foreclosure, will you come?

Mafoo said:
While I agree, I sure hope you don't use now, or ever plan to use, an ad blocker, because at an ethical level you're doing the same thing.

(I don't use one)
Click to expand...

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl: OK, I give.
 
Mafoo said:
While I agree, I sure hope you don't use now, or ever plan to use, an ad blocker, because at an ethical level you're doing the same thing.

(I don't use one)
Click to expand...

One is a contract (buying a house), the other is a forced imposition. Very different.
 
Mafoo said:
Again, I did not want to make this political.

I agree if he is living there, there is a integrity issue. However anyone who borrows or loans money, is doing so with an expected risk. The reason interest rate are what they are, is you expect a percentage of people to default.

I know nothing about this man, but let's say he has a sick grandmother who's medical bills he is paying, and has the option to either pay for his home, or pay for her to not die.

What's more ethical, or moral?
Click to expand...

Wow, what a stretch....

Even if this was his situation, his dear old Granny wouldn't want him freeloading.
 
markb5900 said:
Not many salary's have been cut and they bought the place making xxx, so either they couldn't make the payments from the beginning or have decided not to.
Click to expand...

I generally agree unless the person lives in an area where taxation was significantly increased and inflation is taken into account.

If inflation is roughly 3% and salary flat, you're effectively taking a 3% pay cut, year over year. In three years, your purchasing power has dropped 9%. This factor isn't insignificant.

Do it for six years, if you barely qualified for the loan on day one, you wouldn't qualify today.
 
I remembered this from a few years ago. An interview with a law professor, Brent White, university of arizona.

Prof. WHITE: Actually, I don't advise people to do anything. Rather, I wrote an academic article in which I made an observation that has been somewhat taboo. And that observation is that to millions of Americans who are underwater would, in fact, be financially better off if they did walk away, just like Morgan Stanley recently walked away from five properties in San Francisco, five buildings which were underwater. Morgan Stanley just gave the properties back to the bank. But most homeowners, or homeowners as a group, don't walk away. They don't strategically default.

And they don't so because of anticipatory shame and guilt and what I believe is an exaggerative fear about the consequences of waking away from a mortgage. And I argue in my paper that these emotions of fear and shame and guilt are cultivated by the government, by the financial industry and, to some extent, the media. And they do this by cultivating a double standard, a standard in which Americans, average Americans are told to have a moral obligation to pay their mortgage and to meet their financial obligations, whereas corporations freely and frequently default when it's in their financial best interest to do so.

And, in fact, they would be obligated to protect the interest of their shareholders and walk away from an underwater mortgage if it was a financially wise decision. And my argument is that this norm asymmetry, the difference in norms between average Americans and banks leads to distributional inequalities whereby average Americans are bearing a disproportionate burden from the housing collapse.
Click to expand...
 
And he goes on to say

Prof. WHITE: Well, I think that the people who can't afford to make their payments are simply more sympathetic in the eyes of the public. But I don't see a moral difference. And the reason I don't see a moral difference is that the contract itself provides for the option to walk away. And, in fact, in a non-recourse state, that means a state where the bank cannot come after an individual for deficiency judgment.

Susan Woodward, an economist, has done a study that shows that people in non-recourse states pay about $800 more per $100,000 they borrow at closing for the right to walk away without recourse, without a deficiency judgment. So the contract provides an option to default. And then people in non-recourse states pay for that right. They pay $800 on average per $100,000 they borrowed for the right to walk away.

And so we tell people you have a contract. The contract gives you a right to walk away and you paid for that right to walk away by paying more money at closing. So I don't see the immorality in an individual saying, well, I'm going to exercise this contractual right that I actually paid money for.
Click to expand...
 
Ben is right - the guy promised to repay the loan. He should repay according to his promise. So what if the value of the property went down . . . was his promise to pay a promise to repay his loan or was it a promise to repay only if the property went up in value?

Simply put, he is a selfish SOB who lacks the character to be a police officer, but who, unfortunately, possesses the character of more and more LEO's these days.

