If you were "upside down" on your mortgage, would you walk away? (employment, biased)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
actually, a BK can even be repaired and a person can still get a loan after 2-3 years. most BKs are cleared within 10 years and won't reflect on a credit report, I believe.
I've always disagreed with credit checks for jobs--I hope the previous poster is right about the removal of that process.
Yes, but this is an issue of contractual fraud and legal fraud. The business can ask you if you have "ever" done such, and you can lie and say "no" once you have it removed, yet that doesn't mean all aspects of its record are gone, merely that it is not publicly displayed as it normally is.
If the business finds out you lied, that can create some very bad problems for you depending on the contract you signed and the stipulations of the violations of that contract. On the legal side, it can also pop up as well and depends on the stipulations of the job as well.
If you lie on a security clearance app about it, you will be found out.
Outside of all the issues, there is the moral and ethical issue and frankly, someone who lies about such is somebody that many businesses would see as unworthy of a section for hire.
considering the level of attention and steps needed to resolve the issue along those lines and the fact that most people who place themselves in such positions are irresponsible due to such inattention, most who take such a route are in for a very very rough road.
We thought it was a good idea b/c prices were on their way down but nobody could have predicted that the market would nosedive like it did.
I mean no disrespect and you did what was honest with your home as you should have, but concerning the nobody predicting the market doing what it was going to do, many did and knew this was going to happen.
Home prices were reaching levels that were absurd, the market could not sustain those levels due to the fact that incomes were not increasing to match such (mainly because the housing market was in a bubble).
My wife and I moved from CA just after home prices started to go up. We watched houses in our home town double and triple, yet the wage index was not increasing to match (nor really increasing at all). The rise was unreasonable and the prices were like a fad market (beanie babies) to which people were buying up in mass and then reselling. On my block alone, there were 25 home sales within a period of 3 months, and some of them were 2 time turn overs.
The prices were being jacked up, the market manipulated. What should have failed from the start (meaning people refusing to buy homes for that much) turned into a financing bonanza of multiple loan methods to get people into homes that were extremely too high in their price. Now they could get away with this because interest rates were and still are historically low, but if you look at the value of the homes and how much people were paying in interest (even when it was high) and min payments far before the bubble, the comparison in home value and price to that of then was insanely out of whack.
The crash was seen the moment the prices were artificially inflated. Those who got in fast and sold for a profit made out winners, those who bought in late were left holding the bag. Remember all of the TV shows "Flip this house", etc... ? They were littering the channels and they were flipping homes for huge profit with little investment put into them. I once watched a home that was bought for 100k and they put about 50k into it and sold the home for 380k. They made 230k profit on a home that even with its improvements was really only worth about 160-180 over all. These were happening all over the place, but people were buying them up in the craze.
I saw it coming, anyone who really was paying attention to the hype saw it coming. This was expected.
I see buying a home as nothing more than a gamble if you are trying to make money off of it. Those that bought homes happlily accepted their home rising in value (some took out equity lines of credit etc) but cannot fathom the thought that their gamble didn't pay off (home losing value). There is never a guarantee that you will make money on your home OR that it will hold its current value. It just so happened that for a long time people did make money off of them. Tides have shifted and the homes aren't worth what they paid for them. Too bad. If you are willing to take the equity you ought to be willing to take the loss. That is why I have a problem with walking away from ones obligations.
Bad circumstances happen to people and I understand that some just cannot afford their home any longer. If foreclosure (short selling whathaveyou) is what you HAVE to do it is what it is. If you are walking away because you owe more than it is worth, too bad, suck it up, accept the consequences of buying when the value of your home was inflated.
Well said. No where in your mortgage paperwork where you guaranteed the value would never go down.
About the difference between your car blowing a tire, a headgasket or the engine. None of them are good, but compared to the other two a tire is the better one to have happen because it's less damage and easier to fix.
Quote:
Yes, over time a person can repair their credit. This as I said takes a lot of time and until that full time elapses, the record of all those bad marks are there to be evaluated as to someones responsible nature.
People who know what they're doing get those marks off there much faster than they normally would. I've done it and helped many others do it.
Quote:
Legislation that many responsible people are highly against and are fighting against, including me.
Really? I haven't seen too much backlash against these proposed laws. I think you're overplaying your hand here.
Quote:
Blocking them simply gives the irresponsible more power and takes the rightful advantage of those who are responsible away. That is, it interferes with the free market. If you do business publicly such as a credit rating establishes, then you have no reasonable grounds to demand that a business or any other public contractual means be removed from evaluating such.
