This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Meet The Squatters: Here Are The Millions Of Americans Who Live Mortgage-Free For Up To 5 Years And Counting
The topic of Americans living mortgage-free in foreclosed homes on which banks do not have proper titles is nothing new - in fact we are surprised that there isn't a robosignature app for that...yet. Neither is the fact that this ongoing reverse capital transfer provides as much as $50 billion in "rental" income for those same squatters. And while the ethical arguments for strategically defaulting on one's mortgage can get very heated on both sides, one thing is certain: the ongoing foreclosure crisis is creating a new subclass of "entitled" people, who certainly enjoy living on the back of the banks, while not paying one cent, and not vacating the premises. According to a new article by CNNMoney, some of the excesses observed within this latest demonstration of unearned entitlement are truly staggering. To wit: "Charles and Jill Segal have not made a mortgage payment in nearly five years -- but they continue to live in their five-bedroom West Palm Beach, Fla. home....Lynn, from St. Petersburg, Fla., has been living without paying for three years....In Thousand Oaks, Calif., an actor has missed 30 payments, and still, he has not lost his home...." In other words, what were once isolated incidents are becoming an epidemic, and like it or not, are creating a massive capital shortfall in bank balance sheets (after all "assets" are supposed to generate cash in most cases), which will likely involve yet another broad taxpayer bailout of these same banks that now have no recourse to do much if anything to evict these same squatters who instead of paying their mortgage (or rent), prefer to purchase trinkets and gizmos. "Some 4.2 million mortgage borrowers are either seriously delinquent or
have had their cases referred to lawyers to pursue foreclosure auctions,
according to LPS Applied Analytics. Of those, two-thirds have made no
payments at all for at least a year, and nearly one-third have gone more
than two years."
The specifics, to anyone who has been following this festering issue which threatens to create even further class resentment, are well known:
These cases can go on and on. Nationwide, it takes an average of 565 days to foreclose on borrowers in default from their first missed payments to the final auction. In New York, the average is 800 days and in Florida, where the "robo-signing" issue is particularly combative, it's 807.
If they want to fight evictions hard, borrowers can remain in their homes even longer while their cases are being worked through.
The Segals have been doing that -- in court. They bought their home in 2003 with an adjustable rate mortgage. After a few years, their monthly payments tripled to $3,000, just as their home-inspection business was cratering.
The Segals want the bank to modify the mortgage so payments are affordable, and they think the court will agree that their lender put them into a toxic loan.
Surely, the Segals signed the dotted line under the gun:
"The evidence will show that we were defrauded," said Jill Segal.
Well, with no downside, and just an already worthless credit rating as the opportunity cost, everyone is rapidly realizing that strategic defaults are the way to go:
If they lose, of course, they'll finally have to leave. And, unfortunately, more than 50 months of missed mortgage payments hasn't translated into big savings.
"It's very hard to save," said Jill Segal. "Our company's billing is 90% off and my husband is only working about four days a week."
Lynn, who didn't want her last name used, purchased a two-bedroom on Tampa Bay in 1998 for $135,000.
As the waterfront property's value skyrocketed, eventually reaching $750,000, she refinanced twice (once to expand a business), and took out a second mortgage. She now owes more than $600,000 on the home, which is worth only $235,000.
Living in this foreclosure limbo is "Hell," Lynn said. "I feel like I'm locked in a box. I work for a financial organization and if this came out, it could cost me my job."
And why not? With banks not having to face the consequences of massive failure, why should deadbeats? Especially when there are such sensitive issues to consider as whether the next place one lives, the one where one will actually have to pay for a roof, has a favorable pet policy:
She's still hoping to negotiate the loan. In the meantime, small things
bother her. "A couple years ago, I lost my dog and I can't decide on
getting a new one," she said. If she has to move, she can't be sure
she'll go somewhere that allows pets.
In the meantime stories such as this one are rapidly becoming the new morality drama:
Ruben Martinez, a Staten Island, N.Y., man trapped in a particularly bad adjustable rate mortgage, stopped paying more than three years ago. His attorney, Robert Brown, has managed to stave off one foreclosure.
Martinez, still struggling to find work, has little in savings despite the missed payments. He's earning some income as a pastor and consulting for a non-profit family counseling organization.
"There's pressure on me every day," he said. "I have a wife, three daughters and two grandchildren. Where are we going to live?" To top of page
For now there has not been much dissent with this type of behavior. However, when banks openly turn the tables and make it all too clear that they have absolutely underreserved for this kind of behavior and will very soon need a TARP 2.0, funded by everyone else, but certainly not the squatters, according to whom they dont' have two nickels to rub together, the question will be: will the general population, and here we reference the increasingly more endangered middle class, blame the banks again... or will it turn on itself?
»
- 34595 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Thank. Yes, that sounds very similar to the UK, except we have the human rights law to contend with as well.
This is actually a valid argument I think. This brings up the classic problem when talking about these topics as the "good guys" and "bad guys" get grouped into one and are either all enemies or are all victims.
One person views the side of the homeowner who is paying for a trade where the other side isn't even trading (bank not giving a proper title) where as the other side views the guy who clearly just stops paying his mortgage regardless of whether he is breaking his voluntary contract or not.
When speaking of morality and ethics, both cannot be considered the same.
Two mutually exclusive bad acts. No offset or netting.
They still cannot be considered one and the same, nor face the same condemnation which is very clear thats what goes on.
It is either the "bad banks" or "the dumb not so defenseless homeowner."
Very very very linear thinking, particularly when we are talking about morality and ethics.
Is it really "better" for some bank (who may not even own the property) to claim the property, kick its tenants off than giving the property to the people we KNOW have a claim to it? That should be settled in a court. Who actually owns the property. If the bank can't prove they own it, then they should take a hike. Because shit is so fucked up on some of these, if they can't reasonbly find out who actually owns the property, the homeowner should get it, no questions asked.
To be honest, this should apply to EVERYONE including those who are still paying their mortgages.
Separate the title dispute from the promise to pay the mortgage. You're making them one and the same, I think.
Maybe back off the xanax a bit, too. You grew a little hair on your logic mid-paragraph...
I'm actually not making them one and the same.
No questions asked if "everything is still a square deal" and you can't keep up your side of the deal you're well in the wrong.
How do you pay property taxes in this situation? How do you pay homeowners insurance?
USA USA USA!
not
ZH is a fool for falling for this:
unearned entitlement are truly staggering.
Yes, they used their home like an ATM like millions of others to maintain a living standard more and more out of reach for more and more people each decade.
What I'm telling you idiots is that your country was gutted of the capability to provide widespread, healthy, grassroots prosperity on purpose and hear you are suabbling like evil demonic imps at each other.
Read "The Origins of the Overclass" by ex-military intelligence Steve Kangas whom the banksters murdered. Read George HW Bush's Unauthorized Biography on www.tarpley.net where Dr Tarpley details step by step how the banksters stripmined America you fucken idiots
and one more thing
you people aren't paying for any bailouts anyway the whole thing will implode before that
so why the stupid, misdirected anger????
So tap out those credit cards, buy shit you will need for the Greatest Depression, don't pay your taxes, and sit back with some good booze and wait?
Oddly enough, that will sound like good advice right now to some people which should give you an idea of how fucked up things are. I wouldn't do it because I cannot guess the timeline of the events which are bound to unfold, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't.
Many are left behind. That train left 3 years ago...
Can't we just make it up by running really fast?
I'm with you on that. Good booze will be very good for bartering if things get really bad.
I'd not rely on the absinthe though.
why not?
More people like vodka, whiskey, scotch, wine... Absinthe is also not a drink people make mixers with nor like the licorice taste. Just not as desireable all around I'd think but if you must have something it's better than nothing.
Absinthe is an acquired taste -- one of the LAST bottles of booze I would trade away, too!
I live in the one-room granny-unit I built over my garage and had the house rented out which more than covered mortgage.
I'd bought house in 1991 and been through Hell with that house and the fraudsters that sold it to me but that's another story...
Bottom line is I'd made it a great rental so could live cheap and work on the project of interest to me which has now achieved patent... and I'm also convinced is an important 'financial innovation' which could actually be beneficial...
Leveling the Transaction Landscape: Technology & the Campfire
http://culturalengineer.blogspot.com/2011/04/leveling-transaction-landscape.html
Back to story...
In summer of 2008, tenants defaulted on their rent and finally left after 3 months of no rent coming in. I have a judgment for a bit over $8,000 against them and collection is unlikely.
Couldn't make a house payment...
Scrambled for new tenant and got somone temporary at lower rate since home had also been left a mess.
Tried to make payment to Wachovia when then 2 months behind... they refused to accept the payment for one month... but only if could get totally caught up at once.
Couldn't do it... so despite being able to catch up all but one month... got Notice of Default... once N.O.D... Good Luck trying to get regular tenants with that.
On to foreclosure... sought short-sale... found interested investor who would allow me to retain tenancy in my one-room over the garage which is all I want.
Supposedly price agreed to with Wachovia... then goes to Wells Fargo... apparantly deal to be 're -negotiated'...
During process of this negotiation... Wells Fargo takes house (REO).
If they'd given me a little forebearance back in Fall of '08, I could have gotten new tenants and mortgage covered...
Would I have had trouble with credit card debt? Probably... but that's why they call it unsecured... and even the bankruptcy trusty for creditors (yes, that came too), when they considered laying a claim to the patent finally issued in jan 11... but realized they'd fucked up since it'd been pending at the time... and I'd TOLD all creditors about it in conjunction with asking for their forebearance... which they'd refused... SO at least couldn't touch that...
I worked my butt off to turn this house (a sow's ear) into a silk purse...
And don't intend to stand idly by while my work goes to some 'investor' (who'll undoubtedly get a great deal) while I go homeless... when with a little co-operation from the bailed out fucking FIRE sector... both I and THEY would have had a better outcome.
Eviction scheduled for this Wednesday. I've offered to co-operate in seeking new buyer but would like to remain as a tenant in this unit.
Frankly, I consider the foreclosure and eviction both bad business for all sides and gratuitously punitive to me personally.
EVERY CASE IS DIFFERENT
(and yes there are deadbeats of all kinds... even running banks. They just have 'friends' to get them over the rough spots.)
P.S. My re-fi had been for buidling granny unit... NOT TRIPS, OR HUMMERS OR ANY OF THE CRAP YOU HEAR ABOUT...
CE, sorry to hear of your R.A.F. by your friends at W.F. may fortune find your way soon.
p.s. interesting idea you have, though i wonder, given your history with banks, why you wouldn't want to design a system that would bypass them altogether?
remember Bucky Fuller's quote?
Yeah... a big fan of the Fuller quote...
And I definitely want to change banking.
This is the best path I can come up with though a bit indirect.
This establishes a transaction network... with some interesting potentials.
One of them being... (an admittedly ambitious potential) that its quite possible that a neutral, user-owned and governed utility for political contribution enabling a microtransaction (also useful in other areas and more 'typically sized' transactions)... which can undercut in cost and do things others can't...
At least theoretically could become a fairly large network... or even dominant.
At that point its the elephant in the room.
It can do anything it wants... changing banking being one of them.
I mean it really IS up to us!
Decision Technologies: Currencies and the Social Contract http://culturalengineer.blogspot.com/2010/07/decision-technologies-currencies-and.htm
CE, I feel so bad for you. Your sense of outrage must be well, out there, way out there! It's hard to believe at times that the system is so rotten.
A few years ago I was looking into financing to develop a piece of land I have and I would have been geared quite highly. Having read the fine print. I realised the bank could pull the finance on any 'event' (their discretion). Having been reading Harry Dent for over ten years and knowing bad times were coming, I suddenly got very conservative! The land is still sitting there, with a horse on it, but it's free and clear!
WOW! Who had the balls to junk Tyler?? Fight Club is ON.
Exactly. The banks have committed fraud on the original contracts. The homeowners should win. Those who think the homeowners are deadbeats. Just look at the banks - they are the deadbeats for one fraud after another and then have the taxpayers bail them out. Commit fraud - pay the consquences. I wish everyone in the U.S. would hold the banks accountable and say "Prove you can foreclose on me"!
Are you nuts? I'm not here to deny that the banks are culpable in creating the problem of widespread house-price appreciation...however, these homeowners entered into binding contracts to pay for their homes and accept the debt they signed off on. Think about a young homebuyer who is doing all the right things to save and buy a home. This person is punished as home-prices stay elevated. Kick the fuckers out!!!
You can't "kick them out". That's the point. The contracts cannot be enforced.
Bullshit...you're telling me that these people will live forever for free? The paperwork is there. Get the robots signing on these deadbeats and make them rent. If only we had some real leadership in this country!!!
Not so.
I'm telling you the one and only owner lives on the property and no one else has claim.
No more replies. Either you're biased or blind. In either event, you don't get it.
You're just as big a deadbeat as the banks. Period.
+870, deadbeats on both sides of the line need to be "dealt with"
Fuck you and the banks.
You don't have title to the property either, you jackoff. You aren't an owner, you are a squatter.
The just thing to do is evict you and give the house to someone who has responsibly paid their rent and not MEWd their way to boats, plasmas, and SUVs
Trav you're an idiot and you can go fuck yourself.
Yes, I do have title moron.
You have exactly jackshit except rocks between your ears, you fuckin deadbeat.
People like you are as detestable as the banks. Everyone of you is a fucking scammer and a cheat trying to get something from somebody else for free
Listen to yourself - shrieking because someone else has slipped their chains.
A USA squatter named Lee
Tried to claim that his house came for free
Does Lee have a claim?
Are Big Banks to blame?
Or has Lee lost his integrity?
Have the banks lost integity?
Should the squatters get houses for free?
The crooks are in charge
The cheats are at large
What's in it for you and me?
You , these idiots , and the banks are all as bad as each other and the reason America is fucked. Stupid people and greedy people.
Anyone not in that category give yourself a golfclap but im afraid your tax dollars are going to continue to be funnelled into bailing out greedy banks and greedy sheeple. Im not sure who is worse.
I'm inclined to say the professional sheep herders are "worse." After all, not only did they write the show, abeit leaving auditions for the parts to the customers themselves, but who, in the end, actually gets slaughtered?
The person living there doesn't own the home. They never paid for it.
You're looking for validation of your own morally ambiguous choice. You won't find it here. You aren't a hero. You aren't sticking it to anybody.
You're one more example of the breakdown of the rule of law and personal responsibility, and the fact that prosperity in this country increasingly comes from "getting away with something" instead of hard work.
No so.
The lender does/can have a claim until a court says otherwise.
There is nothing legally that prevents the deadbeat/owner from going to court and getting a judgement that the lender does not have a claim.
Either you're biased or blind. In either event, you don't get it.
I'm not completely disagree with you but you're making it sound like its a really simple situation. These too large banks don't even know what the hell they "own" and what they don't.
The right thing to do, is find out who exactly owns the homes, and go from there. If it can't be discovered who actually has ownership of the title, just give the fucking house to the homeowner. Thats really the only way to do this. Making the assumption that some big bank should automatically get the property isn't any more reasonable than the homeowner.
I think we are just seeing the symptom of too big to provide actual services. These huge corporations fall into the same category of government.
JFC people... until there is a court adjudication or there has been a proper non-judicial foreclosure, transfer of title does not occur... we know who owns the home, the motherfucker who dominates the toilet every day in the home... the question is who has a lien on the home... this is a VERY important distinction...
LoL.
I think you're frustration lies in that your argument is expertise in legal language, but this is on a financial (of sorts) site. I get what you're saying, but some may not.
The macho man avatar on a highly articulate in-the-know dude is not computing...it's like Foghorn droppin' the f-bomb elsewhere on this thread.
Just sayin' it's entertaining...
Informative comments, though, thanks.
I have a copyright pending on my aforementioned method to determine the owner of a home.
They may be able to kick them out, but it doesn't mean they have the right to. Just look at that one couple who was "foreclosed on" who didn't even have a mortgage let alone with bank of america.
Ding, Ding, Ding....We have a winner!
EXACTLY the case with a good percentage of squatters, so called ( I say horse-shit), but not all, is that the banks and pretender-lenders are asking the courts to look past:
1. Fraud: Lender is NOT the actual lender in the documents, but fronts as one to hide Yield spread premium and other fees that were illegal. They sign up to MERS, and then the three card monty game begins.
2. SPV's/Trusts issue prospectuses and PSA's and then go and totally ignore them. Read Allstate v. Countrywide, et al. Dozens of cases on the investor side that have yet to rule and when they do...katie bar the door.
3. When the fit hits the shan, it's realized that MERS created this "make believe" system outside of local and state laws that require recordings, assignments and other issues that violated laws. As well, in many cases, they ACT as the note holder, when they don't receive a dime in payments nor can they. This is not even to mention the "robo" aspect, which is just symptomatic of the underlying fraud and corruption.
Could go on, but I hate long posts. Last thing: RE Markets shot up between 30 and 100% (depending on local market) between 2004-2006. That's not a "natural" market force, that was the brokers/lenders/pretenders hustling paper and cash like a crack dealer in Oakland. Wall St., Fitch, Moody's and others took it hook, line and sinker.
Answer: Blame the deadbeat.
this is all well and good, but you aren't entitled to a FREE FUCKING HOUSE on account of it!
Where did all that money go?
Into luxury cars and vacations for deadbeats, who rode along that ponzi, gleefully beating the whip at every turn of the track to pull out more MEW and get more SUVs.
FUCK THEM. Fuck the banksters, fuck the MEWers, fuck the squatters...fuck them all.
All a bunch of piece of shit people trying to justify and rationalize their own cupidity and lies.
Yeah, let's sterilize the lot of them!
Oh wait, they aren't black. But they might disagree with you. Ok, let's have a little test. Let's see if they resist being called pieces of shit by you, and if they do, we can sterilize them, their immediate families, their distant relatives, their neighbors, facebook friends, and their cats.
Yes, send them all smallpox blankets. Great idea Mosley.
are you married, trav7777? you need a strong woman to open a can of whip-ass and kick you up one side and down the other.
i'd say there are plenty of people who had every intention of paying their mortgages. Then, bang, someone lost a job, health insurance, etc. and what about the children? do you think they should just go live on the street and reject that shelter just because it my be the ethical thing to do? when the welfare of your children is at stake, you make decisions based on what's good for them.
I don't fucking care what the issue is with your income. You can default - thats fine. BUT YOU CAN'T STAY IN THE HOUSE FOR FREE.
Why can't people understand that.
You CANNOT stay in the fucking house if you are paying nothing. Period.
Bad times happen. People lose their jobs. Money gets tight. So DEFAULT, but you are NOT staying in the house for free.
Cause only women are rational?
Regardless, getting back to the real issue - its called saving some money aside for a rainy day. This is the simplest and smartest basic premise of literally every single person or entity able to make financial decisions - a wonder more parents haven't taught this.
If you can't be saving a few hundred $ each month (or however much you can afford, no big deal) while at work, then youre style of living is wrong. You can't simply live paycheck to paycheck thinking the grass will always be greener on your side.
Youre exactly right, shit does happen, bang, some unfortunate occurence. Well hey, if you lived in a house you COULD afford, then chances are youd have money set aside.
I dont feel a modicum of pity for the stupid dipshits who over levereged themselves just to keep up with the Joneses.
Hahahahah. RB still thinks there is such things as "rule of Law" and justice in the "land of the fee and the home of the slave". You really should consider waking up sometime. Just a suggestion.
It's a question of when. When they want the homes vacanted, the handlers, (your Government and their handlers), will Vacant the property.
By any means neccessary and at that point, it will not matter anyhow.
Bottom line takeaway truth on the matter. We can get the kids here squabbling about who gets the bigger piece of candy, but fact is that, on the whole, the banks don't fucking want them out. If they did, things would change in a real hurry.
Why the charade here?
Thats true. These houses really should be taken from both the bank and the squattor and put onto the market at auction. Give the squattor and the bank the option to own it first , by paying for it. The reason the banks arent kicking them out is because they already have enough real estate on their books and they dont want firesales to hit the market yet or theyll be under more pressure to make down their existing portfolio. Long and the short of it is this : house prices have alot further to go down.
Way further to go. I'm just glad people are living in them.
Yep. The state owns the property if no one is paying the property tax.
Lets say the squatters are paying the property tax. Does that give them the right to live there? They do not own the house because they do not have the title. If they are allowed to live ther because they have been paying the taxes...maybe I will pay next years property tax before they have a chance and then move into the house under question.
Roy? Are you listening? Albeit these homeowners entered into legally binding contracts, which were promptly broken by the banks. The level of fraud on many loans is simply breathtaking.
You should examine some mortgage documents, sit in on a few foreclosure cases in trial courts and then see what you think about kicking "the fuckers" out.
In an equitable world, you could be one of those "fuckers" and we could call you names. Place blame where it belongs. The banks are the true "fuckers" here.
What false and twisted logic.
Yours? Yes.
Dear Roy,
There is no need to pay an institution which does not own the property you are paying for. The obligation is terminated.
You think banks don't violate a contract the second it becomes unprofitable?
Don;t be so naive.
Doesn't get any simpler than that.
the banks are liable for damages for breach the same as you are.
Stop acting like everybody gets free shit if they see things as a "business decision."
The nation will have to foreclose on all the underwater homeowners and sell the properties at auction, preferably to those who used to be responsible renters.
Let the chips fall, get the deadbeat MEWers out and living in their luxury SUVs and boats where they belong. They can rent to any banksters needing a halfway house after their prison stretch
the banks, liabilities, are being covered by taxpayer funded bailouts, ZIRP, and the discount window.
Remember the game of Life, where it was a scarlet letter to have one of them ugly promissory notes on your side of the board?
I think our core ill is we've forgotten what a promise to pay is...
I think Roy gets it just fine.
Why can't we all agree that ponzi insolvent banks are the fuckers, and the squatting deadbeat dumbasses are fuckers too? Both of them richly deserve some fuckin comeuppance!
Because it's the ponzi banks that created the macro environment that brought the deadbeat class into being, maybe?
Soon to be homeless people deserve some fuckin cumuppance?
Really?
Pahhhlease dial down the drama. These 5-bedroom waterfront squatting maggots are soon to homeless? You mean to say, during the last 5 years of non-payments they have saved no money to rent? So who's stupid here?
Anybody who believes that colorfully lurid narrative of yours is a meaningful representation of the actual residential real estate debacle, perhaps?
Yes.
Do the right thing while the one's running the game are riggin' it. LMFAO BWAAAA HAAAA HAAAA. Bitch Please.
No one rigs the price you decide to pay, Jethro. No one forces you to ink the paper.
So which branch of Citibank do you work for again? I mean, I was under the assumption people were told home prices would only go up!?!? BWAAAAA HAAAAA HAAAAA LMFAO
People were told that home prices would only go up. The smart ones did their homework.
I paid $860K for my house; within 30 days my neighbor paid $1.37M for basically the same thing (5,400 sqft v. my 5,100).
Guess which one has gone under water, my economically-illiterate friend with the desperate moniker?
Yeah, I wonder how that sales pitch went right before he signed the papers. Of course it's that much more easy to gain influence when BIG CORP & BIG BANKING run the whole matrix. Good for you on your $860k house. Hopefully you didn't get the Chinese dry wall either BWAAA HAAA HAAA
when's yer 99 weeks up?
clawbacks a bitch .....bwhaaaaaaaa.
and you still think you beat those peeps, don't ya bucky?
Smartest in the room , best and brite and all that garbage.
goof.
Hopefully not anytime soon otherwise I wouldn't have the extra skrills to pay your moms for her blow-job services in the corner alley. After all, I'm a cash only paid-in-full kinda guy and it troubles me to think how much I would miss her. She really has a way with the fondling of my testiculars.
LMFAO. Oh man, this shit's too fucking easy...
I love it when you chumps guess at a bunch of stuff you have no clue about. I think you call it "trading" by day...
Seeing my mom's been six feet under for a few moons now, it doesn't surprise me that she would be the fancy of your oral fixations. I guess it's legal in whatever backwoods bayou you and your 400 inbred relatives call home. Just return her to her proper gravesite when you're "done.
MK, a system that requires you to research your purchase of common things like cars and homes, in essence requiring people to be far more intelligent and pro-active than the average person will normally be, that sort of system is doomed to be abused by the intelligent victimizing the dull-witted and niave, and then collapse from widespread fraud.
Any system that handles common items that people with an IQ of say 80 or so may buy needs to protect the consumer from fraud and not leave them to fend for themselves.
I am not saying this on a moral basis, but simply with an eye toward having the over all system actually continue to function in the long run.
The Jungle is not what the public wants or needs.
No way. Relative intelligence is not a barometer for one's likelihood to be "victimized" as you would say. See, e.g., Bernie Madoff's "victims". A lack of morality is the root, here, as there is no "victim" of an unfair deal without a willing perpetrator of the same.
I don't buy that "the world is stacked against" one group or another. It's offensive to one's sense of individual responsibility.
In my comment, I meant by "smart" not so much some Mensa notion of IQ, but more "responsible." Anyone going into a $million+ home purchase - whether to live in or as an investment - ought to have some forethought.
This notion of a "system" is way overplayed; transactions are entered into voluntarily. Even where there are false valuations, there's enough info for folks to handicap the risks.
Home buyers relied on the best information available.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW5qKYfqALE
You neighbor maybe fine, if he bought house by selling
previous property also at sky high prices, if he's first
time buyer, then he screwed.
No kidding. Price rigging doesn't even make sense logically. The price of something is what you pay for it. Literally thats all there is to it. Anybody thats says differently doesn't have a damn clue what money or value is.
Apparently there's been a hoard of former mortgage brokers & real estate agents who have now joined the ZH community since I last posted....
agreed. mayhem.
"these homeowners entered into binding contracts to pay for their homes and accept the debt they signed off on." Actually, I don't think that's right. They agreed to pay IN RETURN FOR GETTING GOOD TITLE to the property. If I gain knowledge that my bank is incapable of giving me good title, then I'd be a fool to continue to pay because in the end, I will get nothing in return.
The bank made an agreement in the beginning too. Pay for this person's house in return for EITHER continued payments with interest until the loan is paid off, OR take possession of the house if there is a default.
If the bank can't take possession because it lost its paperwork due to shifty dealings, then it has not only cost itself the opportunity to take possession, it has also cost the resident the opportunity to take good title to the house.
If the banks caused the problem by not having a clean record of paperwork, then the bank should be the one to lose.
And if one of these homeowners goes to sell the house, then the next buyer agrees to pay IN RETURN FOR GETTING GOOD TITLE to the property, which the current owner does not have.
Every one of these damn titles needs to be cleared up in a court, by a legislature, or by torch. Otherwise the housing market will never recover.
You're under the impression that home prices are staying elevated? I've got a house for sale if you are interested.
Exactly, the banks are the deadbeats and getting bailed out in the trillions to the destruction of the whole country. But you can be sure that the banks and powers that be will spin this to justify further gifts to the banking and elite. Bank on it.
Banks aren't the only deadbeats, Larry! 'member, lots of folks bought homes that couldn't afford 'em. Yes, the TBTF have been allowed to post those on their balance sheets with full faith & credit (laugh) backing of Benny & Timmah, and that charade just continues mercilessly. But the origination of the problem is distributed.
Not defending anyone here, I'm just pointing out reality. Some of us that have lived within our means are getting whitewashed in this as gravity reverts us to something between the Stone Age and 1982.
I say rip the band-aid off and get back to real valuations.
Real valuations as the Bernank looks to emplement QE-to-infinity. Hello? McFly? Is anybody home? BWAAAA HAAA HAAA
You will get real valuations if the currency melts away. My stack of PM's is waiting for the fire sale. :D
BTW, Mr. I can't spell "implement", your laughter reads like loud crying.
It only seems like crying but actually tears of joy considering I'm enjoying a nice 100%+ gain on my PM positions thanks to "easy credit" ponied up by the "white shoe" boys on Wall Street. Thanks to the kicking-of-the-can of this make-believe fantasy land, I guess I should also thank them in allowing me to make more off the paper markets as well.
You're preaching to the "chinese choir" yankee boy LMFAO. Btw, "LMFAO" is aka (also known as) "LAUGHING MY FUCKIN' ASS OFF."
There. Hope that was slow enough for you. BWAAA HAAA HAAA
So you turned your $50 into $100?
Yeah good thing to. With inflation and the McRib sandwich going up in price and all, your moms wants an extra $10 to swallow. I know.....highway robbery.
LMFAO
that's the market, you have no room to bitch.
you were not forced to buy although i am sure you thought you were
gods gift when the sucker next door coughed up the 1.3mil.
I bet you were just eyeing that fraud market gain.
Ha hah. seems you were the dumbass now.
bwhaaaaaaa.
Of course you would never connect all the deadbeats overpaying
with you nice paper gain. YOu were sucking berrnakes cock all the way up no doubt.
Uh-oh! Looks like snoopy called in reinforcements! I need BACKUP dammit! I SAYS BACKUP! SUMBITCHES TAKEN MA' RIGHT FLANK! LULZ LMFAO
Are you capable of stringing together a coherent thought, mongo?
Been munchin' on German sprouts or maybe some fresh Fukishima tuna lately?
Maybe pull yourself out of your sister's dog and count backwards from ten...
Holding the banks accountable by being the Lesser Fraud is the intersection of fiscal prudence and ignobility.
Well, depends on your point of view. I have a brother who bought a home in 2009 which we all knew he couldn't afford. We gave him our advice to rent instead of buy, but he insisted that it was a good move because the bank was "letting it go for far less than its market value" (whatever that means).
Long story short...sure enough, he couldn't afford it on his salary, and began falling behind within only months. Now, two and a half years later, he is several months behind and short-pays his payments (by sending only 33% of the contracted money) due to the Obama Mortgage plan which apparently allows him to legally do this for a period of time and still keep his home. Fuel to the fire.
His asinine mentality also resulted in the repossession of his truck a few months ago. Now the bank is *finally* sending notices to him about his mortgage and getting serious about foreclosure and eviction. Of course, my brother now has a new wife and brand new baby, so he thinks the bank is the bad guy.
Some people didn't have their arms twisted to sign any documents...they're just too stupid and stubborn to manage their own finances properly, and they place blame on others when the going gets rough. They're the other side of the coin in this national debacle.
2009 ?????.....not only was he too late to the party but the barn door was already closed from 2001-2007 for bank fraudulent chain of assignments
man, must be so frustrating having a fam member act like that.
Yes, there IS two sides to the debate, and your relative is example of why a bank needs to follow the law when it loans money, sells mortgages, or securitizes them. They have the right to foreclose then. But if they don't possess the note, why should they be allowed to foreclose?
"Prove you can foreclose on me"
That's a very risky affair for pretender lenders.
"Deadbeats" who can't pay their mortgages because business fell off 90% or there are no jobs in the area and no money to move? Now I wonder who caused all this pain on the part of homeowners? Until we see the rule of law working from top to bottom which really won't cause pain to the middle class, we will not see any end to this. The banks have the taxpayers by the scruff off the neck because they have the govt by the scruff of the neck.
The jobs are rapidly disappearing for good as new technology takes the place of workers where spending has gone up 26% in the last few years and/or work is permanently outsourced.
Then we have the companies, large ones, who are booking record profits and investing everywhere but here because God forbid they should pay any taxes or have Health care costs eat profits away by the most unhinged sector in the economy short of finance.
So "Deadbeats" have nowhere to go, nowhere to work and no money to go mobile as they "squat" in their homes. Why? Because the banks fucked them when they signed, they fucked them when their bets went bad and they continue to fuck them as more of their assets go sour.
You won't find a "deadbeat" getting 220 Million from the Fed to invest in Govt Guaranteed student loans that should pay a nice pretax yield of 10 Million a year with absolutely no risk, but you will find the idle rich getting one who happen to belong to the exclusive club that George Carlin mentioned frequently (RIP). So if you have no money or job through no fault of one's own, the classification is deadbeat, if you have access to money and no job, you are the idle rich which is certainly more deserving than a DEADBEAT of receiving direct help from the fed to maintain or improve one's lifestyle.
This article's author is a bit confused to put it mildly. But then again, it's in keeping with the many comments agreeing with the premise that there are millions of deadbeats who I'm sure live in total luxury and security not knowing from one day to the next if the roof over their head is going to disappear regardless of how many laws the bank broke.
One thing we can be certain of , the deadbeats of America will lose their shelter because that's what the big banks want and whatever they want they get. This one has been a little tougher because they fucked so many different classes of people, but if history is any guide they will get through it. After all, who listens to "Deadbeats" or gives a shit anyway? Ya got your Deadbeat Countries, cities, and individuals. More and more deadbeats everyday who are squeezed like rotten fruit because no self-respecting banker is going to lose a dime no matter how many laws they broke.
There are also tens of thousands of "deadbeats" who were forced into defaults because of humongous medical bills that their insurance wouldn't cover.
Agreed: 63% of all BKs filed are because of medical bills.
Many of the people have health insurance too. Health Care is a 2.6T business driven by wall street, the same fucks who brought us the housing depression. Meanwhile every company raises their prices each year , providers and insurers, with total impunity. That's also at a breaking point. The Health Insurance lobby in Indiana, home of illegal search and entries, got the legislature to pass a bill saying in essence; No health insurance company is liable for paying out more in claims that was taken in from premiums". No shit, so why are they allowed to call it insurance?
ZIRP cut off the easy money from the float for all insurers so they do the next best thing; deny all claims. Home insurance is a fucking joke. I buy the cheapest one I can to satisfy the bank.
Finance is 40% of the economy and Health Care is 18% of the economy and people wonder if we are going to double dip.Snort. The two line items that everyone classifies as an expense that they hate to pay yet somehow they are more than half of GDP . If a sector is on the expense side ( blood sucker) of home and business Income statements, it should be a negative to GDP
Once a sector is classed as a negative to GDP, then at least the politicians will be under fire to reduce that negative. As long as the lobbyists can come and say "we are 40% of GDP", politicians gasp and say "we have to save you no matter what the expense" as they hold out there greasy palms for a little red Chinese Envelope.
It's all bullshit.
stop defending little thieves because there are bigger thieves.
I said upthread that the deadbeats should be evicted and go live in their luxury SUVs. They can rent their MEW-bought boats to bankers to live inafter the latter get out of prison.
This entire country has been nigrified; ghetto, rotten, lookin for the hustle, morally bankrupt to the core.
The bankers are crooks and those who borrow from them are crooks.
Really Trav, moral bankruptcy has nothing to do with race.
He is just trollin'
Must be bored at work, too.
I said up thread that the deadbeats should be evicted and go live in their luxury SUVs. They can rent their MEW-bought boats to bankers to live in after the latter get out of prison.
Hey Cracker. Not prone to generalizations are you? It sure didn't take long to figure out who the fucking racist is in today's crowd. Since you are dumber than most, there really isn't much to say but; "eat shit and die motherfucker".
I said up thread that the deadbeats should be evicted and go live in their luxury SUVs. They can rent their MEW-bought boats to bankers to live in after the latter get out of prison.
Hey Cracker. Not prone to generalizations are you? It sure didn't take long to figure out who the fucking racist is in today's crowd. Since you are dumber than most, there really isn't much to say but; "eat shit and die motherfucker".
Hey it's a dup, but fuck it, it needed to be said twice
Agreed. And FWIW I enjoyed your posts, especially the first on the "deadbeats" - most excellent.
Tortured logic.
No one put a gun to the buyers' heads and forced them to buy more house than they could afford. They signed a contract to make regular payments. If they didnt understand what they were signing, they shouldnt have signed. People and corporations are entitled to rely on contracts.
Yes, the banks may have screwed up in the hypothecation/MERS process, but that doesnt mean you get a free house. The conduct of both the deadbeat owners and the banks deserve equal condmenation
Yes, the banks may have screwed up in the hypothecation/MERS process, but that doesnt mean you get a free house.
Sure it does - free home. What other result is possible?
And you forget loan securitization where the bank sold your loan and was paid for it. You owe them nothing.
You are truly a dumb-ass. Sure - free houses for all. Let's hand them out like candy.
I knew what I signed, got a 15 year mortgage I paid in full in 3 years. Living mortgage free, car payment free. Fuck all of you freeloading living over your means assholes.
Not everyone is as you're describing it.
What happens if BOA states that you have been out on your mortgage for months? You don't even have one, and yet they've done that to other people.
One size fit all blames just absolutely do not work in this situation. You're statements are just sensational and ignorant.
Obviously if the people either paid cash for the house or paid off their mortgage they are not freeloaders. If the banks wrongfully foreclose on someone who actually owns (paid for) the house, they should be held accountable. We are talking here, however, about people who clearly took out loans and failed to pay for the houses. They have unclean hands and should not benefit from their failure to pay. The issue is not whether or not they owe the money (they clearly do as they signed the loan); it is to whom the money is owed. The borrower should pay the amount owed into an escrow account and let the court determine to whom it is owed. If they are not paying, they should not get free houses.
Ok who gets the "free house" as you call it? Considering they DID pay money on it, its not necessarily "free."
Yes, I'm not willing to say they don't have unclean hands. However, the banks aren't exactly boy scouts either.
Unclean hands A, or Unclean hands B should get the house?
The right answer is it completely depends on the case. This isn't some situation that can be glossed over, like SO many people are doing.
The borrower may have paid something toward the house, but not the full amount. They would lose the house and any previous payments in a normal foreclosure. The bank gets the house and gets to sell it to recover what it can. The bank's unclean hands are in selling the note to investors without properly transferring the note. They wronged the investor, not the borrower. The bank would have to make restitution for failing to properly transfer the note to the investor who bought the empty box.
Hard to reason with an urban type who thinks applying a portion of their welfare check for one payment gives them the house. You will need a swat team or threat of a job to remove them.
There are people getting screwed over by banks but the examples here are deadbeats - especially the Segal clan. There business has slowed and he only works 4 days in their 5 bedroom home and they have paid nothing for 5 years. F Them.
They should at least pay the interest. People losing their home is tragic but I they don't deserve a free home.
I've answered that on this thread moron. Go look it up. Even you can find the search tool.
You're still as big a fucking douchebag as you were higher up on the thread.
I can't ... I say I can't picture Foghorn spouting off like that.
Really? He is a big cock.
Ya but you have to live in Buffalo :-)
I'm on the west coast squatting in a 6,500 sq ft house.
You are my hero.
First of all - WTF do you know about living in BUF NY???
Second - squat away. Have a blast. Bring in hookers, booze, the works. Maybe get a Chase Credit Card and add a fancy home theatre. Then default on the card.
You are the classic example of what has taken this country and its people from being the worlds most admired to the most loathed.
I remember not long ago I would travel internationally and proudly respond "USA" when asked where I am from. Now I keep my mouth shut. Thanks Huge, for your valuable contributions......
Here's what I know about Buffalo: her two favorite sons are Scott Norwood and Brett Hull. :D
Good for you being debt free.
You're welcome.
You forgot about the blow...
PS- Been to Buffalo, it sucks
All bull shit. Huge reaction just wants attention.
+1
Bored at work, thought I'd try my hand at trolling the thread.
Well played!
I like how you like to pride yourself on how OTHERS act.
If "things are great" you take plenty of credit, but when things are perceiveably worse, you don't want to have your name on it.
You sound like quite the person.
That would be great if it were really true.
Nice.
<i>First of all - WTF do you know about living in BUF NY??? </i>
I know the taxes are retarded high, the lake-effect snow can be tiresome after awhile (what use is snow if you can't downhill ski?), I know that the Sabres management would sell their players bone marrow if they could, and that the best wings are at Duff's.
Oh, and I actually made a bit of $$ showing the Bills-Oilers 'miracle' playoff game that I had recorded when I was home on break, as it didn't get televised due to not selling out Rich Stadium. You know, the one where they came from behind with Frank Reich..
Sucker!
I have two brothers who are both freeloaders and have totally bilked their mortgage lenders out of tens of thousands of dollars by buying their homes, moving in, and then ceasing payment. I hate it, and I disrespect them (and you, JLee) for condoning it "just because everyone else is doing it, so who's gonna stop me?"
I bought my home within my means, got a shorter 15-year mortgage, and am on my way to paying it off. I'm not perfect...just a person who can add 2+2 and figure out whether or not I can afford something in my budget.
I hate it, and I disrespect them (and you, JLee) for condoning it "just because everyone else is doing it, so who's gonna stop me?"
Why are you putting words in my mouth? Never said that.
Oh, please. Don't waste our time. Your comment above in the thread:
#1358564
How does one make such a comment and then turn around and say, "hey, I didn't mean it like that...you're putting words in my mouth"?
And I didn't junk your immediate comment above...someone else obviously already saw through your crap as well.
Get out of here. You are taking what I said to absurd levels. I did not say what you claim. Don't waste my time again.
Wrong again.
The banks got paid. Fine. But someone paid them for that loan, and that person now owns the income stream. And that "person" may be a pension fund or some other innocent third party.
So when you quit paying your mortgage, Mr. deadbeat, you may be screwing over some innocent third party.
But WTF, max out the credit cards, buy guns, ammo and silver. Who really gives a shit anymore. Its all over anyway.
Isnt that right?
Agreed again. The bank wronged the investor by not properly transferring the note, not the borrower. The borrower agreed to pay for the house and to give it up as collateral if he failed to pay. The borrower should not get to keep the house since he has unclean hands for not keeping up his side of the contract. Whichever bank has the last properly recorded note has the claim against the borrower and can foreclose on the house -- even if it is the original loan. Any transfers of the note that were not properly recorded need to be unwound with the banks reimbursing the investors to whom they sold empty boxes because they failed to uphold their end of the bargain. If it is unclear to whom the money is owed, the borrowers should pay the mortgage payment into an escrow account until the court determines who is entitled to the money. If the borrower fails to pay, the house should be foreclosed upon and the proceeds from the sale held in an account until the court determines to whom the money is owed. Two wrongs don't make a right. The solution is to restore the rule of law, not abandon it.
We need to protect property rights. That means the bank's rights to foreclose on the house need to be upheld against the delinquent borrowers. Also, the investor's rights need to be upheld against the banks that sold them empty boxes.
Wow. Talk about backwards and crazy. I don't think you understand just how deep the rabbit hole goes, Alice.
#1 - There are no records in many cases. This was intentional fraud on the bank's part so investors that were sold bad mortgages could not sue the bank. If there are no records, who gets the house?
#2 Remember fraud was committed BY THE BANK. Why would you reward that and kick out the homeowner?
Whichever bank has the last properly recorded note has the claim against the borrower and can foreclose on the house
That bank was paid assuming the property was re-financed. It's called unjust enrichment under the law, they cannot be paid again by getting the house.
We need to protect property rights.
Exactly. And if the bank broke state and federal laws by committing fraud through loan securitization and MERS (and they did) - then the homeowner wins. It is that simple.
Don't condescend to me. You are the one who has things backwards. Although it may be complicated to unwind, it must be done to have clear titles to these houses and restore the markets. You are too emotionally involved in playing the victim to listen to reason, though (or not smart enough to understand).
The bank wronged the investor who bought the improperly transfered note, not the borrower. There are documents, they are just not all recorded in the county land records. The investors have documents to prove that they bought the notes; however, the notes they bought were not properly recorded when transferred. Therefore, the investors did not receive the benefit of their bargain. The banks that failed to perform their end of the contracts owe reimbursement to the investors that they wronged by failing to properly transfer the note by recording it so that it could be enforced. Hence the contracts transferring the notes to the investors were invalid and must be unwound.
The banks did not wrong the borrowers. The borrowers still owe the money that they agreed to pay. The question is to whom the money is owed, not whether the money is owed. The borrowers would be the ones unjustly enriched if they were allowed to keep the houses without paying. The original note holder (or lender that refinanced the loan) would foreclose and get what they could for the house. They would also be responsible for reimbursing any investor to whom they sold the note but did not properly transfer it.
You are mixing apples and oranges. There are two different issues here -- (1) the investors vs the banks that sold the empty boxes and (2) the banks vs the borrowers who are not paying for the houses which they agreed would be collateral for the loans they took out.
If the loan was refinanced, then there was a new contract between the borrower and the bank that did the refinancing. The bank that refinanced the loan would be able to foreclose since refinancings are recorded in the county records.
Although it may be complicated to unwind, it must be done
It cannot be done, BECAUSE THE RECORDS ARE GONE AND THAT WAS INTENTIONAL. Did you read what I said? No of course not.
The banks did not wrong the borrowers
Of course they did. This is laughable.
You are mixing apples and oranges.
No, you are. You are wasting my time. Good luck, I'm not replying to you again.
Not necessarily: your loan becomes unsecured (like a credit card) and would be dealt with in a bankrupcy proceeding like any other unsecured debt, but they can't take the house. So not quite 'free', your credit will be trashed, but you end up with the house.
Fuck the banks, fuck MERS, fuck the REMICs, fuck Fannie, fuck Freddie, fuck the Fed. Fuck them all in the ear with a horse dick, they can all die in a fire and I'll be dancing around the burning remains.