Owners Stop Paying Mortgages, and Stop Fretting

[n2doc]

By DAVID STREITFELD
Published: May 31, 2010

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. — For Alex Pemberton and Susan Reboyras, foreclosure is becoming a way of life — something they did not want but are in no hurry to get out of.

Alex Pemberton and Susan Reboyras stopped paying the mortgage on their house in St. Petersburg, Fla., last summer.
Foreclosure has allowed them to stabilize the family business. Go to Outback occasionally for a steak. Take their gas-guzzling airboat out for the weekend. Visit the Hard Rock Casino.

“Instead of the house dragging us down, it’s become a life raft,” said Mr. Pemberton, who stopped paying the mortgage on their house here last summer. “It’s really been a blessing.”

A growing number of the people whose homes are in foreclosure are refusing to slink away in shame. They are fashioning a sort of homemade mortgage modification, one that brings their payments all the way down to zero. They use the money they save to get back on their feet or just get by.

This type of modification does not beg for a lender’s permission but is delivered as an ultimatum: Force me out if you can. Any moral qualms are overshadowed by a conviction that the banks created the crisis by snookering homeowners with loans that got them in over their heads.

“I tried to explain my situation to the lender, but they wouldn’t help,” said Mr. Pemberton’s mother, Wendy Pemberton, herself in foreclosure on a small house a few blocks away from her son’s. She stopped paying her mortgage two years ago after a bout with lung cancer. “They’re all crooks.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/01/business/01nopay.html

[Vinca]

1. The airboat? The casino? Call me old fashioned, but I'd be selling

stuff to pay the mortgage . . . even if I was under water.

[AllentownJake]

2. Business decision

If you are underwater, depending on how far underwater it isn't much of a decision outside of sentimentality.

Hell the corporations are doing it all over the place with commercial real estate. Why should households behave any differently.

[laughingliberal]

30. True. We've struggled for over 2 years to stay out of foreclosure

and are barely surviving. Our home dropped another 5% in value last month now putting it at $60,000 less than we owe. We're doing some serious thinking about ditching it.

[Capt. Jack]

130. Play the Exciting, New, REALITY Game show - Foreclosure of the Week!

Welcome to the debut episode of a new and exciting reality game show!

This idea came about when I was reviewing this long list of properties up for auction, shaking my head in great disbelief over this weekly abomination in one county, in one state.

Contestants! Are you ready?

{Cue theme music from The Shining}

FORECLOSURE OF THE WEEK!
This ain't no Candyland game.

Each week, right here in our own Foreclosure Hamlet, we'll be randomly picking a recent foreclosure, plucked right out of the public records, and doing a little check into the background of that specific foreclosure. Doubt that we'll ever find anything not quite on the up-n-up, but in the event that we do........well, then a check of the court file might be in order! Some fellow internet sleuths might want to join in on the fun and games to help solve some of the mystique and intrigue that defines whole of the Foreclosure Catastrophe.

Contestants may use any of the following tools at their disposal:

* court dockets
* court files
* documents recorded with the county clerk's office
* property appraiser's records
* MERS MIN Look Up Tool
* Freddie Mac Look Up Tool
* Fannie Mae Look Up Tool
* the whole of the internet
*

*

So without further ado........................

The Foreclosure of the Week The DeLima home


FROM PROPERTY APPRAISER WEBSITE:
All Sales
Sales Date Book/page Price Sale Type Owner
Jun-2009 $142,000 WARRANTY DEED STORKEL KURT
May-2009 $100 CERT OF TITLE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON
Aug-2005 $349,900 WARRANTY DEED DELIMA DANIEL
Jul-2001 $150,000 WARRANTY DEED FILHO TRAJANO C
Jul-1995 $113,000 WARRANTY DEED
May-1988 $106,000 WARRANTY DEED
Dec-1986 $95,000 WARRANTY DEED


FROM OFFICIAL RECORDS WEBSITE
Here are DeLima's original mortgages that were recorded on 9/13/09, his Lis Pendens filed on 10/15/09 and then his judgment filed on 3/24/09.
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC 09/13/2005 MTG
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC 09/13/2005 MTG
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUSTEE 10/15/2008 LP
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUSTEE 03/24/2009 JUD

Looking at the documents, DeLima purchased the home for (2005 Sept 13 Dilima 349.9K.pdf) $349,900 on 8/9/2009. He was given two mortgages to total 100% of the purchase price. I know many people who were given their home financing this way, without ever receiving a clear explanation from their mortgage brokers.

8/9/2005 (2005 Aug 9 279.9K.pdf) First Mortgage MERS as Nominee for SouthStar Funding for $279,900 (apparently an ARM)

8/9/05 (2005 Aug 9 70K.pdf) Second Mortgage MERS as Nominee for SouthStar Funding for $70,000 (apparently a HELOC)

10/7/08 (2008 Oct 7 LP.pdf) Lis Pendens was filed on the First Mortgage

10/7/08 Foreclosure suit was filed on for the first mortgage _______ (will have to check the court file to get the exact amount for which DeLima was being sued.

10/11/08 DeLima was served

1/12/09 Default entered (DeLima did not respond in any way to the complaint)

3/16/09 Summary Judgment Granted

3/19/09 Bank filed "Loan Documents" with the court. I'll have to check the court file to see if that's some cute euphemism for the "Original Note"?

22 NOF - NOTICE OF FILING
Filing Date: 19-MAR-2009
Filing Party: BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON,
Disposition Amount:
Docket Text: LOAN DOCUMENTS

3/19/09 (2009 Mar 16 Delima Judgment first mort 349K.pdf) Final Judgment Entered for $347,712.36 (? I'm not quite sure how the total judgment amount got to be this high! The (2005 Aug 9 279.9K.pdf) original first mortgage in 2005 was for $279,900. Contestants, click the link and let's figure that out!)

5/12/09 Home sold at "auction" (2009 May 13 Title to Bank by Foreclosure 100 dollars.pdf) to Bank for $100

7/17/09 (2009 July 17 Storkel 142K.pdf) Home sold to new owner for $142K. Wow! Superfast turn around time in this overloaded market! And, lookie at that free fall of value! Hmmmm, wonder about the 2005 appraisal?

I'm a little confused by the second page of the new Mortgage though. Contestants, again, please help me out.

Okay, follow along with me here:

Plaintiff was The Bank of New York Mellon Formerly Known as the Bank of New York as Successor Trustee to JP Morgan Chase Bank NA as Trustee for Structured Asset Mortgage Investments III Trust 2005-AR7 Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2005-AR7 (WHEW! Contestants, please allow me to use "Plaintiff" instead of typing that out each time I refer to the foreclosing entity.)

Plaintiff got the title.

Then, EMC Mortgage Corporation "as attorney in fact for", which I *think* is a mortage servicer company, executes (2009 July 17 Storkel 142K.pdf) the new Deed to the new owner.

EMC, a Delaware Corporation per their corporate seal, executed this document in Dalton, Texas. The document was prepared by Sunbelt Title Agency in Clearwater, Florida. The deed is for a property in Boca Raton, Florida. The Plaintiff is a New York entity and was represented on this deed by a Vice President, Terence Free, who apparently flew to Texas to execute this document. I mean, it sounds awfully messed up, but it's gotta be clean because......well, we all know that it's a 2nd degree felony to fool around with recorded mortgages.

817.545 Mortgage fraud.–

(2) (d) Files or causes to be filed with the clerk of the circuit court for any county of this state a document involved in the mortgage lending process which contains a material misstatement, misrepresentation, or omission.

(5)(a) Any person who violates subsection (2) commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(b) Any person who violates subsection (2), and the loan value stated on documents used in the mortgage lending process exceeds $100,000, commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.


I'm sure this makes perfect sense to all of you in the know out there in Blogosphere! Of course, I'm sure there's a reasonable explanation, right?

Please!

Quick!

Enlighten me!

Play along here...it's interactive. The sad part is...it's a REAL case!

http://www.foreclosurehamlet.org/profiles/blog/show?id=4164911%3ABlogPost%3A1096&commentId=4164911%3AComment%3A1122

[hobbit709]

4. They might get more sympathy from me

If they ditched the airboat and Casino trips.
I know people who lost their houses and they didn't have that kind of lifestyle, and still don't.

[RadiationTherapy]

10. Sympathy from who, again?

One of the reasons poor people are poor is this irrational sense of financial self-flagellation in order to maintain some sort of "honor" between themselves and the corporations who screw them over.

Why should corporations be the only dysfunctional ones? We need a new economy and trailblazers like people in the OP are demonstrating that there IS NO HONOR in our economy.

[AllentownJake]

13. I was talking about Moral Hazard a year ago

There it is ladies and gentleman on the micro level. On a macro level, the bailouts and other actions of the government over the past two years has pretty much guaranteed a destruction of capitalism...as it is based on trust.

Self compliance with rules and regulations is gone for both the corporations and the people. The only structure left to ensure compliance is fear of punishment.

[charlie]

64. And THAT is unnerving

Like air, trust is an essential no one notices unless it's gone. We'll regret our disregard for our social capital.

[RadiationTherapy]

76. Another trust gone: long-term career relationships.

Capitalism breeds distrust between employer and employee at this late stage and so there is no "25 year employee with a pension" anymore. Companies do not value and reward long-term 'team members' and employees have little loyalty beyond their own self-interests.

[Dappleganger]

82. We learned that lesson rather quickly when NAFTA was signed into law

by Clinton.

No company loyalty, period. I'm convinced that employers lay off people with statements from HR detailing each employees' individual cost to the company, including their health insurance costs.

[RadiationTherapy]

89. My brother had malignant cancer at age 24.

The company he worked for called him into a meeting. He could resign, or everyone's premiums go up. He left. His "honor" was telling him not to burden his fellow workers with his costs. He got the treatments on state insurance in 1997.

[Dappleganger]

104. I'm sorry about your brother.

One wonders how these rats sleep at night when they pull shit like that, you know??

:hug:

[RadiationTherapy]

111. Well, the insurance company bullied this surgical tools company

and they bullied my brother. Bullies thrive in environments that lack honor. "Whaddaya gonna do, ya know?"

[wolfgangmo]

136. Well....

Some people have decided to fight back. Maybe we should vote for (Ayn) Rand Paul and just let John Wayne justice rule the land.


If the crooks on Wall Street (I'm lookin at you Blankfein) never pay the law for their crimes, then maybe we need a new sheriff in town.

[Raineyb]

184. Vote for Rand Paul? Not on a bet nor a dare.

That racist fuckwit would turn the clock back on civil rights if given a chance.

[Scout]

141. company loyalty was gone WAAAAAY before Clinton and NAFTA

can't pin that on him. :eyes:

[closeupready]

144. It started with Reagan firing air traffic controllers; that said, "you don't have to honor commitmen

commitments to employees - fire away!"

[laughingliberal]

166. Yep. eom

[Blue_Tires]

113. +1

[closeupready]

27. Yes, there is no honor in our capitalist economy.

There are single actors here and there who ARE honorable, and thank God for them, but the rule is 'honor costs money, and therefore, it's too bad but you gotta be dishonorable.'

That people condemn little people who behave 'dishonorably' just goes to show you how fucked up people are today.

[RadiationTherapy]

79. Absolutely. Your post is almost an air-tight case for why companies are not 'people'.

We are divided and conquered by millions of tiny debts we feel emotionally obligated to address, while companies see only the logical necessity of 'being dishonorable' in a classical, humanitarian sense.

[intheflow]

134. If they're taking their mortgage money to the casino,

they're just trading one corporate screw-over for another. I'd have more sympathy here if they were buying gold and sewing it into the lining of their coats. And I'm talking as someone who's pretty much walked way from my $100K in student loan debt just to survive on my sub-standard paychecks. I sure as hell aren't taking what little money I have and gambling with it!

[Dappleganger]

12. Try doing that for two years.

Or 3. Or 5 years.

They STILL would be underwater with nothing left in their pockets and a miserable life if they did what you're suggesting. You have to live in those horrible real estate pockets to understand that 'waiting until the market recovers' means at least a DECADE or more, according to the best reports we're hearing down here.

[AllentownJake]

14. Try never

anyone paying their mortgage on an underwater house in that region is a sucker.

[laughingliberal]

33. Same with our region. Nevada is never coming back. nt

[Matariki]

159. Question why the NYT chose these particular people in foreclosure to write abbout

and why they needed to use language like 'gas-guzzling airboat'. Given the many people in forclose whose stories are less 'luxury filled'.

Sort of like characterizing people on public assistance as "Welfare Queens driving Cadillacs". You have to examine the motives a the people creating that picture in the public mind.

[Hannah Bell]

167. yep.

[Matariki]

177. The NYT certainly elicited the reaction they were after, as evidenced in this very thread.

I'd sort of expect a bit more critical thinking from people here. Silly me.

[AllentownJake]

3. The banks are bankrupt

If they recognized 25% of these losses most of the big boys would go under the next day.

Hell if they recognized just the 2nd liens that are completely worthless at what the true value is they all collapse.

We are witnessing a great cover-up by the Fed and Treasury to try to forestall reality.

It will eventually come crashing in and be more expensive if we would have just let them fail and restructured 2 years ago, and Obama owns it and deserves to own it.

[fasttense]

5. Glad to hear some of the middle class are benefiting from the unintended consequences

of bailing out corrupt and bankrupted bank/Wall Street/insurance firms. If the federal government had used the money they threw at the banksters and the money the Fed pumps into their coffers daily, to pay off the mortgages everyone would be solvent by now.

Seems the banksters are benefiting from the unintended consequences of crashing the economy, why shouldn't some middle class folks also benefit?

Good for them, I hope more people do the same thing.

[leftofcool]

18. Will they benefit when they are finally forced to move and

are not credit worthy to even rent a small apt? Just sayin'

[gorfle]

21. Maybe so.

We had a new home built 2 years ago. Homes in this neighborhood were built at about $100 a square foot.

Today, they are building homes in this neighborhood at $51 a square foot. My home is probably worth $100K less than when I bought it.

If I quit paying my mortgage for 2 years, I would save about $48,000. I would pay off all my debts in 6 months, and in 2 years have over $30K in cash in the bank.

Bad credit or not, I would be in the most financially solvent position I've ever been in my life.

I bet with $30K in the bank I could get an apartment - even if I had to pay 6 months of rent in advance.

[closeupready]

28. If you look at rental listings all over the US, "bad credit OK!" is routine.

Just sayin'

[wolfgangmo]

137. The time is swifty coming when a credit report will be worth less

than the paper it is printed on.

[Hawkeye-X]

172. my credit is in the shitter

And I am doing ok. Haven't applied for a new cc, but with the credit scores in the mid 500s they won't lend me money. So we will be planning a major screw on the cc companies very soon and settle on all our debts.

[laughingliberal]

43. A-freaking-men! eom

[closeupready]

6. I don't necessarily support this, but this is how people naturally respond to crookedness -

with crookery. When you have a corrupt political system, the little people become themselves corrupt, out of necessity and a need just to survive.

I neither support nor condemn what they are doing. Whatever they need to do, within the law.

[JoDog]

7. I'm OK

with them using the money to shore up their business, but the boat and the casino? Please. Strengthen the business, then sock the rest of the money away for a new place once the foreclosure moves forward.

[proud2BlibKansan]

8. I don't have a mortgage and I can't afford an airboat.

How about a story about REAL people who are having trouble paying their mortgage? This one does nothing to create sympathy for people in this impending foreclosure situation.

[Occulus]

84. We've HAD those posted here for over a year now

Remember the big dustup over people demanding banks "produce the note" when attempting to foreclose? And we still had people here at DU condemning them because they were, in essence, getting a "free house". Well, DUH, they were- the banks couldn't prove they held the mortgage when the paper was demanded of them, and their foreclosure attempts were halted in their tracks.

Then there were the stories of ordinary people coming to their homes to find foreclosure notices tacked to their doors when they actually owned the house free and clear, with no mortgage of any kind to anyone! Of course, they will end up getting the value of the home- probably the bank's own estimation of the value- from the bank in punitive damages when they sue.

Those stories have appeared here periodically for quite a while now. The difference this time is that people are applying sound business principles to their own finances, and they're discovering that the entire "this isn't moral" sack of shit attitude is really doing them demonstrable, lasting, crippling financial harm, and if they want to survive at all, the best option is to simply abrogate the agreement they have with their banks.

Given the behavior of said banks, well- I believe we call this karma, or chickens coming home to roost, lying in the bed one made, and etc. I feel a hell of a lot sorrier even for this couple you're complaining about than I ever will for the bank that holds their mortgage.

[Dappleganger]

114. Excellent post. nt

[Manifestor_of_Light]

188. real estate transactions are not legal unless they are in writing.

If the bank can't produce the deed and the note, they are screwed.

This is basic old English contract law known as the Statute of Frauds. Certain contracts must be in writing to be enforceable.

Simple, really. :D

[SOS]

92. It's the New York Times

A Wall Street media outlet.
It is typical for this paper.
Of the millions underwater, suffering and ruined, the Times finds someone with an airboat.

When it comes to issues of labor and capital, the Times will always side with capital.

[Occulus]

118. You caught that too, huh?

More and more people are considering this, so they picked a less-than-sympathetic object for the article.

Typical.

[BreweryYardRat]

171. Exactly. It's the same old divide and conquer strategy.

Millions of legitimately poor people being forced into foreclosure just to survive...and the Times makes their example a pair of greedy upper-middle-class assholes who stopped paying just for the hell of it.

[Gormy Cuss]

117. This was an article carefully crafted to make the reader side with the poor lenders.

Why? Maybe because the stop-paying phenomenon is growing so quickly that people in power are afraid of the consequences.

[laughingliberal]

173. Heh! Like that'll work. People in the depression cheered for the bank robbers. nt

And I hope the people in power are getting nervous. Why should we have all the fun of worrying about the future?

[Gormy Cuss]

187. I'd laugh, but it's really not funny

when I think of how close to the Great Depression conditions again.

[crazyjoe]

9. what about the property taxes? I can see saying FU to the bank

but not your local community.

[AllentownJake]

11. If the taxes are based on previous inflated values

I'd have no problem saying FU to the local government till they moved the property value to real value for taxes.

[leftofcool]

19. But, in many counties in many states they evaluate only

every 4 years. So if you are taxed on 300K for a home, you are going to be taxed on that same amount for 3 more years until it is re evaluated even if the value is down to only 150K. What's worse, is that county accessors get to do the evaluating. Sucks a big one!

[laughingliberal]

35. A huge issue here. With a lot of homes having dropped 50% in value, people are getting pissed

County assessors were not even looking at it until people stared raising hell. Now they are 'working on it.'

[roguevalley]

186. local govs can foreclose and sell your house out from under you

for property taxes. i would rather fight with a bank.

[gorfle]

22. If I'm having hard times the government should have hard times, too.

what about the property taxes? I can see saying FU to the bank but not your local community.

If I'm having hard times then the government should have hard times, too.

[KittyWampus]

26. good. so if you're having a heart attack maybe the EMT's will be laid off and never arrive.

[gorfle]

29. If things get that hard that is exactly what will happen.

A government with no income will have to cut back on services.

I have to cut back on my spending when times are hard, so will the government. Either that or go plunder the rich folks to pay for services.

[wolfgangmo]

138. I vote for plundering the idle elite.

[laughingliberal]

38. I don't have any health insurance so I wouldn't call them, anyway. Just hope the MI kills me. nt

[uncle ray]

67. they are helping their community.

by not paying their mortgage they actually have money in their pockets to spend at local businesses, therefore actually helping keep the local economy afloat. their community probably benefits more from them not paying property taxes.

[dixiegrrrrl]

15. Not payig the mortgage can result in instant foreclosure

in our state. 90 days to be exact. We do not have judicial foreclosure laws.
Unfortunately, this means challenging the bank to prove ownership of the mortgage does not delay losing the house.

[laughingliberal]

42. I spoke with our mortgage company a while back. They said the whole procedure could be 12-18 mos. nt

[stray cat]

16. No rent for a year - I could save almost 20,000 almost enough for a downpayment on a house

[zipplewrath]

17. But probably couldn't get the loan

This is a short term solution to a long term problem.

There's a decision to be made for people who are severely underwater on their property, and foreclosure can be the "right" decision. But it comes with some realities, like you probably won't be able to get another mortgage for the better part of 7 years or more. Now, if you are in a home that probably won't come anywhere near its purchased price for 10 years or more (they're predicting 15 around here) it may make alot of sense. But the money you AREN'T spending on the mortgage definitely should get plowed into some sort of investment or long term strategy.

And if you are that underwater, the bank may actually recognize that they aren't much better off evicting you, than they would be writing off some of the principal, which ultimately could be better for everyone.

[Statistical]

20. Depending on the state the bank can come after that 20K.

Make sure you put it somewhere protected (like retirement account which are immune to seizures).

Also foreclosure stays with you a long time and (state depending) bank will sell off a collection account equal to the difference between mortgage principle and what they get in foreclosure.

So if you have a $250K mortgage, hose is worth $220K, bank sells it at forcelosure for $200K.

You get
a) foreclosure on your credit report for next decade.
b) collections account in the tune of $50K (bank loss) on your credit report for 7 years.

Just make sure you don't need credit for anything because you won't get it. Might even find it hard to get someone to rent you a place.

[laughingliberal]

46. If it's already been spent to pay down other debt, it's not there for them to get it.

We've now lived without credit for over 2 years. It's not the end of the world. Tough for us at our age but younger people can survive a BK and start over. Not easy but neither is paying for a house that's never going to be worth it.

[LisaL]

31. What do you think it would do to your credit? Who would give

you a loan?

[Dappleganger]

36. People with good credit are not being treated very well right now...

the incentive to maintain the 'good' standing has pretty much been flushed down the toilet.

[closeupready]

39. Give me a break. People are not THAT dumb. This is a question you think about

before defaulting or filing bankruptcy.

[wolfgangmo]

139. Spoken like someone still clinging to the toilet bowl.

And wondering why anyone would choose not to stay grasping the edge.

Sorry darlin' but if getting another loan is your primary concern then you aren't underwater or in hard times. People in foreclosure are losing everything. More people are losing jobs. Insurance. Homes. Loved ones. And your primary concern is your next loan?

[laughingliberal]

176. Yep. By the time people are in this shape, their credit rating is generally shot, anyway. nt

[cbdo2007]

23. Lender should take them to court.

If people genuinely can't afford their mortgage then this is ok but if they aren't doing everything they can to afford their mortgage then they are pulling off a scam.

It's true the MOST of the time the bank won't take them to court to recoup costs but I'm sure a lot of people are still going to get sued over their mortgages/forclosures and it's going to come back and bite them.

[Dappleganger]

34. Show me where banks and investment firms are not walking away from

properties which are heavily underwater without blinking an eye or losing sleep about it. Do we give THEM the moral third degree as well for making business decisions based upon their bottom line?? Hell, no.

Some states like FL do have the right to sue, but for the most part they are not doing it because there is such a backlog of cases as it stands and there is a time limitation on the process itself.

[cbdo2007]

51. Yes, I think they should be held accountable as well.

Nice try though letting the "couple next door" get away with anything just because some big bad company is doing worse.

But you do bring up a good point of why they should be scared. Many of these people walk away from their mortgages and think after 3-6 months they're in the clear and off the radar. Wrong! There is a huge backlog of cases here and the banks are deciding who to go after based on if there are any assets to gain. Most people who get foreclosed on really don't have anything so suing them would do no good. On the other hand, if this couple has some $15,000 boat, the mortgage company knows that and they're going to jump to the top of the list to get sued because the bank knows there's money there to be had.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

131. The "bank" doesn't want a boat or any other non-cash asset.

A friend of mine filed BK a year ago. I held her hand through the process and sat in on the attorney meetings. The attorney laughed when I mentioned she had equity in her car and it might be in jeopardy. The attorney said the banks are so inundated with their OWN liened assets that they don't want to take someone else's assets to park in a warehouse and pay storage fees on until they sell it.

The bank would have to spend a ton of money to sue, get a judgment, identify assets, seize the boat, re-title the boat, store the boat and sell the boat at auction.

In the mean while, the couple can spend 900 bucks and file Chapter 7 and tell the bank to cram it.

[sinkingfeeling]

24. Why America is collapsing, Stop paying what you owe and go have fun.

[closeupready]

25. Yeah. If they'd incorporated, they probably could have gotten a government bailout.

Since they did not incorporate, throw them in jail.

[gorfle]

32. What is good for the fucking goose is good for the fucking gander.

Why America is collapsing, Stop paying what you owe and go have fun.

Look, if a corporation suddenly found itself over its head it would cut jobs without even thinking twice about it. Nothing personal, buddy, it's just business.

Now it's true that nobody is owed a job, but the mentality is the same. "Fuck the consequences, I can't afford this anymore so I'm cutting the expense."

If it's good for the goose it's good for the gander.

[Statistical]

37. I think it is more what is bad for the goose is bad for the gander.

:) and :(

[closeupready]

40. Not only that, they would go right ahead with end of year bonuses. Exactly what happened

with AIG, Goldman Sachs and all the rest.

[laughingliberal]

49. Exactly! I don't see the Banksters and Wall Street execs changing their life styles.

Our government handed them our money and did not require them to do a damned thing to help the people they destroyed. They are living the good life on our dime and I have no sense of moral obligation about any of it any more.

People are starting to figure it out, now.

[closeupready]

58. Totally agree. In a simpler time many years ago, people did feel such obligations.

But the conditions that underwrote that social contract have long since been abandoned by corporations and those who run the institutions of American capitalism - banks, Wall Street, mortgage companies, etc.

Condemning what these people have done seems very "What's the Matter With Kansas?" to me.

[laughingliberal]

60. I did. Talk about feeling like a sucker, now. nt

[gorfle]

110. Me too. nt

.

[cbdo2007]

54. These excuses are ridiculous - companies get away with stuff so there shouldn't be laws or rules

anymore for anyone because the banks and Walmart are always doing worse.

I hope these people get sued for every last dime.

[wolfgangmo]

148. Well this is America so you will get your wish.

They will get sued and they will have nothing. It's happening every day in America to more and more folks.

So you get your wish. "Dear God, please fuck as many poor people as possible."

[Titanothere]

180. That makes no sense at all

When a company lays off workers, it's trimming an asset, assuming those people actually bring value to the company. A company can't just fire everyone and watch the cash roll in. It might for a short while, but soon the business would cease to function and they everyone's out of a job.

I understand the temptation to just stop paying your bills but it's not right.

[wolfgangmo]

143. Oh ... is that why America is collapsing.

Because some schmo in the sticks decided to stop paying on a house that was worth much less than they purchased it for.

Yah - deregulation and greedy elites had nothing to do with this. Nothing what so ever. It's all Bubba's fault.

[TwilightGardener]

41. So...they didn't sell the airboat? Blowing money on casinos?

I mean, really--these folks do not inspire much sympathy. They refinanced to BUY A TRUCK TO GIVE AWAY AS A CONTEST PRIZE??? They have the financial smarts of a five year old.

[tammywammy]

44. No shit n/t

[laughingliberal]

50. The banksters took our money and are still living a very nice lifestyle.

I didn't see anything in the article which indicated these people are concerned with your sympathy.

[TwilightGardener]

52. Oh, I don't think they're concerned about what people think of them.

Which is fine--makes me feel not guilty at all for thinking they're idiots.

[laughingliberal]

57. I don't think they're idiots. Why should they give up their lives when the banksters didn't?

I'm way past feeling any sense of responsibility to a system which destroyed so many lives and took our money to bail themselves out without being required to help the people they destroyed. If they can remain in their home, find some enjoyment in their lives and use the money to stay on their feet, good on them.

[TwilightGardener]

62. You think it's a good idea to take whatever you're saving by not paying

the mortgage and pissing it away in a casino? You think it's a good idea to refinance your house to buy something that you are going to give away? This isn't about "sticking it to the man"--these people couldn't manage money and their business is pretty much a failure. Not everyone who defaults is a hero.

[laughingliberal]

70. I think the banksters who bailed themselves out with our money are spending it however they want.

And if these people's business is failing, it's likely to be due to the way the financial sector brought our economy down. Our business, successful since 1982, came down with the housing market. When you've worked your ass off all your life, played by the rules, and seen it all come tumbling down while the government hands the taxes you've been paying all these years to executives who are going right on living the lifestyles of the rich and famous, it changes your perspective a bit.

Maybe not a hero, but not as big a sucker, anymore.

[TwilightGardener]

75. I don't see where they worked their asses off and played by any rules.

I just see a couple of screw-ups who have zero financial discipline and probably shouldn't be running their own business. The big recession net does occasionally sweep up some ACTUAL losers and idiots, who would have probably fucked up their finances no matter how the economy was going, in addition to those who are just plain down on their luck and victims of circumstance.

[laughingliberal]

83. I'm well aware of your attitude towards people whose lives were brought down in this mess

but since you are not one of them, it carries no weight with me. Your story is always 'there might be some who really got screwed by this but it's mostly irresponsible..blah..blah..blah." Sorry, I live in a state where a whole hell of a lot of people were working, playing by the rules, and thought that was the way to live and that they had a future. It was stolen from us and our government gave the people who stole it the tax dollars we paid (and trust me, as a 2 income, middle class couple with one paying self employment tax, it was a lot of money we paid over the years) to them and told them to do whatever they wanted with it. Telling yourself their destroyed lives are their own fault allows you to keep reassuring yourself it can't happen to you as long as you keep working hard and playing by the rules. Hopefully, you won't be one of the losers and you can keep your sanctimonious seat up there looking down on those who are.

[TwilightGardener]

95. I guess you missed the part where they refinanced their house to buy

a brand new truck to give away to animal trappers in a contest. Yep, that's right, they leveraged their own house to buy an object that depreciates as soon as it's driven off the lot IN ORDER TO GIVE IT AWAY. That's some sound investing, I tells ya--right up there with blowing mortgage money on casinos. Nobody "stole" from these doofuses--they did themselves in.

[laughingliberal]

106. If the writing is on the wall and you're going under, you grab what you can on the way out.

We were too stupid and kept trying to keep up with our responsibilities until we had nothing and no way to get anything. Every morning I get to look in the mirror and thing, "Boy, was I suckered."

You are well invested in your judgemental attitude towards others and I'm sure I won't change it. Hope it never comes back to bite you. Then you can go happily on with your self congratulatory outlook, telling yourself it's all because you did everything right.

[TwilightGardener]

122. They weren't "grabbing what they can on the way out". They didn't know

how to run a business. I see that you have a problem with admitting that a few people in a financial bind actually got that way because they are just incompetent--nobody is absolving lenders by pointing out that some borrowers just don't know what they're doing, or are irresponsible. I feel the Times did a big disservice to the average defaulting homeowner (you know, the people who aren't using mortgage money to run the airboat and make donations to casinos) by choosing these particular folks to highlight. Sad that you feel you have to defend EVERYBODY who doesn't pay their mortgage. You really should be more discerning with those you want to hold up as good examples of how we're all oppressed by evil banksters. These people ain't it. They almost could be plants FOR the banksters, IMO.

[laughingliberal]

145. OTOH, it really doesn't matter which group we fall into, we're still screwed.

And the PR crowd around here was very vocal about not wanting homeowners bailed out cause, after all, they did everything right and no one was bailing them out. I recall some raising the roof when the FDIC suggested they might use some of the money they were on the hook for to pay down some mortgage principles. But, heaven forbid! Someone undeserving might be helped! A ridiculous stance as the FDIC was on the hook for the money, anyway. It was simply a matter of whether it would be another no strings attached bailout for the banksters or if it might be used in a way that helped a couple facing homelessness. I have no problem with people doing what they can to eke a little pleasure out of the last few years before the roof crashes in on them. BTW, the article says their business is starting to recover. :)

And I have yet to see any indication of a 'humble' opinion from you.

[closeupready]

61. They aren't idiots. You can think whatever you want, but idiots, they are not.

n/t

[TwilightGardener]

63. Nope, they're idiots.

[closeupready]

65. Nope.

n/t

[AllentownJake]

142. If you are underwater in a loan on a property that will never recover value

seems rather silly to continue to make payments.

Businesses negotiate principle all the time.

[TwilightGardener]

146. I don't have too much of a problem with cutting losses if that's the only

way to get back on one's feet. I'm only talking about THIS particular couple, I'm not talking about the ethics of walking away in general--that's another issue. I suspect someone at the Times may have had an agenda--it's all very in-your-face, a couple who makes terrible business and financial decisions and then brags about going out on the boat and eating steak dinners. Are we to believe this is the norm for defaulters?

[AllentownJake]

151. Nope

However, in certain bubble areas there is talk of people bragging about how long it takes to foreclose.

Put it this way, the worse the devaluation of the area the housing is in, the less incentive the bank has to foreclose and try to sell the property as the loss they will recognize is larger.

Areas hit the hardest have the largest shadow inventory thanks to the mark to market repeal.

[lumberjack_jeff]

45. Mr Pemberton is without business or personal ethics.

I would neither give him a loan, nor patronize his business.

I really don't care about my credit rating, but I do care that when I promise to do something, I intend to follow through to the best of my ability, even if it means no steak dinners.

[laughingliberal]

47. I'd say that puts him on the level with the Banksters who did this to us with no consequences. nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

68. It would be a personal insult to have my ethics compared to the bank. n/t

[closeupready]

72. And yet, you enter into contracts with them as equal parties.

How do you deal with the cognitive dissonance?

[lumberjack_jeff]

81. Funny you mention that. Cognitive dissonance comes from considering ones self ethical

while simultaneously believing strategic default to be a perfectly legitimate response.

Positively Freudian.

[laughingliberal]

86. My ethics are the least of my worries, these days. Hunger and fear does that to a person. nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

91. Airboat fuel isn't on your list, so I'm not talking about you.

I'd sacrifice ethics for survival needs, but not casino trips.

[laughingliberal]

93. If we had know 2 years ago that things would stay this bad for us for this long, I'd have done the

same. I regret that we spent our tiny resources trying to keep up with our obligations. We could have used the money to salvage a little enjoyment out of what time we have left and been no worse off than we are. Ethics got us...bupkis

[closeupready]

99. Wrong. Cognitive dissonance means acting on the basis of a set of beliefs which are wrong,

In this case, entering into a contract with the intention of behaving honorably when the other party with whom you enter into this contract has no such intention.

So if you both are committed to behaving that strategic default is okay, then, presto, no cognitive dissonance. However, if you believe that it's okay for the other party to walk away if it turns out to be in their financial self-interest, but believe it's not okay for you to do so, then that's fucked up and masochistic.

