|
Another aspect of the mortgage crisis. | by Peace_man | 2008-07-29 09:47:29 |
| The laws changed recently |
by subbywan |
2008-07-29 09:51:05 |
You can no longer declare bankruptcy to clear your debt. A judge now gets to decide if you have a valid case (in which case you can), or if you're just trying to skip out on payments (in which case, you cannot).
I suspect that with the rise in people just walking away from houses/apts and letting them foreclose, we'll see a similar change in law that says "Even if you foreclose, you're still going to be responsible for x-% of the price".
|
|
[ Reply ] |
|
Contracts frequently have that stipulation already | by merlin | 2008-07-29 09:53:44 |
|
Recourse vs. non-recourse. | by esbita | 2008-07-29 10:12:22 |
|
That makes sense. | by Peace_man | 2008-07-29 09:54:32 |
|
It's a two-way street. Yes the banks "overlent", | by merlin | 2008-07-29 09:56:20 |
|
Yup. I was pushed to make a larger loan | by subbywan | 2008-07-29 09:57:53 |
|
When I ran all my paperwork, my mortgage broker | by merlin | 2008-07-29 10:00:39 |
|
Yup. I go with 25-30%, max. (n/t) | by subbywan | 2008-07-29 10:02:21 |
|
We were pre-qualified for $300 000 | by MatthewDBA | 2008-07-29 10:03:53 |
|
Don't buy in Vancouver! | by Illiad | 2008-07-29 10:07:10 |
|
I bought 2,600 sq. ft. (4BR,2.5BA) for < $160k (n/t) | by merlin | 2008-07-29 10:11:52 |
|
$160K | by Illiad | 2008-07-29 10:25:40 |
|
*snerk* That made me LOL. | by merlin | 2008-07-29 10:27:32 |
|
That is the size of my first apt that I paid about | by Classic_Jon | 2008-07-29 11:07:50 |
|
Okay, here's one for you. | by kelli217 | 2008-07-29 13:00:54 |
|
Oh, sorry, that one's $300k. Wrong link. | by kelli217 | 2008-07-29 13:05:54 |
|
Yes, both should be penalized. | by Illiad | 2008-07-29 10:02:35 |
|
Customer told me this on the phone after | by Classic_Jon | 2008-07-29 10:12:17 |
|
that attitude urinates me off | by subbywan | 2008-07-29 10:14:00 |
|
In the bill payment industry, you have no idea how | by Classic_Jon | 2008-07-29 10:42:01 |
|
The borrowers are penalized. | by Peace_man | 2008-07-29 10:16:12 |
|
Maybe 60/40? | by Illiad | 2008-07-29 10:21:04 |
|
Well - I could agree to that. | by Peace_man | 2008-07-29 10:32:04 |
|
Not "no return," no. | by Illiad | 2008-07-29 10:48:42 |
|
I will say, though, that I give him props for | by merlin | 2008-07-29 10:52:15 |
|
A slight adjustment to 3) | by Illiad | 2008-07-29 10:54:49 |
|
That's one way of reading it. | by merlin | 2008-07-29 10:56:59 |
|
In other words | by MatthewDBA | 2008-07-29 10:52:56 |
|
In the subtext... | by Illiad | 2008-07-29 10:55:46 |
|
Or, "Man, I was hoping this would be a sugar daddy | by merlin | 2008-07-29 10:56:16 |
|
I'd forgive him. He doesn't have enough | by Peace_man | 2008-07-29 11:15:22 |
|
Correction: they lose *a* home. | by esbita | 2008-07-29 10:50:31 |
|
I agree with not giving people a free escape | by AndyA | 2008-07-29 10:36:32 |
|
Agreed on the latter with one provision: | by subbywan | 2008-07-29 10:44:34 |
|
Agreed. (n/t) | by AndyA | 2008-07-29 11:03:28 |
