can someone explain why people are complaining about banks foreclosing?

[Darwin333]

If you signed on the line, you owe it. Tough luck.

Also, if you CAN make payments on the loan that you have and decide to not pay and walk away (upside down, etc), there should be a special 20 year credit hit because you CHOSE to walk away while you were ABLE to pay. I'm sure that many will jump in here with the "it's a smart business decision" and maybe it is, but only because the punishment for walking away for your obligated contract is too lite.

Although I don't understand why the banks would rather keep foreclosing at the rate they are and potentially losing even more money if they can "offer" a better rate or some other terms to the homeowner to keep them making payments and keeping the home. The "underwater" status of many homes keeping them from lowering their rates, etc. is contributing to the foreclosure spike by not allowing people to refinance. It's the banks right to foreclose but seems that that would be trying to keep those people paying, even if a little less or lower interest, vs trying to recoup what they can in a shitty real estate market. Of course, too many people just want to walk away because they are upside down. My opinion, walk away and don't be able to get a mortgage for 20 years.

The banks signed on the line too yet they get a tax payer funded bailout. They also get special rules, little oversight on a ton of shit, TBTF banks allowed to get even larger, literally get away with criminal activity, etc...

Oh, those same banks do the exact same thing with strategic defaults. Do you think that banks and companies that do that should not be allowed to borrow for 20 years (including from the Fed)?

 

[Darwin333]

I typically don't side with spidey on non network issues, but I agree 100% in this case. People are bad about buying homes they can't even come close to affording and become "house poor" due to this. I didnt buy an expensive house because i couldnt afford it, you shouldn't get off the hook because you bit off more than you could chew.

I would agree completely if the reverse was true and the banks didn't get off the hook for biting off more than they could chew.

 

[Darwin333]

It's not irrelevant, especially in the case that so much tangential information can usually be brought forward that results in the filing and approval of a lost note affidavit or granting of the foreclosure by the court anyway. The vast majority of these cases are simply frivolous. People who know they defaulted should not be looking for a free lunch on the backs of pension funds, 401k investors and any other investor, they should take personal responsibility for their default and give up the house. Those same investors are already going to take responsibility by assuming a loss on the resale of the house.

Instead of just accepting they defaulted on their note, they fight it, incurring legal fees, taxes, maintenance and tying up the courts. This costs everybody money, including regular people who just want the whole thing resolved and taxpayers who suffer for a multitude of reasons. All of this again hurts the investor, which also results in future costs for mortgage financing (some of them justified). If one of these people wins, it just results in more losses to the investor.

Do you know what happens if a bank forecloses on you, without legal proof of you owing them the money, and a little while later the rightful debt holder comes to you for their money?

You still owe the money yet have no house to give back. Sure you can get lawyers and sue but you are in a serious bind at that point.

And frankly, I think that banks should be held to the exact same black letter law as the rest of us are. If I sign a contract with a bank that says they owe me $100,000 and I lose it, do you think they are going to pay if I have no other proof?

 

[alent1234]

this was 7 yrs ago during the "boom" it was rather insane. the amount of pressure we received reminds me of going to a car dealership!

I will say i looked at getting a different home last summer. it was a total 180. no pressure at all but also just told to make sure everything is 100% correct.


lol



we wanted 3-20 acres in a specific school zone It is the cost of property that drives the price not so much as the home. I DID NOT want to live in the other town near me (maybe 2000 people) since the plots are smaller.

i was shooting for 10-12 acres but couldn't find one. in fact during that time there was not much to choose from. Now? pfft

this is why you deal directly with the bank and not a mortgage broker. my last mortgage i tried a broker and she tried to rip me off

 

[Darwin333]

What % of notes is that? I have a *very* hard time it is as systemic as you claim.

Large enough % that some states are suing the banks because they didn't properly transfer ownership and therefor didn't pay property transfer taxes.

http://michiganmessenger.com/54001/class-action-lawsuit-filed-against-mers-over-unpaid-taxes

 

[sdifox]

All this started when Traditional Banks were allowed to have Investment Bank components. Same thing with the accounting firms being allowed to have an IPO arm.

The robot-foreclosures are illegal. So the banks should lose on those. The bank bailouts should not have happened. And the people who are foreclosed on legitimately should lose the house. The banks will have to write the bad mortgages off. All around fail really.