Foreclosures & Walking Away: 60 Minutes Eyes an ‘Epidemic’

60 Minutes -  Mortgages: Walking Away60 Minutes today put the national spotlight on strategic defaults, or homeowners walking away from “underwater” mortgages and into foreclosure, despite being able to make their payments.
In a segment that aired tonight, Morley Safer interviewed homeowners mired in negative equity, a spreading “epidemic” for an estimated 11 million homeowners.
That number could double by next year, Safer said, leaving “half of all homeowners owing more than their homes are worth.”
But David Stevens, commissioner of the Federal Housing Administration, was stern in his assessment against assisting those choosing strategic defaults and are able to afford to stay in their homes.
“To simply allow anybody who signed a contract to purchase their home and just want to walk away and get some sort of write-off backed by the administration or by an institution, creates a whole new set of standards that will live with us for years to come. The question is: Who pays the bill?” Steven said.
Homeowner Chris Deaner’s response to that question: “…that’s for the professionals to figure out.”
Deaner lives in Arizona, where half the homes are in negative equity. He is one of an estimated 1 million homeowners nationwide currently making the economic decision of walking away after seeing their home values plummet from the height of the housing boom.
Deaner paid $262,000 for his Sun City home at the peak of the housing bubble. It is now valued at an estimated $142,000. He said he tried to renegotiate his $250,000 mortgage, but his bank refused because he could afford the payments.
“They refused to,” Deaner told Safer. “They said they would take my home. I pretty much said: Go for it. It’s almost the ‘in thing’ to do now.”
Deaner and his wife know the consequence: years of damaged credit. But the monthly savings makes it worthwhile, they said.
“With the money we’re saving, in four to six years, I am confident I’ll have enough money to buy my way into a house,” Deaner said.
Safer said no banks agreed to be interviewed by 60 Minutes, but “most said they were unwilling in most cases to help underwater mortgage holders” if they are able to make their payments. He did not identify any of the banks.
Proponents of strategic defaults said on 60 Minutes that homeowners should not feel shameful for making what amounts to a business decision.
They say major real estate developers and financial institutions have made similar decisions to walk away from projects that they have heavily invested in, but have lost significant value from the residential and commercial market collapse of the past two years.
Chad Ruyle, co-founder of YouWalkAway.com, said the biggest concern his customers have is the stigma of foreclosure.
“As more people are foreclosing, that stigma is wearing off,” said Ruyle, who helps homeowners through the process of walking away for a fee. “Banks don’t feel shame by foreclosing on a person’s home. It’s a business decision.”

35 thoughts on “Foreclosures & Walking Away: 60 Minutes Eyes an ‘Epidemic’

  • May 10, 2010 at 1:12 am
    Permalink

    LOSERS!!!! It makes me SICK to think that they can still afford to make the payments that they agreed to in their mortgage contract, but won’t because they don’t like the current market. This is not a couple who can no longer afford their home! They simply don’t have the ethical or moral fortitude to do the right thing in difficult times. Why should they be allowed to walk away, when they are not in trouble? They screw the rest of us who continue to honor our obligations. LOSERS!!

  • May 10, 2010 at 7:20 am
    Permalink

    the banks should have known the risk they ran when they loaned to people who never qualified to buy these houses. Because the banks were greedy and chose to ignore the economic crisis they caused by these sub prime toxic asset mortgages, now they refuse to work with homeowners who can make the payments on a house that was never worth what he or she paid for it. Be honest banks for once and set greed aside and renogotiate their mortgage, this all or nothing will only cause more people to simply walk out the front door of their home and never look back. with a housing market glutted with foreclosures, the banks will end up having to sell these foreclosed homes for onethrid of their original cost.

