Squatter Nation: "Screw Mortgage Payments!"

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."

But do the mortgage docs make for allowances of "failing to live up to the contract"? I've never read one that says here's your 30 year installment plan unless you lose your job in which case you move out and we'll just call it a day. They're still on the hook as far as the contract is concerned, maybe state laws mitigate that responsibility but that's a separate concern. From a contractual stand point reneging and walking or reneging and staying seems to be comparing shades of grey.
 


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:

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.

Yeah because everyone that loses their home has these exact same things happen to them. Nice one.

First of all, IN GENERAL, the only ones that should be blamed for this situation are the mortgage companies who didn't do enough due diligence. It should be their priority to make sure someone can own a home instead of trying to bring in the numbers at the end of the day.
 
A few rabbit holes have opened up. So, I'm gonna bail from this conversation for awhile to get work done.

But I will say this... this thread has exposed an important, unexpected lesson for all of us. A valuable lesson. And here it is: none of us should ever be comfortable accepting a bag of candy from lukep.

Good grief. Who knows what strings will be attached?!


FUCK ALL FIVE YEAR OLDS!

Dude.





 
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!
Only they're not 5 year olds, they're adults. Once you turn 18, you're (understandably) liable for whatever you do, no matter how stupid you are.
 
I'm conflicted a little. Pretty much the only poster I completely disagree with is lukep. Accepting personal responsibility is important, and just because loan terms might be confusing that doesn't completely take the pressure off the buyer.
I can't feel bad for the buyers or the banks.
Pretty much sums it up...

The .gov helped dig the hole, the banks filled it up with water, and buyers willingly jumped in without life jackets; uncertain of how well they could swim.
 
If you ever want to see a classic case of adults ducking responsibility and try to stick somebody else with the bill, hang out for a day in the boardroom of a mid to large-sized corporation.

There's even a name for this type of behaviour, lawfare (Get it? Warfare=lawfare).

If you can get a lawyer to get you off the hook, go get a lawyer. It's the American way.

First rule of doing business is don't business with people who are trying to screw you (in this case, the banks).
Second rule of business, if you break rule one, screw them back when they try to screw you.
 
I'm conflicted a little. Pretty much the only poster I completely disagree with is lukep. Accepting personal responsibility is important, and just because loan terms might be confusing that doesn't completely take the pressure off the buyer.

Pretty much sums it up...

The .gov helped dig the hole, the banks filled it up with water, and buyers willingly jumped in without life jackets; uncertain of how well they could swim.

Possibly the best description of what happened that I have read yet.
 
But I will say this... this thread has exposed an important, unexpected lesson for all of us. A valuable lesson. And here it is: none of us should ever be comfortable accepting a bag of candy from lukep.
I LOL'd.

Don't worry, I would only offer it to the children of WaFo members, not here. :anon.sml:


Only they're not 5 year olds, they're adults. Once you turn 18, you're (understandably) liable for whatever you do, no matter how stupid you are.
I used to think like this. Fuck 'em if they sign... But this mortgage situation in 2009 took it all to a whole new level.

Your point makes sense when the contract is between two people.

If you have a contract with Jake, and Jake doesn't pay up, of course, evict Jake's ass.

But these banks today are playing the numbers on a VAST battlefield out of the comprehension of 99% of their victims. It's not the same game to them and they control it by bribing lawmakers to re-write the laws in their favors and even get government handouts to compensate for when they fuck up.

The day the homeowner can get the same government handout is the day the playing field will be level.

Frankly, I'd rather no one get it, and the law be written in a way that makes sense to borrowers... But that's WAAAAAAAAAAAY too much to ask in this shitty country.
 
It's interesting, I met some Puerto Ricans that made a business out of this. They find someone to build their credit up, buy ridiculously large house, rent it out to illegal immigrants above the average rental rate and keep 100% profits for 2-3 years while it defaults (in FL it's extremely long and hard process to foreclose on someone.)

Illegal as fuck, but the guy is making a killing. haha.