I'm Walking away from my home in Las Vegas (home equity, to buy)
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.
Hi,
I really feel for you & your family, before you make a "criminal" decision, please go to your Bank, speak with them n`tell them the situation you are confronted with, ask them to help you in finding an option which would both help you and the Bank.
Your Bank can work with you in finding a suitable solution, but it would be unwise and downright criminal to do what you mentioned.
You owe it to your family, NOT to become criminal in the first place. Be open & honest when visiting your Bank. If I were you, I`d take my family with me when visiting the Bank, show them that you are an honest man and ask for their assistance in solving the problem.
"Criminal" Decision??? What Kool-Aid are you trying to pass? The obligation between a Mortgagee and a Mortgagor is a home is put up as collateral for money loaned. If the money is not paid back.. then whoever put up the money can take the home back and ruin your credit for seven years.
"Criminal" references are nothing but Bankster propaganda and your references to calling people in a difficult situation "criminals" is more criminal then somebody that is going to have hardships after the fact.
Be sure to tell that to the dozens of Community Bank of Nevada employees(among others) who lost their jobs because of people like you.
The dozens of Community Bank of Nevada employees lost their jobs because of executive management making decisions to lend money on several STRIP mall properties / Office parks that had no demand for occupancy.
They were bad loans before the first draw was made...
Geez... certainly some very interesting responses based on emotions then facts on this thread...
If you want to get into ethics... we need to discuss what created the high home values in the first place ---
--- Cheap and easy Credit. Like inflation.. the lenders were giving money to everybody which resulted in higher demand / artificial appreciation of homes. Throw in all of the speculators from the entire world that flocked into Vegas like a swarm of locusts.
Yay!! Everybody cheers and money circulates the economy like it's growing on trees. Jobs are created such as the original one the poster asking the question (remember his question and what he does) are created to build things that really are not needed.... creating even more of a glut in the form of inventory built by the Artificial Demand.
In reality though... some poor saps were investing in Mortgage Backed Securities with Triple A ratings and the lenders were doing whatever it took to meet this investment demand... resulting in lax lending standards that were very QUESTIONABLE. (Actually stupid now that it's been revealed incomes were not even being checked, appraisals were being rubber stamped through, people with no incomes were buying four homes at a time.. etc..) Home values go up. To the normal person with an average education... it appears that everything is normal and people buy into the market thinking the values are normal. Builders are building away, projects are being built because the economy is great. Yippee! Vegas is all of a sudden a Cosmopolitan city where $12 cocktails are normal. LOL!!
All of a sudden... the sub prime borrowers who should have never been given a loan in the first place stop paying at the same time lending standards somewhat return to the planet earth. Prices start to drop, people can't sell for what the home is worth.. (no surprise since there were so many 100% loans made)... people can't pull money out of their homes, aka ATM machines, money stops flowing into the economy, lending comes to a halt.. jobs are lost and it creates a reverse domino effect.
Eventually... we come to this poster who has a pretty strong indication that finding another job with what he does is going to be very, very difficult after being laid off. He's right.. it is going to be VERY hard if he stays in that profession because there really is going to be no demand for what he does in Las Vegas. The warnings (for over a decade) about Las Vegas growing too fast and being overbuilt finally came true.
So... now he has a choice of saving his money (while he has a job) and not paying the mortgage and living for free while he rides it out. Hopefully, he'll save enough to eventually pay for a rental (probably at a much lower cost then his current mortgage) and keep his family from becoming HOMELESS and be able to feed them without becoming a Taxpayer burden while he re-sets his finances and finds employment elsewhere. He probably will not find a job that pays as much as his current job so he needs to make decisions NOW. Common sense should tell you that once the current construction jobs such as City Center are done... there will be no NEW projects this significant to employ all of these people anytime soon. (There is ZERO demand for new projects and there are plenty of hotels BARELY scraping by with what little business there is. There will be hotels likely to be knocked out when City Center opens.)
Going through a Foreclosure is NEVER fun for anybody and he gets to live with it on his credit report for several, several years. This is NOT an easy decision considering the emotions involved with losing a "home".
ALTERNATIVE
Keep paying the mortgage and have no savings. Get laid off when the time comes and hopes that he finds another job that pays enough to cover the mortgage, living expenses and food. (Unemployment certainly is not going to pay for an average mortgage payment created post 2002 and pre-2009)
If he does not find another job that pays as much as he makes now, he may not be able to pay the mortgage and ends up being foreclosed on anyways.
"Hello Dear Lender... I payed my mortgage while I had a job and then I lost it.. will you let me stay here or do a loan modification while I look for another one?"
FAT CHANCE.
Unlike choice #1... now he can't afford to find a rental or feed his family while looking for another job. Heck... maybe he won't even be able to afford to look for another job.
Which Risk makes more Sense for his situation?
