digg

Join DiggAbout
See the original image at mynonprofitwebsite.com

Foreclosure, Do Not Walk Away, Investors do not want it.

mynonprofitwebsite.com — You just might still be able to get your house back.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • MarkusX, on 05/28/2008, -15/+4Interesting.
    • ligyron, on 05/29/2008, -6/+12Generic comment
      • wes00mertes, on 05/29/2008, -1/+13Generic witty jab at your generic comment.
        • SteveIsTheDude, on 05/29/2008, -0/+4Generic anger about this thread of comments unrelated to this story, note: "This is not funny anymore, I am really mad now".
        • ChileanGoD, on 05/29/2008, -0/+7Generic combo breaker?...
        • tHePeOPle, on 05/29/2008, -0/+3Generic joke about your generic mom.
        • thcobbs, on 05/29/2008, -0/+4Generic jokes about geriatric moms are just wrong though.
      • accbymaldemer, on 05/29/2008, -0/+2- Punch the monitor
      • ligyron, on 05/29/2008, -1/+3I'm just pointing out his generic comment. I'm not trying to start a Digg orgy here
    • Spuy767, on 05/29/2008, -1/+3Unlike your comment.
  • GiveMeCookies, on 05/28/2008, -12/+7Doubtful
  • wwjbaby, on 05/28/2008, -8/+178Just in case:http://www.picsyard.info/static/_Foreclosure_Do_No ...
  • Fangsinmybeard, on 05/28/2008, -9/+49In any case, it is the cities and towns that will hurt the most. Property values plummet, which in turn reduces the tax base to the point of no return. Municipal bonds end up being worthless. What the banks and investment houses did was armed robbery.
    • Y0tsuya, on 05/29/2008, -2/+30Maybe municipalities shouldn't budget their spending based on short-term bubble-derived income. But that's too much to ask for.
      • EntropyFan, on 05/29/2008, -0/+2That is the problem with short term bubbles. They take values lower then they actually are.
        Blaming municipalities is like accusing the person driving the 36th car in a 50 car pile up of bad driving.
        They may have done it perfect; the idiots around them were actually the cause. But if you allow them (the careful ones) to be blamed, insurance companies or investors don't care. They will take the fall anyway.

        So even those that are careful, exact, and cautious get nailed in the end, for no other reason then they were in the wrong spot at the wrong time. Not everyone is as greedy as you.
        Easy for you to shrug it off. Until it is you in that spot, then I'm sure we will hear some 'sob story'
        • Y0tsuya, on 05/29/2008, -0/+6You must not be familiar with budgeting, California-style. State and local governments spend every cent they get, and then some. They don't really save up for a rainy day. If tax revenue increases, spending increases to match. When tax revenue decreases, they borrow money to plug budget holes because folks receiving government money howl and scream at any hint of a cut.
    • gator2000, on 05/29/2008, -1/+5Property values plummeting have nothing to do with a tax base. Municipal taxes are calculated based on a projected budget. That budget is then spread out among the homeowners and businesses. The portion of the budget each homeowner is responsible for is weighted to them based on the relative value of each individual home. When all of the values go down by the same percentage, there is no effect on anyones taxes.
      • geneusutwerk, on 05/29/2008, -2/+5I am no expert but I do not think this is how all municipalities operate.
        • mcquitty, on 05/29/2008, -1/+5You are correct. In my house, it is the assessed value times a multiple to calculate your taxes. As the value of your house increases, so does your tax rate.
        • gator2000, on 05/29/2008, -1/+2Any guess how the multiplier is derived? Let me make this simple...if everyone's value goes down by 20%, but the budget stays the same...what do you think happens to the multiplier? You think it might go up by?...you guessed it...by 20%.

          If there are 5 houses in a town...and they are all worth the same...100 per year total is needed for the town budget. Each homeowner pays 20 dollars. Everyone's value goes down by 20%...100 per year is still needed to run the town...how much does everyone pay?? Why is this so hard for everyone to understand? Are you all so wrapped up in what would happen to you in your house if you got you home reassesed that you dont realize what will happen once everyone does that?
      • oldgal, on 05/29/2008, -1/+4Maybe in your state. In California if the value drops appreciably you can get the house reassessed and your property tax reduced. In the case of foreclosed properties, I would assume the mortgage company, bank, or investment company are liable for the property taxes.
        • gator2000, on 05/29/2008, -2/+3And what do you think happens when all of the homeowners do the same thing because all of the properties have gone down in value by the same percentage but the cost of the budget hasn't changed? Eventually...it all evens out and everyone ends up paying their portion of the total budget prorated for the value of your home compared to that of the other residents. Are you guys kidding me...George W, is that you??
      • Lockean, on 05/29/2008, -1/+3You've got to be kidding, gator. You are obviously not from California and are completely unaware of the fact that most cities here are coming up short on budgets. Sacramento froze all municipal hiring and growth, including the police department, because property values dropped so much. Here, your property taxes are legally tied directly to the value of the home, not proportionately to any budget. In Sacramento, for example, we pay exactly 1.5% of the value of the home in taxes.
        This is why the city of Vallejo tried to declare bankruptcy, as they were on the forefront of the market collapse. Don't assume that just because you live in some backwards municipality that will just arbitrarily create budgets and taxes that the entire country does too.
        • gator2000, on 05/29/2008, -1/+3A refusal to adjust that 1.5% (otherwise known as the mill rate) to the point where the budget can be sustained will inevitably result in the failure you are seeing in your area. Eventually it will be adjusted to a more appropriate rate that ends up equalling enough to support the towns budget. You guys can't see past the current impact of a moment of volatility.

          Do you not see the irony of you calling my municipality backwards given your areas current situation? When they adjust the mill rate upwards by the amount that when applied to home values can support the budget, all of your municipalities will be fine. The incorporation of home value in taxes is only to distrubute the tax burden in a more fair way to the homeowners. The value of homes does not change the tax burden...though i certainly can see that spending probably got out of hand becuase they didnt move the mill rate DOWN while values were going UP. Now, they have to reign in spending so they can lower the total tax burden, so that they dont have to increase the mill rate by an amount that when coupled with the mortgage mess, becomes to painful for homeowners to bear.
      • Godlike, on 05/29/2008, -0/+2"but when the tax man comes to the door, the house look like a rummage sale, yeah"
    • Borramakot, on 05/29/2008, -0/+8What the banks did was mandated by the law. See the Credit Recovery Act, which stipulated that loans should be given to the euphemistically named "Subprime" borrower. The inflationary system is also designed to encourage investors to put their money in bad investments, because as long as the value lost isn't higher than inflation, its better than keeping cash. Therefore, mortgage companies cannot simply have cash, they need to give it to people who can't afford it, whether they can be paid back or not.
      • XopherMV, on 05/29/2008, -2/+2There is no law that requires anyone or any bank to lend money. Further, there is no law that requires anyone or any bank to lend money to borrowers with poor credit ratings.

        None of the companies making these loans expected so many loans to go bad all at once. All of the companies invested in these loans expected to make money off of these loans. And, in fact, they were making fantastic sums of money from these loans until the recent past.

        Subprime loans used to be illegal. But, big corporate banks wanted the banking regulations involving Subprime loans gutted so they could offer these loans and make more money. The Libertarian wing of the Republican party were happy to accommodate those corporations and removed those regulations.

        However, there was a reason those regulations were created in the first place: to prevent the mess we're currently in. Those regulations prevented this subprime scenario for 70 years. In other words, more government, not less, would have prevented the subprime mess, just like those previous laws did for the prior 70 years.

        Put that in your libertarian pipe and smoke it.
        • zeromous, on 05/29/2008, -0/+2As a self described, "libertarian", I digg you up.

          There is a long way between common sense and crazy. To my own defence I would never advocate the law to condone any heinous crime, simple because 'the victim ought to have done more to defend themselves'.

          Those laws belonged in place, but I do take issue with you blaming the 'libertarian' sect of the republican party. Where do you get that information exactly? I'm not American, but it seems to me that the people responsible for this mess did it more for money than any sort of political ideal.