We don't (with a few small exceptions) allow employers to administer polygraph tests to potential and current employees either, and those are about as accurate at detecting lies as a credit checks are at determining the character or responsibility of a person, and that's only if you get one that is accurate. In 2004 it was shown that 1 in 4 credit reports contained "serious" errors and 79% total contained errors of some kind.
Quote:
Yes, it can be removed from public records after 10 years usually
I've seen people get them removed after a year. Not common, but possible.
Quote:
yet that is not the point. A business can ask if you have "ever" filed for it and if one does lie about such, they have committed fraud be it contractual or that of legal fraud if the business or entity is able to obtain and prove past filing.
No need to lie. Be honest. If they ask say yes. They don't need permission anyway as bankruptcies are public record. Only very recent bankruptcies pose much of a stumbling block and people like me are out there helping them get the cleanest credit report possible.
Quote:
Personally, I see people doing such as being just as irresponsible as they were in their management and purchase of their property in the first place.
There are so many options to dealing with the issue outside of taking that road.
Yeah, but without the public record only those who do it will ever know so, meh.
About the difference between your car blowing a tire, a headgasket or the engine. None of them are good, but compared to the other two a tire is the better one to have happen because it's less damage and easier to fix.
Ah, ok, well I guess that is where we disagree on what is best in this situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David
People who know what they're doing get those marks off there much faster than they normally would. I've done it and helped many others do it.
People who know what they are doing didn't ignorantly sign loans for homes that were far above any rational value and then expect them to keep increasing in value. So we are to expect these same irresponsible people to take the initiative to repair their credit with diligence? Remember, they are avoiding taking the other options of loss as an "easy" way out and you think they are going to put all the effort as you suggest?
Personally, I don't think so. What I think is they will not do such and then hit a wall of all of the problems I mentioned and then begin to complain that the government step in and legislate means to keep people from being able to evaluate their irresponsible behavior.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David
Really? I haven't seen too much backlash against these proposed laws. I think you're overplaying your hand here.
Not really, just because "you haven't seen" doesn't make your position any more valid and mine any less. Businesses use such as a means to establish reliable hire, you don't think they have an objection? Also, it has been a while, but there was an article of a woman in Oakland California who was having issues due to the fact that the work place was checking her credit rating to establish reliability and it had a lot of stir of various opinions on the issue from both sides politically. We will see what happens with this legislation, but make no mistake, just because it may get slid in, doesn't mean that people supported it, think about Obamacare.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David
We don't (with a few small exceptions) allow employers to administer polygraph tests to potential and current employees either, and those are about as accurate at detecting lies as a credit checks are at determining the character or responsibility of a person, and that's only if you get one that is accurate. In 2004 it was shown that 1 in 4 credit reports contained "serious" errors and 79% total contained errors of some kind.
And yet, errors in a report are the responsibility of the person themselves. I do sub checks on my credit reports every 6 months and a full evaluation every year. Also, if people are concerned by such, they can actually higher services which will check them regularly and keep them accurate.
The argument that they are inaccurate is not a good defense. They are extremely useful for general aspects of evaluation. My wife deals with them daily and there is a consistent relation to low values and that of irresponsible people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David
I've seen people get them removed after a year. Not common, but possible.
Not going to accept your personal experience on this one as it directly conflicts with the law of them. So if you wish me to consider your claim, please provide some evidence as to this being done and how it it legally so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David
No need to lie. Be honest. If they ask say yes. They don't need permission anyway as bankruptcies are public record. Only very recent bankruptcies pose much of a stumbling block and people like me are out there helping them get the cleanest credit report possible.
Ok, so for the rest of your life you have to explain to a business or anyone of financial relations that asks that you have (if you don't lie as you said not to) and you think that it won't have any bearing that a person filed personal bankruptcy? Now I would understand if it was a specific issue of reason and then the person would have a proper means of explaining such as "we were doing fine then my spouse got a severe disease that wasn't covered on our insurance and it bankrupted us" or "My spouse died and was the primary earner and I was unable to afford all of my obligations". In those cases, a reasonable employer would not take it as a sign of irresponsible behavior.
I doubt "well, I bought a house when it was really expensive and when home prices dropped, I didn't want to keep paying for my lost value so I dropped the home and filed bankruptcy" would go over very well and all of the employers that I have worked for would have removed you from consideration from the job in most cases. I know I would certainly not hire someone as that because what it tells me is that when they make mistakes, they do not own up to them and try to deal with the consequences, rather they dump them on someone else and run. That certainly is not someone you want working for instance in a time critical and security intensive environment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David
Yeah, but without the public record only those who do it will ever know so, meh.