  • May 10, 2010 at 8:55 am
    Permalink

    ITA with mequinn….Losers! I was so sickened by the Deaner’s last night, who can afford their mortgage but are just PO’d that they gambled and lost on their over inflated house. The worse part was when he said he was raised with integrity and the belief that you should pay your debt. His parents must be so proud right now. He cries Boo-Hoo because the big bad bank won’t work with him by reducing his loan amount…that he agreed to. No one held a gun to the Deaner’s head to make them buy that house. How nice for the Deaner’s that they have no conscience and no sense of community or right and wrong. I guess it makes it easier to live with yourselves.
    The topper to the Deaner’s cry of “poor pitiful us” was when these two greedy people proudly proclaimed they have not made a mortgage payment in 5 months, nor do they intend to, they are just going to let the bank kick them out and be on their merry way. I have no doubt after being subjected to listening to these two amoral, wastes of life that they will gladly pick the house clean of it’s fixtures before they sashay out the door.
    They should hide their heads in utter shame.

  • May 10, 2010 at 9:12 am
    Permalink

    I agree with what people are doing. This guy asked his bank to adjust his payments. They have the power to do so, and the refused. The part that pisses me off is not people walking away from houses they can afford, but the banks only helping people that never should have gotten a loan in the first place. Its the banks that got us in this situation. They get bailed out by the government to do what? Give more back to people that already shouldnt have been in the loan THEY gave them? If the banks would give back to people that have always paid on time or have always been in good standing, people wouldnt walk from their homes. If they wont help people like this when its asked for, they will end up having to sell all these houses at a loss. People will not pay a mortgage on a home that is worth less than half of what they are paying for. In reality.. if a person wanted to, they could walk away from there own home and have someone else in their family buy it back at half of what they paid for it… sounds like a good idea to me.

  • May 10, 2010 at 9:41 am
    Permalink

    For those who consider these folks “losers”, do you think the average consumer/homeowner should maintain high ethical standards while the financial industry screws us?
    Why should we shoulder the burden of the Wall Street giants who created this mess in the first place.
    Times they are a changing.

  • Pingback:Jumping Ship- How homeowners are walking away | Foreclosure Research - A Simple Look At Foreclosure Data

  • May 10, 2010 at 9:54 am
    Permalink

    I 100% agree with JT. The fact is that the Deaner’s did the RIGHT THING by asking their bank to work with them. To no surprise, the bank refused. With that, what other options do they have but to just walk away. When J. Ulrich states “they should hide their heads in utter shame”, for what??? The Deaner’s did what they were supposed to do…paid their mortgage and bills on time and guess what they were the one’s getting screwed. Their home is worth $120,000 less than what they bought it for. This is all the banks fault…not the people who are stuck in these situations. The bank did this and they need to fix it. The real estate market is not projected to get better, in fact it’s projected to get worse. There will be a lot more homeowners doing what the Deaner’s are doing if the banks don’t start working with all of us!

  • May 10, 2010 at 10:01 am
    Permalink

    Equation:
    When banks loan a amount knowing the properties value. They become partners in the agreement of the homes value. When the borrower should fail the lender has the safety net of the home. The borrower loses all invested is the format.
    Partner 1(The Bank) makes numerous bad business decisions and gains temporarily from them and then reeks havoc on the equation . Thus leaving Partner 2 (The Borrower) a very bad hand to play.
    Partner 1 has a bailout, Partner 2 should not ?
    Only one partner should have a option ? It takes two to play. Strategic Default.. especially when there’s no ability to refi when they have been given money to do so. Pretty simple. Deadbeats No. Just playing their hand. You can take that to the Bank !

  • May 10, 2010 at 10:10 am
    Permalink

    I think it sucks, if the house went up 130K instead of down would the Deaner’s have renegotiated with the bank to pay more, I think not. So why should the bank renegotiate with them now?!
    My house has lost 75K in value in the last year … oh well. I can still afford it, nothing has changed, my house didn’t fall apart, it looks just as nice as did last year. I didn’t buy it from E-Trade, it’s not a derivative, it’s my home!
    Does the decrease in my home’s value, make it harder, if not impossible for me to refinance? Probably. Should the banks work with me, to help me take advantage of lower mortgage rates? Absolutely. But, there are a lot of people worse off than me, I want the banks to help them first. THEY are the people that need the help.
    In the end, the Deaner’s are not losers, they are theives and deadbeats, they are the new face of the housing crisis, and for what they are doing to their neighbors, they should be sued or prosecuted, not celebrated.

