Squatter Nation: "Screw Mortgage Payments!"

J

JakeStratham

New member
Oct 28, 2009
2,641
177
0
Location, Location
This is nothing new, but a good reminder of the millions of deadbeats out there. Long story, short:

Step 1. buy home

Step 2. make stupid decisions

Step 3. lose job, watch business go bust, etc.

Step 4. ignore mortgage payments

Step 5. squat, and tie it up in court


Example:

If they want to fight evictions hard, borrowers can remain in their homes even longer while their cases are being worked through.

The Segals have been doing that -- in court. They bought their home in 2003 with an adjustable rate mortgage. After a few years, their monthly payments tripled to $3,000, just as their home-inspection business was cratering.

The Segals want the bank to modify the mortgage so payments are affordable, and they think the court will agree that their lender put them into a toxic loan.

"The evidence will show that we were defrauded," said Jill Segal.
Click to expand...
tommy-lee-jones-no-country-for-old-men.jpg



If lenders and tenants (hard to call 'em homeowners when they carry a mortgage) are making arrangements on their own, great. But as you know, that's not what squatting is about.

Deadbeats.
 


The stupid decision was buying a home they knew in their gut they couldn't afford anyway.

I know a few squatters, they don't seem to feel the bank is a victim.
 
I read a book called The Narcissism Epidemic that had a good section about this. It also talked a lot about teenage girls posting nudes, and was a good read overall. Go jailbait.

Pretty good cliffnotes though.
 
barman said:
people are definitely stupid as shit, but it's a 2 way street.

Mortgage Bankers Association Strategic Default - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 10/07/10 - Video Clip | Comedy Central
Click to expand...

Consumers and lenders making stupid decisions is fine. If such a decision means going underwater on a mortgage - whether a home or commercial space - walk away, and give up the property. That is also fine.

Squatting is not fine. Squatters should be ________ . (enter your own punishment)
 
These are troubled times we live in. Banks choose to keep offering as toxic mortgages as possible, even today.

They know damn well that the average american, whose IQ is dropping 3 points per year these days, is not really going to know the difference between a fixed rate loan and an ARM, where the price is likely to jump up horribly in 3 or 5 years... In fact these should be ILLEGAL to offer nowadays, but I digress...

When people make dumb decisions to get in these bad mortgages, the BANK is the one that let them do it. They know better but they keep doing it regardless.

To Not squat when you've been fucked over like this is to let the bank profit off of you.

Knowing this, your only choices are to let evil win or squat.

I haven't done this myself, but if someone knew they had been victimized by a bad loan officer or bank like this and then decided to squat just to 'even out their bill,' then I'd cheer them on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Izaya
JakeStratham said:
Consumers and lenders making stupid decisions is fine. If such a decision means going underwater on a mortgage - whether a home or commercial space - walk away, and give up the property. That is also fine.

Squatting is not fine. Squatters should be ________ . (enter your own punishment)
Click to expand...

If you are overly aggressive in making money you will be burnt. Just like the people going after bizops, the bizops doesn't have much ground to stand on when they get a charge back, just like the person doing the charge back doesn't have much ground to stand on for not reading the T&Cs.

When you deal with shit (as a consumer or business) you get your hands full of shit.

I can't feel bad for the buyers or the banks.

I will say that I believe the bail out should have been to home owners, no matter how stupid they were. They are the consumers and will actually spend, unlike the bankesters who just ad digits to their accounts. But that isn't about what is right or wrong (morals, meh), just what is best for the economy. For better or worse, we are all in this shit together.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DanWesson
lukep said:
These are troubled times we live in. Banks choose to keep offering as toxic mortgages as possible, even today.

They know damn well that the average american, whose IQ is dropping 3 points per year these days, is not really going to know the difference between a fixed rate loan and an ARM, where the price is likely to jump up horribly in 3 or 5 years... In fact these should be ILLEGAL to offer nowadays, but I digress...

When people make dumb decisions to get in these bad mortgages, the BANK is the one that let them do it. They know better but they keep doing it regardless.

To Not squat when you've been fucked over like this is to let the bank profit off of you.

Knowing this, your only choices are to let evil win or squat.

