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 in any discussion of the crash, you have to include those people who did not lose their jobs and were quite able to make their monthly payments but whined that they deserved a principal reduction because their house was no longer worth what they agreed to pay for it. They believed that because it was not their fault that their property's value sunk that they were entitled to relief. Gee, why don't we just apply that to everything? It's not my fault that the stock I picked tanked, give me my money back. It's not my fault that this expensive piece of sports memorabilia is no longer worth a fortune so I should get my money back. These people, upon realizing that they were not getting what they felt like they deserved, walked away from their homes and decimated neighborhoods and local businesses. Those dominoes can fall fast.
Yeah there seemed to be a ton of “strategic defaults” people getting out of their houses because they were worthless than they paid . I don’t believe there is anything in the constitution that says your home value can never go below what you paid for it .
The banks and Wall Street got greedy but homeowners and investors got greedy too .
Yeah there seemed to be a ton of “strategic defaults” people getting out of their houses because they were worthless than they paid . I don’t believe there is anything in the constitution that says your home value can never go below what you paid for it .
The banks and Wall Street got greedy but homeowners and investors got greedy too .
To call a default strategic, I'd say it's the couples who bought a house in only one person's name, kept finances completely separate, and the named party on the mortgage took the hit while the other's credit remained unscathed to have good credit for whatever they might need in the near term.
To call a default strategic, I'd say it's the couples who bought a house in only one person's name, kept finances completely separate, and the named party on the mortgage took the hit while the other's credit remained unscathed to have good credit for whatever they might need in the near term.
Many bought a new home before they started to default on the old. "Buy and Bail".
Many others strategically defaulted even though they were both on the loan. It was worth it in their eyes to take the credit hit rather than trying to dig out.
Many bought a new home before they started to default on the old. "Buy and Bail".
Many others strategically defaulted even though they were both on the loan. It was worth it in their eyes to take the credit hit rather than trying to dig out.
I suppose so long as it was foreclosure a la carte, and not bankruptcy, they could pay their cars and cards but not the mortgage company. It would keep the missed payments isolated to a single account. I don't know if that would matter when seeking future credit.
If doing bankruptcy and sinking the entire ship, there's something written into it that prevents "favorable treatment" of creditors, i.e. paying some accounts and not others.
The banks didn’t care because they flipped the loans right after they made /originated them
I'm not a house flipper but I did find it funny that my bank sold my mortgage before the first payment was due.
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.