[lumberjack_jeff]

107. No, it means holding two contradictory beliefs simultaneously

e.g. "I'm an ethical person who thinks it's okay to default on contracts."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

[closeupready]

132. Well, aside from that, I'm curious how you enter contracts with unethical banks and reconcile

your knowledge of how unethical they are with your belief that parties to a contract should behave ethically?

[lumberjack_jeff]

156. Knowledge

I have no doubt that Bank of America will do everything it contractually can to exploit their customers. Unethical, in that sense.

I have one of their cash rewards credit cards. I use it for most all of my purchases. I pay the balance in full each month. BofA honors its contract to not charge me any interest on those purchases (nor a fee) as well as pay me several hundred dollars each year in cash rewards. BoA works every angle it can to maximize revenue, I work every benefit (within the contract they wrote) I can to minimize it.

The arrangement is unequal, but it's also optional and not entirely one-sided.

Mortgage companies were unethical in the sense that they'd give anyone and everyone a mortgage knowing that they'd pass the risk on to the derivatives market. It is more difficult to make the case that the bank was treating the applicants unethically - they got the loan they were asking for.

[closeupready]

165. Do you know what 'due diligence' is, though?

In that respect, the mortgage companies who gave out liar's loans were either highly unethical or highly irresponsible.

[lumberjack_jeff]

168. It's easy to show how the bankers treated derivatives investors and taxpayers unethically.

It's harder to show that they treated Alex Pemberton and Susan Reboyras unethically. They got the liars loan they were looking for. There shouldn't be a lot of surprise that liars loan applicants find squatting profitable.

[wolfgangmo]

152. +1

Great response. Dead on the money. Perfect.

[laughingliberal]

74. I think once you've seen your life destroyed, you're not much worried about what people think of you

I don't see Blankfein cowering in the corner in shame.

[wolfgangmo]

153. Blankfein should be punished.

And as the US is certainly not going to be doing it then I strongly hope that other countries will start reditioning these assholes. Other governments who still believe in justice should just snatch these criminals and put them on trail.

Imagine Blankfein in a Greek jail breaking rocks for the next 50 years.

[gorfle]

48. The problem is, corporations don't play by those rules.

The days of "your word is your bond" are gone for businesses.

A business will change it's word in an instant if financial directives tell them to do so. They will do anything to secure their financial interest. If that means laying off 100,000 people, so be it. Anything goes to secure their financial interest.

Why shouldn't a homeowner be just as ruthless?

[laughingliberal]

53. I'm down with that. We worked our asses off, played by the rules, and saw our lives destroyed.

I see no reason to buy into the big lie anymore. I refuse to believe that, as a working stiff, I'm somehow required to have more sense of personal responsibility than those who destroyed our world.

[Dappleganger]

69. +10000

That's the bottom line...we played by THEIR rules and still lost our shirts in the process. We see these dirty rotten scoundrels parading around in their fancy jets to their expensive homes while giving the American public the middle finger, and doing it all on OUR DIME.

Time to bust that damn bubble.

[wolfgangmo]

154. With a fucking pitchfork and some AK47s

I would like to see other countries that still have functioning democratic justice systems rendition these Wall Street and other elite investor crooks and put them to hard labor.

[wolfgangmo]

155. With a fucking pitchfork and some AK47s

I would like to see other countries that still have functioning democratic justice systems rendition these Wall Street and other elite investor crooks and put them to hard labor.

[lumberjack_jeff]

85. They can't abandon the terms of the contract without consequence. n/t

[laughingliberal]

90. I believe they have weighed the options and decided the consequences are acceptable.

Businesses call this the cost/benefit ratio and do it all the time.

[Dappleganger]

109. +10000

THIS is what some people in this thread just don't understand.

[Occulus]

101. The consequences of honoring the contract are greater than the consequences for walking away.

It's a sound business decision, and that's all it is. Neither morals nor ethics enter into the equation.

Remember, we're talking about real, breathing, living humans beings vs. a legal fiction created on paper, one that neither lives nor breathes. One can behave in neither a moral nor an ethical manner to such, because the paper- the corporation- intrinsically has neither, by definition.

[Dappleganger]

108. The consequence is they give up their home.

[lumberjack_jeff]

115. "They" in the post you are responding to refers to corporations.

I understand that the security for the loan the homeowners promised to repay was the house itself. Yet, even that consequence hasn't occurred.

[Dappleganger]

123. Sorry, I misunderstood and agree with you.

[Dappleganger]

66. Most people DO have the best of intentions.

[lumberjack_jeff]

78. There is a question of verb tense.

The subject of the OP may have intended to pay back their loan when they signed it, but they currently don't intend to honor the commitments they made.

They may at one time have had the best of intentions, but they don't currently.

I don't buy "everyone does it".

[Dappleganger]

88. At the time they intended to honor their contract...

they qualified based upon past credit history, downpayment, job history and the fact they weren't buying into a seriously underwater mortgage.

THAT does change everything. I appreciate that you don't get that and also your sense of duty, however.

[lumberjack_jeff]

96. With all due respect, I don't think it does "change everything".

Most of us live with our fuckups. Borrowing money to invest (which is what the OP describes) carries a real, actual, downside risk.

I'm sympathetic to those who can't pay their mortgage. I'm not sympathetic to those for whom it's inconvenient to try.

[Dappleganger]

102. Well that is your opinion

and it's important to remember that pretty much every investment firm who walked away from their holdings COULD pay, they just wouldn't due to losing too much money on the bottom line.

It's high time that people stop being so emotional about real estate because as we can see it will never get you anything but a Brownie point.

[gorfle]

121. Why not?

Most of us live with our fuckups. Borrowing money to invest (which is what the OP describes) carries a real, actual, downside risk.

I'm sympathetic to those who can't pay their mortgage. I'm not sympathetic to those for whom it's inconvenient to try.

But it's becoming more and more obvious THAT THE BANKS DON'T HAVE TO LIVE WITH THEIR FUCKUPS.

If the banks don't have to live with their fuckups, why should I?

The banks fucked up and fucked up HARD. The government lowered interest rates to the point that real estate investments looked awesome, and the banks created ever-lower standards for loans to make as many loans as possible to satisfy those investors. They made these loans with no regard for the quality of the loans because they did not care as they instantly sold them on.

And what has been their penalty for this grand fuckup? Taxpayer bailout money.

As was said. A business would make a simple cost/benefit analysis, and if it was more financially beneficial to stop paying, that's what it would do.

Why should a homeowner behave any differently?

[Dappleganger]

125. Thank you.

You explained it far better than I've done!

[lumberjack_jeff]

128. Only those with "personal and business ethics" would.

Which brings us full circle. The post which so offended everyone with an observation that the subject of the op was unethical is criticized on the basis that we're supposed to be unethical.

In other words, if the homeowners lack of ethics is a virtue, why the consternation?

[closeupready]

133. Some walkaways are undoubtedly shitheads, I'll give you that.

It's a large group of people we are talking about and every such group has shitheads in it.

Nonetheless, will you concede that in other cases, people walking away are doing the financially responsible thing?

[lumberjack_jeff]

158. The people in the OP aren't walkaways. They're squatters.

Yes, those who mail the keys to the bank are usually doing what they must.

[Hello_Kitty]

112. So what? They are exercising the terms of the contract.

They either pay the mortgage and own a house at the end or they stop paying the mortgage and the bank takes the house back. Morality and intentions are irrelevant.

[lumberjack_jeff]

120. I'm okay with being an anachronism. n/t

[Subdivisions]

55. This is why we're seeing cosumer spending numbers going up in an economic depression.

[LynneSin]

56. You know normally I would cheer people like this on but I hope the bank goes after them

They're bragging in the NYTimes about not paying mortgage but have the money for an overpriced gas-guzzling airboat.

If these people were economizing I would think this was a good move. They aren't. They just aren't paying their mortgage so they can spend it on other costly things.

I hope the bank sees this article and bumps them to the top of the list!

[laughingliberal]

59. I think they are prepared to move when they have to. The banksters haven't had to 'economize.' nt

[Johonny]

77. Yes they have

I know many many people in the financial industry that are out of work. I'm sick of reading you post this talking point. Sure the government stabilized the banks and a few at the top saved themselves from the mess they made. But so many in that industry did not survive the last meltdown. Not paying your mortgage so you can go to the casino sounds like being * to me. I goes to show that the financial crisis was more than just the banks believing in the house bubble myth but those getting the mortgages too. These people are a prime example of why we had a housing bubble. The amazing thing is the financial crisis hasn't taught them a thing. These people do not sound prepared at all to move on. They remind me of so many people prepared to ride the next boon and fall in the next bust because they never learn...

[closeupready]

124. Many of those laid off finance types were getting hundreds of thousands of $$ in bonuses each year.

It's harder to feel sorry for those who made a king's ransom for basically no work, and now are unemployed, than people like in this story.

[Dappleganger]

127. "Those people are a prime example of why we had a housing bubble."

How's that RW koolaide?

Guess what, that's the exact OPPOSITE of what Elizabeth Warren and Michael Lewis have been saying, so you've just confirmed that viewpoints like this are part of the problem which keeps the middle class from ever rebounding.

Remember this: Banks made shitty loans with hidden agendas, then BET AGAINST THOSE PEOPLE DEFAULTING and made a SHIT-LOAD OF MONEY IN THE PROCESS.

Don't believe me? Read "The Big Short" by Lewis and go do some simple googling of interviews with Ms. Warren. They know what they are talking about and just WHO created the real estate bubble (and here's a hint, it wasn't the homebuyer!).

[laughingliberal]

175. I stand with Elizabeth Warren. nt

[laughingliberal]

174. Sorry, I'm past bailouts for the uber wealthy and personal responsibility for working stiffs.

Feel free to continue on with that if it works for you. The only thing PR ever got me was worked half to fucking death and dead assed broke when the uber wealthy destroyed the economy and walked out with the tax money I'd been struggling to pay all those years.

[Scout]

140. please come up with a new word ... i'm really sick of "banksters"

what is a "bankster"?

[closeupready]

147. I guess it's a play on the word "mobster" to imply that

the banks who demanded a bailout in 2008 were holding up the American taxpayer, like a mobster would ("bail us out or the economy dies!").

[wolfgangmo]

160. Bankster = banker + gangster

Al Capone with a seat on the stock exchange.


I trust my bookie more than I do my banker or any insurance agent on the planet. My bookie has never lied to me and always pays off when he loses.

[laughingliberal]

183. Takes too much to type "crimal, asshole, bailed out, uber wealthy, sociopathic, bank executives. nt

[Statistical]

71. The stupid part is they just announced to the bank they have an asset that can be seized.

I mean if you get away with murder don't publish a story in NYT on exactly how you did it and where you buried the bodies. :)

[laughingliberal]

73. Ooooh, scary! So, they'll sell it when the time comes and the bank can divide

what they get with their other creditors. Lol. Meanwhile, they get to enjoy a little of their lives.

[Statistical]

80. The point is that it is stupid to move yourself to top of list.

Not all debt is equal in eyes of creditors.

Many people are simply way in debt with no assets. Attempting to secure a judgement is simply not worth it.

Banks will simply put it on credit report and "let it go". They don't do it to be nice it is simply economics. If the cost of recovery is > the expected recovery they lose less by simply not persuing it.

This couple just moved themselves to the top of the list. That is stupid no matter what you plan is. Banks rarely recover anything beyond foreclosure sale in 99% of instances. They just moved themselves from the 99% to the 1%. :rofl:

[laughingliberal]

97. I doubt it. The bank is unlikely to change their procedures cause of a news story.

These people will come out just as they would have. Used boat isn't going to bring that much.

[Statistical]

103. Creditors are far smarter than that.

They use a variety of data sources to continually evaluate which accounts are the most valuable. Banks never have complete information. As information becomes available that adjusts the likelihood of recovery (both up and down).

Something like this is going to cause the bank to punch up the account and see if their data reflects information in the story. At a minimum it means a human is now looking at the account. IF they didn't know the homeowner has sizeable discecionary income or assets like a boat they now know their model was too pessimistic. The model was computing a lower likelihood of repayment than reflected by reality.

I was an analyst for a bank at one time. Humans are still involved in the process because while 90% of the accounts fit neatly into data models some of them don't.

[laughingliberal]

163. Their discretionary income is from the mortgage payments they are not making.

It's likely there are few assets the bank will find that will benefit them much. I had a call from one recently saying they were filing to force our business into involuntary bankruptcy. I just told them to let me know when to show up. Our shop is rented. We have some used random orbital sanders and a house worth $60,000 less than we owe on it, and a 1992 truck which is our only transportation now and they were welcome to whatever they could find. They apologized for bothering me.

I don't think the amount this couple is spending on a dinner out and a boat is going to be a real bonanza for the bank except in asshole cred.

[hunter]

98. The banks are probably quite happy with them.

These people make everyone who can't pay their mortgage look bad.

If these people weren't real then the New York Times and the big banks would probably have to hire actors to tell this story.

[Raineyb]

185. So what? The bank already knew that when the payments stopped coming in.

More likely than not, the bank will hold off taking the house back because they can't make any money selling it and they don't want to pay to keep the house empty while they sit on it.

There are stories of banks refusing to take possession of houses they have foreclosed and allows it to get stripped. The banks hardly need the NYT to help them find out who as an asset that can be gone after.

[zorahopkins]

87. No Fault Life

From the article in the New York Times:

"Mr. Pemberton and Ms. Reboyras decided to stop paying because their business, which restores attics that have been invaded by pests, was on the verge of failing."

Imagine the following situation:

Jane Doe has an attic that has been invade by pests.

Jane Doe contacts Mr. Pemberton and Ms. Reboyas, and asks them to restore her attic.

Mr. Pemberton and Ms. Reboyas say they will do so, and that it will cost Ms. Doe $5,000 to have the work done.

Mr. Pemberton and Ms. Reboyas do the work, and send the bill for $5,000 to Ms. Doe.

Ms. Doe, short of money, decides that she will not pay Mr. Pemberton and Ms. Reboyas because she would rather spend her money on her boat and on trips to the casino.

How do you think Mr. Pemberton and Ms. Reboyas might react?

[laughingliberal]

100. That's why we always get a deposit before starting work, now.

Enough to cover materials and part of our labor. Balance due on completion. That way, we don't eat the whole thing if we get stiffed. BTW, Mrs Doe would not be stiffing someone who got a boatload of her tax dollars to bail themselves out in your scenario.

[zorahopkins]

105. How Do You Know?

"BTW, Mrs Doe would not be stiffing someone who got a boatload of her tax dollars to bail themselves out in your scenario."

You assume, I think, that the bank that holds the mortgage that is not being paid "got a boatload of her tax dollars" to bail itself out.

How do you know that?

[laughingliberal]

116. Guess we'll never know since the call for a deep audit of the Fed was defeated.

$5 trillion in secret loans to the financial sector. Sorry, I have no sympathy for the banksters.

[zorahopkins]

119. Got It

"Sorry, I have no sympathy for the banksters."

I think you have made your point.

Many times.

Let me ask you this, though:

Do you think any of the "secret loans" made to the "financial sector" should or should not be re-paid?

Do you think the "financial sector" should simply walk away from its obligations?

And, if they do simply walk away from their obligations, do you think that that would be a good thing or a bad thing?

[laughingliberal]

149. I think it doesn't matter what I think about whether they should pay it back.

I highly doubt we'll ever see it and if we do, it won't be used to help those whose lives were ruined. Even though it was their tax dollars who rescued the assholes.

[zorahopkins]

178. I Wish I Had Your Powers

I really truly wish I had your powers to see into the future.

(And I guess you would be OK with banks or individuals or anybody just walking away from their financial obligations, right?)

[laughingliberal]

182. I think the banksters got a free ride on the taxpayer dime.

I don't need a crystal ball to know we aren't going to know who got $5 trillion of our money. That was decided when the deep audit of the Fed was defeated.

The banksters long ago abdicated their responsibilities to anything but their bottom line and their bonuses. I think people struggling to survive should do what it takes to survive. I'm not buying the PR crap until I see the banksters doing the same. People whose lives have been devastated (and mine is one of those) are out here struggling to survive while our social programs are being cut and the welfare for the rich just keeps on rolling. And I'm supposed to feel some sort of outrage cause an old couple in FL quit paying their mortgage and eats out and spends a day on the lake sometimes? Not likely. Playing by the rules worked me half to death and left me old before my time, dead assed broke, and staring at a deficit commission looking to cut the only program standing between us and starvation.

It was not okay with me for the welfare for the rich and no rules for business culture to bring our world down around us. But they did. Now, we do what we have to.

[wolfgangmo]

161. Well to push the analogy...

... they would apply for TARP funds and then borrow against the TARP funds at 3.5% an equal amount from the FED at .5% interest and use the FED funds to pay off TARP ahead of time and pocket the 3% difference.


Just like the banks and other bailed out buddies of the elite.

[backscatter712]

94. No sympathy for the banksters.

They're ripping us off, why shouldn't regular folks rip them off?

[Capt. Jack]

126. Walk Away News: Morgan Stanley Gives Properties Back to the Lender

http://blogs.wsj.com/developments/2009/12/17/walk-away-news-morgan-stanley-gives-properties-back-to-the-lender/

Shame on Morgan Stanley!

[Dappleganger]

129. “This isn’t a default or foreclosure situation"

FTA: "Calculated Risk hastens to point out that Morgan Stanley is current on the loan–thus this is essentially a “strategic default.” If banks can walk away from commercial buildings, does that weaken the social pressure on homeowners to stay in their home when they’re underwater on their mortgages?"



No surprises here...one set of rules for Main St. and another set of rules for Wall St. !

[Capt. Jack]

135. Honest Question:

Why do so many people visit The Hamlet from DU but not join?

We are making a difference!

Little help here...

http://www.foreclosurehamlet.org

[laughingliberal]

150. And I bet their execs are still enjoying a nice steak dinner on occassion. Lol.

Just as I've been saying. I refuse to be suckered by the welfare for the rich and personal responsibility for the rest of us system any longer.

[Matariki]

157. "placing ethical obligations on people that aren’t put on businesses in similar situation"

Firedoglake has an insightful take on this very article and how the media seems to be pushing stories like this to perhaps garner sympathy for the banks. http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/06/01/stuck-in-foreclosure-many-stop-paying-the-mortgage/

The article also quotes this piece: http://www.eschatonblog.com/2010/06/on-walking-away.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+blogspot/bRuz+(Eschaton)

"I hope it’s finally penetrated the public consciousness that it’s perfectly acceptable to make cold-hearted morality free financial decisions when dealing with actors that are making cold-hearted morality free financial decisions. For too long we’ve heard bleatings from the press painting walking away as some sort of moral and ethical issue, placing ethical obligations on people that aren’t put on businesses in similar situations. If it makes financial sense for you, walk away."

[laughingliberal]

162. I think it's going to take more than a few stories like this for people to feel sorry for bankster

Remember. During the depression, people saw the bank robbers as folk heroes.

[flvegan]

164. I ran the docket on this case

and searched the title. The Lis Pendens was filed in December and Reboyras has filed and gotten two extensions. She's been lucky. Otherwise, this case is moving along at the usual pace for Florida right now.

Were they smart, they'd be saving their money to buy/rent elsewhere. Mr. Pemberton is not only NOT in title on this property, but he didn't sign the mortgage. He's not named in the style of the foreclosure. Therefore, his credit isn't taking the pounding that Ms. Reboyras' credit is.

[tammywammy]

169. Yeah I hope they're saving for the inevitable as well. n/t

[zorahopkins]

179. Saving?

Your hope, I think, is really misplaced.

Why should these people be saving anything?

Why shouldn't they just cruise along through life in their gas-guzzling boats, visiting casinos, and gambling away as much money as they have?

They enjoy a 'no-fault' life!

They are the victims here! They deserve to have a no-fault life because -- well, I really can't explain it, but suffice to say that they deserve a no fault life because they are the victims of an un-named bank that had the NERVE to lend them money with the expectation that they would pay it back (It's the bank's fault, see?).

I guess what I am saying (and others on this thread have said it so much better than I can) -- these people are victims of evil banks that ruin people's lives and therefore these people can live in a house and pay no rent and no mortgage, enjoy their boat and trips to the casinos.

They would be absolute fools to save for the inevitable. Should the inevitable arrive, they will, I am quite sure, be able to paint themselves as victims of some evil company or organization (it's NEVER their own fault).

[Liberal_in_LA]

170. If they haven't lost their jobs, these folks are socking away serious money...imagine a year

without housing costs...how much you would save. wow

[Rex]

181. Well good for them! Why suffer the arrows of unethical treatment by

banks and lenders when you should enjoy the little time you have left in life! Banks and unethical lenders can go fuck themselves! Nice to see them swimming in the sea of insolvency! Most people would drown.