Did most people see the Phoenix area focused 60 Minutes report on mortgage walkaways? (foreclosed, assessor)

[smokemaster]

Originally Posted by crystalys

East Mitchell is the Loma Linda neighborhood (Osborn and 20th St.) and North Mitchell is Princeton Heights (McDowell and 12th St.) which is near where the couple from 60 minutes lives so you might be confusing the two. There were a few bank owned properties in the area that sold recently in that price range that were bank owned and at least one of those was already rehabbed and being flipped for about 3 times what they paid for it.

You are the one, who is confused. The 60 Minutes house is at 2014 E. Mitchell, they paid 387,000. Assessor - Residential Parcel Information

[_Charles_]

Originally Posted by smokemaster

I saw it thanks to AZJack. QUESTION: Where is that cute bungalow that the second couple paid 400K for, and is now worth 80K? I saw "2012" on the house number. Perhaps near Thomas, just West of the 51. Could we have a city-data investigation on this please?

Thomas and the Sqaw Peak ( I use the old name) is not a great area. If they paid $400k for a "bungalow" in the neighborhood - well ...not bright. I doubt that is the correct location.

[_Charles_]

Originally Posted by zox

The faux pas with this business decision is the damage done to one's credit. Many are making this decision assuming they will still be able to receive services with poor credit. What they fail to realize is having poor credit today does not afford one the same services it awarded in the past. Nearly every organization has placed strict limitations on credit. What a 650 scored once afforded someone now requires a 750 score and so on. I just can't imagine destroying my credit in this period. It would be nearly impossible to acquire many services. I don't think people have given that much thought. Sure you might be able to escape the burden of your mortgage, but good luck trying to rent from a respectable apartment complex, getting a car loan, acquiring credit cards with more than $1000 credit limit and interest rates less than 30%, and getting a bank loan among other things. In the past, it didn't really matter if you had poor credit because you could still attain many of these services listed. Some companies now use a person's credit status to make hiring decisions as people with poor credit may be seen as being less responsible. I would hope people weigh these factors when making this decision instead of assuming it is a golden parachute. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

You beat me to it. The logic of walking way from a mortgage to get a better deal somewhere else is fatally flawed. Walking away equals foreclosure equals bad credit for 10 years. And now bad credit equals no new mortgage financing - forget it.

[smokemaster]

Originally Posted by _Charles_

Thomas and the Sqaw Peak ( I use the old name) is not a great area. If theyn paid $400k for a "bungalow" in the neighborhood - well ...not bright. I doubt that is the correct location.

the names match, and the price they said they paid matches.

[OnYourSide]

Originally Posted by joajay

Sonoranrat, you definitely make the point.
"When you signed your mortgage, you did not agree to make payments every month on your mortgage no matter what even it it means working 84 hours a week or liquidating your retirement savings or money for college for the kids. You and your bank simply agreed that you would do one of two things. Either (a) you make your monthly payments and stay in your home, or (b) you do not, and the bank gets the title to your home. That's the totality of the contract (both explicit and implicit based on state laws). PERIOD.""

Sonoranrat, you definitely make your point. thank.s

That is why it's called a collateral loan I guess. The bank is never really high and dry.

[Wyoming Darrell]

One of the times that repo'ed houses will have a lasting effect is in when people who have had a house go back try for a new job. Try this hypothetical situation.

YOU are the one choosing a new man to work for your 50 employee company.
You have two people who are the only ones who haven't been weeded out yet.
The position is one that requires you to trust the person to be loyal to your business.
The first applicant has 100% of the qualifications you want, but has bad credit because he let his house go back even though he could have made the payments. He simply decided that he didn't want to because of the homes' drop in value.
The second applicant has only 85% of the qualities you want, and also has bad credit because his house was repossessed. In his case he made the payments up until he lost his job.

Both are smart and trainable. Who would YOU hire?

[jimj]

Originally Posted by Wyoming Darrell

One of the times that repo'ed houses will have a lasting effect is in when people who have had a house go back try for a new job. Try this hypothetical situation.

YOU are the one choosing a new man to work for your 50 employee company.
You have two people who are the only ones who haven't been weeded out yet.
The position is one that requires you to trust the person to be loyal to your business.
The first applicant has 100% of the qualifications you want, but has bad credit because he let his house go back even though he could have made the payments. He simply decided that he didn't want to because of the homes' drop in value.
The second applicant has only 85% of the qualities you want, and also has bad credit because his house was repossessed. In his case he made the payments up until he lost his job.

Both are smart and trainable. Who would YOU hire?

Add to that insurance of any kind and many other services that will cost more or be unavailable. Heck, they just ran my credit to turn on Electricity and Gas at my house, if I had bad credit it'd cost me a hefty deposit for a year.

[azjack]

"Add to that insurance of any kind and many other services that will cost more or be unavailable. Heck, they just ran my credit to turn on Electricity and Gas at my house, if I had bad credit it'd cost me a hefty deposit for a year."

Points like these and a few others are valid. But realistically, remaining 250 grand underwater would not be the choice that most people would make, especially in a non-recourse state like Arizona. I guess that if you had an amazing income or a security clearance to protect, you might stick it out. But it sounds like a heck of a burden to me. I guess that is why I never signed up for massive house debt in the first place.

[OnYourSide]

Originally Posted by jimj

Add to that insurance of any kind and many other services that will cost more or be unavailable. Heck, they just ran my credit to turn on Electricity and Gas at my house, if I had bad credit it'd cost me a hefty deposit for a year.

It's a complicated process. It's good to tabulated everything to see where one really stands.

[KCfromNC]

Originally Posted by Wyoming Darrell

One of the times that repo'ed houses will have a lasting effect is in when people who have had a house go back try for a new job. Try this hypothetical situation.

YOU are the one choosing a new man to work for your 50 employee company.
You have two people who are the only ones who haven't been weeded out yet.
The position is one that requires you to trust the person to be loyal to your business.
The first applicant has 100% of the qualifications you want, but has bad credit because he let his house go back even though he could have made the payments. He simply decided that he didn't want to because of the homes' drop in value.
The second applicant has only 85% of the qualities you want, and also has bad credit because his house was repossessed. In his case he made the payments up until he lost his job.

Both are smart and trainable. Who would YOU hire?

Yeah, would you chose the guy who made a tough but smart business decision that benefited people he's responsible to or would you choose the guy who wasn't even qualified enough to keep his old job? It could go either way.