California Imposes 90-Day Foreclosure Moratorium

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: Skoorb
If it really dropped by 50%, yeah, I agree tempting and not necessarily the wrong decision.

If there is one thing I've learned about capitalism its that nobody should be faulted for taking care of number 1.

Fortunately government makes it really easy to fuck everybody else over by covering up the mistakes of greedy assholes.

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: Skoorb
If it really dropped by 50%, yeah, I agree tempting and not necessarily the wrong decision.

If there is one thing I've learned about capitalism its that nobody should be faulted for taking care of number 1.

Fortunately government makes it really easy to fuck everybody else over by covering up the mistakes of greedy assholes.

As U.S. stock markets plummeted last September, the Senate's No. 2 Democrat, Dick Durbin, sold more than $115,000 worth of stocks and mutual-fund shares and used much of the money to invest in Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc.

The Illinois senator's 2008 financial disclosure statement shows he sold mutual-fund shares worth $42,696 on Sept. 19, the day after then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke urged congressional leaders in a closed meeting to craft legislation to help financially troubled banks. The same day, he bought $43,562 worth of Berkshire Hathaway's Class B stock, the disclosure shows.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/1...T-NWS-durbin13.article

Like that? The DJI has dropped about 2403pts since that meeting.

 

[StageLeft]

I'd love to know how the stock holdings of paulson and bernanke changed in 2008.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: JS80
Yes she is. Condo is underwater by $150k I think. And I think she is planning on moving in to her bf's house that he owns in a year, and who knows maybe they will get married. In her specific situation it is not worth paying the mortgage.

I'm curious, was your friend giving the bank the appreciating equity in the property while the market was booming? So what (besides some exaggerated sense of entitlement) makes her think the bank should give her the depreciated amount just because the market has tanked?

Your friend should seek legal advice before making any rash financial moves. Just because you're 'underwater' doesn't mean you're not liable for the deficiency, even if the property goes to foreclosure and trustee sale.

There is some extremely bad advice being given out in this thread.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JS80
Yes she is. Condo is underwater by $150k I think. And I think she is planning on moving in to her bf's house that he owns in a year, and who knows maybe they will get married. In her specific situation it is not worth paying the mortgage.

I'm curious, was your friend giving the bank the appreciating equity in the property while the market was booming? So what (besides some exaggerated sense of entitlement) makes her think the bank should give her the depreciated amount just because the market has tanked?

Your friend should seek legal advice before making any rash financial moves. Just because you're 'underwater' doesn't mean you're not liable for the deficiency, even if the property goes to foreclosure and trustee sale.

There is some extremely bad advice being given out in this thread.

valid points. I'm a renter and work in a creative field so I would be the last one to give this kind of advice If these people end up still on the hook for the underwater amount and can't bankrupt then they need to fight to regain what they lost.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JS80
Yes she is. Condo is underwater by $150k I think. And I think she is planning on moving in to her bf's house that he owns in a year, and who knows maybe they will get married. In her specific situation it is not worth paying the mortgage.

I'm curious, was your friend giving the bank the appreciating equity in the property while the market was booming? So what (besides some exaggerated sense of entitlement) makes her think the bank should give her the depreciated amount just because the market has tanked?

Your friend should seek legal advice before making any rash financial moves. Just because you're 'underwater' doesn't mean you're not liable for the deficiency, even if the property goes to foreclosure and trustee sale.

There is some extremely bad advice being given out in this thread.

Her mentality is that the idiots that can't afford it are getting these benefits, and she's effectively subsidizing them.

 

[compuwiz1]

There is someone I know who has been living in their house for free for 2 years. Yes, in Ca. She's already been almost forclosed, then filed a chapter 13 bankruptcy, then bankruptcy was finally dismissed because she couldn't afford to pay the payments. Almost forclosed again, but loan was renegotiated. Still could not afford, so 3rd attempt at a foreclosure occurred, at which time she filed a chapter 7 bankruptcy. After discharge of the chapter 7, she still did not come up with the money to catch up the payments, so 6 months later, on the eve of the 4th forclosure when it was going to auction, she filed another chapter 13. Now she has another automatic stay of at least 90 days while the bankruptcy proceeds. What a country we live in! Woohoo! Now she might even get more months to live rent free. :roll:

 

[eleison]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
....more months to live rent free. :roll:

Obama is fulling an implicit promise to his voters...

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JS80
Yes she is. Condo is underwater by $150k I think. And I think she is planning on moving in to her bf's house that he owns in a year, and who knows maybe they will get married. In her specific situation it is not worth paying the mortgage.

I'm curious, was your friend giving the bank the appreciating equity in the property while the market was booming? So what (besides some exaggerated sense of entitlement) makes her think the bank should give her the depreciated amount just because the market has tanked?

Your friend should seek legal advice before making any rash financial moves. Just because you're 'underwater' doesn't mean you're not liable for the deficiency, even if the property goes to foreclosure and trustee sale.

There is some extremely bad advice being given out in this thread.

Her mentality is that the idiots that can't afford it are getting these benefits, and she's effectively subsidizing them.

Of course, that's a completely idiotic and utterly self-entitled mentality to have.

Here's another question: should your friend happen to get this magical debt forgiveness that she wrongly imagines other people are easily getting, and then the market rebounds (which it will someday), does she intend to give the appreciation back to the bank?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
....more months to live rent free. :roll:

Obama is fulling an implicit promise to his voters...

Troll.

 

[compuwiz1]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
....more months to live rent free. :roll:

Obama is fulling an implicit promise to his voters...

Troll.

this

*damn timewarps

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JS80
Yes she is. Condo is underwater by $150k I think. And I think she is planning on moving in to her bf's house that he owns in a year, and who knows maybe they will get married. In her specific situation it is not worth paying the mortgage.

I'm curious, was your friend giving the bank the appreciating equity in the property while the market was booming? So what (besides some exaggerated sense of entitlement) makes her think the bank should give her the depreciated amount just because the market has tanked?

Your friend should seek legal advice before making any rash financial moves. Just because you're 'underwater' doesn't mean you're not liable for the deficiency, even if the property goes to foreclosure and trustee sale.

There is some extremely bad advice being given out in this thread.

Her mentality is that the idiots that can't afford it are getting these benefits, and she's effectively subsidizing them.

Of course, that's a completely idiotic and utterly self-entitled mentality to have.

Here's another question: should your friend happen to get this magical debt forgiveness that she wrongly imagines other people are easily getting, and then the market rebounds (which it will someday), does she intend to give the appreciation back to the bank?

Why would she? Privatize gains and socialize losses has been the mantra for the last 9 months.

BTW the market will not rebound anytime soon. We lost an entire generation of home appreciation. I doubt we will see 2006-2007 prices for another 20-30 years.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Patranus
Whats next, a 90-day moratorium on credit card bills?

The simple fact of the matter is that the majority of people should not have been in homes in the first place and did not budget for their adjustable rate mortgage to reset at a higher rate.

The government has no business intervening in private contracts.

I'd generally agree, however your point glosses over some of the issues. Many of the people getting adjustable rate mortgages were assured that after a couple of years, they'd be able to refinance and lock in their interest rate. When it came time to refinance, the answer was "no."

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Patranus
The government has no business intervening in private contracts.

I'm sorry, but exactly who do you think enforces private contracts?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: JS80
Why would she? Privatize gains and socialize losses has been the mantra for the last 9 months.

BTW the market will not rebound anytime soon. We lost an entire generation of home appreciation. I doubt we will see 2006-2007 prices for another 20-30 years.

Nice red herrings :roll:

 

[spacejamz]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Patranus
Whats next, a 90-day moratorium on credit card bills?

The simple fact of the matter is that the majority of people should not have been in homes in the first place and did not budget for their adjustable rate mortgage to reset at a higher rate.

The government has no business intervening in private contracts.

I'd generally agree, however your point glosses over some of the issues. Many of the people getting adjustable rate mortgages were assured that after a couple of years, they'd be able to refinance and lock in their interest rate. When it came time to refinance, the answer was "no."

These people were supposed to fix their credit by paying their bills on time so they could qualify for a fixed rate mortgage before the loan reset.

Instead, they were leasing Cadillac Escalades for $700/month and buying big screen TV's running up their credit card balances. When the ARM period was over, their credit was probably in worse shape then before.