  • May 10, 2010 at 10:36 am
    Permalink

    Chase bought WAMU for 1% of its assets. That means they bought my half-million dollar mortgage from WAMU for about five grand. Because the banks have foreclosed on so many homes in my neighborhood my home is now worth $270,000 instead of the $625,000 I paid — but I’m still on the hook for half a million, even though it only cost Chase five grand.
    The answer is not more foreclosures, it’s principle reduction. Chase could reduce my mortgage from 500 grand to 100 grand and still make TWO THOUSAND PERCENT return on their investment. The extra money I would have to spend every month (for the rest of my life) would revive the economy.
    I bought my home with 20% down and a 740 credit score, and my wealth has been redistributed to the super rich banks. If I walk away from this mortgage I won’t be able to afford a home for at least the 7 years the foreclosure stays on my credit history, so what do I care? It truly makes the most sense for me to just walk away.
    -Lawrence, Santa Ana, California

  • May 10, 2010 at 10:57 am
    Permalink

    Calling people losers for making a smart financial decision is reactionary and irrational. The fact that his (the gentleman on 60 min) mortgage is more than 50% upside down and given the current trends in the Phoenix real estate market it will take him more than 18-23 years to break even on the equity and cash paid on the mortgage. He’s losing approximately 24K cash per year not to mention the increase in negative equity. In the matter of 7 years he would have a net worth loss of between $247-$263K. In the mean time he can live in a nicer and cheaper rental, pay for things in cash, put away more money for his retirement, children’s education/college and also be putting away money for a future house when the market stabilizes. It’s not immoral … it’s being smart!

  • May 10, 2010 at 11:33 am
    Permalink

    Walking Away – If Everybody Did
    In 1962 my dad walked away from his wife and four children, leaving us with a mortgage payment that was nearly as high as my mother’s paycheck as a fifth grade teacher. Those were extremely difficult times for our family. I remember my mother buying a $50 car from some family friends so that she could drive to work. I recall my 16 year-old brother trying to get more hours at his part-time job at a Chevron gas station to try and help my mom make ends meet. I can even remember a more fortunate neighbor dismissively dropping off a can of Spam with my mother saying that her kids wouldn’t eat it; as badly as Mom must have wanted to tell that woman where to put her Spam, she swallowed her pride and served it to us for Sunday dinner.
    I remember my mom gathering the family around the table and telling us that if we didn’t sell the house soon we might have to “go on welfare”. The shameful tone of her voice made it clear that this was the last thing she wanted to do. Fortunately for us, we sold the home shortly thereafter and were able to move to a much smaller, more affordable home in a less expensive community.
    The one thing that I never recall Mom talking about during those trying times was the possibility of walking away from our home, forsaking our obligation to pay the mortgage that we had signed during better days. This was something that was, evidently, unthinkable to her.
    Not so for Arizona homeowner Chris Deaner, apparently. Mr. Deaner appeared on last Sunday’s episode of “60 Minutes”, proclaiming to correspondent Morley Safer that he and his wife were making a “business decision” to walk away from the mortgage on the home they had purchased for $ 262,000, now valued at no more than $ 142,000. Even though Deaner can afford to make the payments, he and his wife have determined that there are better uses for the money. “With the money we’re saving, in four to six years I’m confident we’ll have enough money to buy my way into a house”, Deaner said. When queried by Safer concerning whether he feels in any way responsible for his circumstances, Deaner denied any culpability, laying the blame at the feet of the bank that refused to renegotiate his $ 250,000 mortgage. In the words of Chris Deaner: “It’s the ‘in’ thing to do now”.
    The “60 Minutes” report made no judgments concerning the moral, ethical or social ramifications of the decision made by the Deaners and others like them, instead referring viewers to a web site designed to assist homeowners through the process of “walking away”. The clear implication was that anyone who chooses to meet their contractual obligation during these difficult times is a sucker, guilty of making a bad “business decision”. Besides, there are plenty of bogey men to blame for one’s circumstances: the banks who made the mortgages, the financiers who packaged bad loans into marketable securities, the Federal Reserve Board, which pushed interest rates to historically low levels, thereby encouraging folks to purchase more house than they could afford, and even the Obama administration, which is bailing out those who cannot afford to pay their mortgages but offering nothing to help “poor souls” like the Deaners, who are simply facing the consequences of their own bad investment.
    Recently, I was offered a promotional opportunity in another community for a position that I have worked my entire life to achieve. My wife and I found and purchased a home in our new community but have been unable to sell our existing home, whose value has dropped nearly $ 200,000 below our 2005 purchase price and $ 50-60,000 below our outstanding mortgage balance. Paying two mortgages will cost us about three-fourths of my take-home pay, making it extremely difficult to get by. Clearly, “walking away” would be the right “business decision” for us. There’s just one problem: we made the deal. We knew that we were probably buying at the top of the market – how could we not have known? In 2005, fewer than 10 percent of all households in southern California could afford the median price of a home; a market correction was inevitable. Yet despite this evidence, we bought the home. It was closer to my place of work and we needed more room for our son, who was returning from his tour of duty in Afghanistan and planning to return to college. We have lived in the home for five years and it has served our family well. Now that our circumstances have changed, is it permissible for me to renege on the contract I signed, promising to pay my mortgage? Should I succumb to the peer pressure of folks like Chris Deaner, because it’s the “in” thing to do?
    Many years ago I read a children’s book by Jo Ann Stover called “If Everybody Did”. The book walked its young readers through a variety of scenarios in which an act by a single person, such as picking a flower from a flower bed, is not in itself a bad thing, but “if everybody did”, the flower bed would be bereft of flowers. Stover’s lesson clearly applies in this case; if we all chose to “walk away”, where will we walk to? If folks who can afford to do so cannot be trusted to meet their contractual obligations, why should anyone lend them money? If no money is lent, how can the economy recover?
    My wife and I have decided not to walk away from our home. Instead, we will continue to make the payments we agreed to, waiting for the day when our loan balance equals the market value of the home. This day will undoubtedly be delayed, perhaps indefinitely, as a result of the “business decisions” made by folks like Chris Deaner pushing down the value of homes of the suckers who insist on making their payments. The thousands of dollars we will spend to meet our contractual commitment will severely erode our lifestyle, delay our retirements and expose us to financial ruin in the event of unforeseen circumstances. As insecure as this makes us feel, we are secure in our knowledge that this is the right thing to do.
    As we watched Chris Deaner and his beautiful wife and young child on television last Sunday, we couldn’t help but wonder what he will do when his wife is no longer beautiful and healthy. Will he make a “business decision” to walk away from his family as my own father did so many years ago? There is little reason to believe that this will not be the case, having lost his moral compass somewhere along the way.

  • May 10, 2010 at 12:34 pm
    Permalink

    Folks, I have to support home owners who walk away from their homes when the market value drops significantly. It is just a good business decision that all of the corporations have been doing all along. The BIG omission in the 60 minutes program is the fact that most people are paying way more in “interest” on the loan than on the principle. Why would anyone continue to do this when we all know the outlook is for home prices to really drop when the next depression hits in the near future. I am not going into that since there are dozens of good books on this topic.

  • May 10, 2010 at 4:03 pm
    Permalink

    The people who think that those walking away from their homes are losers are a very ignorant bunch. Financial institutions were greedy and irresponsible and now they want their customers to pay for it. I paid on my Phoenix condo for four and a half years, then tried to get my lender, Wells Fargo, to modify my loan. They acted like that was a possibility, all the while knowing they would deny my application because my income has not changed. Thank God that this condo in Phoenix is not my current residence. I told Wells Fargo that they are not getting another fucking cent from me – I would rather take the credit score hit than to support these blood-sucking banks.

  • May 10, 2010 at 6:11 pm
    Permalink

    I’m not sure what’s right or wrong, but I believe in consequences. If you walk away, you suffer a permanent mark in your credit regardless of the ability to to apply for a mortgage in 7 years. It would be too good to be true for anyone to smell like a rose and come out on top in the end of this housing/mortgage crisis. Let’s see what happens in 7 years when families think they can buy another house to find out that the lenders will see them as nothing but a financial risk. As a responsible homeowner and mortgage payer, the only thing I wish to see out of this situation is some reward for being responsible. I consider myself to be a “wet dream” for a bank and I know that as I keep my credit score high, my options of borrowing money in the future will far outweigh those who didn’t meet their contractual obligation.

  • May 10, 2010 at 8:32 pm
    Permalink

    I am a licensed mortgage loan officer and here are the facts:
    1) FHA will allow you to qualify for a mortgage and buy a home with 3.5% down payment 3 years after a foreclosure.
    2) Typical Fannie Mae guideline is 4 years after a foreclosure (they changed this guideline to 2 years last week IF you get the house sold in a SHORT SALE OR do a “deed in lieu). Fannie Mae wants you to leave the house FASTER!
    3) Depending on where you live, you will not have to make a mortgage payment for 6 months to 2 years before you actually have to vacate the property. Any landlord will happily rent to you if you give them a 3 or 4 month security deposit. You’ll definitely have the cash to make a huge deposit.
    OK, now that the FACTS are documented, it is clear you CAN buy a new home 3 years (or 2 years) after you have a foreclosure if you rebuild your credit score.
    The people who are calling walk aways LOSERS are JEALOUS…plain and simple.
    I bought my home with no money down in 2006 for $419,000. The monthly payment with taxes & insurance included was $3,500. In June 2008, my house was worth less than $320,000. IF THE HOME STARTED GOING UP IN VALUE FROM THAT TIME (at a realistic 3 to 4% per year), it would take like 15 years before I had equity in the home. I couldn’t sell or refinance. I went online and saw homes like mine renting for $1600 per month in my immediate area (LESS THAN HALF the $3500 I was paying).
    I walked away…The home is now selling at short sale for $239,000!
    I didn’t pay a mortgage payment for 2 years basically. We bought a home in my wife’s name for $190,000 ….AND less than a mile away! We rode off into the sunset.
    Do people want to pretend that they would actually pay $3500 per month for a home worth HALF ($200,000 less) for 25 years without any equity when they can rent the same house for only 3 years for less than half? Then they can buy another home?
    This is funny that these people calling us losers are jealous with no balls. They are mad because they do not have the courage to make a good business decision like any manager would do.
    Bottom line with all this? The government and/or banks will have to bail out you crybabies because WE SACRIFICED our credit for you. Millions walking away CANNOT HAPPEN. We are getting their attention, and you will get your principal reduced eventually, or YOU WILL WALK AWAY TOO!
    ONLY A FOOL WILL PAY TWICE THE MARKET AMOUNT FOR A PLACE TO LIVE! A FOOL!
    Especially when you realize that you are going to be stuck in the situation for over 15 years.

  • May 11, 2010 at 12:51 pm
    Permalink

    I am one of the ones who is short-selling my home, can afford my mortgage, but, we paid $330,000 and is now appraising at $140,000 or less. Let me tell you, we are far from losers. I work 6 days a week as a registered nurse that cares for children w/ cancer and as a massage therapist and my husband is a superintendant for a builder, which we are happy he still has a job. Nonetheless, the banks were faulty in the beginning when the market was going mad and the people doing the appraisals were also crooked. They knew these houses were never going to appraise like this. They just watched everyone fall into it and then sold all of our loans. We were scared into buying at house at the time b/c the market was doing what it was doing, we even bought a spec home that took $110,000 off of the mortgage. This was supposed to be a starter home for us and now we have a baby on the way. We didn’t want to do this, but considering that we are one of the last original residents standing in our neighborhood, we are realizing the people walking away are the smart ones. I am not going to continue to pay into a faulty/bogus loan, when, we will be paying more than what this house is worth. The government needs to figure this out and the banks should have thought about this when they were getting greedy in 2005 and taking advantage of mid-class, hard-working people like ourselves. So, I don’t appreciate being called a loser b/c it is simply just not true.

  • May 11, 2010 at 4:04 pm
    Permalink

    My husband and I recently had our condo foreclosed in South Florida. The reason? We had to move in order for my husband to keep his job. Between our first and second mortgages, we owed approximately $120,000 on our property. When it came time for us to sell, it was worth only around $40,000. We tried to short-sell, but received only one offer for $20,000, which of course the bank turned down.
    I am so angry about what Wall Street and the banks have done to our country. If our property had maintained its value, we simply would have sold it and started over in our new location. I see absolutely nothing wrong with the people who have chosen to ‘walk away’. The banks got a bailout. Middle class, working people have no economic power other than to say ‘enough is enough’.
    I do not and will not blame the victims of this crisis.

  • May 12, 2010 at 7:53 am
    Permalink

    I don’t agree with walking away from a house that you can afford, even if it is a good business decision. By the same token I believe that the bank should work with you.
    In 2005 I bought a house for $405,000. In 2008 the company was sold and I was unemployed. I found a job which required a move. At that time my house was worth $200,000. I was lucky and found a renter who pays about 80% of my expenses so I kept the house and bought a house at my new location. Four months later that company declared bankruptcy and closed the doors. For the next 17 months my wife and I struggled to make both mortgage payments. I asked the bank to refinance the house at the new much lower interest rate and was turned down because I didn’t have a job.
    Bottom line, this is a two way street. If the home owner can’t get the bank to work with them then why shouldn’t they walk away.

  • May 12, 2010 at 9:24 am
    Permalink

    David sorry to hear about your situation but I think you were crazy buying a new house right away. I am in a similar situation … my employer (in Florida) was downsizing and I knew I was going to lose my job last year. I ended up finding a job in Austin TX and ended up renting my house for about 75% of what I pay on my mortgage. At the time all indications were the market seemed to have leveled out. Boy was I wrong … The value of my house had gone from 243K in October to now 190K. I have done the math and used many calculators. I am losing over 12K in cash per year and will have a total net loss of 139K in the mater of 7 years with the current market trend (three years from now a 3% growth until year 7). I didn’t buy a house that was out of my league. In 2004, I did spend 50K of my equity converting a 2/1 home into a 2/2 home with a very nice master suite. At the time, I ended up making an additional 35K with that master suite. Needless to say, I am now in the process of short selling the house. It will take me between 12-15 years to break even on the cash I put out and the POSSIBLE 3% per year equity growth. It makes no sense for me to lose 12-14K cash per year on a house I don’t even live in, let alone over 139K in total net loss the next 7 years. I don’t give a rat’s behind at this point about my credit score when I don’t have POSITIVE NET WORTH! David if I were you, I would let your rental property go!!! You are committing financial suicide if you don’t.

  • May 12, 2010 at 12:36 pm
    Permalink

    Why not walk away? No bank will work with anyone that can afford their payments. They simply will not do it. Walking is a sound business decision. Banks do it all the time. Why should anyone stay in a house that may never get back to the purchase price. What logical thinking person would choose to throw good money after bad. This is especially true for people who want to retire in 10 or 15 years. Continuing to pay on a house that will never gain any equity is financial suicide. In states like AZ people pay higher interest rates because of the law that allows them to walk from their house. Walking is an option as per state law.