I haven't done this myself, but if someone knew they had been victimized by a bad loan officer or bank like this and then decided to squat just to 'even out their bill,' then I'd cheer them on.
Click to expand...

dog-cat.jpg


Cats and dogs, living together, mass hysteria! (I have to agree with Lukep)

I'm not a fan of squatters, but in the context of mortgage-holders-turned-squatters* vs bankers and their greed induced idiocy I'd have to say the bankers deserve to be vilified far worse than the squatters. So many tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of loans were issued that should never have been written in the first place but the bankers knew they could pass the buck.

* not to be confused with transients breaking in and becoming squatters, who just are criminals
 
justo_tx said:
I'm not a fan of squatters, but in the context of mortgage-holders-turned-squatters* vs bankers and their greed induced idiocy I'd have to say the bankers deserve to be vilified far worse than the squatters. So many tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of loans were issued that should never have been written in the first place but the bankers knew they could pass the buck.
Click to expand...


So, let's see if I understand you.

You're saying that a consumer who voluntarily signs a contract, and then neglects to hold up his part of the deal (in this case, paying timely mortgage payments), should be able to decide whether he should have claim to an asset based on the asset owner's behavior?

If that's not what you're saying, then what are you saying in the context of a person who fails to pay his mortgage payments, and then refuses to leave when the owner wants him to?
 
JakeStratham said:
You're saying that a consumer who voluntarily signs a contract, and then neglects to hold up his part of the deal (in this case, paying timely mortgage payments), should be able to decide whether he should have claim to an asset based on the asset owner's behavior?

If that's not what you're saying, then what are you saying in the context of a person who fails to pay his mortgage payments, and then refuses to leave when the owner wants him to?
Click to expand...

Until homeowners can start putting in their own applications for TARP money, fuck the bankers (was that clear enough?) The big banks, and corporations of similar size and lobbying power get to play by rules nobody else gets to play by, so I look at situations in regards to them the same way they seem to view them themselves "get away with as much as you can for as long as you can".

I don't understand why you make a distinction between strategic defaulters that walk and those that squat. Especially if the "squatters" really do feel like they were deceived by the loan originator and are fighting the issue in court. Both parties reneged on a contract, I doubt the CEO of Bank of America is waiting for some squatters to leave so he can move in.
 
^^ I may as well "inb4" myself in regards to Obama's foreclosure relief program too.

"Banks weren't prepared for the volume of calls from borrowers and were slow to process their requests for help.

And the Treasury Department initially allowed banks to sign up borrowers without collecting proof of their income. In the end, many homeowners were unable to provide that information or simply gave up when the process became too bureaucratic."

I refuse to hold one party to a standard the other party doesn't feel they need to be held to. Morgan Stanley or some other bank says on Friday they need 120 billion to remain solvent, the Fed cuts a check by Monday. Then the banks go and do a piss poor job trying to help mortgage holders from becoming squatters in the first place.
 
An excellent example as to why the Canadian Banks have been given such high praise internationally for the way they have handled Mortgages this past decade.
 
justo_tx said:
I don't understand why you make a distinction between strategic defaulters that walk and those that squat. Especially if the "squatters" really do feel like they were deceived by the loan originator and are fighting the issue in court. Both parties reneged on a contract...
Click to expand...

Those who default and walk away from a property are essentially saying, "we are failing to live up to the contract we signed, and per the agreement, are willing to forfeit the property. It is not our property."

Those who default and refuse to leave are saying, "we are failing to live up to the contract we signed, but we don't a fuck about the shit we agreed to. Why? Because I feel like the lender is being unfair. And in my book, if I feel that's the case, that's enough. It's not our property, but we're gonna stay anyway."

That is why I make a distinction.

You and I obviously disagree on this. That is fine. Thanks for clarifying your position. Incidentally, I am certainly no friend of the banks. ;)
 
The point here Jake is that the mortgage banker has done the evil thing here.

It's like this:

1. I am smarter than a five year old.
2. I put a $10 worth of candy on a table in front of a mortgage document.
3. I tell the 5 year old that if he signs the document, he can have the candy.
4. Who's the law going to punish when the kid can't pay the $3,000 a month, me or the 5 year old?

Currently the laws side with me. FUCK ALL FIVE YEAR OLDS!
 
if you got it, flaunt it.

the rich and powerful exploit loopholes all the time and pass the buck to the little guy.

now the tables have turned and people are in an uproar.. fuck that.

you all act like shit doesnt happen. we live in an enviroment where every decade or so the tables get turned on any situation. just like stocks, shit like this goes up and down. this is the same for almost any situation in your life.

get over it. in a few years the tables will be turned again and the fat cats on wallstreet can go back to rapeing people again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom