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.
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.
A mortgage has collateral, the house. If you owe way too much on the house, it's just better to walk away and allow someone who can purchase it for 70-90% cheaper buy it for cash and make renovations, improving the neighborhood. To keep an overextended "homeowner" in the house not having money or motivation to make repairs and upgrades is self-defeating.
The analogy is epic fail. People just take strategic default personally because they don't have the balls to try it themselves or don't stand to gain enough from FICO exile.
Walking away from a real estate mortgage is something banks also do, so I don't see how banks could have an argument against individuals doing it as well.
The analogy is epic fail. People just take strategic default personally because they don't have the balls to try it themselves or don't stand to gain enough from FICO exile.
People just take robbing banks personally because they don't have the balls to try it themselves ...
People just take robbing banks personally because they don't have the balls to try it themselves ...
Robbing a bank is a crime, strategic default is not because it is consistent with contract law. The bank took the risk of loaning money in exchange for collateral if the debtor defaulted. The bank lost.
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.
Robbing a bank is a crime, strategic default is not because it is consistent with contract law. The bank took the risk of loaning money in exchange for collateral if the debtor defaulted. The bank lost.
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.
I'm surprised you can say this with a straight face. The bank doesn't take the risk of loaning money in exchange for collateral if the debtor defaults. They take the risk of loaning money in exchange for being repaid teh loan plust interest.
A mortgage has collateral, the house. If you owe way too much on the house, it's just better to walk away and allow someone who can purchase it for 70-90% cheaper buy it for cash and make renovations, improving the neighborhood. To keep an overextended "homeowner" in the house not having money or motivation to make repairs and upgrades is self-defeating.
The analogy is epic fail. People just take strategic default personally because they don't have the balls to try it themselves or don't stand to gain enough from FICO exile.
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.
I'm surprised you can say this with a straight face. The bank doesn't take the risk of loaning money in exchange for collateral if the debtor defaults. They take the risk of loaning money in exchange for being repaid teh loan plust interest.
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".
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.
Are you a sucker if you don't rob a bank ?