As STATED... he has thought this over for a long, long time before coming to this decision and posting it here.
And then we get all of the self-centered opinions that don't look at the big picture or even answer the question but resort to name calling such as criminal, stupid, be a man, blah, blah, blah. What's this country coming to, the problems are because of people like you, blah, blah, blah...
I've got news for you... the problems were created long before anybody stopped making their mortgage payments. The problems were created when clever marketing campaigns based on emotions such as "rent is wasting money", "own the American Dream", "real estate always goes up", "real estate is the best investment", etc.. etc.. and instant gratification was rewarded with easy credit so the creditors could make Billions of dollars.
Self worth was transformed from principles to what you wore, drove and where you lived. Debt and Credit Scores meant more then what somebody saved. Somebody with a $800,000 home in debt to death (mortgage) was valued more then the family in the $100,000 home that was paid off.
Nope... the problems started long before the first person stopped making their mortgage payments.
THINK BEFORE YOU POST
This is no defense for the scumbags loaded with money that just bail out because the home is worth far less then what it is worth.
I'm just saying... look at the big picture of what this guy's choices are and what he's facing. Stop with the guilt trip of the inability to pay / stay because I've got news for you... there are tens of thousands of people in Las Vegas alone that are in the same situation right now that are going to be reading this and some of the VERY dumb answers.
Recovery will begin when people re-set their finances, live responsibly within their means and don't get suckered in to mortgages that cost far more then comparable rents in the same neighborhood.
PROPER ADVICE / Suggestions
Nobody knows the entire financial situation of this poster so you can't give advice -- EVEN if you are qualified to do so. (And from what I see, nobody on here is qualified to give any financial advice.)
What's the total debt? What are the mortgage payments?
Etc, etc, etc..
Most importantly... HOW MUCH do you currently have SAVED? In the current economy... you should have at least one year of savings stashed away for the time when the layoff does happen.
There's a real big problem with your rationalization; the original bank wouldn't have ridden the property down from the original $185K to $60K. They would (and did) unload the property as soon as practically possible. Without you, the second bank never would have had any risk exposure to the property in question in the first place. Banks want no part of owning or managing property. They are in the business of lending money.
Huh? When I bought from the FIRST bank they had already foreclosed on the FIRST purchaser of the home. They loaned somebody (an actual real estate speculator, by the way) $185,000 to purchase the home and that person didn't pay, the bank foreclosed on it, and then sold it to me for $135,000. My POINT is that if it was so damn STUPID to buy when I did, then NOBODY should have been willing to buy when I did, and the FIRST bank would have had no choice than to sit on it until it had bottomed out. So the first bank would have taken the total loss. The NET LOSS is the same whether it is suffered by ONE or TWO banks. I think I'm speaking English. Why doesn't that make sense? Sure they DID "unload it as" soon as they could--on an unsuspecting patsy who was dumber than a second grader according to the poster I was responding to. But, if I'm to believe this poster, anybody who was dumb enough to be "unloaded on" deserves to be ruined and punished for life. The banks, however, deserve to be repaid in full. Give me a break.
Don't mind me. More senseless babbling. It's just that "dumber than a 2nd grader" really got to me. We're all so dumb. The banks are all so smart. They definitely deserve to win. Right.
So... now he has a choice of saving his money (while he has a job) and not paying the mortgage and living for free while he rides it out. Hopefully, he'll save enough to eventually pay for a rental (probably at a much lower cost then his current mortgage) and keep his family from becoming HOMELESS and be able to feed them without becoming a Taxpayer burden while he re-sets his finances and finds employment elsewhere.
And why should he pay rent?
Taking your rationale to its logical conclusion, once he is evicted from his house for not paying his mortgage, he should find some poor sap to agree to rent a house or apartment to him, and then stay there without paying any money for as many months as possible until the owner gets wise to his scam and goes through the process to evict him.
He can then repeat as necessary.
After all, he must save money so that he can feed his family, right?
Don't mind me. More senseless babbling. It's just that "dumber than a 2nd grader" really got to me. We're all so dumb. The banks are all so smart. They definitely deserve to win. Right.
They did win.. they made a bunch of bad loans / took on extreme risk.. made Billions of dollars / paid off politicians in the form of campaign contributions and then when their investments went bad... got the taxpayers to bail them out to stay open so they can start all over again.
They even got icing on the cake with the number of people that think home values dropped because people stopped paying their mortgages.
They did win.. they made a bunch of bad loans / took on extreme risk.. made Billions of dollars / paid off politicians in the form of campaign contributions and then when their investments went bad... got the taxpayers to bail them out to stay open so they can start all over again.
They even got icing on the cake with the number of people that think home values dropped because people stopped paying their mortgages.
Oh yes, they did indeed win. But the question is do they deserve to win it all? And must the little guy pay through the nose for their win? Because of the little guy's "stupidity?" (Can you tell I don't like being called stupid?).
Taking your rationale to its logical conclusion, once he is evicted from his house for not paying his mortgage, he should find some poor sap to agree to rent a house or apartment to him, and then stay there without paying any money for as many months as possible until the owner gets wise to his scam and goes through the process to evict him.
He can then repeat as necessary.
After all, he must save money so that he can feed his family, right?
The problem with your reasoning is you assume that his current mortgage payment is the same as comparable rents. You must also be assuming that the outrageous appreciation experienced in Las Vegas was natural.
(News Flash: The home price appreciation could have NEVER happened unless the lenders were loaning out money like drunken sailors.)
The reality is that during the real estate bubble... mortgage payments were often far more then double comparable rents for the same type of home in the same exact neighborhood.
But yet... I'm sure there was somebody out there telling him that it was a great investment, real estate always goes up, etc.. etc..
It made no financial sense to buy in the first place but he did ... along with hundreds of thousands of others.
Instead of getting into a debate about this... my "rationale" (as you eloquently attempt to twist into a free housing debate) is about cutting his expenses as low as possible due to his situation.
I don't advocate people bailing out and living for free... I do however advocate people living well within their means so responsible people are not paying for bailouts, rental subsidies, food stamps, etc, etc.. (All of which we are paying for because so many people got debted to death)
If the bank takes a hit to accomplish this... so be it. They made a deal and lent money on the home (even though the mortgage was going to be far higher then comparable rents in the same neighborhood) ... and if they don't get paid back... they get the home.
Your attempt to twist my "rationale" is weak. You either did not read the entire post or your intelligence is too low to understand it. Which one is it?
Oh yes, they did indeed win. But the question is do they deserve to win it all? And must the little guy pay through the nose for their win? Because of the little guy's "stupidity?" (Can you tell I don't like being called stupid?).
Based on the numbers provided in your original post, it looks like you put 3.5% down (on $133K) and rolled the closing costs into the loan. Accounting for the mortgage interest deduction, your monthly mortgage payment & HOA dues were comparable to rent. So, when you walk away the end result is -
The problem with your reasoning is you assume that his current mortgage payment is the same as comparable rents.
No, I did not. Incorrect response #1.
Quote:
Originally Posted by inveritatemonstra
You must also be assuming that the outrageous appreciation experienced in Las Vegas was natural.
No, I do not. Incorrect response #2.
Quote:
Originally Posted by inveritatemonstra
(News Flash: The home price appreciation could have NEVER happened unless the lenders were loaning out money like drunken sailors.)
Irrelevant to the question at hand. Incorrect response #3.
Quote:
Originally Posted by inveritatemonstra
The reality is that during the real estate bubble... mortgage payments were often far more then double comparable rents for the same type of home in the same exact neighborhood.
Irrelevant to the question at hand. Incorrect response #4.
Quote:
Originally Posted by inveritatemonstra
But yet... I'm sure there was somebody out there telling him that it was a great investment, real estate always goes up, etc.. etc..
Irrelevant to the question at hand. Incorrect response #5.
Quote:
Originally Posted by inveritatemonstra
It made no financial sense to buy in the first place but he did ... along with hundreds of thousands of others.
Irrelevant to the question at hand. Incorrect response #6.
Quote:
Originally Posted by inveritatemonstra
Instead of getting into a debate about this... my "rationale" (as you eloquently attempt to twist into a free housing debate) is about cutting his expenses as low as possible due to his situation.
Well, at least here you are finally attempting to answer the question.
Unfortunately you have failed to do so. Incorrect response #7.
Quote:
Originally Posted by inveritatemonstra
I don't advocate people bailing out and living for free...
Uh, oh, you may actually be getting there....
Quote:
Originally Posted by inveritatemonstra
I do however advocate people living well within their means so responsible people are not paying for bailouts, rental subsidies, food stamps, etc, etc.. (All of which we are paying for because so many people got debted to death)
Oops. Spoke to soon.
Irrelevant to the question at hand. Incorrect response #8.
Quote:
Originally Posted by inveritatemonstra
If the bank takes a hit to accomplish this... so be it. They made a deal and lent money on the home (even though the mortgage was going to be far higher then comparable rents in the same neighborhood) ... and if they don't get paid back... they get the home.
Irrelevant to the question at hand. Incorrect response #9.
Quote:
Originally Posted by inveritatemonstra
Your attempt to twist my "rationale" is weak. You either did not read the entire post or your intelligence is too low to understand it. Which one is it?
The question was very simple.
In fact, it only contained six little words.
Which one(s) confused you?
Care to try again?
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.
There's a real big problem with your rationalization; the original bank wouldn't have ridden the property down from the original $185K to $60K. They would (and did) unload the property as soon as practically possible. Without you, the second bank never would have had any risk exposure to the property in question in the first place. Banks want no part of owning or managing property. They are in the business of lending money.
