Americans face post-foreclosure hell as wages garnished, assets seized

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
Oh the horror! People actually being held responsible for legal agreements they willingly entered into? What is the world coming to?

Bottom line, if you "walk away" from a house, the amount you owe on that house doesn't magically go away. The house will be sold and the proceeds will go to the lender. Any remaining debt is still owed. Duh.
 

Brovane

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2001
6,510
2,651
136
Oh the horror! People actually being held responsible for legal agreements they willingly entered into? What is the world coming to?

Bottom line, if you "walk away" from a house, the amount you owe on that house doesn't magically go away. The house will be sold and the proceeds will go to the lender. Any remaining debt is still owed. Duh.

What where they thinking. Only big corporations are alloweed to walk away from legal agreements. Silly people.........
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,839
2,625
136
A lot of states are non-recourse. Of those that aren't there is always bankruptcy if they really feel imposed by having to repay the debt they voluntarily incurred.

Sorry, outrage not found on my part.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Americans face post-foreclosure hell as wages garnished, assets seized

Good, I'm glad the deadbeats are finally being forced to own up to financial responsbility even if it's unwillingly and I'm completely unsurprised that the OP sides with them.
 

OverVolt

Lifer
Aug 31, 2002
14,278
89
91
When banks tried to say you were making good on your mortgage obligation by paying $500/mo on your $2,500/mo McMansion they were just trying to get extra money out of you before short selling it.

Anybody with more than 3 firing brain cells and knows how credit works should be able to figure that out.
 

pauldun170

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2011
9,541
5,771
136
I'm not going to start in on bank practices or how this really works and instead just going to respond to the article and OP comment


It seems this even affects people who did "short pays" and avoided foreclosure.

The term is "Short Sale"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_sale_(real_estate)

This is done because no one wants to go through Foreclosure. Certainly not the Bank.

Obligations are typically right there in the paper work that parties are signing.


.......
By now, banks have usually sold the houses. But the proceeds of those sales were often not enough to cover the amount of the loan, plus penalties, legal bills and fees. The two big government-controlled housing finance companies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as other mortgage players, are increasingly pressing borrowers to pay whatever they still owe on mortgages they defaulted on years ago.
....
Using a legal tool known as a "deficiency judgment," lenders can ensure that borrowers are haunted by these zombie-like debts for years, and sometimes decades, to come. Before the housing bubble, banks often refrained from seeking deficiency judgments, which were seen as costly and an invitation for bad publicity. Some of the biggest banks still feel that way.
.....
But the housing crisis saddled lenders with more than $1 trillion of foreclosed loans, leading to unprecedented losses. Now, at least some large lenders want their money back, and they figure it’s the perfect time to pursue borrowers: many of those who went through foreclosure have gotten new jobs, paid off old debts and even, in some cases, bought new homes.

"Just because they don't have the money to pay the entire mortgage, doesn't mean they don't have enough for a deficiency judgment," said Florida foreclosure defense attorney Michael Wayslik.
....

Three of the biggest mortgage lenders, Bank of America, Citigroup, (C.N) JPMorgan Chase & Co (JPM.N) and Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC.N), all say that they typically don't pursue deficiency judgments, though they reserve the right to do so. "We may pursue them on a case-by-case basis looking at a variety of factors, including investor and mortgage insurer requirements, the financial status of the borrower and the type of hardship," said Wells Fargo spokesman Tom Goyda. The banks would not comment on why they avoid deficiency judgments.

Perhaps the most aggressive among the debt pursuers is Fannie Mae. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014...dType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=twitter

Summary of article, Big banks typically don't chase people for efficiency judgements.

Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and some other unlisted lending institutions pursue when it is judged that the original borrowers are now financially able to pay there obligations.
 

pauldun170

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2011
9,541
5,771
136
Oh the horror! People actually being held responsible for legal agreements they willingly entered into? What is the world coming to?

Bottom line, if you "walk away" from a house, the amount you owe on that house doesn't magically go away. The house will be sold and the proceeds will go to the lender. Any remaining debt is still owed. Duh.

A short sale isn't walking away.
Walking away is "stopping payment on your obligations" and telling the bank "You deal with it"

A short sell is the lender and the borrower agreeing to say "Screw this...lets take what we can get, rip up the original agreement and replace it a disclaimer"
 

fleshconsumed

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2002
6,486
2,363
136
What where they thinking. Only big corporations are alloweed to walk away from legal agreements. Silly people.........

No one is listening. It's fun to pick on little man - makes one feel good. Nobody really cares about bankers' role in this whole mess anymore, that ship has sailed.
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
198
106
Nobody really cares about bankers' role in this whole mess anymore, that ship has sailed.

The bank did their part, they provided the loan.

When the house did not double in price, but instead lost value, the borrower walked away. The get rich quick scheme faded before their eyes.
 
Dec 10, 2005
29,568
15,103
136
The bank did their part, they provided the loan.

When the house did not double in price, but instead lost value, the borrower walked away. The get rich quick scheme faded before their eyes.

The bankers bear no responsibility in making outrageous loans in the first place? Is personal responsibility only a one-way street?
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
If you sign on the dotted line you incur a debt. It is a lot cheaper to pay off the debt because every month the evil bank adds late payment charges and fees and interest to your debt. My children, this is called personal responsibility. Get use to it. You may think you can run away from your debt but it will follow you. It is better to find a legal way to pay off the debt or file for bankruptcy than to just run away. Running away and not facing your problems only makes the problem worse.

So where is her deadbeat life companion?
 
Last edited:

pauldun170

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2011
9,541
5,771
136
The bankers bear no responsibility in making outrageous loans in the first place? Is personal responsibility only a one-way street?

Define "Outrageous loan"

Since historically, the uproar has been over "sub prime" loans I'll assume for a moment that is what you mean by "outrageous loan".

What percentage of deficiency judgements originate from sub-prime loans?
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
A short sale isn't walking away.
Walking away is "stopping payment on your obligations" and telling the bank "You deal with it"

A short sell is the lender and the borrower agreeing to say "Screw this...lets take what we can get, rip up the original agreement and replace it a disclaimer"

That is completely spelled out in the short sale agreement. In the event of a short sale, the lender essentially agrees to allow the sale, but doesn't always have to agree to consider the debt repaid "in full" after the sale. Whether the debt is considered fully repaid after the short sale is spelled out in the agreement and the homeowner is (or should be) fully aware whether a debt still exists or not. If it does, you should not be surprised when someone comes after you for that debt.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
What where they thinking. Only big corporations are alloweed to walk away from legal agreements. Silly people.........

So your argument is "hey, evil corporations did something I don't like, therefore people should not be subject to laws and to repay the debts they agreed to pay". Brilliant.

Bottom line, people agreed to borrow money, and then didn't pay it back. Now they complain when someone comes after them for the money. I understand there are perfectly legitimate reasons why someone might not be able to pay the mortgage, but you have to realize that at some point someone is going to want to get paid the money you borrowed from them.
 
May 13, 2009
12,333
612
126
So your argument is "hey, evil corporations did something I don't like, therefore people should not be subject to laws and to repay the debts they agreed to pay". Brilliant.

Bottom line, people agreed to borrow money, and then didn't pay it back. Now they complain when someone comes after them for the money. I understand there are perfectly legitimate reasons why someone might not be able to pay the mortgage, but you have to realize that at some point someone is going to want to get paid the money you borrowed from them.
The evil corporations were just as reckless in their lending practices yet they were given a free pass when the Bill came due
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
How can you hold the people accountable when big business wasn't?

Try that next time you get a speeding ticket "how can you ticket me when other people were going even faster than I was??". Not relevant.

If you have a problem with the fairness of what business did and all that, I have no issues with that discussion, but it's not relevant to this.
 

spacejamz

Lifer
Mar 31, 2003
10,993
1,742
126
When banks tried to say you were making good on your mortgage obligation by paying $500/mo on your $2,500/mo McMansion they were just trying to get extra money out of you before short selling it.

Anybody with more than 3 firing brain cells and knows how credit works should be able to figure that out.

Anybody with more than 3 firing brain cells should have known that taking out a $400K mortgage on a $40K/year salary is a bad idea, but we all see how well that turned out...
 

Pipeline 1010

Golden Member
Dec 2, 2005
1,987
807
136
The bank did their part, they provided the loan.

When the house did not double in price, but instead lost value, the borrower walked away. The get rich quick scheme faded before their eyes.

In many cases, the bank did NOT do their part. Their part isn't simply to hand over money to anyone with a pulse; they must perform due diligence to protect themselves, their loan, and the investors up the chain who will purchase the loan. It seems like the banks never planned for the value of the collateral to diminish. You know...the very thing that you seem angry at the borrowers for failing to anticipate. Besides, if you are providing loans at 8-12x the borrower's income, you have designed that loan to fail. No, the banks did not do their part. (Unless you consider "their part" to be providing loans that will default for sure and then passing them off to investors as "good" investments)

By the way, many of these banks also back out on commercial loans/leases when it no longer makes financial sense to continue to pay. But if the bank does it, maybe we should just call it a good financial decision.
 

Pipeline 1010

Golden Member
Dec 2, 2005
1,987
807
136
Bottom line, people agreed to borrow money, and then didn't pay it back.

Technically that isn't the entire agreement. People who borrowed the money agreed to either 1) pay it back or 2) give the house back.

The bank AGREED to this. The bank signed the loan docs, too.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
I think people who were flipping homes for profit should be chased down. Otherwise, we have a situation of 'privatized profit and socialized losses'.

OTOH, people who had a (real) home and got laid off in the bad economy and lost it need a fricken break.

Fern
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
I think people who were flipping homes for profit should be chased down. Otherwise, we have a situation of 'privatized profit and socialized losses'.

OTOH, people who had a (real) home and got laid off in the bad economy and lost it need a fricken break.

Fern

They do, the break is called "bankruptcy." While regrettable and painful it's also responsible, which is probably why OP is oblivious to it. I guess he prefers to be an enabler of people simply walking away from their obligations and letting someone else get stuck with the bill.

And before he or someone else chimes in with "but the banks were bailed out too!" that still doesn't excuse away the borrower's bad behavior, just that you have twice as many people being allowed to act irresponsibly.
 

TheSlamma

Diamond Member
Sep 6, 2005
7,625
5
81
Don't waste your breathe or typing on miserable America hating scum like him.
Interesting that anyone that you don't agree with instantly hates Americans, I remember the good ol days when you used to get vacations for that crap.