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.
Nope. Sorry. I would walk away. I currently live in a home that was purchased for $700,000. It is currently worth about $300,000. We live in one of the worst hit areas of one the worst hit cities of this recession. If my ex wouldn't have paid for the house in cash we would have walked away with nothing heavy on our hearts. I also have financial morals, but they have a limit. $400,000 dollars in the hole is WAY(!!!!!) past that limit. lol.
Immorality like this is what's way past the limit.
Almost everything you buy devalues the second you buy it. Does that mean you stop paying for it?
This is clearly a mental thing. Who cares what your house is worth now? It's where you live and you agreed to pay a certain price for it. The only time it matters is when you go to sell it. And who knows what it will be worth then. You are not supposed to be guaranteed to make money on your residence.
We did the right things and we are more than 100 grand under.
But if you did the right things then why wasn't there some kind of down payment and why isn't the mortgage paid down?
I didn't buy an over $400K house and I also put in a 10% down payment - which is one big reason I would not have liked to walk away, and I've been paying down my mortgage.
Now I still owe on my house but a whole lot less than I did when I started and I know I will come out okay if I were to sell my home.
Now even with the mortgage payments, it's a lot cheaper for me to live in my home than it would be to rent with all the stuff I have. The only thing is that I had a mobile home while the house was being built and I think it would have been smarter to just stay with that.
Ok...but what if they owed $700k and the house was worth $700k?
Then would they walk away?
No.
There's your answer.
That is what is so ridiculous about their complaints. We damn well know that if they bought the house and it tripled in price to which the previous owner came back and demanded more money, the people would cry and whine and claim that they already bought it, its their house and they own it.
But hey, if they lose money on it, its.. well... walk away... not my responsibility... blah blah blah...
I was so angry at people buying when the houses shot up because I knew this would happen. I knew these people were thinking with extreme greed in their decisions "Oh look, we can buy this house and it will double in a year!! Yea!! we will be rich and all of our worries will be gone!"
Personally, I think all of the safety nets we have in society these days spur on this attitude. Remove the nets, and watch people really pay attention to where they step.
I wonder how many people would act so irresponsible if we went back to before bankruptcy law was put in place and involuntary servitude laws still existed for debts owed?
Immorality like this is what's way past the limit.
Almost everything you buy devalues the second you buy it. Does that mean you stop paying for it?
This is clearly a mental thing. Who cares what your house is worth now? It's where you live and you agreed to pay a certain price for it. The only time it matters is when you go to sell it. And who knows what it will be worth then. You are not supposed to be guaranteed to make money on your residence.
But.. but.. but... didn't you watch "Flip that House?" The people on TV said we could get rich without even trying!! We were promised return with no risk! *chuckle*
If it was a local credit union or small-time operation with a good reputation, and which held its own mortgage notes without having securitized them or shufflling them over to the MERS system, then I would feel an ethical obligation not to "walk away."
If it were a large national bank that had accepted bailout money and had executives being paid dozens of millions of dollars and had a history of securitizing and selling off mortgage notes without properly recording them with the counties/states where they were based... then screw 'em... if you want "ethical" behavior from your customers, then feel free to display a little bit yourself someday.
If it was a local credit union or small-time operation with a good reputation, and which held its own mortgage notes without having securitized them or shufflling them over to the MERS system, then I would feel an ethical obligation not to "walk away."
If it were a large national bank that had accepted bailout money and had executives being paid dozens of millions of dollars and had a history of securitizing and selling off mortgage notes without properly recording them with the counties/states where they were based... then screw 'em... if you want "ethical" behavior from your customers, then feel free to display a little bit yourself someday.
Simple as that.
I believe, ladies and gents, this is what is called Moral Relativity.
Nah, that serves no purpose or grounds for someone to repay their debt. I think the involuntary servitude concept worked much better for such. The debtor would then be legally bound to the creditor until the contract of their payment is settled. The creditor would be responsible for the debtor (food and housing) under the terms to which the debtor would then work for the creditor in some capacity until they paid their debt in full including the cost of their food and housing.
This was common during the times the US was first being colonized as many people indebted themselves in such ways to others in order to pay for passage to the colonies and they then worked there until the debt was paid varying from roles as the creditor needed (nanny, field worker, etc...) and sometimes determined by the skills available by the person in debt.
It isn't slavery in the sense many people generalize it as the creditor still had basic responsibilities to the well being and treatment of the debtor (they couldn't have their way with them or punish them without proper cause), but some abused the aspect of this relationship through many means as well as dishonestly extending debt in order to keep the person indebted to them.
Bankruptcy law remedied much of this, but... as it was once the creditor abusing that of the debtor, now often it is the debtor who is abusing that of the creditor.
I believe, ladies and gents, this is what is called Moral Relativity.
Or the "oh yeah? everyone else does it!" excuse.
No its not. I'm not upside down on my home, bought years ago. However, I am through dealing with large Wall Street banks. I now deal with a credit Union and a good local small bank. Soon I will sell my home in order to ditch Wells Fargo and take the proceeds and pay cash for my next home. Screw Wall Street. They are nothing but a bunch of thieves and will get theirs soon enough. And no they don't own me and yes the United States can live without that kind of machine.
It was meant tongue in cheek.
Putting someone in jail for debt is pointless.
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.
