Started By
Message
locked post

Is "walking away" from a mortgage wrong?

Posted on 10/11/12 at 8:33 am
Posted by WikiTiger
Member since Sep 2007
41055 posts
Posted on 10/11/12 at 8:33 am
AngryBeavers said it was in the "mortgage help for daughter" thread.

I don't think it's wrong at all. What says the Money Board?
Posted by Cold Pizza
Member since Sep 2011
7639 posts
Posted on 10/11/12 at 8:41 am to
Yes. It's breach of contract.
Posted by Swifty
Member since May 2012
950 posts
Posted on 10/11/12 at 8:41 am to
Yep, its wrong.

Get back to your sex thread wiki
This post was edited on 10/11/12 at 8:43 am
Posted by ZereauxSum
Lot 23E
Member since Nov 2008
10176 posts
Posted on 10/11/12 at 8:44 am to
Nicely done spinoff

I will say this until the day I die. There is nothing "wrong" with walking away from a mortgage. There is no moral component here at all.

A mortgage doesn't say, "pay or you're a bad person". It says "pay or we'll take your collateral".

Whether a person sells the house for less than they owe, or transfers ownership through a foreclosure or dees in lieu, it's the same effect. Borrower defaults, and a portion of the balance is written off. This is what happens in bankruptcy and no one is saying bankruptcy is "wrong".
Posted by AngryBeavers
Member since Jun 2012
4554 posts
Posted on 10/11/12 at 8:47 am to
As I said in the other thread I understand the reasons people walk away and would be tempted myself were I in that situation. I would also have a very hard time living with myself and sleeping at night knowing I walked away from an obligation. The only way I would walk away was if I could not afford the note I signed anymore.
Posted by LSUAfro
Baton Rouge
Member since Aug 2005
12775 posts
Posted on 10/11/12 at 8:48 am to
Morally? Yes
Financially? No

I am yet to work or do business for a company that uses morality as a basis for the majority of their decision making.

Why should a consumer reciprocate if the other side shows no moral obligation to them?

Posted by yellowfin
Coastal Bar
Member since May 2006
97740 posts
Posted on 10/11/12 at 10:40 am to
I can see both sides to this but in certain situations (like that other thread) I think the blame would mostly fall on the contractor. If you're walking away simply because you're upside down then that's a problem.
Posted by SlowFlowPro
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
424024 posts
Posted on 10/11/12 at 11:22 am to
morally? no

it's a contract. there are mechanisms in place in the result of a breach. morality plays no part in that mutually-bargained exchang
Posted by ItNeverRains
37069
Member since Oct 2007
25634 posts
Posted on 10/11/12 at 11:40 am to
Every situation is different. No way a blanket yes or no is the right answer
Posted by Bayou Tiger
Member since Nov 2003
3659 posts
Posted on 10/11/12 at 12:40 pm to
It is absolutely not wrong to default, in my opinion.

Businesses break contracts and leases frequently. To avoid anarchy, there are penalties that result from breaking contract which are usually spelled out in the contracts. The penalties are one of the many negotiating points in a contract and balanced by costs elsewhere if they are not strict.

There was even a mortgage company or large bank recently that broke a lease contract on one of their large office buildings. It's just not a big deal. Parties that enter into contracts understand they can come to end in a variety of ways and make sure they are okay with associated penalties before signing.

Are we supposed to feel sorry for a bank when somebody hands an underwater property back to them? The bank needs to ensure a reasonable valuation, enough money down, and a high enough interest rate to compensate them for these risks.

Now, when the government bears the risk of default, things get out of control. But to me that should not weigh on the mind of the homeowner considering default. The homeowner must weigh the downside but has a greater responsibility to provide for their family than they do to the bank.
Posted by Jim Rockford
Member since May 2011
98394 posts
Posted on 10/11/12 at 12:44 pm to
When a company walks away from a bad debt, "it's just business." When an individual does the same, it's supposed to be immoral? Not in my book.
Posted by Tigah in the ATL
Atlanta
Member since Feb 2005
27539 posts
Posted on 10/11/12 at 6:07 pm to
Only as wrong as theft.
Posted by dagrippa
Saigon
Member since Nov 2004
11305 posts
Posted on 10/12/12 at 10:18 am to
I think its unethical personally. I have very little respect for people that do that.
Posted by GrantTheFan
Baton Rouge
Member since Nov 2010
336 posts
Posted on 10/14/12 at 8:20 pm to
Yes, it's wrong. It's no different than when interest rates go up to 7 or 8% the bank says well, this 3.5% loan doesn't make economic sense for us anymore, so we're calling it, please pay in full within 30 days or get out. A deal is a deal and when you're on the wrong side of one, clean it up as quickly as you can without breaking your word and try to learn from it. But if you walk away from a deal you made just because it doesn't benefit you any more, you show yourself to be someone who can't, and shouldn't, be trusted again going forward.

That said, if major variables change, such as job loss, illness or some other catastrophic situation, there are legal routes such as bankruptcy, short sales agreed to by both sides, etc. that both sides understand exist and accept from the beginning.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram