Why do homeowners facing foreclosures blame the banks? (brainwashing, companies, retire)
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.
Why..............because that is the type of nation the United States Of Amerit*rd has become................screw up YOUR finances and blame it on someone else.
But hey, it was fun while we were maxing out our credit cards, buying junk we really did not need.
It is actually the America You and I made. It's how capitalism works, it rises and falls. It's nobody's fault, it's just bad luck for those who got stuck in the down swing. Those whom sold in the up swing are patting themselves on the back for a good gamble, those who didn't are getting blamed for spending what they don't have. It's sad really that people like you buy into the bullying when it has nothing to do with it. It's just simply kicking a man while he is down. Capitalism is always a gamble. It works by spending, especially trying to get people to spend what they don't have. Credit is the core of it, you need credit you've built up by spending money you don't have and paying it later. The only house one ever buys within their means is with cash. A loan on any size home, within means or not doesn't insure your ability to pay for it in the future. It's a gamble, and the way business works in a capitalist society.
You don't know what they needed, or why they had dept. Our society is run on debt, which is why the banks got bailed out. Unless you have always rented, or you buy your cars and homes in cash you are just as invested in the debt roller coaster as anyone on here. Now is the time business and government will start encouraging people to spend what they don't have again so America climbs back up. If we decide to become cash only spenders, and live within our measly means this country will fall into a depression like you've only read about. If you're ok then why don't you just enjoy the ride instead of spewing out the B.S. It wasn't your good choices that got you there as comforting as that might make you feel. You were just lucky. (unless of course you live on a self sustaining farm you built with cash and your own bare arms, then you can give yourself a pat).
Why..............because that is the type of nation the United States Of Amerit*rd has become................screw up YOUR finances and blame it on someone else.
But hey, it was fun while we were maxing out our credit cards, buying junk we really did not need.
It's how capitalism works, it rises and falls. It's nobody's fault, it's just bad luck for those who got stuck in the down swing. Those whom sold in the up swing are patting themselves on the back for a good gamble, those who didn't are getting blamed for spending what they don't have. It's sad really that people like you buy into the bullying when it has nothing to do with it. It's just simply kicking a man while he is down. Capitalism is always a gamble. It works by spending, especially trying to get people to spend what they don't have. Credit is the core of it, you need credit you've built up by spending money you don't have and paying it later. The only house one ever buys within their means is with cash. A loan on any size home, within means or not doesn't insure your ability to pay for it in the future. It's a gamble, and the way business works in a capitalist society. You don't know what they needed, or why they had dept. Our society is run on debt, which is why the banks got bailed out. Unless you have always rented, or you buy your cars and homes in cash you are just as invested in the debt roller coaster as anyone on here. Now is the time business and government will start encouraging people to spend what they don't have again so America climbs back up. If we decide to become cash only spenders, and live within our measly means this country will fall into a depression like you've only read about. If you're ok then why don't you just enjoy the ride instead of spewing out the B.S. It wasn't your good choices that got you there as comforting as that might make you feel. You were just lucky. (unless of course you live on a self sustaining farm you built with cash and your own bare arms, then you can give yourself a pat).[/quote]
Lol, see what I am talking about..........see my post then the wh*ny response.............LOL
borrowed like crazy against the house for "essentials", like
shopping sprees new cars and club med trips.
all the while chanting, debt is meaningless, im not squandering money, im leveraging and investing in my happiness and that of my no good kids.
Wake up "no poor management"....what part of doing business don't you understand?
A good business has money to survive in bad times and not just be able to stay alive in good times....this person basically had no money for any disaster and was "lucky" to stay in business for such a long time...this is called "bad business", and the OP is to be blamed for the situation.
We all know that banks are not very flexible and easy to work with but the OP wouldn't have to deal with that if she entered into a business deal that she could afford in the good and bad times.
so I take it you have your life planned day by day.. scenario by scenario for the next 19 years?
you sound like a condescending narcasistic troll..
nobody lives like that.. to prepare for "the worst" would mean no businesses would take risks at all.. and nobody would need a mortgage because they would just save up and buy a property with cash..
it's YOU that doesn't understand how business and taking a risk works...
The banks are at fault for giving loans to people who couldn't afford it.. and the people who took them out are at fault.. there is blame to go around to EVERYONE... but to sit here and condemn this man and his situation due to unforseen circumstances 19 years later is really disgusting and rude. If this man was paying the bills for 19 years.. he wasn't part of this recent mortgage boondoggle but more effected by it.. and it's sad really.
I will say that people who take these risks are the ones that drive this economy.. NOT that big bank you're defending tooth and nail for...
so please spare us....
No bank will say "NO" if the bank get's the entire loan paid off
Quote from the post;
"I put the property up for sale. Our realtor found three willing buyers, who would each pay off the loan. I did not price it to make any profit. I only wanted to get out, get a buyer to pay my outstanding principle and take it so I could wash my hands of it."
Thanks for sharing your story. I am still convinced this was a short sale process, especially since they asked you for pay stubs, etc. This was either due to their incompetence or because it there was a payoff shortfall. I've seen banks attempt a short sale when there was more than enough for a payoff, but I caught it and we simply sold the house.
Many of these bank foreclosure/default/short sale departments are extremely incompetent. People are only starting to learn with the robosigning scams of how bad it is, and how unorganized these banks are in regards to processes and paperwork. We are accustomed to the friendly branches with tellers, where your funds are always accounted for. Behind the scenes it's a very different story, I have plenty of stories.
I would seriously consider legal action if you were asked for short sale type information if you were paying them off in full.
The only caveat is if you're in a state where some obscure law allows the bank to decide to not accept a full payoff after the borrower is past due.
I wish you the best of luck.
Quote:
Originally Posted by forest beekeeper
It was the amount of outstanding principle and unpaid interest. I do not recall the bank mentioning any 'legal fees' at that time.
This was done after we had already ran out of funds and were behind in payments.
I was already in contact with the bank, and trying to follow their guidance.
We routinely had massive problems each time the bank bounced us from working with one of their offices to a different office. Each of their offices have entirely different policies, and most often they contradict each other's policies. For one office you need to fill-out forms and be asking for this. but when you fax them to the next office, you need to re-do the forms to ask for that.
I remember that we were screwed up a bunch of times because one office would reject everything, and make us do it all over again, because they wanted 6 months worth of weekly pay-stubs. I am retired. I do not get paid weekly. I am on Direct-Deposit [as mandated by law], I am paid monthly. With direct-deposit I do not receive a physical paycheck so there is no pay-stub.
But that one office was insistent that I had to prove I was paid a physical paper check with an attached stub each week. Or else they would not allow the process to go to the next office.
I argued with that idiot for months. Letterhead documents for DFAS explaining that I am not paid weekly. My annual earning statements show that I am paid monthly. Bank statements showing that I receive my pay on time each month. etc. But still he wanted 26 physical pay stubs, or nothing else.
I have no idea.
Much later, when I finally got a lawyer, he told me a few things.
Banks used to be ran by accountants. They are no longer ran by accountants, now the tend to be ran by lawyers. Accountants think in terms of showing a profit from interest paid to the bank. Lawyers think in terms of billable hours in a courtroom, or before Federal Agencies [like when applying for bail-out funds]. They no longer simply want interest on their money, they want bail-out cash. To get more bail-out cash they need to artificially bump the 'loss' on the books, so they can get more free money.
He reassured us that the bank's behavior does not make sense to most people who are familiar with how banks used to work. But that he is seeing this same scenario multiple times each week with clients coming to him.
On the day of our bankruptcy proceeding, the court appointed mediator, went through a series of other couples before he got to us. He really grilled them. Questioning each thing they had done, each expense, each asset, etc.
I was nervous about ours.
When he got to us, he briefly flipped through our filing, and while doing so he mumbled aloud the course of events that led us to his courtroom. It was like, 'so you did this?' I said 'Yes'. 'then you did blah' the whole process all I was saying was 'yes, sir'. We were pretty shocked. It was like he was scanning a page from a book that he had read a hundred times previously.
There were many places along the way where I could have acted differently, if I had known better.
My original thought was to hold that property for a few more decades, as a side income for my retirement. It never occurred to me to sell it when the economy was doing good. Again a crystal ball would have been a great asset.
It is well known that the banks have had an enormous problem with the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing and he seems to have been caught in that loop.
Yes, exactly right! People have no idea how incompetent the banks are and how difficult frustrating it is to work with them once in default. I have never heard anyone say the "right hand / left hand" thing besides myself, but it is very very true! I deal with this for a living and the incompetence is still a challenge after all these years.
Numerous times (over 100 in 10 years), I have seen banks promise people they will stop the auction to payoff the loan or workout a plan, and then auction it off the same day because of the left hand / right hand thing.
I'm calling bull on this one. A net to close statement on a almost 20 year old loan should be enough. If I owned a multi-unit 20 years in I would think I would be positive even at 30% occupancy. Whats the real story here?
You're right, somebody dropped the ball. I had a client who was 10 years from paying off the loan before she got in default, and the phone system still automatically transferred her to the short sale / foreclosure department because she was in default.
The banks are so accustomed to people not having equity, and they don't always have the values of the properties on hand. Therefore, they assume every call that transfers to the foreclosure department needs a short sale. Beekeeper probably got caught in that loop while dealing with a $10 / hr rep on the phone. His Realtors probably weren't experienced in default situations, and the closing attorney probably didn't even get a chance to check out the file since beekeeper and his realtor were probably trying to "go through the bank" even though he wasn't required to.
Quote from the post;
"I put the property up for sale. Our realtor found three willing buyers, who would each pay off the loan. I did not price it to make any profit. I only wanted to get out, get a buyer to pay my outstanding principle and take it so I could wash my hands of it."
Where do you see "Short sale" ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by forest beekeeper
All of this was submitted to the bank. They could choose which buyer could buy the property.
The bank refused to allow us to sell.
The bank would not be in the buyer decision making process if they were getting paid in full. The bank's refusal proves it was an attempted short sale, I'm just not sure if it was an accidental short sale attempt or not.
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.
