This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.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?
»
- 34598 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
I don't disagree with that, but - if the bank has no hard assets to back the loan than the balance sheet is fucked. They (the bank) are insolvent and will go under. So the unsecured debt in reality is probably uncollectable.
Further, I think we are witnessing the entire financial system coming down in the past year, slowly at first and it will accelerate. Squatters win.
We need to be more specific about who exactly we are talking about.
People who stopped making payments where the bank did "nothing wrong" so to say, and can clearly show they own the property.
People who stopped making payments where the bank can NOT show they clearly own the property.
Those who stopped making payments and the bank owns the property... well it should be fairly evident who to "blame." (the people)
Those who stopped making payments where the bank can't show it owns the property, either find out who actually owns it or give it to the people. Making the assumption that all of the properties should just go to whatever big bank that is claiming it is lunacy. It is just as ridiculous as I see it to assume the bank should get the property as much as the person living on it (if they can't show they actually own it). In fact the only person that clearly shows the attachment to the house is the person living on it.
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.
Similarly, the banks entered into business contracts with many other entities, made investments, securitized loans, bought and sold securities, wrote swaps contracts, acted irresponsibly, made stupid decisions, paid themselves huge bonuses, etc etc. And then, when they find out they were stupid and get caught offsides, they stick a gun in the face of the tax[ayers and bail themselves out. The banks made all of the same bad moves as so many homeowners, just on a much more massive scale. There is no difference. Everyone partied (except me, it seems), everyone got stoned and laid. Now, homeowners have a hangover, and banks are still partying, on our dime.
Fuck that. I refuse to be the last moral person on planet earth. Failing the restoration of the rule of law, I will steal my house, and I will fucking enjoy it.
Can you really steal that which is yours?
he said, he got stoned
cheers SWR for the courage to admit the role you choose to play. methinks you have an interesting legal argument if it ever gets to that.
Please don't misunderstand. We are not upside down. We bought the house twenty years ago, refi'd to lower rates. We never got a second, saw that for the trap that it obviously was, saw the housing bubble as the lie it so obviously was. We never counted phony home equity in our net worth estimates or borrowed against it. Didn't "cash out" on the refi. I'm not even pissed off about having "lost" equity that I know damned well I never had in the first place. I'm pissed off that the banks have stolen so much from me as a taxpayer, and I'm looking for a way to steal it back.
Other than buying a house twenty years ago, and handing out Mises Institute literature at work (when I worked in a cubicle: bleah), I played no role in this meltdown.
I was Mises when Mises wasn't cool, if you know what I mean. No one fucking cared because everyone felt wealthy, prosperous, successful, and oh so smart and self-confident. My warnings fell on deaf ears. Two years after the crisis hit them you should have seen their faces when I told them I'd sold all our stocks in October and November 2007. Four years after the crisis hit them, their political paradigm and American Exceptionalism is finally starting to crack. As for me, I am decades ahead of them emotionally, I'm prepped, my wife and kids are fully awake and now I'm looking for a way to assfuck the banks until they bleed.
+1000 SWRichmond
not just as a taxpayer, but as someone who is legally enchained to a only one form of "legal tender" as long as you choose to live on your land. this is what i mean : you have a good argument because you were not compromised by temptation (in this case any way).
that last phrase gave me a nice chuckle...funny shit...thanks man.
I'm prepped, my wife and kids are fully awake and now I'm looking for a way to assfuck the banks until they bleed.
Post of the year.
"I'm pissed off that the banks have stolen so much from me as a taxpayer, and I'm looking for a way to steal it back."
Well said. I wish you were my neighbor.
Bravo!
Agreed. The borrowers agreed to pay for the house. If they aren't paying, then the house doesn't belong to them. The dispute is not over whether or not the borrowers owe the money. They clearly do as they signed the contract. The dispute is over to whom the money is owed. If the entity to whom the money is owed is in dispute, the borrowers should pay the mortgage payments into an escrow account until the courts determine to whom the money is owed. If the borrowers are not paying, then they should be kicked out and the house should be foreclosed on. The proceeds from the sale could be held in an account until it is determined to whom the money is owed. If the banks sold empty boxes (notes that weren't recorded) to investors, those contracts should be invalid and unwound all the way back to the originally recorded loan. The banks would have to pay the investors back since, by failing to properly transfer the note, they didn't hold up their end of the bargain. The transactions need to be unwound all the way back to the last note to be properly recorded. The holder of that note would then be able to foreclose and recover whatever it could from the asset that was underlying the loan.
The borrowers should not get a free house since they have unclean hands from not paying. I'm sick of people playing the victim. Many families who did their due dilligence and did not buy overpriced houses are still renting while waiting for the phantom equity to be eliminated from the market and house prices to fall to affordable levels in line with current incomes. There can be no recovery until this happens.
I wasn't really sure about your post till about half way down. Thats actually fairly reasonable.
I guess I wonder what the probability is that they are going to be able to clean up all the messes and find the last correctly recorded loan holder.
Although it does bring a new set of problems if the original loan holder doesn't exist or whoever along the line no longer exists. That certainly then slams whoever (out of the blue) gets stuck with the note they long "wrote off" from their books. But as far as fairness goes.... you probably have the more reasonable argument.
Edit: Question though. What about all the money the home "owner" paid to those who shouldn't have been receiving payments? I'd assume you would have to have all the later lenders pay the "legal" note holders the back payments.
Any payments that were received in error would have to be returned to the legal note holder. The legal note holder would have to pay back whomever it had sold the empty box to, though, so the payments received in error could be applied to that.
If the the entity that would have legally owned the note is out of business, the money recovered in foreclosure would either go to its creditors to be distributed under bankruptcy rules or to the entity that bought out its assets.
you should go into robotics not waste your time in the pseudo physics of politics or economics..
It's pretty cool in theory, but there most likely isn't a "legal note holder."
How does the straightforward approach work when you've got a single note distributed across several different investment vehicles which were never guaranteed to perform?
You'd have to unwind it all the way back to the original agreement between the lender and the borrower if necessary. Any contract in which the note was sold to an investor, but not properly recorded would be invalid since nothing of value was transferred -- i.e. the investor did not receive the benefit of his bargain. You'd have to go back to the last valid transaction. Each bank that sold an empty box -- i.e. improperly transfered note -- would have to reimburse the investor to whom it made the sale. The banks wronged the investors who bought the improperly transferred notes, not the borrowers. The borrowers have no just cause to keep the houses if they are not paying for them. They agreed to pay or give up the houses as collateral to the lenders.
Yeah, that's not going to work, though. The investors didn't buy NOTES.
The way the securitization process worked was to separate the very *concept* of an individual note from the collective performance of a large set of loans.
Each "security" was created out of a set of paperwork about which it was assumed some set of loans would perform and some set of loans would fail to perform, but that *overall* the level of performance for all the loans collectively would allow the bank to afford to pay the investors, keep a slice of the income, and manage the writedowns on the non-performing loans by foreclosing the properties and selling off the houses.
But...it didn't work out that way. The banks CANNOT afford to make the investment payments to either the investors OR themselves (they kept a certain chunk of the risk) and they cannot afford to write down the loans and foreclose the houses to auction them because doing so puts them out of business.
The only way to fix *anything* here has to start with dismantling/restructuring all the banks. There's no getting around that. Unfortunately, it's possible (personally I think it's so likely as to be guaranteed) that there is not sufficient "money" available to salvage anything of value from the shells of what remains. On the whole PLANET there isn't sufficient money available.
So fuck it. I say we dust off, nuke the entire site from orbit, and float a new currency.
It's the only way to be sure.
my tranches just got real itchy...maybe a rash or two down there...
Aren't there statements -- e-mails and such -- by the banks that sold the securities that they knew that they would not perform. I seem to recall Denninger putting up stories about discussions where it was acknowledged by the banks that 80% of the loans in the securities were no good. If that is the case, but the banks represented the securities as containing mostly performing loans, then the investors should sue the banks for fraud and have the transactions unwound. Also, criminal charges should be brought against anyone who committed fraud.
From what you are saying, it sounds like the banks kept the notes, but sold the investors part of the income that they would collect on said notes. If the notes were not transferred , then shouldn't the banks that made the loans still be holding them and able to foreclose? Also, if the sales of the securities were unwound because of fraud, couldn't the original contracts between the banks and borrowers that were recorded in county records be enforced?
Regarding there not being enough money available to fix this, I agree. But, I think the banks and borrowers both need to be held responsible for the contracts they signed and for any frauds they committed. The borrowers must lose the houses for which they are not paying and the banks must foreclose and sell the houses for whatever they can get so that they can reimburse their depositors. There will be massive losses, but most of the gains were never real to begin with. They were phantom equity based on fraud by both banks and borrowers. Therefore, the banks and borrowers should have had to take those losses -- not the taxpayers.
I was against the bailouts from the start (signing petitions and writing letters starting in '06 and out protesting them in '08) because they were unconstitutional as CONgress had no authority to use public (taxpayer) money to pay off private debts (mortgages). I believe that the banks should have been allowed to go under.
Both banks and borrowers have unclean hands in this case. Neither should be able to benefit from their wrongdoing. The banks should be held responsible for the losses on the risky loans they made and the borrowers should lose the houses for which they are not paying. The only real victims are the taxpayers and future generations who were not party to these transactions, yet are being forced to pay for them.
You're apparently some kind of starry-eyed idealist.
There's no "must" here. You want to fix the problem? Fine, then accept that there's not going to be a solution which satisfies your appetite for "justice." You want to punish the wrongdoers? Fine, then accept "the problem" cannot be fixed and results in the world sucking a whole lot more for the next 20 years or so.
The way fraudulent and insolvent companies are dealt with in a capitalist system is that they are dismantled, their assets are sold off, and creditors then investors get what's left over. Practically speaking, IN THIS CASE, that means all the TBTFs are seized by the FDIC or some company specifically created to deal with this, their loan-books are sold off, their shareholders are wiped out, and if there's *anything* left, it goes to the bondholders.
The only potential catch is that it means the end of the global financial system. (I won't miss it, it would be refreshing to see, but that's not the way the world has been structured for a very long time.)
The folks living in the houses don't even come into that part of the picture at all. The system is destroyed well before any of them start getting calls from the speculators who bought up the banks' loan-books. Maybe the local municipalities could just seize and auction the properties themselves, all those silly property laws be damned. That would at least inflict pain on both the banks AND the non-payors, and could possibly help save some local governments.
It might not go over well, but eggs, omelettes....whatevs.
Laura, you do not invalidate unrecorded assignments... with virtual universal acceptance, you are able to effectuate valid assignments without recording them... that is not the issue (and why county recorders are S.o.L. and fucking stupid for not actually knowing the law before yapping about it).
The issue is whether there was a VALID assignment... e.g. an assignment in blank, not properly notarized (if necessary), not performed at the correct time (probably cured through after acquired title statutes, but maybe not), etc. As a result, you need to retool your hypothethical process... it's close to how the system will naturally work these out... but, needs legal refinement.
In the end, the originators (through having no skin in the game, limited liability, and a lax credit system) likely originated far more bad loans than their remaining assets (probably no longer in business) could absorb. As a result, the chain of assignment/turd stops at the TBTF punchbowl/deepest pockets. They should have taken the losses and been selling/renting these properties to mitigate their losses all along... their problem and they'll start losing more than a few to tax sales. Further, presuming that the loans weren't fraudulent from the start, the originators shouldn't have any liability anyway... presuming the assignments were valid... (however, many assignments never even validly made it to MERS' clusterflock).
idiot, name me one buyer(deadbeat) that had anything to do with MERS.
The banks set that scam up to enable the bigger scam.
By the way, if you would apply any logic you would understand that
if the bank or whomever wants the home they can go get it if they follow the law.
if they don't or can't follow the law, welll i guess they can send in Swat.
clown.
Exactly right. You own your home at closing. You have a contract with a lender...they provide funds to the seller and you agree to payments. To secure their loan, they secure the house as collateral. 99% of the time what happened is you agreed with "Bank A" & MERS. It gets sold who knows how many times. Bank A is made whole in the process. MERS and other parties down the line fuck up the assignments...not exactly the homeowner's problem, is it?
Why don't the banks foreclose?? 1) They don't want to take the loss on their balance sheets and 2) probably because they can't.
+4.2 million
Now that is a #Winning comment. Bingo, bango, bongo.
Free homes for all who signed on the dotted line. The banks already have their money. Let the true owners - if there be any - step up and try to collect.
Boink! Bank is just shorthand for BANKRUPT.
Bookin Closing Fees Bitxhez!!!!
you're exactly right. at closing, you own the home, the bank owns a note from you promising to pay. If you can't, the bank goes to the court, says they have a secured interest in the house, and legal proceedings begin so they can get reimbursed for the money they lent to you. In order to prove an interest, they have to have properly written, signed, and executed legal paperwork. If they don't, through their own fault, they can't foreclose. Why do you think fraudclosure is a big deal? Banks can't prove they have the paperwork, so they went to lawyers willing to forge documents to prove an interest for foreclosures. If they had the proper paperwork, they wouldn't have to have faked it all.
I don't see why people don't accept this.
It seems then people would assume that the bank should just get the property (just because) rather than the homeowner.
Me neither. I guess they don't see the other side of this...the probability that a bank is attempting to foreclose on someone...not because they actually own the debt, but because a note exists...even though nobody, and I mean, nobody, can actually figure out who owns the actual debt.
The other part of this entire debate that gets me is that the initial contracts exist between the lender and the borrower...not society at large. Our wonderful govt. (no, this is not an invitation to start arguing red vs. blue) decided to bail the banks out (which brought society in this)...the majority of the populace didn't want to.
If somebody has a problem with their mortgage (due to either unemployment or faulty assignments/securitization) and decides to stop paying...that's their decision. They'll have to suffer the consequences if the bank can prove its ownership. On the other hand, the bank has to suffer the same consequences if they cannot.
So, when I hear about people being able to stay in their house for 5 years!! without paying the note, it becomes evidently clear that the bank does NOT own the note. Of course, a lot of people just start foaming at the mouth about the "deadbeat" living "rent free" for so long...hilarious.
I guess you never studied contract law, see "unjust enrichment"
The bank should get the house and the bankers should go to the big house.
Let the effing market clear, sell them all at auction.
+1
it's not unjust enrichment you clown.
YOU have to go through the process to determine that.
You the lord and ruler of the universe don't get to decide that.
Why do you hate america? fascist.
imbecile.
Unjust enrichment? Because the lenders fucked up the assignments and securitization? A borrower who refuses to pay a Note because the current lender, whoever they are, are asking for money...without being able to prove ownership of the debt is getting unjustly enriched?? Wrong. They are abiding by the terms of the contract. Whoever they signed the original Note to has already been made whole. If the new Noteholder can prove they own the debt, then they should foreclose. If they can't, they should piss off.
What's required "to have properly written, signed, and executed legal paperwork" varies greatly from state to state. Believe it or not, a foreclosing party does NOT need an original note in quite a few states. One example is Colorado, see Colorado Revised Statutes 38-38-101. Unless a suit finds the statute unconstitutional, it's a substantial hurdle to be tackled by the best attorneys.
Exactly the point I was going to make about ownership. This isn't a rent-to-own situation. As the name suggests, a homeowner OWNS his/her home. The property is used as collateral for the contract to repay the bank. If the lender breaks the contract, there's no longer the need for the lendee to fulfill their end of it.
Isn't it just a matter of whether the loan is properly secured (1st mortgage) vs. unsecured? There is still an outstanding loan in either case, with the only difference being what right the bank has to collect (foreclosure as a secured lender vs. lawsuit as an unsecured lender).
Am I missing something? Knowledgeable answers appreciated.
Thanks.
Couple of possibilities here.
First, and from what I've read, the Note is transferred to a Trust (income stream for the Trust), but the Mortgage Deed isn't because of Trust rules. In this case, the Note has gone from secured to unsecured. Note owner (lender) can try and collect unsecured debt.
Second, faulty assignments for both Deed and Note...in which case it becomes the challenge for the debt owner (and the court) to figure out which bank actually has the power to foreclose. If the originating bank/broker has been made whole, then it's going to be a big problem to foreclose. The originating bank/broker wouldn't foreclose for obvious reasons. If the current bank trying to foreclose can't prove that they were properly assigned the Deed and the Note, then they won't be allowed to foreclose. This is where it becomes difficult for the anyone to gain a clear title. Odds are though, after some time, the homeowner would be given quiet title...if they know enough to ask for it.
"Remember that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have." - Davy Crockett
If you can afford to pay and your mortgage is worth less than 75% (if home prices are only going to drop 25%) of your current estimate of home value, is it worth the risk you could lose the house, incur the expenses of moving and finding a new place for the added savings. From the article, only 1/3 drag on for over 2 years. $1,500 / month payment * 24 months = $36,000 * 1/3 = $12,000.
$12,000 profit vs. potential loss of your house and your equity (if there will be any left you think, etc.)
I certainly take joy in wiping my ass with my Chase mortgage and spending their payment on physical silver.
Underwater Squatter Bitchez!
Seriously, Hugh? I've been reading your comments for a long time, but now you've painted yourself in a very different way. Now you're a self-proclaimed deadbeat, and part of the problem. Too bad.
Can't say you've earned any respect on this...
How many oz's of Ag can I get with respect?
Amen
Take as much as you want. All the Ag or Au in the world won't mean much to you when you're in prison for fraud.
Stop complaining about the cracks in the "system" when you're part of the problem yourself. People like you - people without scruples or ethics - are absolutely no different than the jerks in high places who have done their own part to make this mess we're in. The only difference between "their" attempts to bilk the system for their own gain and "your" attempts are your two different rungs of the ladder.
But keep climbing that ladder, Huge. If you make it to the top one day, you'll already have had plenty of real-world practice of how to screw over your fellow man.
And WHO in the world lives in a 6500 sq.ft. house, anyway? So you bought a McMansion like a sheeple and are now squatting. You're the problem in a nutshell.
And you think setting up a profile on ZH and posting a few comments for us here is going to make you look good somehow?
++
Look at what this guy did.
http://patrick.net/forum/?p=25968
Funny story about bad luck and sticking it to the Banksters. Funny stuff. I know one guy who didn't pay for 18 months and "hide" the money in his Scottrade account.
This might be uber-simplistic, but why is it OK legally and morally for banks to execute strategic defaults and not OK for a homeowner to do the same. Isn't contract law, contract law?
This might be uber-simplistic, but why is it OK legally and morally for banks to execute strategic defaults and not OK for a homeowner to do the same. Isn't contract law, contract law?
This might be uber-simplistic, but why is it OK legally and morally for banks to execute strategic defaults and not OK for a homeowner to do the same. Isn't contract law, contract law?
It's a simple matter of the bandwagon theory. If few people are defaulting, then the lenders can easily handle those cases as they occur. But if a lot of people are defaulting, then it creates a "mob", or "cascade" effect, in which more and more people sense that the lenders are too overloaded with everyone else's cases to have any time to devote to their own. Most people wait to jump on the bandwagon until they see a lot of people already on it.
Classic mob theory...I have a lesser chance of incurring the full effect of the consequences of my decisions (i.e., default) if those in authority aren't paying close attention to me.
It's kind of ironic that the banks thought they were scamming the homeowners with predatory loans. Now that they've created so many victim borrowers that have refused to pay these scam loans and that's created such a drop in real estate that the banks are unwilling to take back the collateral they thought was a sure deal just 4 years ago.
Poetic Justice.
I'm a foreclosure/bankrutpcy attorney in Chicago, and althrough these numbers aren't unheard of, I'd think it is closer to 500 days (especially if you have an attorney to file all the proper defenses). The backlog is just that large that if you don't let your house go in default, you can live rent free for quite some time. Or even better yet, rent your property and get some money out of the situation.
http://www.stevengracelaw.com
Hope & Change.
The Segal's are no victims. They are in the home inspection business and should not have bought a 5 bedroom home. They should be tossed out. Probably hussein voters to boot.
I've been stuck paying rent in a complex for the past 36 months like a sucker...I could have had almost $40,000 extra cash in the bank had I taken these jokers approach. Yet I still drive an older car, pay my taxes, and am punished for doing such a thing. I guess I am the real sucker.
These people should be in jail...or at the very least writing me checks to subsidize my rent. If reading the cnnmoney article in its entirity doesn't makr you mad, nothing will. I guess the only real recourse is to leave this country...if another place will take me. Degree in geology and neither New Zealand nor Canada will take me. Go figure.
Hats off to these folks working the system.
Really? Who do you think will end up paying for their free ride? I can't believe that they are getting away with this. What has happened to the "American Spirit"? I am ashamed that so many of us are even contemplating such selfishness.
So, you think you would NOT end up paying the banks, if the squatter situation wouldn't exist?
Let's look at the big picture here: The banks screwed, screw, and will continue to screw everyone. And you are envious about some being able to screw the banks in return.
My take: EVERYONE should be able to do this - the more the better. Will it destroy the system? Yup, but that's already happening anyways - all it now is about, is balance... so, wealth-transfer.
I love the smell of class warfare in the afternoon. Smells like obfuscation.
Crooks!...kick these fuckers out!
Roy, allow me to present to you the honor of DOUCHE-BAG OF THE DAY.
Your continued use of the word "fuckers" to describe mostly people who are just hanging on by a thread and doing what they must in order to survive, has earned you this honor.
Wear it well, douche-bag, and wear it on your face.
There is plenty of ways to protest against the Bank Cartels, like sitting on your fat ass and not paying a cent on your house, civil disobedience the American way, sit and not do a damn thing. Love it
http://www.youtube.com/user/zedgehero
Down with the TPTB.
Its just transitory.
I read this story yesterday and remember reading the pet statements. Regardless of anything else those people are morons. Concerned about the pet policy? Apparently you don't have your priorities intact. Hence the idiotic (and common) decision to use your house as an ATM.
Looks like we have found the next crop of bigger fools and suckers.
People who continue to pay their mortgage.
<CD raises his hand to indicate his bigger foolishness and suckerhood membership>
I agree. Why the hell do I even pay my mortgage anymore!?
Because you are a nerdy white guy who can't stand up for himself. You're too concerned about rules and laws, while both Pigmen and parasites make their own.
Damn, Hamy. Sounds like you're knockin' a few back today. Cheers.
I pay my mortgage because the value of my house is multiples of the principle owed on the mortgage loan and I don't want to mess with it. People who are underwater on their mortgages are either suckers or fools, and this country is blessed with a surfeit of such folks. I blame TV.
"Why the hell do I even pay my mortgage anymore!?" -
Because if you're earning an income, and like many, may have 2nd/3rd liens (or other), you'll get sued and lose. If not, the yea, why? lol.
@Cog Diss
I guess I belong to this elite group as well. Well, if you believe in the Here After, and that's forever, it's a small price to pay.
so you think God or Peter are going to ask for your mortgage statement before deciding if you can enter Heaven
@Seasmoke
I think God and St. Peter aren't interested in moral equivication and are always concerned with matters of selfishness and lying and stealing.
Bad news for politicians.
Well, then, never mind. Try Ecclesiastes for starters, smartie.
WWJD?
Smack the Shit out of you.
@Go Boom
You are a warped freak. Let me guess, you used to be a pastor at the Church of Botherly Love?
O, now we have a true believer.
funny, maybe the hereafter wants you to bring down the system.
Wouldn't that be rich.
Cognitive Dissonance
I'm right with you in the sucker club.Pay the mortgage. Pay the credit cards too. And the bills, and the pets supplies and vet bills.
I guess we have what used to be known as pride.
What pissed me off was the woman claiming her husband only works 4 days a week. What the fuck does he do the other three? What the fuck does she do?
They should both be working odd jobs for pennies.
It's fucking assholes like that who gives Mexicans a good work ethic rep.
They run a home-inspection company.
You hatin' on small bidness owners now?
welcome to America : land of the thief, home of the deadbeat.
Is it illegal? No? Then those people are as smart as the CEO who moves jobs overseas. Bad for the community, but then, it's his choice and who gives a damn?
Would you think banks foreclosing on people illegally "bad for the community"? Some huge number, like 20% of the homes WOULD BE EMPTY if those fuckers weren't stopped. Would that be "bad for the community"?
All I wanted to say is, as long as it's not illegal, these folks are doing the same as every business owner, large or small. That is, they're making a profit within the limits of the system. It's no different than any business, you see an opportunity and you use it.
empty? really? are we out of people who can AFFORD to purchase houses?
@Nicholaz
Sounds like this was written by a 7-year old.
As they say: on the interwebs nobody knows you're a dog (or a 5-year old).
Bad for the community? In these fucked up times, not at all. The gov will make the community pay for ridiculous spending and bankster-welfare anyways.
Yes, it is a shitty lottery.... but that's the current reality. Join the squatters, or bring down the whole system so that it can be rebuilt as something else than a lottery.
Those who still argue for fairness are stupid. There is no point in playing fair in a system, that rewards unfairness and punishes fairness. All that is left to do, is to exploit the system, and look for ways to replace it with something that rewards fairness.
sorry to be vague, don't want to insinuate that the "homeowners" referenced in above article were "thieves". then again, in many cases, they are living on land that some would consider technically "stolen" in the 1st place:
http://www.bluejersey.com/diary/16022/sand-hill-indians-lawsuit-legal-ti...
so there u go
I realize you may be trolling, but it brought up some thoughts and thought I'd troll back.
Wondering if there were any indigenous neanderthals left in North America, that there would be a lawsuit against the Indians for stealing their land and killing them off? Personally I think the Indians were treated like shit.
Now we have the mixed-breed mestizos of La Raza claiming their genetic and cultural superiority, and want to eliminate the whites. What would happen to the Indigenous Indians? Assuming that whole evolutionary shit is true, it's interesting to ponder. Maybe we're devolving?
Just thinking out loud.
Maybe the human race is doomed with all this dog-eat-dog mentality and moral relativism? I'm going to go with a big yes, we are doomed. Perhaps it's for the best?
Can't we all just get a loan? -Rodney
ed shultz had someone on last night; she was unemployed and looking for a job, unemployment benefits will continue until October. asked if she was willing to relocate in order to find a job the answer was a definite NO....
still long way to the bottom....but we are firmly on the way
only the true sheeple think it was ever different.
in the beginning there was ..........
Why not, the banks have brought it upon themselves. This is just one more way to stick it to them.
http://silverliberationarmy.blogspot.com/
Squatters in homes are probably better than taxpayers paying for a $100M building with no one using it. It isn't in China...
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/7604113.html#ixzz1OtXAdn00
It is no more unfair than the bailouts.
However it is no less unfair.
bailouts and subsidy are wrong.
Haircuts bitches, one way or another. Sorry, could not resist.
BTW, I know on such person. Tried for years to get her mortgage modified. BOA did nothing but runarounds (I listened in on some of the conversations and helped her to draft letters). She finally gave up and told them to just foreclose and take the place, they still do nothing. BOA does not have the original paperwork and she never took my advise to call them on this.
Bunking of America... Had a home equity loan with them and they couldnt even-wouldnt even get the books right. Paid it off. Adios motherfuckers. Dealt with Wells Fargo for ten years, they were okay until around 2008 then because starting addings lots of fees, firing service people who were too client friendly. Fired them, not with a small local bank who are quite decent, friendly, helpful, although somewhat inexperienced-imcompetent in nternational matters like wire transfers.. not that Bunking of America or Wells Fuckyou were all that clever in those matters. Fuck and Hang all those large banks.
Just as well.
It is a stimulus and it keeps houses off the market. Being in 250,000 dollars in mortgage debt and having bought at the top because my wife had to have a house I am very sensitive to the issue.
Wives can be very expensive.
Ask Mr. Gingrich.
you're a moron to have listened to your wife
I igonored mine during that time (who wanted to sell and get a bigger house like everyone else). Of course, this sort of lesson never translates forward. I am currently a moron for thinking that our society is screwed... that it is even remotely possible the system we know will crash at some point. Oh well. Time to go sit in the corner with the pointy hat on for a little longer.
centerline
"I am currently a moron for thinking that our society is screwed... that it is even remotely possible the system we know will crash at some point."
It has crashed, we are no longer shocked nor outraged at the crap we see daily. We accept paramilitary police shooting inocents, we accept children/elderly/and handicapped being abused at airports. We accept politicans blatantly disregarding the laws they create for everyone else, we accept their lack of commitment to not only personal relationships but to their constituents.
We accept the sick and disgusting as "normal", and we are the ones who need medication for questioning any of this.
We medicate our children because we no longer understand how to care for them. We throw our elderly in homes because we can't be burdened with them.
I just read about a Pediatrician who was abusing children for ELEVEN FUCKING YEARS! They would CHOKE AND SUFFOCATE!
Where is the fucking mob marching to nail his cock to the street?
The crash is right here right now.
+ 1 rotten core
I am pussy whipped.
A slave to my dick
topcallingtroll
I'm just the opposite.
I am a dick to my slave and whip the pussy.
No, he's a moron for marrying a woman who "had to have a house."
My pal W.C. Fields once opined, "Marry an outdoors-woman. When you kick her out, she'll be able to survive."
If your wife were bi and liked sharing you with her girlfriends you would buy her whatever damn thing she wanted too.
