Every Time a Judge Cancels a Mortgage a Homeowner Gets His or Her Wings

SteveP at 06:44 2010-05-27 said:

The judge's actions does nothing but increasing borrowing costs for honorable borrowers while giving a free pass to a free-loading deadbeat borrower. Obviously, an anti-capitalist liberal loon of a judge! Permalink

Jess Badlybent at 07:38 2010-05-27 said:

Hey Steve. Is this homeowner a deadbeat because he couldn't look into a crystal ball, and know his income would crumble, when he bought the condo or because he recognized his current financial dilemma and proactively negotiated a solution with the lender? I think the message the judge is trying send to the lender is this: you may handle your business in a sloppy manner (shame on you) and this may only be a business transaction to you (double shame) but this transaction represents the personal security of a real human being and the repercussions of such insensitive actions have an effect on entire communities. At least respect the court and acknowledge the gravity the proceeding has on the defendant and comply with simple and commonsense requests.

If I'm not supposed to shed a tear for a "deadbeat" homeowner who has fell into misfortune and loses their HOME to the bank then it is much harder for me to shed that tear for the bank when a judge hands the A$$ET back to the homeowner. Permalink

SteveP at 00:21 2010-05-28 said:

The reason why mortgage rates are typically one forth of that of unsecured loans is because in the event of default, regardless of circumstances or borrower hardship, the mortgage holder can foreclose and in turn recover a majority of their investment.

In reading your response it sounds as though you're okay with defaulted borrowers being able to keep the collateral without having to repay the loan which they took out if they experienced some kind of hardship. If all mortgages were offered under such terms, they would be priced in the 15 to 20% interest range till eventually all borrowers defaulted when they realized they get to keep their homes whether they repay or not. With near 100% default rates, lenders would stop making mortgages all together. No more mortgage lending would not be the best outcome for our industry or for our country for that matter.

Your comment sounds like the typical short-sited, liberal-loon babble of some cretin that has no comprehension of cause and effect.

Finally, every dollar lent that is is not repaid is a dollar loss for someone else. You seemed so concerned for the defaulted borrower's hardships but seemed oblivious to any hardship imposed upon the investor that funded the loan cited in the article. In other words, you are advocating for this deadbeat borrower to keep his McMansion free and clear while honorable, retired people, who have always lived within their means, gets their pensions cut due to bad mortgage investments. Permalink

Jess Badlybent at 01:20 2010-05-30 said:

Hey, spray some Bactine on whatever wounds you are harboring and stop slinging mud long enough to consider: America suddenly woke up to realize that much of our political representation and legislation is dictated by the buffoons serving the interests of the financial services industry. Every mortgage is nothing more than a contract wherein both parties are pledging something of value and each party is exposed to risk. There are rules to engaging in these contracts. Rules that have been written by and largely used to the advantage of the financial industry. If the same "cretins" (ha - interesting that YOU used that word) who created the contracts and then manipulated them into vehicles used to rob the equity of shareholders and other investors now want to run around the playground like little sissy-mary's because they don't want to play by their own rules. Makes me sick. Go on and support the deviants! Ha! Permalink