Walk away from your underwater mortgage
- Thread starter sanjuro
- Start date
Why is it every time Ston^H^H^H^HJoker says something like this I immediately get this image in my brain:
Now THAT is a financial hero!
Read stories like this and tell me it isn't both your fiscal AND moral responsibility to use the existing rules and regulations to your advantage and walk away from an underwater mortgage.
http://bayarearidersforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=318523
http://bayarearidersforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=318523
Great, you're forced to f*ck them before they inevitably f*ck you. What a wonderful world.
Hasn't Wells Fargo make it through this mess relatively unscathed? If I recall that correctly than that is a way douchey move on their part.
This is why NY requires arbitration for all foreclosures... And why something like this can happen.
update on this from the NYT yesterday, including citations of banks themselves walking away from their own underwater mortgages:
Hmmm... not really the point of the article but
Isn't a mobile home a depreciating asset in any case? It's not like it gains "character" over time like some quaint farm house in a beautiful meadow. It's goddam trailer. Starts falling apart the minute they park it because it's a POS on wheels.
Anyway, I now feel a mortgage is a business contract, not a moral union like a marriage. The bank bets it will make money off of you. You bet you'll make money off the bank's money (if you view a home as an investment). Breaking business contracts happens in business.. it's all part of the game of money.
I'd say it's pretty f***ed up. NY is a recourse state, meaning if you default on your mortgage, the banks can come after your other assets. Of course, the Stuyvesant Town deal is able to avoid that (separate Corp set up?)... I wonder if my bank would've given me a mortgage if I'd approached them and asked for a mortgage under Dante, LLC. Obviously, the mortgage would be held 100% by Dante, LLC, with zero liability or recourse to myself should I decide that I don't want to continue paying... They could confiscate the assets of Dante, LLC, but since the only asset is the house, go ahead.
Yeah, I don't get how Tishman was able to isolate that investment from the other $33B in assets they own. They shouldn't have been able to secure the funding for Stuyvesant Villagew without the other assets as collateral. If did secure the credit with nothing but a reputation and a bubble, I guess the banks/creditors deserve to be ****ed.
Shouldn't one swim away from an underwater mortgage?
Ok, this is what kills me about what counts as "reporting" today...
What's "a little"? I just checked on zillow.com, and the average house sold for ~$180k in 2004 in Elgin, IL, and it's now just below $160k now. Yes, if he'd pulled out $1500 each time he refinanced (and had been paying the monthly bills each of the last 6 years), he'd be pretty close to being above water, even if he only put down 3%.
But I think it's interesting that the banks are insisting on playing chicken with homeowners, refusing to modify loans and almost daring them to walk away. The banks will lose more money in a bankruptcy than they would in a loan modification or a short-sale, or they would if they actually had *held* the loan in the first place. If they've already packaged and sold the loan off to someone else, it's no wonder that they're not willing to modify it...
You KNOW he pulled out $20K each time he refi'd. And bought a boat or a vacation to the South Pacific or something. And $40K *is* a "little" when compared to the bank bailouts.
No way, that's flat out impossible. There's no one that fiscally irresponsible to pull money out of their house to pay for a boat or a vacation. He pulled it out to cover "expenses", which means he used the cash to pay off his credit card bill that he had put the boat, vacation, etc on. Huge difference, one is paying your monthly expenses (like a credit card bill), and the other is squandering the money on unnecessary things.You KNOW he pulled out $20K each time he refi'd. And bought a boat or a vacation to the South Pacific or something. And $40K *is* a "little" when compared to the bank bailouts.
Interesting article I was reading today about "deficiency judgments". I had no idea and now it scares the crap out of me.
I short sold my house because the market sucks ass. My house was built in 2006, sold for $235k, then the PO did a deed in lieu in 2008. I bought the house for $178k in April of 2009 and then left south.
After 6 months on the market with no solid offers, my Realtor got the OK for a short sale. My house just sold for $155k, ouch. This is what scares me:
I short sold my house because the market sucks ass. My house was built in 2006, sold for $235k, then the PO did a deed in lieu in 2008. I bought the house for $178k in April of 2009 and then left south.
After 6 months on the market with no solid offers, my Realtor got the OK for a short sale. My house just sold for $155k, ouch. This is what scares me:
Rep for you, sir!No way, that's flat out impossible. There's no one that fiscally irresponsible to pull money out of their house to pay for a boat or a vacation. He pulled it out to cover "expenses", which means he used the cash to pay off his credit card bill that he had put the boat, vacation, etc on. Huge difference, one is paying your monthly expenses (like a credit card bill), and the other is squandering the money on unnecessary things.
Also, depending on when he re-financed, remember for a while banks were give people 120 percent loans on their homes. If homie did something like that even one of the times he re-financed he might really be underwater. I'd put in for a job in Chicago right before I got hit in 2007 and the wife and I did a lot of looking in Elgin because it was basically the only place we would have been able afford that wasn't a 2 hour plus drive (property taxes in IL=teh stupid!). In late 2006 you couldn't touch anything, even in Elgin that I would have moved my wife to for under 200k.
Heard a stat on NPR this a.m.
1/3 of all mortgage holders are underwater?
Can this actually be true?!?
1/3 of all mortgage holders are underwater?
Can this actually be true?!?
Surprised it's not more. All you see on TV is "refi, refi, refi". People want to screw off with money, not live frugally and be responsible... what fun is that?Heard a stat on NPR this a.m.
1/3 of all mortgage holders are underwater?
Can this actually be true?!?
They did say it may be pushing 50% by middle of next year.
Well, sort of. Keep in mind that it's mortgages (or mortgage holders), but that includes ALL mortgages, including 2nd (3rd, HELOC, etc) mortgages. So one guy might have a primary and two secondary mortgages on his single house, and it'll count as 3 mortgages that are all underwater. Journalists also seem to be interchanging "mortgage holder" with "homeowner", completely missing the fact that 30% of Americans own their own home outright (and another 33% rent or are homeless).Heard a stat on NPR this a.m.
1/3 of all mortgage holders are underwater?
Can this actually be true?!?
So 1/3 of all mortgage holders (which is only 37% of the population) is equal to ~12% of Americans, and it's less since many of those Americans have multiple mortgages. Granted, saying something like 7% of Americans are underwater wouldn't exactly have the same catchy headline...
It is a great time to re-finance, but how do you re-finance if your upside down? The wife and I refi'd about a year ago, but we had equity plus we put down cash, were paying 4.3% which lowerd our payment 200 a month. Were putting that 200 back on the note which means will be done just in time for my daughter to go to college (hopefully)
Damn... what's this world coming to when even NPR is pulling this bull$hit.
