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.
That's another piece that is making things extremely hard today. In the past when someone couldn't keep their home because they lost their job it was just a matter of selling it, which often could cover all debts, or even let them have some cash in the bank, but put them back to square one home ownership wise. Now it's underwater mortgages, a glut of homes on the market, REO's, short sales, etc. It's no longer an easy situation to get out of even if you didn't do a damn thing wrong.
Not trying to rub salt in wounds here- I was one of those paid cash for my home. Referencing kat's statement... all that was true once upon a time, AKA 'safe as houses', until finance found a way to guarantee the poopy end of the stick was never on them. Bankers, mortgage co's, PM Insurers- even real estate agents had nothing but gains for insanely high appraisals when they're getting commissions on sales of REOS/ foreclosures. No skin off their nose.
These are loaded dice and I refused to participate. Of course we're all forced to participate indirectly by gov't corrections, mandates and stimulus this or that, but I couldn't willfully agree to this insanity for my own balance sheet. If paying triple for a house for the privilege of financing sounds right to the rest of you, by all means sign your lives away.
More than my heart going out to these people, I'd rather spend time and energy getting these dice un-loaded.
Another side to the foreclosure crisis. As much as we'd like to label all those who are facing foreclosure as irresponsible, not all fit into that neat little cubbyhole. An example of "There for the grace of God go I."
When the first wave hit, I shook my head at irresponsible Americans. Then I lost my income -- and my home is next
By Christy Corp-Minamiji
This is the story of a home with red doors. A home where a family has unpacked wedding crystal, changed new diapers, buried pets, watched far too many DVDs, fought over space on the bed/couch/floor, picked the weird green stuff out of the soup, listened to the moan of the reluctant cello, eaten popcorn, thrown popcorn, and unwrapped birthday presents. This is our home. Technically, I guess it isn't anymore; our home goes up for public auction next month. The house belongs to the lender – another statistic for the death lists.
What do you propose should be done? Can people who don't pay be allowed to remain in a house? If you think so please let me know where to go to sign up for my free house.
What do you propose should be done? Can people who don't pay be allowed to remain in a house? If you think so please let me know where to go to sign up for my free house.
Who said anything about allowing people who default on a mortgage to stay in their house? You're reading way too much into it. The purpose of the thread, if I didn't make it clear at the outset, is that not all of these people who are losing their home fit into a neat category.
Last edited by carterstamp; 07-15-2010 at 10:59 AM..
Not alwlays the case at all. Being in real estate for 15 years, so much of the time, People who lost homes, lost homes, because some did buy beyond their means, took on much more then they could actually safely afford. Not always the case i know, a lot of bad mortgages are out there to. But i remember certain people having to have that beach front property, that huge mountian home, a second home, the lists go's on and some barely made it even then. Sad are those who do lose their home, due to a lost of a job or a illness. But so many times there were those couples who came in living beyond their expectations, we had nothing to do with that. And there are the crooked lenders out there who have a hand in this also. As sad as this is, i know only too well, that many live beyond their means, is this really a necessity.
When I refinanced my home about 10 years ago my banker told me that i could borrow over five times what i needed to pay off the current mortgage. That money would be available if I bought a bigger home with the money. I politely refused because I didn't need, but would have liked a bigger house, and could not support the required payments with out a lot of financial pain. I am very glad I did. My home has dropped in monetary value since it peaked in 2007 but it is still worth a lot more than I paid for it in the mid '80's.
Who said anything about allowing people who default on a mortgage to stay in their house? You're reading way too much into it. The purpose of the thread, if I didn't make it clear at the outset, is that not all of these people who are losing their home fit into a neat category.
Quite frankly it's often hard to tell. Allot of the foreclosure threads or debates seem to often discuss ways to allow people who have defaulted to remain in the home or suggest that the banks should allow people to remain in the home.
When you buy a house with a mortgage you are gambling period. All sob stories aside. Its the same as buying stock on margin. If you lose your house because of a job loss the harsh fact is that you could not afford it to begin with. That's why we have mortgages. The buyers and the lenders are both gambling on a financial product.
When you buy a house with a mortgage you are gambling period. All sob stories aside. Its the same as buying stock on margin. If you lose your house because of a job loss the harsh fact is that you could not afford it to begin with. That's why we have mortgages. The buyers and the lenders are both gambling on a financial product.
I disagree with the bolded statement. Are you supposed to have enough cash saved to continue to make your payments for say, two years, if you lose your job? I have neighbors who have been out of work that long, this in a "move-up" area.
When you buy a house with a mortgage you are gambling period. All sob stories aside. Its the same as buying stock on margin. If you lose your house because of a job loss the harsh fact is that you could not afford it to begin with. That's why we have mortgages. The buyers and the lenders are both gambling on a financial product.
Another story of people who bought above their means. If a person is qualified for a loan it doesn't mean they have to take the entire amount. mostly not calculated in the amount is additional living expenses that are above the average...many people don't incl. the risk of soemthing breaking down in the home and rather don't spent a dime on ins. or warranties while they don't have money on the side to take care of the issue in case something happens.
BUT many do have money for beer, vacations, parties, nice cars and specially the high bill that comes with having more than one cable box, because how can you life without your favorite tv program and surfing the internet!
They run theire private things the way this government is running our tax money...spend until you don't have a dime, print or loan money and keep spending and wasting....instead of stop spending and act in a responsible way...but what the heck...the people in Washington are having their money overseas, or in another way so the avoid paying too much...
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.
