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.
I think that would depend on the contract. There is no such contract that standardizes what you're saying, and all three loan documents (2 purchase/1 refi) for me stipulated that the house is collateral, not the mortgage amount. Besides, no recourse states do not recognize a contract that calls for a mortgage to be repaid, but rather that the collateral (house) is surrendered. Check with state laws before just "walking away".
Am I reading this correctly?
You've signed loan documents that did not specify how much money you were borrowing and how much you had to pay back, and the interest rate?
I smell bs.
If I sign papers saying I'll repay something I should have the integrity to do it. The fact that people think as you do is a sad commentary on the state of the country.
It may be. I am not speaking about one's "moral" obligation, merely the legal one. Moral is subjective. Is it moral to be forced to pay more taxes? IMO, not really. A progressive would disagree of course.
Quote:
The word mortgage is a Law French term meaning "dead pledge," apparently meaning that the pledge ends (dies) either when the obligation is fulfilled or the property is taken through foreclosure.
Am I reading this correctly?
You've signed loan documents that did not specify how much money you were borrowing and how much you had to pay back, and the interest rate.
It did, but it also stated that the loan is a non recourse one.
Many on this board think you have no obligation to repay your debts. If your home purchase turns out to be a bad investment, just walk away from it. Your only obligation is to your family and they might need college savings funds more than the bank needs the loan repaid.
And after all, banks know that a certain percent of their loans will turn out to be bad. So when you walk away from your home loan, you are just taking advantage of a provision the banks have made for loan defaults.
Also, since "rich people" do this, you should too.
And finally, many justify walking away from a loan by blaming the loan officer who gave them the loan. He should have known better.
So, why not rob a bank? All of the above rationale applies equally to a bank robbery.
Defaulting on a loan that you could pay is morally the same as theft.
Your children's college education is more important than that rich bank hoarding money.
Banks know that they will have theft from time to time.
And finally, if banks didn't want you to rob them, they wouldn't have all that money lying around.
I have more respect for a bank robber than the vast majority of our so called "leaders" in politics and business. A bank robber is more honest, he comes in with a gun and a bag and tells you he's robbing you. A politician and many of our corporate leaders will **** on your head and tell you it's raining. They tell you their swindling you for your own benefit.
I cannot see how taking the money under the threat of physical harm has anything to do with this. No one held a gun to this lender's head to make them throw good money out the window.
You incorrectly assume that you have to use the threat of physical harm to steal from a bank....
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.
