children in low income families. He is not able to get insurance because he now has a preexisting condition and the provisions of the Affordable Health Care Act that will allow him to get insurance don't kick in until 2014.

So, does he sit back and wait to die or does he agree to hospital and doctor bills that he knows up front he will not be able to pay?
 
At this point in time, and with Bernanke determined to add another 30% to the circulating money supply the best place for your money is farm land... A dozen of you guys pool your money and start investing in land and you will be smiling so hard your face will hurt 20 years from now...

not sure i would do that. prices are skyrocketing in Iowa, they've hit 20K per acre at least once. Corn prices can't stay high forever, eventually the bubble will burst.
 
For those who are keen on the ethics part of this discussion, how about a different scenario. Suppose that an ordinary man living a lower income life with minor children and a working wife is diagnosed with a severe medical condition that requires expensive surgery and post surgery recovery. Maybe $100,000+ which I think is not unusual. This man, like many in his economic position, does not have health insurance although his children are covered by the state's plan that covers children in low income families. He is not able to get insurance because he now has a preexisting condition and the provisions of the Affordable Health Care Act that will allow him to get insurance don't kick in until 2014.

So, does he sit back and wait to die or does he agree to hospital and doctor bills that he knows up front he will not be able to pay?

This argument is flawed because his life won't be foreclosed and sold to make up the difference of his debt. He can spend his life paying on the debt he owes to the hospital. That's about surviving, that's not about being inconvenienced with a mortgage on a home that's upside down in value. Poor comparison.
 
For those who are keen on the ethics part of this discussion, how about a different scenario. Suppose that an ordinary man living a lower income life with minor children and a working wife is diagnosed with a severe medical condition that requires expensive surgery and post surgery recovery. Maybe $100,000+ which I think is not unusual. This man, like many in his economic position, does not have health insurance although his children are covered by the state's plan that covers children in low income families. He is not able to get insurance because he now has a preexisting condition and the provisions of the Affordable Health Care Act that will allow him to get insurance don't kick in until 2014.

So, does he sit back and wait to die or does he agree to hospital and doctor bills that he knows up front he will not be able to pay?

Is this man employed? If not, why not? And is insurance available through his employer or other group (such as a labor union)? Exclusions for pre-existing conditions are restricted for group plans. Does this person qualify for Medicaid?

If we are talking about buying an individual plan off the street, coverage is usually not denied wholesale, and any pre-existing condition exclusions would not apply to future illnesses not related to the pre-existing condition. There is usually a limitation on the time that a pre-existing condition may be excluded from coverage. And, if coverage is denied, the first choice should be to negotiate with the insurance company. Most folks don't ever do this, because it requires work (and education) on their part. It's easier just to complain about the big, mean, evil insurance companies who want everyone to die so that the CEO can drive a Bentley.

Let's assume that a person shows up in a hospital ER without insurance and needs $100k worth of work. Medical bills CAN ALWAYS be negotiated. Providers would rather that you pay something than pay nothing. For those who can truly pay nothing, there are plenty of charitable foundations which are well-endowed and able to provide funds for necessary medical care. However, most private charities--unlike the government--don't give away free money. There are eligibility tests and often a requirement of personal responsibility from the recipient in return for the financial assistance.

The idea that if it weren't for a government safety net, "Corporate America" would permit those in need to die in the streets is so spectacularly false and irresponsible that it's incredible that anyone would even suggest it. The reality is that government providing hand-outs with little to no personal responsibility required in return directly damages the ability of the private sector to provide charitable services. Who is going to want to turn to a charity or foundation for help when they know there will be personal responsibility required in return, when they can turn to the government, who requires none?

Ultimately, it is our responsibility as private citizens to ensure that care is provided to those who truly cannot provide it for themselves. We have (and have always had) a vehicle to do that through private charities, who are in the best position to evaluate need and distribute necessary help to those truly in need. Unfortunately, government assistance has created a growing class of "freeloaders" who could do something, but find it easier to follow a government process built to the lowest common denominator, in order to receive benefits that do not impose such onerous requirements for personal responsibility.


JKG
 
not sure i would do that. prices are skyrocketing in Iowa, they've hit 20K per acre at least once. Corn prices can't stay high forever, eventually the bubble will burst.
Even with this ridiculous ethanol mandate? We gotta eat too, and corn goes into just about everything including the mouths of livestock.
Just a few years ago at times corn was going for 10 ears/$1.00 at the local supermarket. Not no mo...
 
Even with this ridiculous ethanol mandate? We gotta eat too, and corn goes into just about everything including the mouths of livestock.
Just a few years ago at times corn was going for 10 ears/$1.00 at the local supermarket. Not no mo...

i doubt the ethanol mandate will last forever. the industry will find a way to grow more corn and bring the prices down anyway. They are very good at that. last year more acres of corn were planted in Kansas than since the 30's and the only reason the yield didn't beat the year before was because of an awful drought which kept prices high.

the sweet corn you buy in the supermarket has nothing to do with the corn that is grown in fields to produce cattle feed, ethanol, and high fructose corn syrup.
 
This argument is flawed because his life won't be foreclosed and sold to make up the difference of his debt. He can spend his life paying on the debt he owes to the hospital. That's about surviving, that's not about being inconvenienced with a mortgage on a home that's upside down in value. Poor comparison.

Okay. How about if he can get health insurance in spite of the preexisting condition but knows that the insurance company is going to pay out a lot more than he is ever likely to pay in. Still okay? You might think of this as buying a mortgage on his health but knowing up front that the "lender" is going to come up short.

Also, is it not possible that when he dies the hospital will come after the survivors to collect on the debt?
 
Okay. How about if he can get health insurance in spite of the preexisting condition but knows that the insurance company is going to pay out a lot more than he is ever likely to pay in. Still okay? You might think of this as buying a mortgage on his health but knowing up front that the "lender" is going to come up short.

Also, is it not possible that when he dies the hospital will come after the survivors to collect on the debt?

Isn't that what health insurance is for? I'm not understanding your question. The burden of debt will be on the family if he dies, whether he owes the hospital or not. He doesn't need to own a home to support his family, but he needs to live to support his family. Again, poor comparison.
 
Isn't that what health insurance is for? I'm not understanding your question. The burden of debt will be on the family if he dies, whether he owes the hospital or not. He doesn't need to own a home to support his family, but he needs to live to support his family. Again, poor comparison.

Many have said in this and other forums that many people obtained mortgages knowing, or they should have known, or the lenders probably knew, that they would probably not be able to repay them. But if someone obtains insurance knowing that the insurance company is going to lose that is okay? The difference I see is that people feel quite differently about ethical issues where human life is involved.
 
Going back to the home loan, people can feel however they want about the moral obligation to pay back the loan, but it isn't as if the mortgage company is providing the loan out of generosity. They are making money off of the loan and will probably sell it anyway, plus they have secured it with the house. To them it's a business deal with calculated risks. The problem is that some of their calculations were wrong. I'm sure no one actually set out to collapse the housing market but there were unintended consequences.
 
Many have said in this and other forums that many people obtained mortgages knowing, or they should have known, or the lenders probably knew, that they would probably not be able to repay them. But if someone obtains insurance knowing that the insurance company is going to lose that is okay? The difference I see is that people feel quite differently about ethical issues where human life is involved.

My biggest issue with this Officer is not that he's reneging on what he agreed to pay. The guy is squatting. Living free in a condo that he's not paying for.
 
A friend of mine (a single guy, btw. he is a very young police officer) bought a condo in the San Francisco Bay Area in 2005 for about $250,000, unfortunately it was almost at the peak of the market. This condo is now worth not even 1/2 of that. Recently he made a calculated decision that he was no longer willing to carry this mortgage and let go of the property. He stopped making mortgage payments at the end of 2011 (though he continues to pay association fees). He was counting on getting some nasty letters and be out of the property within a few months (he's got plans where to go) but so far not a single letter, nothing. I spoke with him only yesterday - he still lives in the condo and nobody bothers him.

I find it very interesting the OP / olasek, has not chimed in with any additional info or comments.:dunno::dunno::idea::confused:..

Maybe he is the single guy in question .:dunno:
 
Maybe he is the single guy in question .
I can assure you I am not and my profession is very far from law enforcement.
Not sure what any chiming would be good for, frankly I think the subject got beaten to death and the posts are becoming highly repetitious, only FlyerQ's last post with a link to a very interesting reading contributed imho something of value in the last say 72 hrs.
 
Last edited:
I can assure you I am not and my profession is very far from law enforcement.
Not sure what any chiming would be good for, frankly I think the subject got beaten to death and the posts are becoming highly repetitious, only FlyerQ's last post with a link to a very interesting reading contributed something of value in the last say 72 hrs.


Thanks for chiming in to clear that up..:yesnod:..

As for your original post.

"A friend of mine (a single guy, btw"...........................

Personally I would pick better friends...:yesnod::wink2:
 
TPersonally I would pick better friends...:yesnod::wink2:
Please stay away this moralizing tone and who is supposed my friend and not, your post is a good example why this thread outlived its usefulness long time ago.:mad:
 
Please stay away this moralizing tone and who is supposed my friend and not, your post is a good example why this thread outlived its usefulness long time ago.:mad:
I am assuming your use of the :mad::mad::mad::mad:, means you are mad.:dunno:..

You started the thread,, now deal with it....

Ps... and while we are at it... Would you loan your "friend" money.:dunno::nono:
 
Please stay away this moralizing tone and who is supposed my friend and not, your post is a good example why this thread outlived its usefulness long time ago.:mad:

What's a "moralizing" tone? Having morals, or stating clearly that one is known by the company one keeps?

Is that basic truth politically incorrect nowadays?

(Serious question.)

I've heard this insinuation that morality is inappropriate quite a bit lately in a number of contexts.

Seems to me to be a slowly creeping way to make sure Government is the seat of rules rather than any other source, e.g. morals.

The other weasel word thing seen often is tacking the word "traditional" onto the front of the word "morals", as if there are new non-traditional progressive ones hiding under a piece of loose-leaf notebook paper nearby and the writer has seen them.
 
Interesting, and I certainly viewed it differently after what I learned in this thread:

Foreclosures might be down from where they've been for awhile, but I doubt they're where they were post crash.

I suspect the young man in question will get his. The wheel of Karma always turns. It is inescapable. What goes around comes around, always.
 
Back
Top