[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:

Real Estate | Walking away from a mortgage can cost you for years | Seattle Times Newspaper

[Cold Warrior]

Also, I've read a number of articles about how lenders are tightening standards for college loans. Since your children probably don't have a good credit history, they'll rely on you and/or their father for co-signing a student loan.

If your credit is in the tank (since you don't think it's important), your children may not be able to afford college.

Unless you can afford it outright now or whenever they go.

[Hugi]

You bought the house and you borrowed money to do so. If you can afford to pay back what you borrowed you do, if you don't you're a thief.

It's not complicated, really.

[Andrew Stephens]

Originally Posted by analogika 

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.

RUBBISH

I explicitly stated that behaviour towards corporations should be legal. Theft and Insurance fraud are both illegal. If your behaviour towards a corporation is legal then fine. If it is illegal then no. If your actions are legal but bear consequences that you are happy to endure (credit history trashing) then fine too.

Corporations are not owed moral behaviour only LEGAL behaviour.

[Andrew Stephens]

With specific regard to this post then IF there are clauses in the contract or mechanisms in place to deal with defaulting that may or may not provide for additional sanctions to be imposed on the lender then, fine. Default. No moral questions involved. This may be as extreme as, fail to pay, eventually end up in prison. It's a series of pre defined trade offs. As long as no fraud or misrepresentation is undertaken then everything is merely a series of mutual agreements to proceed down a certain course of cause and effect.

Your only moral obligation is to stay within the law.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Andrew Stephens 

RUBBISH

I explicitly stated that behaviour towards corporations should be legal. Theft and Insurance fraud are both illegal. If your behaviour towards a corporation is legal then fine. If it is illegal then no. If your actions are legal but bear consequences that you are happy to endure (credit history trashing) then fine too.

Corporations are not owed moral behaviour only LEGAL behaviour.

I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know legalese, but:

Aren't BOTH behaviors (defaulting, theft) things that the law says you can't do ?
And IF you do, you have to bear the consequences.

In both cases, there are consequences, they just vary in the degree of severity.
To say that breaking a contract is LEGAL is IMO misrepresentation.

LEGAL to me is an option that I have that bears no consequences in terms of punishment.

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Andrew Stephens 

As long as no fraud or misrepresentation is undertaken then everything is merely a series of mutual agreements to proceed down a certain course of cause and effect.

So you don't think it's misrepresentation if someone defaults who actually is ABLE to make the payments ?

I don't think the current law distinguishes enough to define defaulting due to lack of other options as different compared to defaulting because someone is just tired of it or has changed his mind.

But in this case, there ARE other options.

-t

[Andrew Stephens]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

So you don't think it's misrepresentation if someone defaults who actually is ABLE to make the payments ?-t

No I don't. As long as you make it clear that you are defaulting in accordance with any terms that may exist between you and the other party. (edit) including telling them that you can afford to pay but are choosing not to for other reasons. The legality of these reasons can be determined at a later stage. If they turn out to to have been legal then fine, if not, then some form censure may be invoked). It may be that there are many clauses in the contract that allow for defaulting on the loan in specific circumstances and with specific penalties.

Attempting to default for one reason, portray it as another and cover up the real reasons in order to escape from penalty clauses would be illegal and immoral. Defaulting for any reason, stating those reasons and going to court ON THOSE reasons would be 100% acceptable. If the court (should that be the end result) agrees, then fine. If the agreed contractual penalty for default is repossession of the house and an adverse credit report then that would be the contract and should be accepted and would be both legally and morally fine.

Please not that at EVERY juncture I am stressing that honesty is the key here. If you are honest and it is not illegal then you are within your rights. That is EXACLY how any corporation would treat you in return.

[torsoboy]

Originally Posted by Andrew Stephens 

Please not that at EVERY juncture I am stressing that honesty is the key here. If you are honest and it is not illegal then you are within your rights. That is EXACLY how any corporation would treat you in return.

Not my corporation. I'm glad I do not have a working relationship with a corporation that you own.

By the way, it is ILLEGAL (and dishonest) to not fulfill your obligations on a signed contract. Just FYI.

[Andrew Stephens]

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

Not my corporation. I'm glad I do not have a working relationship with a corporation that you own.

By the way, it is ILLEGAL (and dishonest) to not fulfill your obligations on a signed contract. Just FYI.

At the risk of repeating myself I will. As long as you fulfill your LEGAL obligations to the company then there is NO moral issue. If your actions are illegal then yes they are immoral. If you default, but a court later finds in your favour then you are morally in the clear to default.

To behave in this way towards a friend would be immoral as human beings owe each other moral consideration, even though they often fail to display such. When dealing with a corporation legality is the only arbiter of morality.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

By the way, it is ILLEGAL (and dishonest) to not fulfill your obligations on a signed contract. Just FYI.

That's my understanding as well.

Just because they would let you out of a contract by imposing penalties doesn't mean it's a legal option to do so.

-t

[Uncle Skeleton]

There are people on hard times who can't afford to eat if they don't steal food. And even though I'm not technically one of them, I feel that it would still be in my best interests to shoplift my groceries instead of paying for them. My Jewish uncle agrees, I would be much better off financially if I didn't have to pay for food. Can you guys please tell me (if) I'm making the right decision on this?

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

There are people on hard times who can't afford to eat if they don't steal food. And even though I'm not technically one of them, I feel that it would still be in my best interests to shoplift my groceries instead of paying for them. My Jewish uncle agrees, I would be much better off financially if I didn't have to pay for food. Can you guys please tell me (if) I'm making the right decision on this?

[powerbook867]

I have come upon some hard times and feel that a bigger house would make me happy. After consulting a Nigerian attorney through the internet (after paypalling him some cash), he assures me that burning my house down and collecting insurance would be my best course of action.

While I legally don't condone of these actions, my attorney has informed me that since I am a complete nut case, I am within the boundaries of the law. Since I am crazy, what does everyone else think?

I am on my way to purchase my 5 gallons in gas in hopes that you all agree with me.. The house is old and busted...and I have been off my meds for months...

Please let me know what I can do so I can tell the voices in my head what the decision is... Thanks!!

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

If you have received advice from three "very smart" people, all of whom seem to be in a position to best advise you (CPA, lawyer specializing in real estate foreclosure, and a mortgage broker), why are you asking a bunch of random people on a Mac forum what you should do?

I don't see how you are going to get better advice here than from those three people you mentioned. I mean, hell, one's Jewish! <---not really sure how that is relevant but whatever

That's Cody's modus operandi. She has found ways, for years, to drop hints at how supposedly wealthy she is, whether it's buying a bunch of new Macs every year, or her husband being a successful business man, or knowing somebody high up at Apple, or writing a check to suddenly pay off $80K in credit cards, or whatever. I wouldn't be surprised if she really lived in a 1200 sq. ft. bungalow somewhere, and this is all part of her fantasy world. Every wealthy person I know doesn't go around bragging about how much money they have.

[Eug]

Heh. I know a guy who makes a moderate 6 figure salary and lives in a small bungalow. I think it's like 1400 sq. ft. or something (although I believe the basement is partially finished).

Let's just say he's going to have a nice comfy retirement with all the money he saves.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Heh. I know a guy who makes a moderate 6 figure salary and lives in a small bungalow. I think it's like 1400 sq. ft. or something (although I believe the basement is partially finished).

Let's just say he's going to have a nice comfy retirement with all the money he saves.

My house is worth about $125k. Oh, and it was 1380 sq. ft.

It is VERY comfy at 36 years old.

[♥]

You'd think that there could be an intellectual discussion about WHEN it might be okay to allow foreclosure and for which reasons. I'm not sure it's a good idea.

But this place is full of the losers who cannot do anything else except sit and post over and over again in blatant attacks against people. Personal attacks.

The losers are people who like to make witty repartee at the expense of someone else and can't post a useful comment, just want to launch personal attacks.

Oh well. Have at it and have a good time.

One more thing? The mods that allow the attacks are also losers. Aside from a couple of you who seem to care about the content of this place, there are mods here who contribute to the downward spiral of this place.

Some of you people here remind me of those teenagers that got together and beat the **** out of another person, a girl, just because they could. Your mentality is really the same: Gang up on people just for the fun of it. That's you OldManMac and a few others in case I'm not clear.

That's why this place is a pisshole.

Didn't expect to say these things but after reading the personal attacks here I just feel compelled to say something.

(Hey, turtle, you're alright. Have a good one and stay safe.)

[turtle777]

Cody, I'm not sure what you expected, but the Lounge always gives a honest / biased / multi-faceted opinion. I'm surprised that you are surprised.

Btw, I don't agree that the people here that disagree with you are automatically losers. So it all comes down to this: was this thread a mere announcement of what you're going to do, or was it a starting point of discussion ? It seems like you intended the former, but I would advise you not to think that you can have this here. People are going to take things as a starting point to go any- and nowhere.

-t

[analogika]

It's true, though: The people with a shred of moral integrity are *always* the losers, against those who naturally exploit every loophole they think they can afford to get away with.

I'm not surprised Cody sees them as such.

Or is this just another one of Cody's "experiments"?

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by ♥ 

You'd think that there could be an intellectual discussion about WHEN it might be okay to allow foreclosure and for which reasons. I'm not sure it's a good idea.

But this place is full of the losers who cannot do anything else except sit and post over and over again in blatant attacks against people. Personal attacks.

The losers are people who like to make witty repartee at the expense of someone else and can't post a useful comment, just want to launch personal attacks.

Oh well. Have at it and have a good time.

One more thing? The mods that allow the attacks are also losers. Aside from a couple of you who seem to care about the content of this place, there are mods here who contribute to the downward spiral of this place.

Some of you people here remind me of those teenagers that got together and beat the **** out of another person, a girl, just because they could. Your mentality is really the same: Gang up on people just for the fun of it. That's you OldManMac and a few others in case I'm not clear.

That's why this place is a pisshole.

Didn't expect to say these things but after reading the personal attacks here I just feel compelled to say something.

(Hey, turtle, you're alright. Have a good one and stay safe.)

Again with the "Poor me, I'm a martyr, everyone is picking on me, etc., etc.,".

Honestly, if you can't take honest feedback on a morally questionable activity, why post it in the first place? Did you really expect that people would feel sorry for you and say that this is a good idea?

If you don't want to face criticism and honest opinions, don't start threads like this. It's pretty simple really.

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by Andrew Stephens 

When dealing with a corporation legality is the only arbiter of morality.

That is an incredible sad and unfortunate statement to make. It really is.

[ebuddy]

Cody, what information would be "too personal to disclose" here that would have a bearing on whether or not you should default on a loan? You may as well lay it out here at this point and it may be useful info for someone else in the same boat.

To be clear, I empathize with your situation. If in fact the builder/lender has a history of poor business practice and you can establish that their end of the contractual agreement in your case has not been upheld... sock it to 'em. Honestly. There are codes that need to be followed ethically, morally, and contractually. If you've fulfilled them and yet the other party (builder/lender) has not, then you're perfectly well within your right to put your contractual obligation on "hold". Shoddy businesses play on people who want to do the "right" thing only allowing them to continue hosing more honest people. While this may have implications on how you're viewed on paper, it may be perfectly "right" morally, to challenge their integrity.

Don't let a bunch of people here using hacked iPhones, "borrowed" OS', their favorite gnutella launched at startup, and serial surfers drag you through the mud over what they deem morally wrong today.

If on the other hand, you're simply upset with your choice in land/home/neighborhood and want a way out that does not involve proving the lender/builder misrepresented aspects of this deal prior to consideration (closing costs, etc...), then your actions are ethically questionable and some of the critique you've endured here is warranted.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Don't let a bunch of people here using hacked iPhones, "borrowed" OS', their favorite gnutella launched at startup, and serial surfers drag you through the mud over what they deem morally wrong today.

If on the other hand, you're simply upset with your choice in land/home/neighborhood and want a way out that does not involve proving the lender/builder misrepresented aspects of this deal prior to consideration (closing costs, etc...), then your actions are ethically questionable and some of the critique you've endured here is warranted.

Wow, that's a sudden mood swing.

[BlueSky]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

Honestly, if you can't take honest feedback on a morally questionable activity, why post it in the first place? Did you really expect that people would feel sorry for you and say that this is a good idea?

It's amazing what passes for honest feedback these days.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Wow, that's a sudden mood swing.

Actually, in context of the entire post it is absolutely appropriate and consistent. I mentioned "some of the critique you've endured here would be warranted". There are two points I'm making here;

1) The ones using the predictable vitriol like; **** you! and Thief! are excluded in my use of the word "some" above. This is not constructive and wreaks of the type of BS you see here from people incapable of introspect. Hacked iPhones, "borrowed" OS', favorite gnutella @ startup, serial surfers, etc...

2) The ones claiming this will hurt her credit rating or that it is questionable in general are being productive and thoughtful. Depending on Cody's situation, these criticisms may be warranted.

[brassplayersrock²]

no more stars for cody???? or am i the only one not seeing them?

[Cold Warrior]

I think something changed in her vB settings, which may have affected the stars. I'm looking into it on the mod side of the house.

[brassplayersrock²]

(the following post made sense before the above post's edit )
well, her entire "pisshole" rant seems deserving; but that's me

[andi*pandi]

If the builder is such notorious scum, why not try and get a class action suit together? Surely not all of your neighbors are idiots who don't care about their home or investment. Then you don't foot all the bill for a lawsuit, and you stop the builder, who is the problem in the first place.

[Mithras]

In a curious coincidence, the Garfield with no Garfield thread leads to an apropos link, namely Marmaduke Explained:

[peeb]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

If the builder is such notorious scum, why not try and get a class action suit together? Surely not all of your neighbors are idiots who don't care about their home or investment. Then you don't foot all the bill for a lawsuit, and you stop the builder, who is the problem in the first place.

Because, as was mentioned above, the builder has no money.