If he chooses not to pay, he needs to do the right thing and a) move out and then b) tender the real estate to the Bank immediately.

Then he gets to pay his deficiency judgment [fair is fair right?] or pay the state and federal income taxes on the forgiven debt.

People like this truly **** me off . 'Strategic defaults' are just another way of ripping someone off.

This cops word means NOTHING. Why should I entrust him with the power of the state in his badge and gun? His oath to uphold the Constitution and his lawful authority means nothing to him, since he so easily walked away from his other promises.
 
The guy is a dirtbag thief, plain and simple. Too bad. Those in a position of power should be held to a higher standard since they are in a position to abuse their authority. He should loe his job if he continues to live there. This guy is taking something that isn't his, plain and simple, regardless of how some people try to justify it.

Mafoo said:
Not to turn this into a political debate, but if our leaders had some integrity, he wouldn't have been in this mess in the first place.
Click to expand...

I'd say lenders and borrowers share the blame far more than the government. Both entered into contracts that were clearly not healthy out of greed. Do we really expect the government to make us act like responsible adults in every way possible? That is simply not achievable. At the end of the day, the success of a society depends very highly on the integrity of its citizens. You can't legislate integrity. Societies with little integrity are what produce third world countries. Business falls apart and few people if any benefit from advances in technology that have made life so easy today.
 
Mafoo said:
While I agree, I sure hope you don't use now, or ever plan to use, an ad blocker, because at an ethical level you're doing the same thing.

(I don't use one)
Click to expand...

Really? Where did any web user sign a legal contract saying that they would view ads? Do you read the ads or just close them? If you just close them without reading you are performing the same function as an ad blocker.
 
The guy staying in the condo is better for the bank and neighbors. As for promising to pay for it, it is simpler then that. He agreed to pay for it or have it go to the bank if he stopped paying. Those are the terms, not paying is covered and an option. The bank is not holding up their end of the agreement as they agreed to foreclose if he stopped paying.
 
Clark1961 said:
Dunno 'bout your house but not mine. The bank owns a share and I own a share.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I guess my point is, it's a long-term risk (that doesn't decline much in the first two thirds of the loan -- people also don't look at Amortization Schedules or understand they're not paying very much toward the Principal of the loan for a very long time) that people try to rationalize into calling it an "investment".

The bank makes sure they get paid first, and rightly so when they're taking the risk, but in the case of an unreasonable number of loans, they weren't. They were told they could drop the bad loans on Freddy and Fannie, and their derivatives gambling on AIG, and did.

So they never had the risk in the first place. The stage was set.

Prices rose in response to all the free money floating around.

You and I have it relatively good. Housing prices around here never took off for the stars like they did in California and Florida, for example...

Problem is, the banks aren't local... So when the system collapsed, we somehow end up penalized for our relative frugality around here. Highlands Ranch cardboard California houses, notwithstanding. ;)

I remember when Colorado didn't allow branch banking... Remember that? Had to go to your branch. In your neighborhood. (Or whatever one you chose...)

Are we better off with massive risks taken on by massive banks that lose everywhere? The "experts" will tell you that's "diversification" but not if all the banks are selling bad loans from Freddy and Fannie together in lock-step.

Certainly made the crash bigger.

If I'd have been in a situation to keep my condo (the first place we "owned"), I'd have made twice what my house is worth in just holding on to it, while the house has (amazingly) appreciated much more slowly.

The condo would have been a 50% gain in ten years. The house, 17% increase in the same time.

From a value standpoint, that makes no sense. So it must be driven by something utterly false underneath the veneer.

The only thing holding that condo value that high still to this day, is the lending bubble (and a good location). It's cheap apartment style construction, reasonably mid-grade interior, and nothing fancy. (Ken Caryl & C-470 for the locals...)

The house is brick and was built in 1968. Beefy. Much better structure, worse internal layout than more modern "open" floor plans, though.

One is valued higher than the other, but all things equal in the monetary system, they should have risen about equal percentages.

This whole thing really hasn't corrected itself yet. The banks are just sitting on the shadow inventory, waiting for the hole to fill in by itself with population expansion and inflation. The Fed is obliging via selling Treasuries.

Bernanke's latest speech was telling. "When housing prices rise, people will *feel* richer and start to spend more." (my emphasis added)

I literally did a double take when I heard him say that. He wants the bubble to reinflate?!

And people will "feel" richer?!

That's his plan. Seriously??

He's just out of arrows in his quiver, is all.
 
The bank is not going to foreclose because then it becomes the owner liable for the association fees -

what about real estate taxes? If he stops paying them in about 18 months the local tax collector will sell the property for the unpaid taxes subject to the claim of the holder of the deed of trust . . .
 
timwinters said:
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.
Click to expand...
In this particular case, the person who signed the purchase contract and the mortgage papers caused his mess. The bank didn't force him to buy. He made the decision that he was willing to pay the price he negotiated for the property.

Yes, the contract specifies the bank's recourse if he defaults on the loan. But, as Mom always pointed out, just because you can doesn't mean you should. He's just willing to go back on his promise to pay, because he figures he can live with the penalty for doing so. Maybe that mindset is a side effect of being a cop now... I don't know. I hope not.
 
First off, through all my posts, I am against him living there and paying nothing. He should either move out, or pay something.

However if he got into some money problems for reasons we don't know about, due to the economy, he does not have the option to sell the place.

In different times, he might of just sold it, got a less expensive place, and that would be that. Calling him a dead beat piece of crap, due to a small paragraph of information, seems a little judgmental.
 
I thought the OP said he could afford to pay the mortgage -- he just doesn't want to. If it quacks like a deadbeat...
 
Mafoo said:
First off, through all my posts, I am against him living there and paying nothing. He should either move out, or pay something.

However if he got into some money problems for reasons we don't know about, due to the economy, he does not have the option to sell the place.

In different times, he might of just sold it, got a less expensive place, and that would be that. Calling him a dead beat piece of crap, due to a small paragraph of information, seems a little judgmental.
Click to expand...

We can only offer an opinion on the facts you present . . . . if we are wrong because of an incomplete set of facts then perhaps you need to provide us a few more facts . . . otoh if the facts are simply as stated - then he is a dead beat POC.

He is a sworn law enforcement officer who made a promise. He needs to held to a higher standard than the low-life scum he chases down on a daily basis, don't you think? Otherwise, whats the moral justification for granting him a greater status in our hierarchy - have you seen some of the pedestals some members of the public folks are willing to place LEO's on? Calling them heros and all that? Kind of hard to see that in this gent's actions. Its not like his kid has cancer, or his parents needs help or his brothers house burned down without insurance. He simply said he no longer want to service a debt he had that he took out because its not worth what he thinks it should be.

Question for pillar of our community. . . . what if he borrowed the money from his brother? Would he pay it back? Then why is he screwing the bank? The bank may very well have his brothers money as a deposit - and we've all watched It's a Wonderful Life, right?
 
comanchepilot said:
We can only offer an opinion on the facts you present [EDIT]...[EDIT] if the facts are simply as stated - then he is a dead beat POC.

He is a sworn law enforcement officer who made a promise. [edit] ... [edit] He simply said he no longer want to service a debt he had that he took out because its not worth what he thinks it should be.
Click to expand...

With respect, you are incorrect. He didn't make a promise, he signed a contract that has a specific structure. In that agreement, there is a specific course of action ... he pays, he stays. He doesn't pay, they can evict him. He has rights, they have rights. He has exercised his right - per the legally binding contract - not to pay. The bank, either deliberately or through negligence, is choosing not to enforce their rights.

comanchepilot said:
Question for pillar of our community. . . . what if he borrowed the money from his brother? Would he pay it back? Then why is he screwing the bank? The bank may very well have his brothers money as a deposit - and we've all watched It's a Wonderful Life, right?
Click to expand...

He is not "screwing the bank", he is exercising a legal and valid option per his contract with the bank. His credit score will take a beating and any "ohh poor me" should fall on deaf ears, but he is not a scum bag, he is not a POS, he's just a guy evaluating a contract. I'm sure we all agree that banks are not kind, or moral, or nice or anything like that. They are businesses, they signed a contract, they need to abide by the contract. That is all this guy is doing.

Now, all above said, I feel like I need to defend myself from the wolves. I've found a $100 bill in a parking lot and done what it takes to get it returned to the owner (some poor kid who earned it with a paper route, no less). I've had an ATM give me an extra $20 bill and I've returned it to the bank. I have NEVER defaulted on any kind of loan (having both made and lost money on homes). I've raised children that took the time to track down the owner of an expensive class ring rather than selling it. All in all, I'm a pretty decent (though terribly flawed) person.

If I borrow money from a friend or from family, I have a MORAL obligation. If I sign a contract with a business, I have a LEGAL obligation. Those are two completely different things. If I sign a contract with a family member or friend, I have both a moral and a legal obligation and I, personally, would and have chosen to abide by the more restrictive (favorable to the friend) terms.

I simply don't understand the anger towards this guy. He signed a contract with a business. He is abiding by the contract. What's the problem?

For everyone that is calling him a POS, a scum bag, a dead-beat or other unkind names, I have two simple questions.
1) Is he violating the terms of his contract with the bank?
2) Do you think the bank would delay enforcing the terms of the contract for even one day if they thought the terms of the contract favored them?

If you want to bash, go ahead. I simply ask you to answer questions (1) and (2). I know we don't have the contract, but I think we all understand the basic premise of a mortgage agreement.
 
Last edited:
comanchepilot said:
Ben is right - the guy promised to repay the loan. He should repay according to his promise. So what if the value of the property went down . . . was his promise to pay a promise to repay his loan or was it a promise to repay only if the property went up in value?

Simply put, he is a selfish SOB who lacks the character to be a police officer, but who, unfortunately, possesses the character of more and more LEO's these days.

If he chooses not to pay, he needs to do the right thing and a) move out and then b) tender the real estate to the Bank immediately.
Click to expand...


They don't want him to move out because then they become liable for the condo fees which I am sure are quite expensive.

I completely disagree that he is a selfish SOB. As stated above the bank and the home 'owner' are in a legal contract and either may use that contract to their advantage. If market conditions were favorable, and the guy started missing payments, the bank would foreclose as soon as they legally could and sell the house. This used to happen all the time.. now its the other way around.
 
iflyforfun said:
With respect, you are incorrect. He didn't make a promise, he signed a contract that has a specific structure. In that agreement, there is a specific course of action ... he pays, he stays. He doesn't pay, they can evict him. He has rights, they have rights. He has exercised his right - per the legally binding contract - not to pay. The bank, either deliberately or through negligence, is choosing not to enforce their rights.



He is not "screwing the bank", he is exercising a legal and valid option per his contract with the bank. His credit score will take a beating and any "ohh poor me" should fall on deaf ears, but he is not a scum bag, he is not a POS, he's just a guy evaluating a contract. I'm sure we all agree that banks are not kind, or moral, or nice or anything like that. They are businesses, they signed a contract, they need to abide by the contract. That is all this guy is doing.

Now, all above said, I feel like I need to defend myself from the wolves. I've found a $100 bill in a parking lot and done what it takes to get it returned to the owner (some poor kid who earned it with a paper route, no less). I've had an ATM give me an extra $20 bill and I've returned it to the bank. I have NEVER defaulted on any kind of loan (having both made and lost money on homes). I've raised children that took the time to track down the owner of an expensive class ring rather than selling it. All in all, I'm a pretty decent (though terribly flawed) person.

If I borrow money from a friend or from family, I have a MORAL obligation. If I sign a contract with a business, I have a LEGAL obligation. Those are two completely different things. If I sign a contract with a family member or friend, I have both a moral and a legal obligation and I, personally, would and have chosen to abide by the more restrictive (favorable to the friend) terms.

I simply don't understand the anger towards this guy. He signed a contract with a business. He is abiding by the contract. What's the problem?

For everyone that is calling him a POS, a scum bag, a dead-beat or other unkind names, I have two simple questions.
1) Is he violating the terms of his contract with the bank?
2) Do you think the bank would delay enforcing the terms of the contract for even one day if they thought the terms of the contract favored them?

If you want to bash, go ahead. I simply ask you to answer questions (1) and (2). I know we don't have the contract, but I think we all understand the basic premise of a mortgage agreement.
Click to expand...

I'd say your the one with the incorrect statements. A contract is a codification of a agreement between two parties. He agreed to repay the money that the bank lent him so he has a moral obligation to stand by his word to repay. I'm not sure how you justify your comments that it's ok to ignore your commitments to someone you don't have a personal relationship to but it's not to not right to do so to a friend or family member. Do you also feel it's ok to hit someone if they are not your friend but wrong if they are?
 
Friend of mine, age 26 at the time, bought a house with his girlfriend, now wife in 2006 for $275k. His last appraisal in 2011 was $149k. He walked away. Besides losing money on the house, he lost money on a bunch of "house junk" and "improvements" he made. i.e. a deck and patio, a shed, a lawnmower, furniture. He now rents a 1 bedroom apartment...

An average person with an average income can't recover from taking a huge hit like that, only move on and try to forget.

A few years back, everybody was saying to me, OMG, you should buy a house! Whatever. Having had plenty of experience mowing the 2 acre lawn at my parent's McMansion, I have absolutely zero desire to be a home owner. Not interested at all in taking care of a lawn or anything like that. The only thing I would like to have is a 3 car garage... I've been laid off and switched jobs 3 times in the past couple of years--NOT buying a house and keeping the car I've owned for going on 8 years is the smartest thing I have done!

The place I have been working at for less than a year now seems pretty stable. Maybe in another year I might look for a condo or townhome, maybe.
 
The only reason you "have" to pay off a debt is a social contract, and the desire to engage in future debt. If we all start disregarding said social contracts (and we can) our way to doing things will be in a world of hurt. If everyone stops paying their debts all at once, creditors can never keep up. That's what's going on in the housing industry right now. Lets hope it doesn't spread.

Then again, being a cash society might not be a bad thing. Having to earn or save the money to buy something might be a better way to do things.
 
SkyHog said:
Again - no ethics in finance. Do what makes the most sense for yourself. No one else is looking out for you.
Click to expand...

SkyHog said:
Actually, that's a fair point. Forget anything I said, that only applies if he picks up and leaves. But living in the house without paying for it? That's bad stuff right there.
Click to expand...

Nick, I don't get your beef about him living in the condo without paying for it. Check your quote above. He's already made the economic calculation that it's better for him to stop paying the mortgage payment. And it's even better for him to stay there too, until the bank forecloses and changes the locks on the door.

One could argue he's being somewhat more moral to his nearest neighbors by continuing to pay the condo fees, which go to the building's upkeep. Paying those is a gift to the bank too, as unpaid condo fees would go on as a lien against the property.
 
The more I read the comments here, the more I really think the initial post is BS...

1- Guy is young, a cop and gainfully employed. A quick google search shows median income for LEO's in the area are 50- 80 grand a year, with a VERY generous benefit package.

2- Rough estimate for mortgage payment is 2100 - 2400 a month, taxes and HOA fees are additional. He was able to cover the payments for a few years, apparently without any problems and 10 months ago has a " lets game the system" moment. Instead of weathering the economic storm, and wait the for housing prices to rise again.

3- My guess is he has banked 22,000 - 25,000 grand by not paying the bank, and he will probably play the game till the bank calls him on it. If that is in 2 years he then has 50 grand stashed somewhere. Will he then approach the bank and pay back past due payments... You can bet your ass he won't. Will the bank get some type of bailout from the guv to cover their losses, you can bet your ass they will... And us, the honest, decent taxpayers who live by the rules are gonna pay for his SCAM, legal or not....

Being a moral and honest person goes along way in living a decent life and respecting other human beings you have to interact with. For instance, say I am having a party and playing my stereo @ 116 db and the city ordinance says 117 db is the limit. He gets a call from dispatch and sent to my residence, he knocks on my door and asked me nicely to turn it down, I politely say ok . As he drives off, I turn up the stereo back to 116 db, knowing I am being an ****ole but still legal. Is he gonna get called back to my house :dunno:....You can bet your ass he will.:yesnod: Will he be pi$$ed I lied to him??? You can bet on it....

You see.... this crap cuts both ways.

And some people wonder why we are pi$$ed..:dunno::mad::mad::(
 
Last edited:
Sam D said:
About 4 years ago, it was almost a daily occurrence to read somewhere or hear about someone who bought a house they couldn't afford because they expected it to rise in value. I never could quite understand the logic there.
Click to expand...

If a bank will lend you money at 3% and you can buy something that's going up 10% per year, you borrow all the freaking money you can. Of course, doing so with a house is like looking in a gas can with a match, because your asset/liability duration is way mismatched.

I knew people in 2007 who were getting these 0% cash advance for 12-15 months offers from their credit cards. They would take the free money and buy a 1-year CD, which at the time was yielding a little over 3%. At the end of the year, they'd get the money back from the bank, pay off the credit card, and pocket the difference. Free money with little risk, because the durations matched.
 
N801BH said:
3- My guess is he has banked 22,000 - 25,000 grand by not paying the bank, and he will probably play the game till the bank calls him on it. If that is in 2 years he then has 50 grand stashed somewhere. Will he then approach the bank and pay back past due payments... You can bet you ass he won't. Will the bank get some type or bailout from the guv to cover their losses, you can bet your ass they will... And us, the honest, decent taxpayers who live by the rules are gonna pay for him SCAM, legal or not....
Click to expand...

Depending on the state, the lender has the option of a deficiency judgement for whatever they lost. Before they go through with the foreclosure, they decide whether there are assets that they can go after and decide on a strategy for the foreclosure accordingly. They rarely do that for owner occupied properties, they will gleefully do so for investment properties where they know that the mortgage holder has other assets available to them.

What this guy is doing may not be illegal, it is certainly unethical.
 
Just so you all know, I have a home I don't pay for, that I could, and I am anything but a deadbeat. Here is what's going on with me.

About 5 years ago I bought a house in a small town in Minnesota. Then the market crashed, and I was upside down on the loan about $60,000. I still lived there, and still paid the mortgage. 18 months ago my wife got an offer to work a dream job in Vermont, so we took it.

I put about $20,000 onto the house (did the work myself) to try and get it's value to where the loan was (and get more offers).

We put it on the market, and moved. For a year, I paid the mortgage, and all the bills on it every month. Paid a guy to do the landscaping as well (I still pay for this, and everything other then the mortgage.)

After a year, and not a single offer, my agent said it's marketed way to high ($15,000 less then I owe on it), so I called the bank and asked them if I could get a loan for the difference, sell the house, and pay them back the loan. They sad no. I asked if I could try a short sale. They said being you have never been late on a payment, no.

Here was the dilemma. The house is empty. It's in the middle of nowhere, so no rental management companies in the area. Renting it out really isn't an option. Each year it sits empty, the value goes down faster then I am paying against the principle. The siding gets one year older, the new roof I put on it gets one year older, the pipes go through another winter. It just ages.

So I have a house I can't sell, that's depreciating faster then I can pay the loan. So my choice, was to forclose on the house, to allow someone to buy it for market value, and move into it (so all the work I put into it before I left can at least get taken advantage of by someone). When the house is sold, the bank will come after me for the difference, and I will pay it (basically the loan I wanted in the first place).

In the end, everyone but me wins. The bank gets there money and someone gets to move into the house. I lose another 60 grand and get my credit screwed in the process.

However what the public see's (after it went into the paper), is someone who can afford to pay for the home not paying there bills, so they must just be a deadbeat. I am sure on some forum, or a conversation at work with my fiends, someone is having the same conversation we are about me.

Someone should tell them the same thing I am telling you. Wait until you have all the fact, before you condem someone. I am anything but a deadbeat, however I asume some of you will think otherwise.
 
Last edited:
This is not about what his contract allows him to do or how the bank benefits by him staying there. It's about principle. I teach my sons what my dad taught his sons about being a man. Be a good provider, be a good protector and most importantly, be a moral example.

An able bodied, self sufficient man, a civil servant no less, manipulating the system just because the law allows him to? And we scoff at the "welfare queen" stereotype. Both are void of basic morality if you ask me. Of course, nobody asked me, so I'm done.
 
Mafoo said:
When the house is sold, the bank will come after me for the difference, and I will pay it (basically the loan I wanted in the first place).
Click to expand...

MN doesn't know deficiency judgements in nonjudicial foreclosure. So unless they decide to go through the court to handle the foreclosure process, they can only stomp their feet. You are probably too small of a fish for them to consider spending money on a judicial foreclosure for the small likelihood of collecting on the deficiency judgement.
 
weilke said:
MN doesn't know deficiency judgements in nonjudicial foreclosure. So unless they decide to go through the court to handle the foreclosure process, they can only stomp their feet. You are probably too small of a fish for them to consider spending money on a judicial foreclosure for the small likelihood of collecting on the deficiency judgement.
Click to expand...

They don't have to get a judgment. They just need to tell me how much I owe them, set up some way for me to make payments against it, and I will pay it.

I am not foreclosing to get out of paying a debt I agreed to. I foreclosed so the house does not crumble down, when someone with lower income who is looking for a nice house could have otherwise bought it and enjoyed it.

I foreclosed and sacrificed my credit, and relatively soon all my savings, to do the right thing. Not the other way around.
 
Mafoo said:
They don't have to get a judgment. They just need to tell me how much I owe them, set up some way for me to make payments against it, and I will pay it.
Click to expand...

Sure, you can do that if they ask for it. Just to point out the legal situation in MN, they only have a right to do so in a judicial forclosure. I believe most states are that way.
 
Mafoo said:
Just so you all know, I have a home I don't pay for, that I could, and I am anything but a deadbeat. Here is what's going on with me.

About 5 years ago I bought a house in a small town in Minnesota. Then the market crashed, and I was upside down on the loan about $60,000. I still lived there, and still paid the mortgage. 18 months ago my wife got an offer to work a dream job in Vermont, so we took it.

I put about $20,000 onto the house (did the work myself) to try and get it's value to where the loan was (and get more offers).

We put it on the market, and moved. For a year, I paid the mortgage, and all the bills on it every month. Paid a guy to do the landscaping as well (I still pay for this, and everything other then the mortgage.)

After a year, and not a single offer, my agent said it's marketed way to high ($15,000 less then I owe on it), so I called the bank and asked them if I could get a loan for the difference, sell the house, and pay them back the loan. They sad no. I asked if I could try a short sale. They said being you have never been late on a payment, no.

Here was the dilemma. The house is empty. It's in the middle of nowhere, so no rental management companies in the area. Renting it out really isn't an option. Each year it sits empty, the value goes down faster then I am paying against the principle. The siding gets one year older, the new roof I put on it gets one year older, the pipes go through another winter. It just ages.

So I have a house I can't sell, that's depreciating faster then I can pay the loan. So my choice, was to forclose on the house, to allow someone to buy it for market value, and move into it (so all the work I put into it before I left can at least get taken advantage of by someone). When the house is sold, the bank will come after me for the difference, and I will pay it (basically the loan I wanted in the first place).

In the end, everyone but me wins. The bank gets there money and someone gets to move into the house. I lose another 60 grand and get my credit screwed in the process.

However what the public see's (after it went into the paper), is someone who can afford to pay for the home not paying there bills, so they must just be a deadbeat. I am sure on some forum, or a conversation at work with my fiends, someone is having the same conversation we are about me.

Someone should tell them the same thing I am telling you. Wait until you have all the fact, before you condem someone. I am anything but a deadbeat, however I asume some of you will think otherwise.
Click to expand...

Hmmm...
So you were 60 grand upside down on a bad real estate investment :idea:
Then your wife got her "Dream Job" in Vermont and you guys decided to move. So, to sell the house to put another 20 grand in to make it marketable. Now you are 80 grand upside down.:(

Then your real estate agent told you it was marketed too high by 15 grand.

First, you need to find a competent real estate agent that will give you an accurate sales price for your property... Second, you should have cut your losses back then and reduced your house by 20 grand and unloaded it. But you held out for a higher price and now you are really in a pickle..... Sounds like a self induced fiasco to me. IMHO.:idea:
 
There is an old internet thing that goes around in E-mails saying that in a democracy, everyone votes themselves a portion of the public till until there is nothing left. Eerily familiar to what's going on now.

I really can't condemn individuals for what is a common corporate practice. If we really don't like it as a society, we should outlaw it. Of course, that has its dangers as well.
 
N801BH said:
Hmmm...
So you were 60 grand upside down on a bad real estate investment :idea:
Then your wife got her "Dream Job" in Vermont and you guys decided to move. So, to sell the house to put another 20 grand in to make it marketable. Now you are 80 grand upside down.:(

Then your real estate agent told you it was marketed too high by 15 grand.

First, you need to find a competent real estate agent that will give you an accurate sales price for your property... Second, you should have cut your losses back then and reduced your house by 20 grand and unloaded it. But you held out for a higher price and now you are really in a pickle..... Sounds like a self induced fiasco to me. IMHO.:idea:
Click to expand...

the 15 grand less was the current selling price. It was still to high. The way real-estate agents find value, is they look up comparables. Nothing in my area in the last two years that are remotely comparable has sold. All that tells you, is everything is priced to high. Hard to really know what the right price should be.

The 20 grand into the house was things like putting a roof on the garage, painting it. making some repairs to the fence. Not so much making the house worth a lot more. Just things you need to do to make sure a perspective buyer doesn't write it off before they even look at it.

And yes, I made a bad investment in 2007. Are you telling me in 2007, you predicted the last 5 years?

And I am more then 80 grand out. I put money into the home when I bought it. I am 80 grand down from what I can sell it for.

Now a less moral person would have just walked away. But I guess that's what I get for thinking I should pay my debts.

EDIT: Also, as for the selling price, I can only go so low, as I will then have to bring cash to the table. I am not a rich man.
 
Last edited:
By the way, I am not looking for sympathy, or playing the victim. I am just explaining that crappy things happen to good people. I am not in this situation because I an an idiot, or because I am an imoral human being.

Sometime life craps on you, and this is one of those cases. I wil get through it and move on. But a deadbeat I am not. Calling anyone with a foreclosure a deadbeat, when you have not gone through everything they have, is a little crappy in my opinion.

This guy very well might be. But he also might have an extremely good reason for doing what he is doing.
 
weilke said:
Sure, you can do that if they ask for it. Just to point out the legal situation in MN, they only have a right to do so in a judicial forclosure. I believe most states are that way.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the information. Didn't mean to come across short with you, if that's how my response sounded.

I realize your post was to help me out.
 
Mafoo said:
Thanks for the information. Didn't mean to come across short with you, if that's how my response sounded.

I realize your post was to help me out.
Click to expand...

And Mafoo... I was not picking on you either... Your post clearly shows how a great idea and investment can go sideways at the speed of light. Us honest people are pretty tough ya know....:yesnod::yesnod:

Lesser ones would have had a "dryer vent fire":wink2::eek::(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top