If you were "upside down" on your mortgage, would you walk away? (ethic, abuse)
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.
Most may, some may not. Not really useful, so I think we can stop this portion of the discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David
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.
Assumptive, though it does show your dislike for businesses as you generalize all of their intent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David
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.
Missing the point. While legally, it is their responsibility, that doesn't do anyone a damn bit of good when having the bad information causes a bad reaction. Hence, it is the responsibility of the person to check those regularly to make sure they are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David
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.
Again, the argument that they are not correct was a political argument and scare tactic to promote the law. We already discussed the above issue of the responsibility of the person and the agencies involved. Claiming that it is direct support and a means to push the law is like Greenpeace claiming that since there was an oil spill, all activity in the water should be limited or banned. It was an advantageous means to purport a political position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David
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.
Well, she works with people who have low scores every day and the majority of them are irresponsible. That is, they are there because their scores are low and their scores continue to stay low because of their actions with her company.
As for driving having a link to a credit score, that one is iffy. However, if one does not pay their bills on time, over spends, does things like drop their responsibilities to their loan for a home because it dropped in value, to claim that it has no relation to their ability to function responsibly at a job would be absurd. Maybe in some jobs it may not have a large effect, but it would be paramount for many jobs. For instance, if you are hiring a manager to manage your office under the above description, well... they aren't a good choice. Not because they "may" be different at work than in personal responsibilities, but hiring a person is a gamble and you work the odds for your favor. So yes, it is perfectly reasonable to use such in that evaluation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David
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.
This is where we need to evaluate case by case. The general means to which you declare is not the rule to which it is established. You go on like people simply get into debt, drop their responsibilities and rush of and get cleared all the time. I think there is more to it than that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David
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.
People are irresponsible all over the place. People push off their debt on others all the time. People murder each other all the time, but that doesn't make the offense no big deal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David
I'd say anyone who gives the second explanation needs to learn how to play the job interview game a little bit better.
I thought honest was the requirement? Oh... they need to word different ways, make it seem as if it was a hardship, you know... the whole dog and pony show, manipulations of context, you know.... white lies...
So much for honest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David
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.
So you are saying that if you go off on your face book about how you avoided having to pay a dime after your bankruptcy and your business happens to browse and see that you lied about being in bankruptcy, that it has no effect? That legally they can not use such? Maybe by a means of... some legal realms, but it all depends on what. I can say that they can let you go do to it and might be able to make a case that you lied as a support for a civil and contractual process.
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.
No offense, but you paid for the house. You paid what you thought it was worth, now that everyone else thinks it is worth less, you want to drop out on it?
What if you bought it for that amount and it trippled in value over the next 3 years and the bank decided that they wanted you to pay a lot more for the loan because they didn't expect the home to grow so fast in value? Would you pay them? Didn't think so.
However, because you paid for it and it lost value, now it is ok for you to walk away because... you can't be expected to take a loss right? I mean, it is ok that the banks do, but not you?
Did your bank cheat you when you bought the house? Did they give a dishonest deal? Or did they simply give you a loan for the home you chose to buy at the price you decided to pay?
Really, the banks huh?
Seems like your position is one sided in your favor.
Again(seems this is a difficult concept) it is a business decision and neither party is losing out.
Are you kidding? When people default on their mortgage, everybody loses. Just ask home owners who continue to see their values go down as neighbors walk away from their obligations because it's "Just business."
Assumptive, though it does show your dislike for businesses as you generalize all of their intent.
No dislike of business here, just a realist about how they work.
Quote:
Missing the point. While legally, it is their responsibility, that doesn't do anyone a damn bit of good when having the bad information causes a bad reaction.
Actually it puts the data furnisher in even greater legal danger when that incorrect information results in adverse action. I agree though, people should keep up on their credit.
Quote:
Well, she works with people who have low scores every day and the majority of them are irresponsible.
That sounds oddly like police officers who develop the "everyone is a criminal" mentality because their job puts them in constant contact with criminals. Neither one really holds up when you take it out of the vaccuum.
Since you didn't reference anything substantial and unbiased, I'm guessing you don't have it. I'm really not surprised as in my 4+ years of actually caring about credit and finance issues I've seen this debate play out 10,000 times and not once has any proof ever existed.
Quote:
That is, they are there because their scores are low and their scores continue to stay low because of their actions with her company.
Just curious, but what does she do? From this sentence I'm guessing it's either credit counseling or debt collections.
Quote:
but hiring a person is a gamble and you work the odds for your favor.
Sounds like what consumers would like to see happen by outlawing the practice.
Quote:
This is where we need to evaluate case by case. The general means to which you declare is not the rule to which it is established. You go on like people simply get into debt, drop their responsibilities and rush of and get cleared all the time. I think there is more to it than that.
What more do you think there is to it? None of the things done are a big secret. That information can be found on any of the major credit forums that populate the internet.
Quote:
People are irresponsible all over the place. People push off their debt on others all the time. People murder each other all the time, but that doesn't make the offense no big deal.
I don't know that I'd equate someone exercising their legal right to bankruptcy (a right which companies have as well no less) to murder, but that's your deal I guess.
Quote:
I thought honest was the requirement? Oh... they need to word different ways, make it seem as if it was a hardship, you know... the whole dog and pony show, manipulations of context, you know.... white lies...
So much for honest.
In these situations, I've always been a fan of following the approach of guys like Mike Shanahan and Bill Belichick. They've mastered the art of talking to the media without really saying anything, often being as general as possible. It wouldn't be too hard for me to spin that situation in a job interview.
And hell, if someone were inclined to they could lie all they wanted about why it happened. The fact that you declared bankruptcy might be public record, but the reasons aren't. A little thought here to avoid getting caught in an obvious lie and no one will ever be the wiser. Not the approach I would take, but it's there.
Quote:
So you are saying that if you go off on your face book about how you avoided having to pay a dime after your bankruptcy and your business happens to browse and see that you lied about being in bankruptcy, that it has no effect? That legally they can not use such? Maybe by a means of... some legal realms, but it all depends on what. I can say that they can let you go do to it and might be able to make a case that you lied as a support for a civil and contractual process.
We've already established that lying about whether or not you have declared bankruptcy is a bad idea, with it being public record and all.
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.
O.K. You've posted on a public board so here comes some critique:
What doesn't add up for me is your decision to purchase a home for $425K when you were "close" to retirement age. You speculated in a commodity when you should have been pulling in your horns and consolidating to diminish debt load NOT increase it!
You also indicated that within this time period of purchase to retirement that your husband had undergone a job change where his job was "not-confirmed" when the value of the home had increased from $425K to $675K so I have to ask: "what the hell were you waiting for if you were still making payments on this thing" You should have unloaded the mortgage as soon as your husbands employment risks were realized NOT after!
Then you go on to explain that the property value has dropped to $315K and your husband is within a year of retirement. This tells me a few things; you purchased on speculation that you would never pay off the mortgage but rather as a retirement investment to sell when you thought the equity gain could fund your projected retirement lifestyle. Here you are within a year of retirement with remaining mortgage sucking you dry. Have your payments increased? Nope.
Instead of Mutual Funds you gambled on the housing market and LOST your bet. Would you think you could walk away from Mutal Fund debt that you'd taken out a loan to purchase?
I'm going to tell you right out "you chose badly". You made the fundamental error of selecting a realty based equity to "grow" income for your retirement. It's been done before successfully many times but it is always a gamble outside the accepted risk envelope for people within sight of retirement UNLESS they can afford the loss which you obviously couldn't at the time of the purchase.
It's bailing on your responsibilities and reneging on a legal contract you (the borrower) signed and not under duress. IOW, no one was holding a gun to these borrowers heads forcing them to borrow the money.
And no one was holding a gun to the "banker's" head, either. The banker weighed the risks, wrote the terms of the contract and identified the home as collateral. The banker also ensured that during the initial years of the mortgage, most of the monthly payments went towards interest, with little applied to the principal. There is a reason the banks structure the mortgage in this manner.
It is not your neighbor's responsibility to ensure you reap a profit when you sell your home.
And no one was holding a gun to the "banker's" head, either. The banker weighed the risks, wrote the terms of the contract and identified the home as collateral. The banker also ensured that during the initial years of the mortgage, most of the monthly payments went towards interest, with little applied to the principal. There is a reason the banks structure the mortgage in this manner.
It is not your neighbor's responsibility to ensure you reap a profit when you sell your home.
Agreed, which is why I do not shed a tear for the banks who lost out on a bunch of mortgages. They just as the buyer need to accept they made a poor selection in their lending and eat the loss.
If we allow this to happen, those who make the poor choices or take excessive risks create opportunities for those who do not. That is, other banks then buy out the failing banks at extreme value and in return this also creates opportunity for home buyers to get good deals on homes.
I am against bailing out the buyer just as I am against bailing out the lender.
That said, the real offender here is the buyer as none of this would be an issue if they simply took the time to make a rational decision before they bought the home. The lender is at fault for taking a risk on someone who said they can pay the bills, but in the end, it is the buyer who isn't doing what they claimed they would. The buyer is truly at fault as they could have avoided the issue entirely by choice.
Many people have no choice because they can't make the payment, I personaly know a family who owe $700,000.00 on a house worth $350,000.00 they will either walk away or loose it.
Many folks who are upside down but can afford it wont walk away and I know a few like that (quite a few)
Ok...but what if they owed $700k and the house was worth $700k?
Then would they walk away?
No.
There's your answer.
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.
