[analogika]

Originally Posted by ♥ 

I'm sorry that I'm not more ethical.

If your reaction to getting stiffed is to turn around and stiff someone else to make THEM pay for it, you deserve a lot worse.

I'm surprised that what you're suggesting isn't treated as fraud where you live - or is it, and nobody has pointed it out yet?

[MacosNerd]

Originally Posted by ♥ 

The problem is that I cannot, morally and ethically, sell this house to someone else knowing that the house is probably going to shift and crack further.

Originally Posted by ♥ 

I'm sorry that I'm not more ethical.

Wow, you don't even try to "morally and ethically" sell the house so you'll instead decide to immorally shaft the bank with the loan.

btw, your commitment is with who ever holds the note. You signed for a loan that you agreed to payback. Regardless of how you twist that around saying its not your problem, it wasn't your fault you agreed to the loan, so it is an unethical and immoral move on your part.

[♥]

I guess it's "attack the poster" time.

I came here to ask some suggestions.

Out of all of the people here the only person who had some great suggestions was the mod, ghporter. (Guess that's why he's a moderator - thanks gh, BTW).

It's too complicated but here's the thing: I tried to give a synopsis without disclosing too much because some of it is too personal.

Yesterday I retained an attorney to do some work on the issue.

But here is the final thing I want to say: There are people who are losing their homes left and right because of ARMS and loss of jobs, the economy, etc. They have no choice but to get foreclosed on. It's easy to say, "Honor your commitment" when you don't know the depth or extent of their financial issues.

The attorney that I hired (non-relative) says that he counsels people and sometimes encourages them to walk.

Sometimes people have no alternatives but to walk away if they have a situation (loss of income, terminal illness, divorce, death).

There are many articles online that tell people why they should allow their home to foreclose:

How to Cut Your Losses: Allow Foreclosure

Here's one that tells you to buy a second home and allow the first one to foreclose.

In our situation, the attorney feels that this house is untenable because it is unsafe. There are actually several people stating that moving out of a home and suing the builder and stopping the mortgage payments is a legally appropriate way to handle the situation. The lender will be notified why the home loan is defaulted on. In my situation, the lender that I used and the builder have a purposeful working relationship: The builder used this particular lender because this lender wanted the builder to sell homes, no matter which way or how. (The lender is also under investigation for mortgage fraud, coincidentally, as I write this.)

[Eug]

Correction. The only person who had suggestions you happen to like is ghporter.

Seriously, what do you expect? You essentially told us that your financial situation is such that you don't need to let your house foreclose, then you give us info that there are tons of people out there that have no choice but to get foreclosed on, and you tell us that sometimes people have no alternatives but to walk away. Why bother telling us that if you don't fall into that category?

You want us to feel sorry for you and agree with your decision and lavish encouragement on you to do this. Well if you bragged that you don't need to do this but are doing it anyway, you're probably not going to get that response from most people.

In truth, if I were in your situation I'd consider doing the same thing. However, I certainly wouldn't expect some internet forum to congratulate me, especially when I've already bragged that the main reason for doing so isn't because my finances force me to but because I want to dump my problems on the bank.

[MacosNerd]

Originally Posted by ♥ 

But here is the final thing I want to say: There are people who are losing their homes left and right because of ARMS and loss of jobs, the economy, etc. They have no choice but to get foreclosed on. It's easy to say, "Honor your commitment" when you don't know the depth or extent of their financial issues.

You're right but then my comments and others were NOT directed to those poor souls who are losing their homes. It was pointed to you because you're in a situation that you don't like and want to walk away from your responsibility. Two very different issues, I as many people have great sympathy for those people who get foreclosed on.

There are many articles online that tell people why they should allow their home to foreclose:

so articles being on the internet equates to morality?
I said it before, if you have no moral issues of not honoring your obligations then walk away. Its clearly the easier decision.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by ♥ 

I guess it's "attack the poster" time.

I came here to ask some suggestions.

Don't be a martyr. No one is attacking you, they are attacking your idea that it's OK to default on your mortgage because you made a bad investment and don't like your neighbors. You asked for suggestions and you got them. You may not like them, but you didn't qualify your original post by saying you only want opinions from people who think this is OK.

Originally Posted by ♥ 

It's too complicated but here's the thing: I tried to give a synopsis without disclosing too much because some of it is too personal.

This was my point earlier in this thread. If it's "too personal" to give details, why post it on a message board? How good do you really think anyone's advice will be if they don't know the details?

Originally Posted by ♥ 

But here is the final thing I want to say: There are people who are losing their homes left and right because of ARMS and loss of jobs, the economy, etc. They have no choice but to get foreclosed on. It's easy to say, "Honor your commitment" when you don't know the depth or extent of their financial issues.

Someone losing their home to foreclosure because they are no longer able to pay the mortgage is NOT the same as not paying your mortgage because you bought a crappy house with bad neighbors that depreciated that your are fully capable of paying for but CHOOSE not to. If you had said your house was in foreclosure because you are no longer able to make payments because you lost your job, I'm sure you would get nothing but sympathy. That is, however, not the case here.

Originally Posted by ♥ 

Sometimes people have no alternatives but to walk away if they have a situation (loss of income, terminal illness, divorce, death).

Nowhere have you said that any of those situations apply here. You said you want to walk away because you have bad neighbors, a bad HOA, and the house is a lemon. ALL things which you should have known BEFORE buying the house.

