Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: How long should I be allowed to live in my house without paying my mortgage?

Posted 2 years ago on Dec. 28, 2011, 9:55 a.m. EST by FivePercentForNothing (190)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Just curious what people think.

124 Comments

124 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

I believe it depends on why you are not paying. If you lost your job due the the economic collapse brought about by the mortgage lenders risk taking and have a good record of paying on time something should be done to help you stay in your house. Whether is is a grace period, or a restructured loan, something should be done.

If the government can loan trillions to the banks the government should provide special loans to folks under water that helps them stay in their homes until they get back on their feet.

If the government can spend billions perhaps trillions on tomahawks and drones in Libya, Pakistan, Afghanistan... we can loan a few billion to homeowners under water. They should be required to pay it back just as the banks were however the terms should allow for time unemployed.

[-] 1 points by FivePercentForNothing (190) 2 years ago

What you are saying makes sense but how long would you let someone under such a program go without working and paying?

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Perhaps something similar to unemployment. After 99 weeks if you cannot find a job that allows you to pay your mortgage, perhaps it is time to scale down. Something should be done to ensure you can get into something you can afford rather than putting people out in the street, especial in the winter.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Personally I think everyone should have a right to have a place to live no matter what. We need a free democratic and egalitarian society where we focus on people´s needs:)

Please come visit my blog. http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Vooter (441) 2 years ago

I just love these people who think that not paying your mortgage is somehow reneging on your "commitment." LOL! A mortgage contract is pretty simple: If you stop making your mortgage payments for ANY reason--including simply not wanting to make them anymore--the bank gets the property. THAT'S THE DEAL. That's the agreement that both you AND THE BANK signed. A borrower who stops making mortgage payments and agrees to allow the bank to foreclose isn't breaking the contract--he's FULFILLING it. Now, traditionally, banks have required a 10, 20, or even 30 percent cash down payment on the property, which means that the borrower has a fair amount of skin in the game and will lose a substantial chunk of money if he defaults. But if a bank decides to offer someone a mortgage on a large asset like a house for little or no money down and/or little or no documentation, WHO'S THE IDIOT? Who's being irresponsible? Not the borrower! The borrower would be an idiot not to take that kind of a deal. The banks knew EXACTLY what they were doing--they were just stupid and arrogant enough to think that home prices would never go down, and they got burned. So, to answer the original poster's question, if your mortgage is underwater, and you're ready to move and rent, and you don't mind having your credit score trashed, stop making payments today. At the rate that the banks have actually been foreclosing, you might be able to save a couple of years' worth of mortgage payments. Which is not chump change for most people. The bottom line is, the banks are counting on you to clean up THEIR mess. DON'T DO IT!

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

there are two ways to challenge a foreclosure if thats what is about to happen. First if your the owner of the home sign a 99 year lease to a friend who will let you live with him for a dollar a month, with a contract that is all in favor of the renter. Even if the home is sold, you have a lease and they cannot kick you out.
2nd, (this 2nd one is a little more technical to communicate) but technically a bank is supposed to put up the money to secure your home, but they dont, instead they just invent money on their books, and under the law, since they have no authority to "invent" money, they never put up anything for their home, so under a jury trial, you would win against a bank foreclosing on your property. ( a michigan guy named Jerome Daly won and kept his home fighting under a jury trial with this technique.

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

You can not sub-lease without written permission.

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

ya you have to make the lease agreement with a friend, and then he gets to live there when you are the owner, and the friend can just let you live there so to speak, he may have to live there too after the property is resold for it to work.

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

You can not enter into any lease agreement on the property without written permission. The lease with your friend is not worth the paper it would be written on. If this was possible, you could buy a new car, and lease it to a friend and never have to pay a penny on it. Not going to happen.

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

no im saying, the original owner, enters a 99 year lease with a friend, before the home is foreclosed on. got it? according to the law, leases are transferrable to the new owner, (whoever buys the foreclosure)

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

You may as well tear up the original contract with the bank. It still can not work or it would be done everyday. This is childs comment. You cant not lease property to someone if you dont own the property clear of any mortgage or lien. You use the term "foreclosed" which tells me there is a mortgage in legal form that would prevent you from entering into any, including a 99 year lease, on property you would not own until you have 100% equity in. You cant play games with mortgage contracts. You would go to a doctor for surgery if the doctor was not a real doctor but had a piece of paper with writing from his friend claiming he was a doctor? I dont think you would agree to that, would you?

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

if im making payments on my home, i can too lease it out to whomever i want, before a foreclosure , so i dont know why the miscommunication, unless its just late where you are? lol

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

NO, you may not lease it to whomever you want. I would guess you have not read a mortgage contract. Before you sign the contract you read it. In the contract you are not allowed to sub-lease,,, unless,, you have permission in writing from the bank that loaned you the money. And, the sub-lease may not superceed the original contract. Even if you have permission to sub-lease you dont have the legal right to contradict the original mortgage. Once you sign the original contract you are bound by that contract unless you got a loan from a bank with blind people. I cant understand why you dont understand the concept of a mortgage contract. Now, setting all of this aside for a moment. You could sub-lease to a friend if you want to. Until you got caught and the bank could call your original mortage and you would be required to make a payment in full on the remaining debt owed. Once you break a contract the bank has the right and power to call the loan. No judge would allow you to own the house free and clear, your butt is required to pay or get out, and anyone you have an fake contract with. Try it. Sign a sub-lease, walk into the bank and toss it on the table and walk out.

[-] 0 points by DependentClass (19) 2 years ago

That's ridiculous. The mortgage is senior to the lease. The terms of mortgage may also limit rights to lease the property outright. Now, if you sign a lease like that and then you try to sell the house, that's true, your ownership right is subject to that lease. You also have to worry about simple fraud.

Your second point is even more ridiculous. You would never EVER win with such an idiotic and frivolous point.

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

you are right, the 2nd one they closed the gap on since 1969. The nice thing about having a group of people is that combined we are more intelligent than any one individual.

[-] 0 points by HarryPairatestes2 (380) from Barrow, AK 2 years ago

http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/creditriver.html

Read about Mr. Daly and his case. The original ruling was ultimately nullified by a higher court.

[-] 1 points by TheEqualizer (42) 2 years ago

depends on the laws in your location. however, if they are going to inevitably remove you. make sure the night before they come to do it. that your destroy the house from the ground up while it is still technically yours. this way they get back a worthless pile of junk. and you get in no trouble for destroying what is technically still your property.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

The house is not yours until it is paid off. If the bank owns all the equity, it is there house, they are just letting you stay there.

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

You would probably have been required to purchase homeowners insurance. You would be charged with arson and have to pay the insurance company the value of the home plus other charges. You will be in jail for fraud.

[-] 1 points by ropeknot (359) 2 years ago

"My House" , not if you don't pay for it !

"A House " , There should be one somewhere for everyone somehow !

= Food ,clothing and Shelter for all = Human survival !

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

i agree there should be one house for everyone somehow, and I promise you this, those people who wouldnt allow other to own a home either by setting the price too high, or the cost of developing the land too much, or renting their house out to someone and never letting them buy it even if they gave more money for the house than the owner paid for it, none of those people you wont see in heaven, I guarantee it!

[-] 1 points by Devo95 (3) from Woodland Hls, CA 2 years ago

If you really want to get Wall Street and the banks attention, stop paying your mortgage. Most people are afraid to do this because the bank will foreclose on them and their credit will be trashed. But if all (many) people stop paying, the banks can't foreclose on all the properties and they don't want to, either. They are not in the real estate business, they are in the money business. As for the credit reporting companies they will not be able to report on all the delinquencies as it would be too overwhelming to do so. There has to be an organized grassroots movement to recruit lots of mortgagee's do this and a target date for action. Just think if all people stopped paying their mortgage that would hit the banks where it hurts and you will really get the attention of Wall Street!

[-] 1 points by Nevada1 (4835) 2 years ago

Will money taken from MF Global customers be paid back voluntarily?

[-] 1 points by flip (7590) 2 years ago

i know people who have gone 2 yrs

[-] 1 points by Nevada1 (4835) 2 years ago

Should financial institutions like Goldman Sachs pay back money, regarding their fake prime loan/derivative sales?

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (22254) 2 years ago

Well, you certainly shouldn't be thrown out of your house for it to sit there vacant. Doesn't make any sense. The house could be sold. What you haven't paid can be taken off the proceeds. If the proceeds don't exist because of the decrease in housing prices then the bank (they caused the decrease in price, not the purchaser) should work with you to come to some agreement. Or, the bank should let you stay until you get back on your feet and then increase the length of your mortgage so you can pay back what you owe over time. Something like that. Banks should work really hard to keep people in their homes.

[-] 1 points by FivePercentForNothing (190) 2 years ago

I think the problem is that for many people who bought at the hieght of the bubble there are no procedes. They borrowed 400,000 and now that house is worth 280,000

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (22254) 2 years ago

Yes. True. So the banks should take a good proportion of that hit since they caused it.

[-] 1 points by FivePercentForNothing (190) 2 years ago

The banks did not cause it, the borrowers did. People taking out mortgages that they should not have.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (22254) 2 years ago

No. Sorry. Borrowers did not cause the Global Financial Crisis.

[-] 1 points by ineptcongress (648) 2 years ago

yes they did, please read my post above--too much income was leveraged and the banks did not force them to borrow--hey i don't love the banks at all but the root cause was the borrower's decisions. every credit expansion in history has resulted in a grave contraction of the economy that has unseated many civilizations, and usually met with a destruction of the currency, as well--read ludwig von mises Nobel Prize from the Austrian school of economics for an excellent historical and theoretical account... although it may scare the shit out of you as to the US's future.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (22254) 2 years ago

I know about Austrian economics and it is correct on several things. My point is that if the entire economy was out of control you can't simply blame regular citizens who had no idea about economics and were just doing what was considered normal at the time.

[-] 1 points by ineptcongress (648) 2 years ago

ok i'll buy that they did not intend to crash the economy; perhaps it was just inevitable as a result of the expansion.

[-] 1 points by FivePercentForNothing (190) 2 years ago

First I was talking about the mortgage crisis which is part of the global financial crisis. It was a big part of it.

It was a combination of factors. A large contributor was changes made to the Community Reinvestment Act pushed lenders into giving mortgages to folks with a high credit risk. Banks were giving out mortgages like lollipops and in turn housing prices climbed and climbed. When borrowers began defaulting on their loans the bubble burst and prices started falling. Now people were in houses that had mortgages that were greater than the value of the house so they could not sell. This in turn lead to the credit crisis where banks stopped lending money for anything. Lowered credit limits on cards, HELOCs... so businesses did not have cash to invest in expansion.

Had people not went crazy buying houses at inflated prices with 0% down the dominoes would not have started falling.

Sure it is more complicated than that but that is the root of the problem.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (22254) 2 years ago

Yes, but blame the people who were simply trying to buy homes? Okay, some of them bought more than they could afford. When I bought my house I was told I could spend $100,000 more than I did which was ridiculous and I didn't do it. But, still my house has still dropped in value. How is that my fault? I think you are right that some people went crazy buying McMansions but that's not everyone or even the majority.

[-] 1 points by FivePercentForNothing (190) 2 years ago

If your house dropped in value that does not change your mortgage payment. You still have the same payment that you signed up for.

It will go up in value again some day.

[-] 1 points by karenpoore (902) 2 years ago

some day???? When would that be? Have you considered all the people that were told and counted on those homes and values for their retirement? Selling or whatever for a nest egg to pay future living expenses and medical costs ... There are so many houses sitting empty now we could no way sell our bought for 120k house (13 years ago) that is now worth 78k. If/when our income drops we will probably be on the streets with others!

[-] 1 points by FivePercentForNothing (190) 2 years ago

I actually was amazed that people were paying the price they were paying for houses. There are no garuntees, Your house is worth what people are willing to pay for it. It has been that way for hundreds of years. Why should someone pay you more than what it is worh?

There was a housing bubble in the 70s 80s 90s, 2000s they crashed and came back. It will go back up. My dad paid $16,000 for his house in 1960 and now it is worth $640,000.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (22254) 2 years ago

Okay, but it's still not my fault.

[-] 1 points by FivePercentForNothing (190) 2 years ago

What is not your fault?

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (22254) 2 years ago

The fact that my home, your home, everyone's home price has declined. Keep in mind, not everyone can wait for their home value to swing back up again. It is a loss of wealth across the board. Home prices may never return to their high values.

[-] 1 points by FivePercentForNothing (190) 2 years ago

I did not say the deciling price was anyone's fault.

Not paying your mortgage if you still have the same job is the your fault.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (22254) 2 years ago

Okay then. We agree.

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

...and bankers writing mortgages they should not have.

These contracts involve TWO consenting parties.

[-] 1 points by Nevada1 (4835) 2 years ago

Do the banks have to pay back the trillions, transferred to them by the government?

[-] 1 points by FivePercentForNothing (190) 2 years ago

Actually they did. 99.3% of the TARP money has been paid back.

[-] 1 points by Nevada1 (4835) 2 years ago

Not talking about $700 billion TARP. Referring to secret $7 trillion (or more) Federal Reserve bailout.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Nevada1 (4835) 2 years ago

Hi MichaelBlack17, Thank you for your reply. Agree, smoke and mirrors, and money will likely never be paid back. Best Regards, Nevada

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 2 years ago

That's disingenuous, specious, and sophomoric.

I doubt you did any research on the $7 trillion figure and are just regurgitating what you have heard elsewhere because it aligns with your equally unsubstantiated opinions regarding the Fed.

Just in case you're interested, you can see a pretty complete explanation of the Fed's actions and the $7 trillion number at http://wallstreetpit.com/87238-7-77-trillion-in-secret-federal-reserve-loans-to-banks . I doubt you'll read it. I only posted it in the hopes a few others might.

[-] 2 points by Nevada1 (4835) 2 years ago

Hi Rico,
Agree. Bad posting on my part. Bad posting.

A reaction, to the ongoing rotten behavior of some major financial institutions. Bankrupting a nation, wrecking a retirement fund with fake AAA, or gouging $30 from some regular persons checking account. It all goes to the reputation that many bankers have earned. If they can steal, they will steal. They can't stop, even if self destructive. Like a cocaine addiction. Like the scorpion on the back of the frog.

With bankers who might unfairly want money from the Fed while possibly holding positions in the Fed, and with Hank at the Treasury, it causes concern.

The Fed and banks worked so well for so long. Grew up really trusting the bank. Unfortunately, many among the current generation of bankers, have really kicked us in the nuts.

Thank you for the link.

Best Regards, Nevada

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 2 years ago

The Fed is neither mysterious nor evil. I'd say they were mismanaged by Greenspan who gained celebrity status and therefore gained excessive power relative to the other board members. That's bad. The Fed needs to operate based inputs from all board members. I think Bernanke has done a good job, and we're damned lucky to have had a student of the Depression at the helm when the shit hit the fan. Thus far, he's managed a soft-landing only 3 years after a shock as large if not larger than that of 1929. People don't understand what they do. In fact, I'm finding that most people don't even really understand what currency is much less the impact of our dollar serving as the world's reserve currency.

Many want to break up the Fed and make it more "accountable." Bad move. The reason the Fed responded so poorly in 1929 was Hoover's Secretary of the Treasury and Comptroller of the Currency overrode the pleas of the economists and decided to tighten the money supply rather than loosen it to generate liquidity. We passed Glass-Steagall and the Banking Act of 1935 to help fix the problems that caused the depression. Ironically, folks want Glass-Steagall restored, but they want to overturn the Banking Act of 1935 which removed the Fed from direct political control (set up per the Supreme Court model; presidential nomination with Congressional approval but with 14 year terms rather than life).

We're not out of this yet. Bernanke is still working his tail off to keep the crash wave from bouncing back off Europe to us again. He's been injecting money like mad so European companies and banks can buy dollar denominated liquidity while they get their act together and let the ECB serve as lender of last resort. America is in debt at the personal, local, state, federal, and international levels, and the low rates he's holding are helping the 99% pay off their debt using "cheap" dollars while simultaneously adjusting foreign trade. Take a look at the value of the dollar on the international markets. It's set by people who actually understand how money works.

A good part of the nut kicking that went on, by the way, was us kicking our own. Banks don't make money unless we borrow it. We borrowed literally trillions between 2005 and 2008 and spent that money to buy a record number of cheap foreign products.We now complain the bankers are rich and we have no jobs. I list consumer education in finance as my #2 priority ( see http://www.themultitude.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=47&p=4356&sid=a281bb6b12e6dd69ef8b5c9e611abef5#p4356 ) and getting the money out of politics as my #1 priority ( see http://www.themultitude.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=47&p=4355&sid=a281bb6b12e6dd69ef8b5c9e611abef5#p4355 ).

The economic system, like civilization itself, is a living breathing organism that adapts over time to new challenges. We are sometimes foolish, mess with the DNA built up from prior lessons (Glass-Steagall, Banking Act of 1935), and create problems. Other times, we encounter a new set of surprising conditions that produce new DNA (assuming we survive). The big surprise we recently had resulted from the incorporation of near instant communications across the planet and automated processing by computers. Money is moving with a velocity never before seen, and the technology produced some "innovations" that weren't thought out very well before incorporation (we always do this with new technology... nuclear power, DDT, etc). In this case, we had computers selling folks loans in 15 minutes (remember those eLoan ads on TV ?) based on a computerized 'score' alone, banks packaging individual mortgages into statistical packages to mitigate risk without considering the systemic risk underlying the body of them, and rating agencies using computers to rubber-stamp the packages "AA" without considering the systemic risk of their volume. A perfect storm results when we combine all that with a large number of people who thought the willingness to loan by a bank meant they could afford it, Congress pushing Fannie/Freddie to raise the conforming loan limit far past the 5 year average while reducing the standards they used to accept mortgages, a public that bought into the idea that "you can't lose money on _ !" (the usual bubble language), and a large number of people who decided to become amateur real-estate investors (remember the TV show "Flip That House" ?).

All told we are damned lucky we have the Federal Reserve, and very fortunate it's currently run by a man as capable as Bernanke. It's also a darned good thing we aren't on the gold standard. If we were, the 1% would have it all. As it stands, the Fed can just redistribute the wealth of the 1% to the rest of us by doing exactly what they're doing !

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

Awesome post! Thank you for taking the time to write it. I learned so much.

[-] 0 points by headlesscross (67) 2 years ago

Forever. You shouldn't have to struggle with bills or with buying food or car payments. You should have an open line of credit with the Govt. that never has to be payed back. You shouldn't have to work a job if you don't want to.

These are all simple Human rights,free medical care. It doesn't matter if you are a legal citizen either. FREE,FREE,FREE!!!

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Hear, hear!!

yours s sff http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/

[-] 0 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

As long as you can. If the Sheriff comes to kick you out here's hoping OWS is strong enough to help you re-occupy.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by economicallydiscardedcitizen (761) 2 years ago

I agree with JoeTheFarmer, well said! Also, since we are in what I would call 'The Greater Depression' we are experiencing an economic emergency.

If you are not paying your mortgage due to job or business collapse due to the economic collapse homeowners should be allowed to stay in their homes until the job market returns to pre-market crash levels.

I am a 99er/99%er I have worked since the age of 16 starting with after school jobs, then later full time jobs and 1099 commission only/self employed work. My salaried employment is equal to about 20 years of work life which means I have paid into UI for that amount of time and since no employment is forthcoming I should be allowed to draw off of UI for much longer than the 99 weeks I did before exhausting it and almost all of my savings before we left CA for NV(I'm only able to survive because my husband has a Veteran's Service connected pension benefit-oh, and he was injured on the job around the time my company bellied up in 2008) I think UI benefits should have an adjustment during economic crises such as now based on the number of years an individual has paid into it and perhaps based on immediate family who have over 20 years of continuous work history/payment into UI,SSI,SSDI

This 'Greater Depression' will be a prolonged process and we will not see a return to pre 'Greater Depression' economies probably not until around 2017/2020 Homeowners with good credit history prior to the crash such as you should be allowed to stay in your homes until then.

That's my 2cents...

[-] 0 points by teddyg (13) 2 years ago

Another government survey. so they can figure how to manage ows's involvement, in mortgage's - occupy foreclosure homes.

On this site most questions are from the government - to generate anti ows propaganda. - please don't answer questions- anything you say will be held against you- in a court of injustice.

[-] 0 points by mee44 (71) 2 years ago

===============================

It's not just the rich who suffer when people stop paying their mortgage. It's also teachers, firemen, police, computer programmers, nurses, doctors, architects, journalists, engineers, public workers, pilots, admin assistants, bank tellers, librarians, state workers, federal workers, etc.

It's anyone who has a 401K, IRA, pension, retirement fund, ESOP, stock or mutual fund invested in a real estate fund for retirement. A lot of people get hurt when the housing market turns downward. It's largely the 99% who get hurt.

[-] 1 points by FivePercentForNothing (190) 2 years ago

I did not suggest people stop paying their mortgage. Please read some of my other postings on this thread as I do nto wish to re type them.

Oh wait, perhaps you were responding to Devo95 and not me.

[-] 0 points by mee44 (71) 2 years ago

No, I was just putting out general information on what happens.

[-] 0 points by wellhungjury (296) 2 years ago

If you are active in trying to solve the problem, I would give you 6 months to a year. IF you show no effort in solving the problem, 90 days.

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

Maybe you shouldn't have bought the house in the first place. Maybe you should have rented instead.

At least if you rented and couldn't pay your rent you would be evicted and wouldn't have lost anything and could go and rent another apartment.

[-] 1 points by FivePercentForNothing (190) 2 years ago

I am employed and have been paying my mortgage and have plenty of savings so I was not talking about me.

I was talking about someone who was once employed and COULD afford the home but lost their job because of the wrecklessnes of others during the housing bubble. Why are we so quick to bail out the banks bot not the hard working Americans. I am not saying to give them a free ride but rather let them press the pause button until they get back on their feet.

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

Ok lets look at from that perspective - when a person signs a contract they sign a agreement - that is their word to pay back what they borrow.

Now when a person buys a $200,000 house on a $75,000 income and want a $45,000 suv along with all the latest greatest electronics, deisgner clothing and want to go out to dinner every week and have a $11,000 credit card debt, what can you expect.

When I bought my house I looked at from a perspective that should I or my wife get laid off we can still manage the payments. That means having money in the bank as a first step.

Having a mortgage payment that is reasonable -

Not buying $45,000 vehicles

Not going out to dinner every night

I could have bought a $300,000 house but I didn't. I have been laid off for over a year now and we are still current on our mortgage.

Why, because my wife and I planned. We made a commitment when we signed the contract and we are obligated to fulfil that commitment.

Todays society places no value on what they own and you can see that by what has happened in the amount of foreclosures in this country.

They complain about not having a job but yet buy massive amounts of chinese made products.

Go figure.

[-] 1 points by FivePercentForNothing (190) 2 years ago

You are mixing subjects here.

I am not talking about someone who bought a house they should not have and still has a job but bought an SUV. I am not saying they should not honor their commitment. I am talking about somone who has been paying their mortgage failtfully on time and living within their means. They lost their job because the economy went into the crapper. They are looking for a new job and need help fro a few months. Should be give the banks 700 Billion so they can keep their house and not give a loan to a homeoner in need for a few months to a year?

It is not chinese products that caused the economic collapse. It was the credit crunch that came after the housing bubble.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

The banks will work with you if you keep in touch with them. I have a friend who has made minimal payments on his house for about 2 years

The problem is people don't/won't work with the banks and let them know what's going on. The first priority when a person is out of work should be keeping the roof over their head. Everything else should be secondary.

If there is that much of a difference between a house payment and how much a family has at the end of the week then a decision has to be made to move on and start over.

[-] 1 points by FivePercentForNothing (190) 2 years ago

So it seems the people need to be educated.

[-] 1 points by sinead (474) 2 years ago

Don't know what bank wrote your friends mortgage but that really sounds like an exception to the rule. I can tell you that when my husband lost his job we immediately called our bank... the best they could do was give us a 3 month abatement on our note (that would be moved to the end of the mortgage. We thought my husband would find a job but it was at the very beginning of the recession and in Michigan where we lived it started earlier than the rest of the country. When it became apparent that we would no longer be able to make the payments all the bank had to say was "Well, stay in it until we throw you out"... That was after 2 years and all our savings and trying to get them to do something so we wouldn't lose the house...

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by karenpoore (902) 2 years ago

some day values will go up again???? When would that be? Have you considered all the people that were told and counted on those homes and values for their retirement? Selling or whatever for a nest egg to pay future living expenses and medical costs ... There are so many houses sitting empty now we could no way sell our bought for 120k house (13 years ago) that is now worth 78k. If/when our income drops we will probably be on the streets with others!

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

You will only be on the streets if you allow it to happen. There are still lots of opportunities out there

[-] 0 points by karenpoore (902) 2 years ago

When you get into your 60s and 70s those opportunities you speak of dwindle ...

[-] -1 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

When you get into the 60's and 70's you should be ready for retirement. IF you aren't then something is drastically wrong.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

You're right, there is something drastically wrong, but when we point out the systemic problems, you call us lazy whiners and tell us to STFU.

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

You are right - What the hell has happpened to the "spirit of this country". It's all about whining because of not having what a person wants.

Did the people back in the 1800's whine when they didn't have electricity or air conditioning? Did they whine when they had to go out in the freezing cold to bring in wood for the fire? Did they whine when they had to go out and hunt for food?

Yah, we have whiners in this country who live on easy street and complain. Half of the people on welfare own their own homes.

Todays X and Y generation hold no "value" to what they own. How many of the X and Y generation do you know who hold on to things for more then 2 years?

It's all about wanting it all now and not about having to earn what they have. That's why the economy is in the "shits" because of "too much spending and not enough of being concerned about the future".

It was an "immediate want".

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Damn grandpa, is that how it was back in your days.

Wah wah wah, My grandpa used to walk to school in the rain, sleet, and snow with no shoes and hand me down clothes while I rode the bus in comfort. I heard that crap when I was a kid in the 70's. How the fuck old are you man? If the next thing I hear come out of your mouth is "hey you damn kids better get off my lawn", I'm going to fall out of my chair laughing.

Spin your old man stories every which way but loose, the problems ain't about getting to ride the bus to school and how easy we got it nowadays, the problems are about the bus drivers having the same wages for three decades and widespread systemic corruption in the aristocratic class. Sucks for you, but I guess your old brain is finally going senile and this is beyond your comprehension.

Now go yell at some kids on your lawn.

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

Well, I have to say over the years "my income increased substantially" and I didn't have a college degree.

What I did have was the "want and will" to learn everything about my job so that I would be more valuable to my employer and should I get laid off wouldn't have to worry about getting a job.

How many hours do you think a "bus driver" puts in at the end of his shift to "want to improve his job skills so that he can improve his income"?

Probably not many - just like a lot of our society - being fat and happy working a 40 hour week, making just enough to pay their bills and have a little left over for their entertainment.

But when the SHTF they are the first ones to complain about "income inequality" because they were satisfied with what they had.

Talk to any successful individual and you will find out that "working a 40 hour week" doesn't cut it if a person is to be "financially seccessful. - that's a fact.

And being "financially successful" doesn' happen within the first 5 years of graduating from highschool or after graduating from college. It takes years, not months.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Succinctly, you're logic runs contrary to common sense.

Let's say everyone thought like you and no one was ever satisfied driving the bus. Then who in the hell do you expect to drive the bus?

There is nothing wrong with being a bus driver, there is something wrong with a society who doesn't want any bus drivers.

When the SHTF, the truth came out. That's why you're really pissed and spend all your time on here trying to spin the truth.

Now go yell at some kids on your lawn.

[-] 0 points by karenpoore (902) 2 years ago

Steve, How many people now a days have pension plans? How many people have actually earned enough to save for retirement? How many people invested all their life in stocks or whatever and have lost it all in this economy? Lots of people in my age bracket (55-65) have been laid off their jobs, duped out of what ever pension they may have had with a company and have lost their home. WHAT do you mean by "ready for retirement"?

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

It all depends on how smart you are when it comes to dealing with the banks.

[-] 0 points by Farleymowat (415) 2 years ago

Local laws will tell you that. In Minnesota, it is illegal to put anyone out after Oct.15 and before April15. The lawmakers don't like finding frozen corpses in the spring.

[-] -1 points by headlesscross (67) 2 years ago

Here, here!!

http://www.marklevinshow.com/home.asp

http://www.heritage.org/

It will change your life.

[-] -1 points by blackbloc (-19) 2 years ago

forgive all debt period. national, private all debt.

[-] -1 points by MASTERdBATER2 (56) 2 years ago

If your not paying do you still think it's your house?

[-] 0 points by karenpoore (902) 2 years ago

Well, lets see. We have been in our 120k house for about 13 years and most of our payment ($1063.) STILL goes to interest on a house now worth $78k. So lets say 13 x $6000 = WHAT????? But we still do not own our HOME?????

[-] -1 points by DunkiDonut2 (-108) 2 years ago

Your question is not correct. YOU dont own the house you are living in. The bank does. Until you pay it off the bank owns it,,, not YOU.

[-] 1 points by ineptcongress (648) 2 years ago

the deed is titled in his name, so he, not the bank, owns it. the bank helped him pay for it, so he owns it subject to a mortgage. i have presided over many closings where there is no bank--the buyer brings a cashiers check--in either case the buyer owns it.

[-] 0 points by DunkiDonut2 (-108) 2 years ago

Wow,,,, interesting. In YOUR MIND,,, what is a LIEN? The bank has the lien and owns the property which is why they can foreclose on the property THEY OWN. Remind me not to hire you.

[-] 1 points by ineptcongress (648) 2 years ago

btw: ownership means right to use, exclusive of others--does a bank, via it's employees, have the right to walk in and start watching t.v. in your house? i am sure you cannot grasp that. but the answer is no.

[-] 1 points by ineptcongress (648) 2 years ago

wow--a lien is a "security interest" in the property--it is not ownership. remind me not to hire you.

[-] 0 points by DunkiDonut2 (-108) 2 years ago

In law, a lien is a form of security interest granted over an item of property to secure the payment of a debt or performance of some other obligation. The ((((owner of the property))), who grants the lien, is referred to as the lienor and the person who has the benefit of the lien is referred to as the lienee.

In the United States, the term lien generally refers to a wide range of encumbrances and would include other forms of((( mortgage)))) or charge.

I would not hire you because it is apparent, you cant read either.

[-] 1 points by ineptcongress (648) 2 years ago

PS. answer the question, in re:bank's rights to use your property... you are clearly clueless.

[-] 1 points by ineptcongress (648) 2 years ago

what??? NO SHIT! i do not think you have any point at all. when you have something to contribute, speak up.

[-] 0 points by DunkiDonut2 (-108) 2 years ago

The original post asked about how long a person could live in HIS house if he doesnt pay mortgage. There was NO comments about coming into the house and watching TV as you just stated. NO, the bank cant come into your house and watch TV. But that was not the original posts. I'm still correct.

[-] 1 points by ineptcongress (648) 2 years ago

no--your post said the bank owned the house, via a lien, and that is not correct. the bank may elect not to foreclose, and so a person may remain there for years--i've known people who haven't paid mortgages since 2009; in addition, the legal process to force a transfer of ownership can be extensive: service is required, then hearings on motions, then trial, judgement, and very many sheriffs' sales to execute on the judgement are delayed. but the point is, the bank absolutely is NOT the owner, as you suggest, instead the borrower is.

[-] -1 points by DunkiDonut2 (-108) 2 years ago

You are mixing words. You say the house is not owned by the bank and in the same sentence you say the bank may ELECT NOT TO FORECLOSE. You didnt say, the bank MAY foreclose. You do not have a clear title which is an indication of ownership until the mortage is paid. You cant get a loan for a home, and two days later say your not going to pay. You are NUTS. You also clouded your comments by using length tatics as in delayes etc. A judgement can be made within seconds if a judge so decides. This is no different that purchasing a car. You dont pay the payments and the lien holder, the bank, can repo your car without notice. Where do you come up with the bank not owning the home? You are dazed.

[-] 1 points by ineptcongress (648) 2 years ago

if you have title (evidenced by a recorded deed), you own it. however, your title is "encumbered" by the mortgage lien. you could get someone to buy it subject to the lien if the bank would accept that. an exclusive right to use is what "ownership" means--it is the essence of ownership; and that exclusive right to use lies solely in the purchaser/mortgagee, not the bank. the bank's only rights with respect to the property is the conditional right to foreclose if the mortgage is not paid--and that conditional right is not ownership.

[-] 0 points by DunkiDonut2 (-108) 2 years ago

You are still mixing words. It is like in air conditioning. Everyone says the AC puts cold air into the house, which is NOT true. AC TAKES the heat outside. You are using the same wording. The house belongs to the "thing" that paid for it, which is the bank or loan institution. You are paying the bank to gain "EQUITY" which you have little of until near the end of the loan. Equity is leads to ownership. You have limited ability to purchase,,, say a huge boat,,, if you have little equity in a home the bank owns. The bank can call the loan at anytime. If you can raise the funds,,, you can purchase it right out,, if not,, the bank takes ownership and forecloses.

[-] 1 points by ineptcongress (648) 2 years ago

sorry you're confused. i've read alot of mortgages and never have i seen one where the bank can call the loan, it is standard that you have to default first--and this syncs with state foreclosure law, that also requires the bank to prove a default occurred before the judge can issue a foreclosure judgment. now i see the confusion, "equity/ free clear title" are being confused with "ownership"--which is, once again, the exclusive right to use--this is not mixing words, they're different concepts completely--in fact, you're trying to recharacterize ownership as a "security interest" (i.e., the mortgage). does the mortgage or equity level prevent one from cooking on their stove?...no, but, the mortgage does prevent you from transferring the house free and clear to someone else unless the bank consents. the thing that paid for a house is the purchaser, who in some cases, borrowed money to pay for the house and has a "side agreement" to repay the lender. the lender records the mortgage to give notice to the public that it has a right to be paid first before the home is transferred, or else another purchaser will be subject to the mortgage--this is why title searches are conducted before someone buys a house. the mortgage does not constitute a claim to title, it is a warning or notice given to a would-be buyer of the bank's interest.

[-] 0 points by DunkiDonut2 (-108) 2 years ago

Oh,,, OK. I think I understand you now. So, there really wasnt a huge number of foreclosures in the news the last couple of years. This was all made up. Since the bank has no right to the home then there really wasnt any foreclosures as mentioned in the news. That was all a made up story. Good!!! I was really worried that banks were taking back the property they really owned,,, but guess NOT. Thanks for that big clear up. I guess the OWS can stop with the foreclosure crap they keep mentioning because there were NONE. I feel much better knowing a bank cant take the property they own BACK. I can sleep better with YOU at the helm.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Maybe we should just cap profits. And pay everyone equal wages. Yes! Thats the answer. You should talk to FriendlyObserver. He is an expert at these new concepts which will save the world.

[-] 0 points by DunkiDonut2 (-108) 2 years ago

Interesting. So the doctor, the auto mechanic, the drug store owner, a McDonalds, makes their profit LIMIT on Tuesday morning and they close down until next Monday. Cool. Hope you dont need a doctor or food for a week. Limits,,,, you say?

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Talk to FriendlyObserver. He's the expert on this. Maybe you know him?

[-] 1 points by FivePercentForNothing (190) 2 years ago

Did I say I own it? Oh I guess I did say my house...but I really meant the house I am living in.

I am not suggesting people stop paying their mortgage if they can. I am just wondering why it is OK to give the banks $700 billion but no OK to help someone who lost their job.

If you lost your job due the the economic collapse brought about by the economic collapes and have a good record of paying on time something should be done to help you stay in your house. Whether is is a grace period, or a restructured loan, something should be done.

If the government can loan trillions to the banks the government should provide special loans to folks under water that helps them stay in their homes until they get back on their feet.

If the government can spend billions perhaps trillions on tomahawks and drones in Libya, Pakistan, Afghanistan... we can loan a few billion to homeowners under water. They should be required to pay it back just as the banks were however the terms should allow for time unemployed.

[-] -1 points by DunkiDonut2 (-108) 2 years ago

You said you had a mortgage so,,, NO,,, you dont own it. Here is what I see is wrong with your belief. You have TWO things you are in conflict with. One, THE GOVERNMENT and two, BANKS. First, the market dictates the value of your home, the amount of money available to loan and the interest rates for the loan. If interest rates are too high,, people dont buy homes and banks dont make money. If interest rates are too low,, people buy homes but rather than prepare for the next time interest rates go back up, they get a loan they cant afford to pay. If left alone, the bank, if it wants to make money, will adjust according to what the market will support. So, YOU and your neighbors set the rates or the bank wont make money. TODAY,, however, the government has become the neighborhood. Cong Barney Franks (D) and others stuck their nose into the banking industry and said, "WE think everyone should own a home. WE will change the loan rules. The new rules are,,, YOU WILL LOAN to people that want to buy a home and if you dont we will re-regulate the hell out of you." So the banks,,, stopped demanding certain requirements for a loan,,, as example, no 10-20% down, and you dont need to prove you cant afford the home. The SUCKERS walked into banks. The sourpuss banker was forced to smile at you while he was forced to give you a loan you could not afford. The economy dropped,,, people lost their jobs and then their homes. Who got blamed for foreclosures????? Not Barney,, the BANKS. Mean ole banks for holding a gun to the head of people to sign a mortage they could not pay off. So there is a history lesson for you to read about. Some people should never have been told they could buy a house with nearly zero income. There you go.

[-] 1 points by ineptcongress (648) 2 years ago

nobody put a gun to someone's head forcing them to buy, nor to lend. i know all about the community reinvestment act, and what you say is not true. it was bill clinton who asked DOJ to step up the act's enforcement, but the act speaks to, in part, lending to people of different colors. it does not speak to subprime, nor to (unfortunately) income ratios. the crux of the problem lies in that people were borrowing at a median of 52% of their GROSS income, leaving them with about 8-12% of their take home pay for clothes, lessons, daycare, gas and food. that's the issue right there.

[-] 1 points by FivePercentForNothing (190) 2 years ago

I understand how we got here. I am not talking about people that took aout a mortgage they could not afford. I am talking about people that are 15 years into a 30 year mortgage and have been paying on time all along. Many folks lost their jobs because of the behavior you describe above. I am not saying their debt should be forgiven I am saying that if we can bail out the banks, why can't we bail out these folks with a low interest loan with a six month back on your feet delay in payments.

By the way, I was not talking about myself. I do not have a loan I cannot afford. I have plenty of income and plenty of invetments and savings.

[-] 0 points by DunkiDonut2 (-108) 2 years ago

YOUUUUUUU, should be an EXAMPLE. Plenty of INVESTMENTS and SAVINGS. You should be explaining to people how to achieve what you have done.

[-] 1 points by FivePercentForNothing (190) 2 years ago

I worked full time and went to college for engineering. I worked fo ryears saving my money and then started my own business. I had to take a second mortgage to make payroll when times were tough at one point. It was either that or fire everyone and close the business. We made it through and I paid off the load. The people working for me know what I had done to make payroll and I felt the went the extra mile to keep us going.

[-] 0 points by DunkiDonut2 (-108) 2 years ago

And I would bet none of your employees knew or cared that you were man enough to take out a second mortgage to protect them. I bet none of them thanked you. And, you paid taxes, medical benefits, taxes, utilities, taxes, property taxes, taxes, insurance, taxes, repairs, taxes, etc and more taxes.

[-] -2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Another bullshit thread. Good job.

[-] -2 points by necropaulis (491) 2 years ago

You should be kicked out within the quarter. If you don't wanna pay, why'd you get a house?? This is why we're in the mess we're in. Pay what you owe.

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

You are being sarcastic right?

[-] 1 points by dantes443322 (148) 2 years ago

Ummm, that is exactly what it should mean. You signed the contract bud.

[-] 0 points by necropaulis (491) 2 years ago

Yes, they should be able to take it back. They paid for it. You are paying them back. You also signed a contract saying you would. Not paying up also wouldn't make the debt go away, either.

The house is collateral, because you don't have anything worth $200,000, unless you had other property, or something else worth that kind of money.

So you signed for it, you pay it. There's no reason you should live there without paying when everyone else out here with a shred of self respect has to pay. Do you pay your bills, or is that something else you feel entitled to as a squatter??

[Deleted]

[-] -2 points by necropaulis (491) 2 years ago

It's not your right to have a car. It's not your right to drive one either. When these things were written, what a lot of people twist and distort the time periods. They didn't even know what a car was back then. Automobiles were just coming around. And even those primative vehicles barely went faster than full running human speeds.

You make car payments for the same reason you have to make house payments. All of these things are fronted to you. Just because someone is rich, and you're not, doesn't disavow you from what you said you would do. You don't want Ma Mopar having your hard earned loot, buy a used car, and don't go to dealerships for service. And car companies aren't rich, nor are they part of the "1%". GM still owes money, Chrysler is on it's 4th owner in a little over a decade, Ford's making it, but not for long, because they use crappy Chinese parts-even the transmissions come from China now. The owners may be rich, but not as much as you might think.

[-] 2 points by FivePercentForNothing (190) 2 years ago

What about education, I have a right to an education.

I went to school for Art History and the 1% did not garuntee me a job so I should not have to pay them back!

[-] 2 points by FivePercentForNothing (190) 2 years ago

Well I do have a right to a house so I should not have to pay that loan back.

The 1% have enough money and we have a right to some of it. I should not have to pay my credit cards either. Those comapnies tricked me into buying things with comercials and then charge me interest. It is an unfair practice.

[-] -1 points by necropaulis (491) 2 years ago

Are you serious?? You got your right to education. That was K-12, after that, you're on your own. You still don't have the right to stiff a company that loaned you money. Apparently, debtor prison still exists in some states. Ask them about not having to pay anything back. Nobody tricked you into wanting stuff. They told you they had it, you made up the decision to buy it.

You want a chunk of this imaginary 1%'s money, go earn it. You don't have a right to their money anymore than I have a right to yours. You don't wanna pay off credit cards, don't get them in the first place.

I said it before and I'll say it again. It's not the 1% that tanked this country, it's people with your mindset.

[-] 0 points by Misfit138 (172) 2 years ago

I don't think you get the message he is trying to say. He is playing devil's advocate and more likely than not, in agreement with you.

[-] 0 points by necropaulis (491) 2 years ago

Yeah, I kinda picked up on that. Sometimes sarcasm is lost on the internet.

[-] -1 points by bereal (235) 2 years ago

LOL