50 years ago, I might agree with you, but these days where information is vast, available, and often "lingering" on the internet combined with the fact that companies are taking more and more steps to do their own research using such avenues, I don't think I would be so "meh" about it.
I saw it coming, anyone who really was paying attention to the hype saw it coming. This was expected.
That is why I brought up fraud in appraisals. With that
said - if everyone knew, including the banks...then there
should be no moral judgment for folks who walk away
after they realize they had been had.
Unless, you and the Banks are arrogant enough to think everyone that bought a home from 2002-2006 KNEW the appraisals were wrong, but decided to get on the hook for 15/30 years for something that had 1/2 or more less the
value: come 2011 D
So we are to expect these same irresponsible people to take the initiative to repair their credit with diligence?
Some, not all.
Quote:
Not really, just because "you haven't seen" doesn't make your position any more valid and mine any less. Businesses use such as a means to establish reliable hire, you don't think they have an objection?
I think businesses tend to oppose any law that stops them from doing whatever the hell they feel like, whenever the hell they feel like.
Quote:
And yet, errors in a report are the responsibility of the person themselves.
Actually, per the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the information furnished to credit reports is the responsibility of the data furnisher, hence they can be held civilly liable should their errors cause adverse action to the consumer.
Quote:
I do sub checks on my credit reports every 6 months and a full evaluation every year.
Good. I check mine regularly too.
Quote:
The argument that they are inaccurate is not a good defense.
Oh but it is, and when that report came out it spurred alot of discussion about how it would be corrected, and the currently proposed laws which would limit credit checks by employers almost always reference that study.
Quote:
They are extremely useful for general aspects of evaluation. My wife deals with them daily and there is a consistent relation to low values and that of irresponsible people.
Really? How did she arrive at this conclusion, because I've never seen one single piece of evidence that shows a connection between a person's credit score and their responsibility and in the early 2000's the Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Growth found that car insurance companies who used credit scores in determining rates were using questionable at best methods for reaching their conclusions. If you can show me any concrete evidence to the contrary, I'd honestly like to see it.
Quote:
Not going to accept your personal experience on this one as it directly conflicts with the law of them. So if you wish me to consider your claim, please provide some evidence as to this being done and how it it legally so.
It's very simple. The FCRA states that debts may be reported UP TO (operative words) a certain time, 10 years in the case of a bankruptcy.
Just like any other listing, there are dispute processes and other methods to remove them before that time is up. It's done all the time.
Quote:
Ok, so for the rest of your life you have to explain to a business or anyone of financial relations that asks that you have (if you don't lie as you said not to) and you think that it won't have any bearing that a person filed personal bankruptcy?
I don't, no. And no, it's not going to have much bearing. People declare bankruptcy all the time. Life goes on. It's not some albatross hanging around their neck that you'd like to think it is.
Quote:
Now I would understand if it was a specific issue of reason and then the person would have a proper means of explaining such as "we were doing fine then my spouse got a severe disease that wasn't covered on our insurance and it bankrupted us" or "My spouse died and was the primary earner and I was unable to afford all of my obligations". In those cases, a reasonable employer would not take it as a sign of irresponsible behavior.
I doubt "well, I bought a house when it was really expensive and when home prices dropped, I didn't want to keep paying for my lost value so I dropped the home and filed bankruptcy" would go over very well and all of the employers that I have worked for would have removed you from consideration from the job in most cases. I know I would certainly not hire someone as that because what it tells me is that when they make mistakes, they do not own up to them and try to deal with the consequences, rather they dump them on someone else and run. That certainly is not someone you want working for instance in a time critical and security intensive environment.
I'd say anyone who gives the second explanation needs to learn how to play the job interview game a little bit better.
Quote:
50 years ago, I might agree with you, but these days where information is vast, available, and often "lingering" on the internet combined with the fact that companies are taking more and more steps to do their own research using such avenues, I don't think I would be so "meh" about it.
You have exactly two places you can legally find out these things. Public Record, and a credit report. One of those is somewhat easily cleared of damaging information.
That is why I brought up fraud in appraisals. With that
said - if everyone knew, including the banks...then there
should be no moral judgment for folks who walk away
after they realize they had been had.
Unless, you and the Banks are arrogant enough to think everyone that bought a home from 2002-2006 KNEW the appraisals were wrong, but decided to get on the hook for 15/30 years for something that had 1/2 or more less the
value: come 2011 D
If there was fraud, then sure (to an extent)... but those are case to case issues. However, even if someone was appraising higher than they should, the key issue of understanding here was simply the fact that prices were ridiculous. You didn't need a bank, financial expert, etc... to tell you that homes were far beyond reasonable value and were far exceeding the wage index of the areas.
I am not arrogant about it at all. Honestly, I tried to reason to people during this time who I knew that were buying. I asked them "don't you think that home is far too pricey for what you are getting?" I asked them to think about the value of it. how much their loan was going to be and the manner to which their loans were being created to allow them to even remotely afford the home at that price. They pushed my comments aside, they had it all figured out and even the mortgage guys at the place I worked laughed and were arrogant about how prices would not go down.
I did not say banks specifically knew, I did not say everyone knew. I said ANYONE who was PAYING ATTENTION to the details and looking at how fast they increased as well as it compared to the wage index would see these homes were far too high and it would be obvious they would have to come down so buying them at those prices would be irresponsible.
At the end of the day, do you know who is truly responsible here? It is the one who bought the home. They knew how stupid the prices were and even if the home was being "appraised" at such, one would have to have some very dark rose tinted glasses to ignore that this was a poor decision. By the way, how are they making the appraisal? What was it based on? Market value? Should that not be a warning bell right there? If the market is determining the value and the market was fad selling houses, don't you think that right there is a sign of something? That even if the "appraisal" is valid for that moment, that since it is attached to the market, the house could drop in value just as fast as it increased in value?
The banks to which are at fault are those who were played games with the loans and had hidden increases, yet anyone remotely interested could see that even at a low interest rate, there had to be some extra money required somewhere? Did people really think they were going to get a half a million dollar house for only 1500 to 2k a month? Really?
Banks made stupid moves, but at the end of the day, they loaned out money, that was their risk and if they fall, it is because those who burrowed the money did not pay it back.
So every person out there trying to place this on the bank is simply trying to excuse the fact that they signed for the loan, they chose to pay for that price of the house, THEY are responsible. If you want to use arguments that it is the banks fault, then EACH INDIVIDUAL case will have to be argued as such, but you know what? Most of them aren't not an issue of the bank cheating, but simply an issue of the buyer paying far to much and the bank obliging them with a loan. If that is the banks fault over that of the buyer, then all sanity has left the building.
Look, we all make bad choices and buying a 600k home that is really only worth 150k is a whopper of a bad choice, but those who are responsible in their decisions and choices shouldn't have to suffer because a bunch of irresponsible people didn't before they bought that ridiculously over priced home. They need to accept the mistake, move on and pay for it in anyway they can. It may take a while before they can and they may have to wait for "natural" progression of home values to catch up (which will be quite a while depending on how ridiculous the price was in a given area).
If one can not accept their poor mistake, they will be doomed to repeat them over and over. So please stop trying to excuse people who refuse to accept their error and certainly do not attempt to claim that a person walking away from the responsibilities that they chose and was in their full control is anything by a severe violation of moral and ethical means.
I guess you would get to keep all the lavish vacations and meals out and designer clothes and other luxuries you bought with all the second mortages you took out.
I can't really answer that question because I wouldn't use my home like an ATM to get underwater with my mortgage in the first place.
We bought our house for $425, in Calif, it increased in value to $675. We "felt" as if things were going to turn around and were telling ourselves that we needed to sell quickly, but my husbands job had not quite been confirmed...so we waited an additonal 2 weeks (literally....2weeks) and the bottom fell out. The house freefel-at 25 grand, then 50 grand and didn't stop until it is now at $315. We cannot sell, as we cannot write a check to the bank for the differnce in value. NO DESIGNER CLOTHES, NO LUXURIES, NO VACATIONS. The bubble burst, the economy tanked. Thats it! We can not retire any longer until we either walk away from that house or spend every dollar we have left to pay it off. Once my husband stops working in a year and things are not better, I'll guarantee It won't be a moment of regret to walk away from the banks that caused this mess to begin with. And we won't look back! Good riddance.
You can get that far underwater without a second mortgage, or using your home as an ATM. How far underwater you are, though, is a matter of opinion. For instance, Zillow assigns market values that might place you underwater, but your local tax assessor might place the market value significantly higher. Until you sell your house, it's hard for many people to know if they are underwater, or not. However, where the market has fallen sharply, and in neighborhoods where foreclosures and short sales are common, it's much easier to determine if you are underwater. And if someone bought when the market was peaking and spent more than $250,000, some of those people can find themselves $100,000 underwater, especially if they had ARM's or for whatever reason didn't accrue much equity in the intervening years.
We did the right things and we are more than 100 grand under.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are nuts!
