• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Creditors are Heartless

Beware of not paying your debts. Some creditors do not even care about people; only money!

http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-bu...ise-as-debtors-fall-behind?mod=bb-creditcards


The case of Sidney Jones shows how punishing the system can be. In January 2001, Mr. Jones, 45, a maintenance worker from California Crossroads, Va., took out a $4,097 personal loan from Beneficial Virginia, a subprime lender now owned by HSBC, the big bank.

He fell behind, and Beneficial sued. Mr. Jones did not appear in court. "I just thought they were going to take what I owed," he said.

By default, Beneficial won a judgment of $4,750, plus $900 in lawyers' fees, with the debt accruing interest at 27.55 percent until paid in full. The bank started garnishing his wages in March 2003.

Over the next six years, the bank deducted more than $10,000 from Mr. Jones's paychecks, but he made little headway on his debt. According to a court order secured by Beneficial's lawyers last spring, he still owed the company $3,965, a sum nearly equal to the original loan amount.

Mr. Jones, who did not graduate from high school, was baffled. "Where did all this money go that I paid them?" he said.

Dale Pittman, a consumer law lawyer in Petersburg, Va. , took Mr. Jones's case without charge, and found that all but $134 of his payments had gone toward interest, fees and court costs. "It's a perfectly legal result under Virginia law," Mr. Pittman said.

HSBC said it ceased collection shortly after Mr. Pittman took the case, but declined further comment. "We are confident we are treating our customers fairly and with integrity," Kate Durham, a spokeswoman for HSBC North America, said in an e-mail message.

The rare debtors who press their claims, and catch a sympathetic judge, have a shot at a result more to their liking.
 
In S.C. judgments earn 12% and we do not have garnishments. So unless there is actual collateral on the loan that can be repossessed, the law is not creditor friendly. Had a customer paying Citi Finance on a $15K loan. He was perpetually behind and at the end of the 10 yr note, he still owed ~$10K. Interest bearing loans work that way. Consumer beware.
 
Beware of not paying your debts. Some creditors do not even care about people; only money!
ROFL. Sarcasm, right? 😀 (I hope...) If creditors did not care about money these poor souls would never have gotten loans in the first place, right?
He fell behind, and Beneficial sued. Mr. Jones did not appear in court. "I just thought they were going to take what I owed," he said.

By default, Beneficial won a judgment of $4,750, plus $900 in lawyers' fees, with the debt accruing interest at 27.55 percent until paid in full. The bank started garnishing his wages in March 2003.
Yes, that's exactly what they won in the judgment: what you owed. Then you didn't pay it...

Next somebody is going to post that 27.55 percent interest is somehow an unjust rate. Well you try collecting from a bunch of people who have a history of not paying, and are likely to go bankrupt and tell me what interest rate you need to charge in order not to lose your shirt. I actually wouldn't mind a unilateral cap on interest rates awarded in judgments set much lower, but only if the loser waives their right to discharge the settlement in bankruptcy.
 
I saw a young woman on one of those realtor shows who bought a house somewhere in the low 200,000's. Of course - it was one of those bad subprime loans. Now her mom had just been diagnosed with cancer and she wanted to sell her house. Just a sad story all around.

The catch:

I don't know exactly how this is possible, but after paying her mortgage on time for about 3 years she still owed more on the principle of the loan than she had bought the house for.

So she buys a house for $220,000, pays $2000 a month for 36 months, and now still owes $240,000. So she can't sell it for anywher close to what she owes because home values have dipped and comparables to her house are selling for a bit over $200,000.

I swear to god I'm not making this shit up. I couldn't believe my ears.

If I remember correctly the show didn't even resolve it. She was going to try a short sale.
 
I don't know exactly how this is possible, but after paying her mortgage on time for about 3 years she still owed more on the principle of the loan than she had bought the house for.

She probably had an interest-only mortgage, buying much more house than she could afford, hoping to sell in a few years for a massive profit.

Just another person blinded by greed and lack of good financial sense, that taxpayers like me get to pay to bail out.
 
I saw a young woman on one of those realtor shows who bought a house somewhere in the low 200,000's. Of course - it was one of those bad subprime loans. Now her mom had just been diagnosed with cancer and she wanted to sell her house. Just a sad story all around.

The catch:

I don't know exactly how this is possible, but after paying her mortgage on time for about 3 years she still owed more on the principle of the loan than she had bought the house for.

So she buys a house for $220,000, pays $2000 a month for 36 months, and now still owes $240,000. So she can't sell it for anywher close to what she owes because home values have dipped and comparables to her house are selling for a bit over $200,000.

I swear to god I'm not making this shit up. I couldn't believe my ears.

If I remember correctly the show didn't even resolve it. She was going to try a short sale.
Sounds like an option ARM. Stupid is as stupid does. "Oh noes, I chose to let my mortgage go upside down, and now when I want to magically wish money into existence I can't make it appear! Oh horrible universe!"

Neither her nor the bank deserve any sympathy. Her mom might deserve some, both for the cancer, and for having such a silly daughter...
 
I saw a young woman on one of those realtor shows who bought a house somewhere in the low 200,000's. Of course - it was one of those bad subprime loans. Now her mom had just been diagnosed with cancer and she wanted to sell her house. Just a sad story all around.

The catch:

I don't know exactly how this is possible, but after paying her mortgage on time for about 3 years she still owed more on the principle of the loan than she had bought the house for.

So she buys a house for $220,000, pays $2000 a month for 36 months, and now still owes $240,000. So she can't sell it for anywher close to what she owes because home values have dipped and comparables to her house are selling for a bit over $200,000.

I swear to god I'm not making this shit up. I couldn't believe my ears.

If I remember correctly the show didn't even resolve it. She was going to try a short sale.
I believe it. You could get like a 105% loan and walk away with cash out and only pay interest. If you were fvckign stupid, like this woman. And so now she has merely been renting that house but, unlike when you rent a house, she actually has to sell it if she walks away.
 
Declare bankruptcy. Also make bankruptcy easier by lowering fees. I don't know why they increased the fees to 2000 5 years ago. Seems pretty stupid.
 
I broke an agreement but you're evil for trying to hold me to my word!!!1!

Man... its just sad all around these days.
 
I broke an agreement but you're evil for trying to hold me to my word!!!1!

Man... its just sad all around these days.

Its not an agreement per say. Creditors take a calculated risk when lending to people and they make up for that risk with interest rates. That's just how lending goes. There will always be defaults. Defaulting is not evil, its already factored into the price.
 
"Creditors are Heartless"

And in other news it was announced that the Pope is Catholic, and seafood has been determined to taste "fishy".
 
Why yes, creditors are evil, heartless capitalist bastards. This has always been a well known fact. Are they next now that the evil , heartless health insurers have been dealt a blow? Should be easier with so many financial institutions in the gutter right now. I would much prefer lawyers be dealt with next.
 
Why yes, creditors are evil, heartless capitalist bastards. This has always been a well known fact. Are they next now that the evil , heartless health insurers have been dealt a blow? Should be easier with so many financial institutions in the gutter right now. I would much prefer lawyers be dealt with next.

While I would much prefer the government be dealt with next
 
I find it amazing that if a gas station overcharges by 50% that we want the owner arrested. Then if a bank charges 27% interest it is considered OK. What kind of a message is that? Where is the protection for the consumer? The guy should have just filed bankruptcy. Waiting 6 years and then doing something is a little stupid. The time to see a lawyer is before you go to court.
 
Garnishments should freeze the principal and allow for no interest.

That way, lenders who pick lemons get lemons, instead of lemonade...
 
WHAT.... you have to pay back the money you owe????

Whats next.... having to pay for my health-care?

WTF where the hell is Obama?
 
Back
Top