  • May 13, 2010 at 9:37 am
    Permalink

    Call the bank up and asked for help the Rep of the Chase Bank told us to come in and they would help us with the paper work we are in our late 80’s and i am blind and husband in a wheelchair when we got there two busses later, they told us to call a 1-800 number and do it over the phone
    They said if we walk away from our home they would put a frezze on our retirement checks
    Don’t know what to do
    can someone please help advice please

  • May 15, 2010 at 5:26 am
    Permalink

    The year 2006 pops up over and over, thats the year we bought our lovely home in Central Fl. The home has since begun to crack across the cieling, floors, the windows open extremely tough, none of the doors stay open, all swing closed. We may be on a cracked foundation. The house has lost 30% of its orig. value. Happy? no. Can we sell it? no.
    My question is can you if you read this, Eric N. Does it really take up to 2 years to get the eviction processed? Cause we’re outta here, coupla losers, LOL.

  • May 18, 2010 at 10:01 pm
    Permalink

    If the Bank doesn’t want to work with you screw them! As can be gleaned from all the unfortunate situations folks have aired just on this one thread; In general the Banks have no empathy, they function purley for profit. They are Corporations. Corporations are structured to remove empathy and any other personal acts of tenderness, understanding and latitude from thier workers. Why? Because these charactoristics don’t make money, they don’t allow the business to take advantage of oportunities for profit like taking your $200k home away from you for missing a few payments when you already invested 100k over many years of prompt payments and then selling it to someone else for 150k. Believe me, they don’t loose any sleep over your hardships.
    And they won’t loose any sleep over your defaults either! Think about it; They are busy giving each other huge bonuses, does that sound like a bunch of people really worried about keeping their company afloat or getting thier “end-game” in order?

  • May 20, 2010 at 4:01 am
    Permalink

    How is it that someone who got into a home they could afford is being called a loser rather than a person who bought a home they could never afford is being helped? The reason people are walking from underwater mortgages that they can afford is because everyone around them foreclosed causing their property value to plummet. Also, greedy investors who own several properties deciding to bail out on their investments leave neighborhoods empty. What is the responsible homeowner left to do? Sit it out for 30 years until the value comes back? The contract didn’t say the banks would be loaning money to people they knew could never pay it back. Creative loans that are now ILLEGAL were being signed sealed and delivered. Banks are a joke, and siding with them is ridiculous. If your home is underwater by 50% walk away.

  • July 11, 2010 at 11:46 am
    Permalink

    A house is like any other investment,you buy and pay all those fee’s with the idea the value will increase. If this were a stock transaction there would be no discussion you cut your losses.
    If a lender is willing to do a short sale and take the hit,why would they not offer the same to the current owner?
    age plays a role here,,,what if you are in your late 50’s and you are in this mess, what are you to do.
    In the end families have to decide what is best for them,trust me banks are looking out for their shareholders and that is all they care about.
    You folks need to go back and read some history,how banks behaved during the great depression,,,there is no moral obligation,its a business transaction
    period.

  • Pingback:Disaster Capitalism - Page 7 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

  • Pingback:Who did what? - Page 3 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

  • Pingback:Classic Liberalism V.S. Progressivism. - Page 17 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

  • Pingback:What Leftism Does to People - Page 17 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

  • Pingback:A Lesson in Economic for Liberals - Page 11 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

  • Pingback:More consequences of bad home loans

  • Pingback:The Big Lie: A Case Study. (Fannie/Freddy Caused the Great Recession Edition)

  • Pingback:Should Government be for the people or for business? - Page 12

  • July 11, 2013 at 10:26 am
    Permalink

    The real losers are the banks who drove up home values with their stated income nonsense mortgages that they sold off as ‘investment vehicles’.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *