[gold*dust1]

Excellent thread peeps Even though it was time consuming to read, I've really enjoyed the subject matter and back and forth banter! I've even learned how one goes about getting "key money" neat!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm going to file that in the ole memory bank.

[tony soprano]

Originally Posted by olecapt

Bob and Weave. Bob and Weave.

Face it. You use "bilking" as a pejorative for those you don't approve. But when it is your landlord...well it is not bilking anymore is it? Just good sense...
Go ahead bob and weave.

And try to convince that your schizoid ethics code makes any sense. .

I think most would agree it makes more sense than the assertions of a clairvoyant realtor. In the absence of having any supporting facts at all, you just know this landlord has no intent to become current on his mortgage. Why, you know the intent of every landlord in Vegas! Without that scam, you can't otherwise explain why a landlord doesn't deserve the same protection under foreclosure law as the others you counsel on the art of flim-flam. It seems your ethical code is somewhat inconsistent in its application.

Bilk and weave. Bilk and weave, Nostradamus. Gotta get that 19% up!

[tony soprano]

Originally Posted by gold*dust1

Excellent thread peeps Even though it was time consuming to read, I've really enjoyed the subject matter and back and forth banter! I've even learned how one goes about getting "key money" neat!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm going to file that in the ole memory bank.

You've come to the right thread gold*dust! Here, you'll get to study at the feet of the master. Unless of course, you're a landlord. Then apparently all the gospel gets thrown out the window.

[kimba01]

Originally Posted by tony soprano

If you go back and read my posts, you'll see I offered no judgement at all on the ethics of what the landlord may be doing. I was not given enough facts to determine that either way. You see, unlike you, I wasn't gifted with all seeing clairvoyance. I need actual facts before coming to a conclusion. You however, know the intent of every landlord in Vegas. How fabulous that must be!!

But for the sake of conversation, let's say that what you profess to know as true, is in fact just that. Now, in between your ducking and weaving, please explain to us why homeowner landlords should not be afforded the same lattitude to maximize their personal gain by taking advantage of foreclosure law?It's no surprise you don't take a stand. Your personal ethics seem to be in a state of flux. Sometimes bilking is OK, sometimes it's not. Whatever maximizes your personal gain, seems to be the flavor of the day. Keep spreading the bilking gospel. You may increase that scheister 19% yet.

I am not understanding your defending the landlord and then vehemently opposing what the homeowner or renter choose to do. Are you a landlord? If you choose to use the ethics card to oppose any kind of "free ride" then I would think you would feel that way across the board, regardless of the situation.

I am not so sure in reading this whole thread if you EVER really know all the facts surrounding any one situation, unless you are personally involved in it. Every situation is different and it is easy for one who is not in any of these situations to preach ethics or morals from their high and mighty pulpit, but you never really know until a situation lands in your lap that you are forced to make a DIFFICULT decision as to what you would really do.

People have been changing what was considered "ethical" for years. As a result, the mainstream has become more tolerable of those very things that were considered so unethical. Think-divorce, gay relationships, gay marriages, interracial relationships, abortions...the list goes on. It becomes your own personal issue then, you do what YOU believe and what best suits you and your loved ones. Even when some of the aforementioned issues were illegal, many were doing them anyway.

IMO, the brainiacs that be, need to come up with a solution to either help people avoid this or to turn it around to benefit everyone.

Oh, and BTW, I have never foreclosed on a home.

[MadManofBethesda]

Originally Posted by kimba01

People have been changing what was considered "ethical" for years. As a result, the mainstream has become more tolerable of those very things that were considered so unethical. Think-divorce, gay relationships, gay marriages, interracial relationships, abortions...the list goes on.

Don't know to what list you are referring. But not one item that you mentioned has anything whatsoever to do with ethics. You may be confusing ethics with mores.

[kimba01]

Either or.

I did mention morals in the previous paragraph, sorry...you get the pic.

[tony soprano]

Originally Posted by kimba01

I am not understanding your defending the landlord and then vehemently opposing what the homeowner or renter choose to do. Are you a landlord? If you choose to use the ethics card to oppose any kind of "free ride" then I would think you would feel that way across the board, regardless of the situation.

Um, I don't know how closely you're following along. I specifically stated that I can't make a judgement on what the landlord's intent might be. There weren't enough facts provided to determine that...unless of course you've been gifted with clairvoyance. I did offer up a "what if" scenario for the sake of conversation, but I plainly qualified it as such.

Let's say the landlord has no intent to become current on his mortage, why then is he not given the latitude of taking advantage of the foreclosure system for his personal benefit? That's the advice freely given by the other party in this discussion. I just want to know why it holds true for everyone but landlords.

[kimba01]

I understood it as he is not paying on his mortgage, right? So then he would be taking advantage of the foreclosure system, but he has a renter there and is charging them to live there. So the renter is not wanting to pay because the landlord is not, correct? Personally, I believe them to both be wrong, but I don't know the facts for either of them. Given that, since I am in neither position, I do not know FOR SURE how I would handle it. I can easily say that I would not want to bilk anyone, but there are so many variables that could come into play.

My whole point is that noone knows everyone's situation, unless they are involved in it. I know many people who have walked away from their homes. All different reasons and situations. Some I understand, some I do not agree with at all as I believe they were self-inflicted. All of them, I am thankful that I am not in those situations because I cannot be so high and mighty to think I wouldn't do what I needed to do to protect my interests, even if it was less than favorable, ethically.

[airics]

both situations are in play, however.. the renter has a contract with the LL saying they will pay... the contract that the renter has with the LL does not say that the LL will pay the mortgage with the money paid as rent... that is a seperate contract between the LL and the bank and the renter has no say in it.. In the courts, i believe the LL would win the case easily...
Did anyone ever think that the LL is going for a loan mod with the bank.. in order to even talk to these idiots (the bank), you have to be at least 3 months behind....

also, no matter what happens in a foreclosure, the LL still is liable for the property taxes until it is in the banks name.. so my thought is just pay the darn rent or im putting you on the street!

[kimba01]

I see. I do think that was tony's argument... that we don't know all the facts about the LL.