          It occurs to me that perhaps you are just looking for someone to blame, but your point stands. There are absolutely times when regulation (specifically economic) is imperative for the protection of the 'free market'- kind of like how free speech doesn't mean you can say anything.
        • Borramakot, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1Did you actually look up the law. I don't remember the specifics, but it did either require or encourage lending agencies to lend to a certain number of sub prime borrowers. Did that cause everything? Of course not. But bad investments, both in people and currencies, are encouraged.
    • jeffiek, on 05/29/2008, -0/+4"armed robbery"

      Call me old fashioned, but shouldn't that involve some sort of weapon? A gun, a knife, maybe even a purse full of quarters?

      There are enough problems in the world without distorting reality.
    • jabberwolf, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1LOL I was going to say "armed" ? With what?

      They were armed alright with people's stupidity, greed, ignorance ?
      And they sure used it against them.
      Now those people are without a house and no money.

      What's that saying " a fool and his money... ?"
      But you're saying it simply isn't fair? I'm sorry do people trying to make money off you have to tell you upfront that you are taking a huge risk because you're too stupid not to know this yourself?
      Oh grow the F*ck up !

  • BeeArePro, on 05/28/2008, -1/+14Same thing happened to my brother. He's now living rent free till someone buys his house..but his credit will be ***** once this is over..
    • life38, on 05/28/2008, -1/+8seven years is all it takes to clear it out. Just think he will have the company of thousand of wall street types with bad credit.
      • tault, on 05/29/2008, -1/+24His credit wont be *****. It takes 3 years to get a new house. It stays on your record for 7 years. HOWEVER. Have him go out and get as many credit cards as he can. Also have him make sure if he has other loans he does now go out and pay them off but drag them out.

        Then do this. Have him buy at least 20 dollars of items on each credit card. If done correctly he can easily increase his credit score to only 100 points under what he could of have. In a nutshell he can have around a 650 credit score in as little as a year or 2. That wont get you the best house around but if its done right banks will be fine with giving you a house in just 3 years and you will be fine for credit wise on everything else.

        Also you can be annoyingly sneaky and every 30 days apply for a credit card and have them request the foreclosure document from the company or companies that did the foreclosure. If lucks on your side eventually they will forget to send out the paper for a foreclosure in the required 14 days if i recall correctly and that foreclosure can be taken off your credit history permanently.

        Behold the power of manipulating the system.
        • Synchro, on 05/29/2008, -0/+11If it is on the Internet, it must be true!
        • lagannt, on 05/29/2008, -0/+5Getting that many credit cards, then closing their accounts will probably bring your score right down again...
      • piper999, on 05/29/2008, -1/+3Yes that's right. Buy another house in three years and have the original creditor you couldn't pay back put a lien on it for all its equity from now till eternity and spend the rest of your life maintaining and paying for somebody else's asset. Great idea!

        • kaplanfx, on 05/29/2008, -0/+2Don't bother, "they" don't understand. I mean, they couldn't figure out how an ARM works, or at least they assumed housing prices ALWAYS go up and they could re-fi.
  • smartcause, on 05/28/2008, -0/+20And here I am living in a shipping container! Off to search the suburbs for a foreclosed house to squat in...
    • ericmerrill, on 05/29/2008, -0/+9That's the spirit!
    • chuckDontSurf, on 05/29/2008, -0/+4The shipping container apparently gets great wifi reception.
  • mimigins, on 05/29/2008, -2/+78Was it supposed to be funny or informative? I was waiting for the funny...
    • minorthreat, on 05/29/2008, -4/+5I know.. Im trying to sell my townhouse, noone wants to buy it. Im not thinking about foreclosure, but if I do foreclose, does that mean that I can pocket my $1200 a month mortgage until someone buys it? Hell, thats worth 7 years of bad credit.
      • klitscher, on 05/29/2008, -1/+31I wouldn't necessarily take financial advice from digg...
        • WNW3, on 05/29/2008, -1/+12Would taking your advice to not take financial advice from digg classify as taking financial advice from digg? *****, I confused myself. *****!
      • lukas88, on 05/29/2008, -0/+5If it is foreclosed, you will forfeit all legal ownership of the home as well as the money you already invested in it. So when someone buys it, they won't be buying it from you.
      • zspeed78, on 05/29/2008, -0/+5Not to mention every foreclosed home Ive ever seen has a bank turn off the electricity, but a lock on the door, and have a few realtors walk through it to take pictures and so forth. No one is going to let you live in it. Buy it back at auction, maybe.. but with what credit?
  • Calcularius, on 05/29/2008, -1/+9Can happen, but RARE.
  • FishHammer, on 05/29/2008, -0/+10wow 503 after 10 minutes
    • altosaxon, on 05/29/2008, -0/+7The bank foreclosed on the server...
  • greekgod8591, on 05/29/2008, -6/+1We need a mirror.
  • casual7y, on 05/29/2008, -0/+24Wikipedia: Foreclosure is the legal proceeding in which a mortgagee, usually a lender, obtains a court ordered termination of a mortgagor's equitable right of redemption. Usually a lender obtains a security interest from a borrower who mortgages or pledges an asset like a house to secure the loan. If the borrower defaults and the lender tries to repossess the property, courts of equity can grant the owner the right of redemption if the borrower repays the debt. When this equitable right exists, the lender cannot be sure that it can successfully repossess the property, thus the lender seeks to foreclose the equitable right of redemption.


    WTF. can someone explain this to me in stupid terms?
    • NSResponder, on 05/29/2008, -1/+37I'll give it a shot, sure.

      When you buy a house, you usually borrow money to pay the seller. The lender gives you that money according to the terms of a contract, which is the mortgage. The mortgage contract says how much and how often you will pay money to the lender over the period of the loan.

      If you don't make those payments on time, you're in default: you've failed to meet your part of the contract. When you're in default, the lender has to decide whether they believe you'll make good on your debt or not. If they don't think you can do it, they'll go to court to foreclose. The mortgage contract says they can take the house from you and sell it to get their money back.

      Before they do that, you have the right to pay up and get current, and continue the mortgage contract. That's your "right of redemption". When they go to court to foreclose, they're asking the court to end your right to keep the house by getting current on your payments.

      -jcr
    • twiztidsinz, on 05/29/2008, -12/+3Foreclosure Bad! (Beer Good!
      Napster BAD!, Metallica Good!)
    • quail20, on 05/29/2008, -1/+3Someone might do better than this explanation, but here goes:

      It's legal speak for saying Joe can't pay even though he says he might. It gives power to the lender to take the property. In essence...

      ...Lendee has the right to try and make good on the debt to the lender. This is a right of the person paying the debt and may prevent the lender from taking possession of a property to satisfy the outstanding debt. To remove this right that belongs to the lendee the lender must go to a court of law and foreclose on this right -- remove it from the lendee's sets of rights.
    • petska, on 05/29/2008, -0/+2A foreclosure:

      Lender has to legally cancel out your right to takeover the house.
      If they just ask you to leave without foreclosing, you could technically come back a year later and pay them the rest of the money owed and take ownership of the property.

      IMHO

      ----
      OFF TOPIC:
      What's really funny is if you took a mortgage before 2007, chances are your mortgage was sold in pieces to investment banks allover the world. If your mortgage was sold by the originator in this manner, you could probably never make payments and would never be foreclosed on. Because your loan was diced up to so many investors, they would never be able to foreclose the house on you.
      True story, a guy in florida is doing this now in a magnificent house on the water.
    • omgbanana, on 05/29/2008, -0/+2"Foreclosure is the legal proceeding in which a mortgagee, usually a lender, obtains a court ordered termination of a mortgagor's equitable right of redemption."
      - A summary definition

      "Usually a lender obtains a security interest from a borrower who mortgages or pledges an asset like a house to secure the loan. If the borrower defaults and the lender tries to repossess the property, courts of equity can grant the owner the right of redemption if the borrower repays the debt."
      - A person takes out a loan. They probably put the house they buy with that money up as collateral. If the person does not make the payments, they "default". The idea, then, is the bank gets to take the collateral. Well, the "right to redemption" is the right to pay off the loan even after defaults (and not lose your collateral). Hence, "redemption."