He's a moron for picking a moron for a wife.
Banks also do not have to recognize the loss immediately. Continued mark-to-fantasy. The capital "bleeding" via loss of income stream on those loans is a slower death than the sudden write-down when the house is auctioned off. Not mention the maintenance, liability, etc. I'll bet homeowners associations are having a field day slamming banks - and in some states might have recourse to take the homes themsleves. A regualr free-for-all.
yep, these idiots that think the market is going to clear so they
can make out on their purchase in the last 20 years other than in very select areas
are fools.
Well, let's start with the question who designed the edifice that has turned into a clusterfuck that now renders anyone who makes payments on the basis of defective title documents a sucker or a fool?
williambanzai7 for the win!
Agree.
The Architect?
Even the Architect needed "The One" to balance the system equations.
Nope, can't go there , wouldn't be proper.
nope nope nope and 1000X nope .
I suppose the other side of that coin is that I agreed to buy my house within my means. You see, I sought the agreement! Now, cuz everyone else is looting, I should loot too? I suppose I should have made out with a new T.V. in L.A., circa 1992 as well..
If you don't get the fact that a majority the world's people are complicit in the ponzi, then we don't stand much of a chance at renewal.
Reagan was right; there is a trickle down ...
It just not how he thought ... what does trickle down is the mindest of those on top of the food chain: Cater to your own interest, if necessary with the help of a lawyer. If there's some profit to be made (or some expense to be saved) without being illegal, go for it, it's the American way.
+ 1 McMansion
funny. looks like as in RUSSIA in 90x..
after USSR collapsed in 90x Russian gov allowed each citizen 'privatize' own flat.. it wasnt much, mostly 30-50 sq meters, but yet place to live and dont need pay for it..
and upto now there's almost no mortgage debt in Russia..
housing is too expensive at least 1,000-2000$ per sq m, but avg aalary is $500-600 per month
most people still live in old rusty flats (basically it look like socialized housing in inner cities across USA), but free of debt..
alx
After a few shots of the cheap vodka, the place doesn't look so bad.
i heard is all due to economics
Further more why pay taxes if the marginal cost of printing more fiat to fund the ponzi is near Zero.....shld just have a general strike pay no taxes or interest.....that'll get the blood sukking sociopaths attention.
Ja, mon. Right-ontinsky !
General strike. Nationalize the Fed. RESET
Jubilee
What? DWTS and Idol might be cancelled?
Ahhh, forget it ... Pass the bong
Sigh, big sigh. ... Man, this shit is good!
Big banks have been been living of taxpayers welfare for decades. It's about time the taxpayers get relief. Shame on those who have been making their payments timely.
It's okay not to pay your mortgage but God forbid you don't pay your student loan?
ZeroHedge/TylerDurden: TIME "entity" of the year. There is no equal.
I would bet quite a few people are paying a mortgage payment to lenders where the paperwork is missing ... they'll have a surprise on the 30 year of paying won't they?
Everybody should realize paying a mortgage only makes sense if you have a lot of equity and intend to stay in the same house until you die. If you have a lot of equity the bank will be prompted to TRY to foreclose if you stop paying. You COULD be kicked out. But if you are thinking of moving and have to sell, you may have a defective title and be UNABLE to sell at any price.
Therefore paying a bank to perpetuate a FRAUD is not only personally counterproductive but IMMORAL as well.
The MORAL way is not to perpetuate the fraud; refusing to fund it is the moral high road.
This is the same moral reasoning behind the precept that parents should NOT give their kids money for booze and drugs when they are underage, no???
"I like the way you think. I'm going to be keeping an eye on you"
Sam Kinison
I have no problem with a homebuyer ditching an underwater mortgage because they were forced to play in the Fed/Wall Street Home Ownership Casino. These people did not choose to overpay 50-100% for the property as I'm pretty sure if they offered fair value they would have been laughed off premises.
But once you've stopped paying, you should get out. Ditch the home and mortgage and get on with your life.
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????
No anger, baby. Left anger long ago. Now just sitting quietly in the corner, keeping score, smoking my pipe and cleaning my new Circuit Judge (.45 LC. 300 grain, 3200 fps), and waiting. Life is good and will only get better.
hear ya there Cossack, everything is so FUBAR anyway. None of this ends well for those who aren't prepared. Doesn't end well for many who are prepared too.
I would change the word "Squatters" in that headline to "Bankster Fraud Victims." I passed my one year anniversary of making no mortgage payment two months ago. My fraudclosure case is tied up in Arizona federal court against Chase Bank. The Bank doesn't really care about closing the case because they have already been paid on the default by you other suckers -- whoops, meant to say, taxpayers. Yes, truly, anybody who continues making payments on any mortgage whose title had been improperly transferred during the great MBS bubble is actually CONTRIBUTING TO, and is then an ACCOMPLICE IN, the perpetual mortgage un-security bank fraud. Please see this other ZH article that was posted last week on the Ethics of Walking Away.
http://amvona.com/blog/economics/14031-on-the-ethics-of-mortgage-loan-default.html
you aren't a victim, you deadbeat fuckstick.
You're as much a perpetrator as the bank. You're not entitled to shit because they have bad documents.
Every person like you AND the banksters is looking to get something for nothing and cheering when it happens. The entire lot of you is irredeemably pathetic
Send your fucking check to the government then...they paid off your mortgage...I paid off your fucking mortgage!
you know what I'm doing when I pay my mortgage? (other than paying for the reasonable use of the land). I'm paying what I PROMISED to pay... simple as that.
I'm not an accomplice in anything other than being honorable.
i cant think of better, quicker and safer way to topple the banks then if everyone just stopped paying their mortgages (and dare i say taxes as well)......and yet people are still AFRAID to so, even with the mounting evidence all around them
dumbass...they are all insured.
Ever hear of AIG? They insured all those securitized mortgages that went bust and needed a bailout in 2008 because of too many claims.
Even insurance assumes a low percentage of redemptions.
AIG was not ensuring titles, they were ensuring SWAPS and CDOs. Ok, no more free education. Go squat.
Thanks for avoiding the point I made. Nice job scumbag!
Donald Trump x (b,t) millions
Current & Currency
They just sprung the trap on me … for the last time. Ooooh, I’m frightened. I’m frightened. Ok, so, that’s the beginning, middle, and end of my job. If the media bothers you, don’t look. Just do your f***ing job. They killed Galileo, and the rest, for refusing to save them from themselves. No one can save others from themselves. Don’t take that bait. Look at how fast evolution was accelerated by simple, stupid dc machines.
Where there is efficient waste, there is gravity, ready for use. Remember, you are drilling a tap; let your most adroit electrons go first. The others will follow. It’s simple math, voltage times amperage. Build your rough adjuster/tuner with simple math, and then dial in your integral adjusters with more complex math. It’s all the same (loop). Let the machine worry about the dimensions as much as possible. Just get the tap started; if your feedback mechanism is adjusting properly, the rest will take care of itself. Resist the urge to over-adjust, which you will see immediately, if you have an instrument for each stage. Account for the affect of the instrument (cluster).
So, the talented kid is placed at the bottleneck to show them how to solve their problems, and gets fired for the trouble, getting hit by the revolving door on the way out, when they are satisfied that the ponzi accounting numbers in their pension accounts will rise accordingly. They are printing money/credit to make payroll, taking out pension contributions, and offsetting the debt creation with the confiscated pension contributions. Do critters get any dumber than that? Yes.
Now that it is Tuesday, and the bill for all those hamburgers is due, with interest and penalties, they are increasingly throwing their scapegoats in front of the train, hoping to slow it down, which is accelerating regardless, igniting bigger and bigger logs (recycle), which they stored, of all places, next to the incinerator.
The algebraic reduction part of the system is automatic. You are provided with orbiting homogeneous filters, delay mechanisms, and your machine will apply a gravity of its own, pulling in the final alignment, at an acceleration beyond expectation. Whether you end up with a sun or a gamma ray depends upon your adjustment. My best guestimate is that you could bring it into equilibrium at around 9 billion, but that depends upon 7 billion interactions. You only need a few hundred million. That’s a huge margin for error, so there is no need to even think about being nervous. That’s an instrument affect.
That natural gas ping was classic by the way. The boys at GE must have liked that. Keep drilling. Quantum physics is like a concrete fastener and you are employing gravity as the pry bar. When it pops, you want to do something with the backlash. A closed system naturally induces leverage, which is why the price of oil exploded with a small decrease in expected demand on the margin, when it reached saturation. It is “hovering” around $100, which is igniting the next log.
Well with MSM spin this HAS to be bullish for stocks... all that money they're not paying their mortgages with MUST be buying iPads!
Strategically defaulting on one's mortgage debt makes sense, like Wal(k) Street bankers, it's just a "business" decision.
I agree...but let the fucking market clear, get them out of the house, collapse the banks, and let life go on.
As things stand the participants who drove the ponzi out of their OWN GREED on both sides are being allowed to perpetuate the fraud.
Let the prices find their equilibrium and let these deadbeat squatters bid on them or pay rent like the responsible people do. And let the banks and banksters get hanged or go bankrupt or both.
Repeating the same thing over and over won't make it happen, and you know it.
The market will never be allowed to find its equilibrium and the banks will never be allowed to fail as long as there is money in the bailout crate.
Exactly my thoughts. And I even like the "moral" side, since on the other side of the deal is the so called smart money who in the past never had any problem making strategic business decisions. If you can't stand the squatters, don't robosign mortgages.
Who's paying the insurance incase that fucker burns down or something? What about taxes?
===============================================
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."
===============================================
She works for a financial organisation, and she owes more than $600,000 on a property worth $235,000. I think you might be in the wrong line of work, darlin'. You're not cut out for this money management stuff.
and like every other deadbeat "victim," she ATM'd her house out the yin yang. Not her fault, though, right? She was entitled to the free money.