[airics]

um kimba how do you have a rep of 5452 and only 3500 posts.. sheesh!!! ps you should change your location to In NV and mi.

[tony soprano]

Originally Posted by kimba01

I understood it as he is not paying on his mortgage, right? So then he would be taking advantage of the foreclosure system, but he has a renter there and is charging them to live there. So the renter is not wanting to pay because the landlord is not, correct? Personally, I believe them to both be wrong, but I don't know the facts for either of them. Given that, since I am in neither position, I do not know FOR SURE how I would handle it. I can easily say that I would not want to bilk anyone, but there are so many variables that could come into play.

My whole point is that noone knows everyone's situation, unless they are involved in it. I know many people who have walked away from their homes. All different reasons and situations. Some I understand, some I do not agree with at all as I believe they were self-inflicted. All of them, I am thankful that I am not in those situations because I cannot be so high and mighty to think I wouldn't do what I needed to do to protect my interests, even if it was less than favorable, ethically.

Kimba, we're pretty much on the same page. Here's my issue - as you noted, we don't know the specifics of the situation. The landlord may in fact be doing everything in his power to salvage his home. He may have no intent whatsoever in bringing the mortgage current. We simply don't know given the information that's been provided. Here's what we do know - certain protections have been provided to homeowners in the foreclosure process. A certain clairvoyant realtor routinely gives the advice that taking advantage of those protections to maximize the duration of the "free ride" is simply a business decision, with very little to do with ethics. It's perfectly legal after all, so take as much as you can get!

As long as that landlord is the legal owner of that property, the lease agreement he holds with his tenant is valid. In fact, his renter's decision to stop paying rent could be the tipping point of the landlord's ability to salvage things. My question is why are underwater homeowners routinely counseled that taking advantage of a foreclosure process designed to protect people is simply a business choice, unless that homeowner also happens to be a landlord? When the homeowner also happens to be a landlord, he's no longer making a business decision, he's ripping people off. How consistent is that?

[kimba01]

Originally Posted by airics

um kimba how do you have a rep of 5452 and only 3500 posts.. sheesh!!! ps you should change your location to In NV and mi.

LOL! I post in the Weather thread alot and they rep good, and the rep points are worth more, I think.

I should change it to that, but as much as I am back and forth I would constantly be changing it... I am only here until Friday and then back to the cold crud. Probably won't be back again until after the first of the year.

[sierramadre44]

Originally Posted by tony soprano

Kimba, we're pretty much on the same page. Here's my issue - as you noted, we don't know the specifics of the situation. The landlord may in fact be doing everything in his power to salvage his home. He may have no intent whatsoever in bringing the mortgage current. We simply don't know given the information that's been provided. Here's what we do know - certain protections have been provided to homeowners in the foreclosure process. A certain clairvoyant realtor routinely gives the advice that taking advantage of those protections to maximize the duration of the "free ride" is simply a business decision, with very little to do with ethics. It's perfectly legal after all, so take as much as you can get!

As long as that landlord is the legal owner of that property, the lease agreement he holds with his tenant is valid. In fact, his renter's decision to stop paying rent could be the tipping point of the landlord's ability to salvage things. My question is why are underwater homeowners routinely counseled that taking advantage of a foreclosure process designed to protect people is simply a business choice, unless that homeowner also happens to be a landlord? When the homeowner also happens to be a landlord, he's no longer making a business decision, he's ripping people off. How consistent is that?

Well, if the LL is doing everything she can to bring the mortgage current, you would think 11 months would be sufficient. Maybe not. You don't know and neither do I.

Wow, yeah, her "free ride" based on a "business decision" and screw the FAMILY (school children) living at the property. You're right, no ethics involved in that decision.

Oh, yeah, the renter not paying rent for 1 month equates to 11 months of not paying the mortgage. Yeah, right. Okay, better to have the property sitting empty, right?

Okay, now we're actually agreeing. "When the homeowner also happens to be a landlord, he's no longer making a business decision, he's ripping people off." This is EXACTLY my point. It is NOT a business decision it is simply scamming as much money as possible before the bank takes it back. Last I understood scamming is unethical. Should be illegal, but then there are no laws on the books for this conduct under these conditions, apparently.

At any rate, you will be glad to know that the Judge ruled in your favor Tony... I paid the rent and the house is still up for auction on 10/26, so my drama continues until and after then as I will have to then deal with the bank. Ugh. The eviction order was rescinded. Other issues that remain however have not been resolved.

In the meantime, I am working with a mortgage company to acquire a loan to purchase my own house again so I don't have to deal with these types of situations in the future, hopefully. God willing, I will have a house for me and my children by the end of November. Yeah, the same person that hates and wants to leave Vegas is going to buy a home here. Well, you know what they say... if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

[airics]

Originally Posted by sierramadre44

. Yeah, the same person that hates and wants to leave Vegas is going to buy a home here. Well, you know what they say... if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

Sorry, that's the dumbest thing i've heard.. In a year or two, you will be walking away too...

[1979]

Originally Posted by zenaforever

Be sure to tell that to the dozens of Community Bank of Nevada employees(among others) who lost their jobs because of people like you.

If the banks weren't so greedy giving mortgages to people who can't afford them, and encouraging the adjustable rate mortgages, they wouldn't be in this trouble. The banks deserve what they get, and they shouldn't be bailed out!

[sierramadre44]

Originally Posted by airics

Sorry, that's the dumbest thing i've heard.. In a year or two, you will be walking away too...

Nah, airics, it will be an investment I'll rent it and become the dreaded landlord. LOL Actually, that has been a goal of mine for some time albeit not in Las Vegas. My grandparents actually accumulated property in TN for many years. My grandmother's sole income was from rental property. Of course, the difference between my grandparents and most 'investor's' coming to Vegas is they paid cash for reasonable size properties. So, their income was pure income.

My grandparents are deceased now and my parents have 8 rentals and looking for others. Some of their friends have over 300 properties. It's not a dumb 'investment' as long as you don't walk away. But, thanks for the vote of confidence.

[kimba01]

Why would you invest in a city you hate? Did your g'parents hate TN? Might make all the diff in the world as to why they were successful. There are many other cities that are having home issues where you could buy very cheap. Who knows? You and your children may be much better off then.

[J78Jason]

Originally Posted by 1979

If the banks weren't so greedy giving mortgages to people who can't afford them, and encouraging the adjustable rate mortgages, they wouldn't be in this trouble. The banks deserve what they get, and they shouldn't be bailed out!

It's not just the banks' fault. Everyone buying up houses left and right was greedy as well. Let's just say that we jumped hand-in-hand off of a cliff with dollar signs in our eyes. And you're a little late, they already were bailed out. It's just unfortunate that our congress was so inept that they didn't do a better job of forcing the banks to actually pass more of the money down to the homeowners.

[tony soprano]

Originally Posted by sierramadre44

Well, if the LL is doing everything she can to bring the mortgage current, you would think 11 months would be sufficient. Maybe not. You don't know and neither do I.

Uh yeah, I've been saying that for a couple of pages worth of responses now. No one knows the landlord's situation or intent other than the clairvoyant realtor.

Wow, yeah, her "free ride" based on a "business decision" and screw the FAMILY (school children) living at the property. You're right, no ethics involved in that decision.

I don't know if you've noticed or not, but that's exactly what's been preached ad nauseam in this thread and others by our favorite bilking realtor. That is, it is a business decision to walk away from your house when you can afford the payments. It's a business decision to take advantage of foreclosure protection to maximize the duration of time you can live rent free. It's a business decision to ask for key money. All of the above activities are allowed by law so it's perfectly fine! What no one can explain to me is IF the landlord follows the same letter of the law to collect rent, with no intent to become current on his mortgage, why is it no longer a business decision, but ripping someone off? As you found out in court today, it's legal, so why isn't it also "just a business decision"?

Oh, yeah, the renter not paying rent for 1 month equates to 11 months of not paying the mortgage. Yeah, right. Okay, better to have the property sitting empty, right?

Are you really going to defend an unethical behavior by drawing a moral equivalency? It's OK for me to steal because the landlord stole even more than I did?

Okay, now we're actually agreeing. "When the homeowner also happens to be a landlord, he's no longer making a business decision, he's ripping people off." This is EXACTLY my point. It is NOT a business decision it is simply scamming as much money as possible before the bank takes it back. Last I understood scamming is unethical. Should be illegal, but then there are no laws on the books for this conduct under these conditions, apparently.

Hey, you're preaching to the choir here. I'm the one that's pointed out on several occasions just because something is legal, does not necessarily mean it's ethical. There's another viewpoint expressed in this thread that it's OK to exploit the system to maximize personal gain because it's allowed by law. Well, unless you're a landlord of course, then it's ripping off.

At any rate, you will be glad to know that the Judge ruled in your favor Tony... I paid the rent and the house is still up for auction on 10/26, so my drama continues until and after then as I will have to then deal with the bank. Ugh. The eviction order was rescinded. Other issues that remain however have not been resolved.

Sierramadre, can you explain to me exactly how you're being damaged? I don't know all the specifics of your position either so it's possible I've missed something. If your landlord is ultimately foreclosed, you're going to have at least 60 days before you have to move. That will almost undoubtedly be rent free. How are you being hurt?

In the meantime, I am working with a mortgage company to acquire a loan to purchase my own house again so I don't have to deal with these types of situations in the future, hopefully. God willing, I will have a house for me and my children by the end of November. Yeah, the same person that hates and wants to leave Vegas is going to buy a home here. Well, you know what they say... if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

Best of luck on the home purchase and I sincerely mean that.