      "When this equitable right exists, the lender cannot be sure that it can successfully repossess the property, thus the lender seeks to foreclose the equitable right of redemption."
      - With all this equity built up, the lender then goes back to the courts to have that right of redemption taken away.

      I've not taken any sort of banking class, so this is my general understanding. I think the definition is a bit circular in its wording... That might be why it sounds so confusing.
    • lacyt, on 05/29/2008, -1/+0In legalese:

      Equitable – just; fair; reasonable
      Redemption -- recovery; pay off

      Equitable right of redemption –

      If a borrower is delinquent with his monthly mortgage payments in a state that has “right of redemption” laws, the subject property has been pledged as collateral on the Note for it, and a foreclosure lawsuit has been filed against him for non-payment of that Note, the borrower nevertheless retains the legal right to pay off the entire balance of that Note in one lump sum within a specified time frame. If he can, then the lawsuit gets dismissed.

      In states that don’t have “equitable right of redemption” laws, once the foreclosure lawsuit has been filed, the borrower is simply SOL. He will lose the property, no matter what, and his credit will be screwed for the next 10 years. It’s also possible the borrower can still be held legally responsible for payment of whatever balance remains on his original Note even after foreclosure has occurred.

      And so, kiddies, that’s why it’s especially vital to make damned sure you read ALL the fine print and have an attorney explain it all to you BEFORE you sign that interest-only Note on the 6 bedroom, 4 bath McMansion you and your spouse plan to occupy all by your two-selves.
      :}
    • casual7y, on 05/29/2008, -0/+4ah ok that makes sense. thanks guys.

      so what this comic is trying to say is that, if you get foreclosed, you are still authorized to keep your home until it gets sold by the original owner/lender right?
    • lacyt, on 05/29/2008, -2/+1So, yes; omg is right. They'll seek to strip you of your right to pay off the Note in full and keep your house and your good credit rating. The sharks.
    • lukas88, on 05/29/2008, -0/+4A lot of complicated explanations. Simply it is this:

      If you can pay back the loan, you cannot legally be stripped of your house.
      Foreclosure is the legal process that shows that you cannot pay back the loan (probably through a history of nonpayment), thereby allowing the bank to take ownership.
  • mjones77, on 05/29/2008, -8/+3mirror http://uploadingit.com/view/637393_32pqi
  • ObiWanCalobi, on 05/29/2008, -0/+5What's with all the Digg effects going on all of a sudden. I remember when at least some site managed to stay up once they made front-page.
  • RSjmiller, on 05/29/2008, -3/+2If the homeowner doesn't know what they're doing then its another man's profit. Its like short sales, http://www.realtystore.com/foreclosure-tutorial/sh ... . Here's three things you need to know: http://www.realtystore.com/blog/2008/05/three-thin ...
    • Todesengelvr6, on 05/29/2008, -1/+1I found your post very informative. Ty.
  • dvsbastard, on 05/29/2008, -2/+14Don't bother with a mirror... the error page is much more entertaining than the comic...
    • MasterGrief, on 05/29/2008, -1/+3I think it was a comic meant more to inform than to entertain.
    • limbikity, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1wait, it's a comic?
  • Newedge14, on 05/29/2008, -1/+17The Digg Effect is more powerful than the force
  • johnroth, on 05/29/2008, -4/+5Looks like this site foreclosed... on it's server!
    • life38, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1Thanks for helping the site learn what it takes to handle the traffic. Good play off the article.
  • jonmlm, on 05/29/2008, -0/+3your non profit website crashed from digg? shocking
  • brbroman, on 05/29/2008, -4/+4Dead servers, DO NOT WANT
  • RSjmiller, on 05/29/2008, -3/+2http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:Z6abmtSnwAcJ: ...
  • dhVyse, on 05/29/2008, -5/+3Meh.
  • quail20, on 05/29/2008, -1/+3One of the big problems that many homeowners face is that they don't know who owns the mortgage. Those things got sold and split up to so many institutions looking to make a quick buck that it's near impossible for some people to find out who has authority in the decision making. Is the comic truthful? Not sure. I do know that lots of municipalities are winding up with the houses because the mortgage holders aren't paying the back taxes on them. Part of that is because the mortgage might be held by several hundred entities holding onto a pool of bad debts. (I'm fearful that the same thing might be happening in the commodities market. It's an overheated bubble looking to burst.)
    • therightside, on 05/29/2008, -1/+4It is pretty easy to find the owner tho. Its the one you make the check out to every month.
  • blackgt93, on 05/29/2008, -1/+9www.mynonworkingwebsite.com
  • smoothlikeice7, on 05/29/2008, -4/+4the server got foreclosed no pun intended.
  • xxNIRVANAxx, on 05/29/2008, -0/+3You lost me at Foreclosure...
  • franksalvo, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1You better have a lawyer if you're gonna go that route.
  • jamesov89, on 05/29/2008, -0/+18What does emo have to do with that?
  • hadak, on 05/29/2008, -1/+1404, do not click away, diggers do not want it.
  • SolidSnak, on 05/29/2008, -5/+6503.................. ***** THING SUCKS!!!!
    • aflaks, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1its time to mindlessly latch onto another catch phrase.
  • willrs, on 05/29/2008, -0/+10yea well you already have to have your money approved before you can go into an auction, how can somebody who cant pay their mortgage get their non existent money approved???
    • zspeed78, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1Some people have the cash to pay, but since their home is worth 200k and they owe 400k, they want to foreclose and walk away. Thieves if you ask me, especially if they owe that much because they took out home equity lines or refinanced and pocketed the difference.
  • NelsonR, on 05/29/2008, -2/+5Japan's housing market tanked for over 10 years and they were not in the financial dilemma the U.S. now faces. Give the home back unless you think your devaluing house will again rise. Hopefully then you are young and can await this long term downturn to invert. Who will you hurt, mainly foreign investors who failed to learn from our Enron and the five percent elite acquiring most of the available money now in circulation. Soon rather then purchasing TP paper at exorbitant prices it would be cheaper to use one dollar bills.
    Isn't Bernanke, Paulson and that great economist Greenspan who started this mess grand? Hopefully I will meet them while they panhandle on a street corner. Now we all know better since it will be us on that corner while they bask in the sun of some Caribbean Island. Oh, you have to love our upper crust and those crooks and speculators on Wall Street and the Commodities Market.
    • Pittance, on 05/29/2008, -0/+2"TP paper"

      like ATM machines, i guess
      • kaplanfx, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1it's funny 'cause he still won't get it :)
  • Bacontastic, on 05/29/2008, -2/+5Not only was that highly un-funny, but the server sucks. Boo.
  • sek52, on 05/29/2008, -1/+3BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
  • alukima, on 05/29/2008, -0/+5If someone didnt have the cash to pay their monthly mortgage they probably wont have enough to buy their house outright in an auction.

    The better idea is to buy a house you can afford to begin with. I was approved for three times the cost of the house I bought . I.E. Approved for $150,000 and ended up buying a $50,000 house. When I got divorced I could still afford it without starving.
    • BGog, on 05/29/2008, -0/+3You make a fine point, however there are many people who did purchase responsibly many years ago but are in a bad spot because of the downturn.. Perhaps they lost their job or were forced to take one that pays much less.
      • Pikachelsea, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1IAWTC. The situation you described is exactly what happened to my parents recently. They both got laid off from their jobs at the same time last year, only managed to get "replacement" jobs that made considerably less money and now have basically no option but to short sell their house. And that after tapping their IRAs to try to make it work... only to lose all that money because they are giving the house back to the bank and making nothing on it. It really sucks.

        I think the lesson here is that job security is more important than the price of the house (although it doesn't hurt to try to get a place that you can comfortably afford so you won't be living paycheck to paycheck, and can build up an emergency savings stockpile in case of situations like this).
    • kbcool, on 05/29/2008, -2/+1You get $50,000 houses over there?

      Wow, I'm still trying to find one for less than a million ($1,000,000).

      God bless(ed) America and F(*&ed Australia up.
    • westyvw, on 05/29/2008, -2/+0There are houses for less then $500,000?
    • skrshawk, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1We were in a similar situation - cleared for $130k, bought for $52k. We're now very glad, and our house has equity simply for having found such a good deal. It was the cheapest house in the Capital District of NY in livable condition when we bought and actually was somewhere we wanted to live. $4/gal. gas doesn't hurt as bad when you're in the door for $500 a month.
    • LeRenard, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1I'm still boggled there is such a thing as a $50,000 home that isn't condemned.. In the town I was born in, middle of nowhere New Hampshire, undeveloped 1 acre lots are easily $100,000.00 if zoned for residential buildings. You can't even get the lot for 50k.
  • Ryan166, on 05/29/2008, -1/+2Wow did that suck!
  • cronian, on 05/29/2008, -1/+4I read a lot of the banks lost the original paperwork, and if you challenge them in court you can get lucky, they can't foreclose on you and you get to keep the house with no mortgage.
    • neozeed, on 05/29/2008, -1/+2Yes, most states require orginals, however thru consolodation most banks went to digital imaging.. however none of the imaging is bonded so it's completly worthless..
  • lukas88, on 05/29/2008, -0/+3Foreclosure should still be avoided at all costs, since you are losing all legal claim to the house as well as the money you already paid for the house. However, if you find yourself in that situation, wait until you have to leave. It may take longer than you thought.
  • edstate, on 05/29/2008, -2/+7Can we please not help these idiots that bought way more house than they could afford?
    • bashu, on 05/29/2008, -1/+2We're not anymore... but back when the housing market was strong you could get a loan with nothing down. Now that the market sucks the house's value has actually depreciated and it's worth less than the mortgage. If you had an interest-only mortgage then you have negative equity in the home.
      • DestroyFascism, on 05/29/2008, -1/+1So form a company, rent it cheap, take a wage and pay no tax....
  • LiQuidAir, on 05/29/2008, -1/+3I have been working with foreclosures for the past 7 years and its not just the borrowers fault for choosing to purchase a home that is maybe above or on the boarder of the borrowers means. Its also the client (bank) thats issuing these loans when they know that these borrowers will have a hard time.

    As for the investor not wanting the home back A. No ***** & B. most the time the client (bank) gets the property back at sale if the magic number is not hit. Then they try to list the property in this great market!
    • kaplanfx, on 05/29/2008, -1/+1It's always the responsibility of the consumer. No matter how much you want to blame the lenders, and even if they new they were giving a loan higher than the consumer could afford, there are contracts that clearly stipulate the terms of the deal, and if they don't understand them, they shouldn't sign. If a consumer takes a 5 year ARM and no money down to buy a house and just hopes that they will get enough equity to re-fi in 5 years, I have no pity for them when they are wrong.
  • dienaked, on 05/29/2008, -0/+3Living somewhere you don't belong and with no worries about being kicked out. Sounds like the US' immigration policy towards Mexicans.
    • jabberwolf, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1Yep, its called not getting something for nothing.
      Kinda new to some people, but to most it's known as LIFE!
  • digitallysick, on 05/29/2008, -0/+2I suggest trying to refinance the home through a credit union, for a really low interest rate. Apparently they are bending more because of the recession.
  • ren1999, on 05/29/2008, -1/+2Japan had the housing bubble burst about 15 years ago. But unlike Japan, The U.S. workforce is no longer earning enough hourly wages to own a home. And that is unlikely to change. There will be no U.S. housing recovery.
    • ren1999, on 05/29/2008, -0/+3I also worked with Foreclosures as an IT person and basically the bank takes a big hit when they have to sell a home. They don't want to do it. They suffer a big loss. The bank is not the enemy. The people trying to pay for their homes are not lazy. The problem is low wages and jobs lost overseas. The problem is basically, 1.) short term stock investment shareholder decisions that disregard the lives and earnings of people 2.) Executive officers who tank companies while paying themselves a lot of money. 3.) Outsourcing jobs to slave laborers overseas. 4.) And a corrupt government that allows these things.
  • aeckz, on 05/29/2008, -0/+0Mirorr:
    http://stay-still.com/imageshl/zz9nqxgoq75w5uljoy2 ...
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.