Originally Posted by ♥ 

In our situation, the attorney feels that this house is untenable because it is unsafe. There are actually several people stating that moving out of a home and suing the builder and stopping the mortgage payments is a legally appropriate way to handle the situation. The lender will be notified why the home loan is defaulted on. In my situation, the lender that I used and the builder have a purposeful working relationship: The builder used this particular lender because this lender wanted the builder to sell homes, no matter which way or how. (The lender is also under investigation for mortgage fraud, coincidentally, as I write this.)

If you would have waited to post here until AFTER you talked to an attorney and then posted the above opinion of the attorney, you might have had a different response than the one you got.

[MacosNerd]

Addition, I echo the sentiment of others on why even bother asking this type of advice on an internet forum. The result of this thread should not surprise you. I'm no expert in mortgage/finance regulations, as I'm sure many of the posters. I'm not knowledgeable in the details of your problem. Just doesn't make sense to ask this stuff and then complain about how the posts are turning out

[♥]

Well, I have nothing else to say.

I appreciate ghporters advice. I've made a decision to do something in particular this morning but I won't elaborate about it. I like the house but have a legal issue with the builder and the builder's bank who holds the loan and I've actually gone ahead and made a plan to deal with this situation that will be legally viable for all parties concerned.

Have a great day, everyone, and thanks.

[Railroader]

I have nothing else to add to your previous post that has not been said my other people, but I agree with all of them. Your situation is not the same as a ethical foreclosure. You are trying to welch on a debt. They used to send people like you to prison.

Originally Posted by ♥ 

Well, I have nothing else to say.

I appreciate ghporters advice. I've made a decision to do something in particular this morning but I won't elaborate about it. I like the house but have a legal issue with the builder and the builder's bank who holds the loan and I've actually gone ahead and made a plan to deal with this situation that will be legally viable for all parties concerned.

Have a great day, everyone, and thanks.

Why don't you appreciate the the advice of people who are telling you to honor your debts. What about the advice to pursue legal action against your builder? Didn't like that?

What issue do you have with the bank? Does the builder actually own the bank?

You have a great day too. You're welcome.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by ♥ 

In our situation, the attorney feels that this house is untenable because it is unsafe. There are actually several people stating that moving out of a home and suing the builder and stopping the mortgage payments is a legally appropriate way to handle the situation. The lender will be notified why the home loan is defaulted on. In my situation, the lender that I used and the builder have a purposeful working relationship: The builder used this particular lender because this lender wanted the builder to sell homes, no matter which way or how. (The lender is also under investigation for mortgage fraud, coincidentally, as I write this.)

Then legal action is the proper response to this situation, and stopping payments for the mortgage WITHIN those legal proceedings is probably appropriate - IF it is legally warranted.

[Andrew Stephens]

Can you have a moral obligation to a corporation or business. If your actions can be defended legally then surely they are by definition OK.

Certainly you can have a moral obligation to a person that may (or may not) override any legal obligation but I would say that as long as your actions towards a business entity are within any contracted terms then you can do whatever you want. If the terms stipulate that your actions will have additional consequences and you choose to accept those consequenses then there is not moral issue. There should be no moral issue with any dealings with a business anyway. Businesses do not extend any moral rights to individuals in contracted negotiations, only legal ones.

[MacosNerd]

Originally Posted by Andrew Stephens 

Can you have a moral obligation to a corporation or business. If your actions can be defended legally then surely they are by definition OK.

Legality and morality are two different subjects. You can be immoral and legal, conversely you can be moral but illegal.

[Andrew Stephens]

Originally Posted by MacosNerd 

Legality and morality are two different subjects. You can be immoral and legal, conversely you can be moral but illegal.

I agree that you can be immoral and legal... towards an individual. But towards a corporate entity. I don't think moral obligations are owed towards a corporation.

[MacosNerd]

Originally Posted by Andrew Stephens 

I agree that you can be immoral and legal... towards an individual. But towards a corporate entity. I don't think moral obligations are owed towards a corporation.

I don't see it that way, because doing the right thing is not dependent on the other party but yourself. An extreme example is stealing, you can steal from a corporation, such as embezzling or you can steal someone's car. Both are wrong.

Morality is the principals of doing right regardless of who its directed to

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Andrew Stephens 

I don't think moral obligations are owed towards a corporation.

I disagree. Look at the current market situation.

People default on loans, the banks take a loss and get bailed out by the Fed with tax payers money.

So I say: It's a moral obligation to the general public to pay what is owed to the corporation (bank).

-t

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Andrew Stephens 

I agree that you can be immoral and legal... towards an individual. But towards a corporate entity. I don't think moral obligations are owed towards a corporation.

I think that's a ridiculously stupid statement.

Corporations are merely businesses that have been incorporated. Some are big. Some are surprisingly small. They're just businesses.

Are you saying there's no moral obligations owed to any corporations? Or just the really big ones, the ones that were more successful than you and thus it's okay to rip them off?



greg

[Cold Warrior]

If everyone felt they didn't owe obligations to corporations, it'd be anarchy and we'd still be living in the Third World. Hope you enjoy the quality of life in Djibouti, because that's what it'd be like. There's a level of collective discipline and commitment that forms a modern, functional society, and common trends in those that are not.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Andrew Stephens 

I agree that you can be immoral and legal... towards an individual. But towards a corporate entity. I don't think moral obligations are owed towards a corporation.

That's the same idiocy that leads people to routine insurance fraud.

Since I'm an honest guy, I'm the sucker who pays for YOUR new iPod/computer/whatever through my insurance premiums.

**** you.

Sincerest greetings,

-Someone who's fed up with morons who don't realize that SOMEBODY is ALWAYS footing the bill.

[Art Vandelay]

A relevant article: