- This topic has 45 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 7 months ago by
KCTxr.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 9, 2009 at 5:59 PM #363600October 24, 2009 at 9:08 AM #473115
KCTxr
ParticipantOK UrbanRealtor, has #5 changed? As of Thursday evening, time to implement your plan. Nuts. We just moved up the hill to Ramona in February, now it looks like we are back down.
October 24, 2009 at 9:08 AM #473294ParticipantOK UrbanRealtor, has #5 changed? As of Thursday evening, time to implement your plan. Nuts. We just moved up the hill to Ramona in February, now it looks like we are back down.
October 24, 2009 at 9:08 AM #473657ParticipantOK UrbanRealtor, has #5 changed? As of Thursday evening, time to implement your plan. Nuts. We just moved up the hill to Ramona in February, now it looks like we are back down.
October 24, 2009 at 9:08 AM #473735ParticipantOK UrbanRealtor, has #5 changed? As of Thursday evening, time to implement your plan. Nuts. We just moved up the hill to Ramona in February, now it looks like we are back down.
October 24, 2009 at 9:08 AM #473959ParticipantOK UrbanRealtor, has #5 changed? As of Thursday evening, time to implement your plan. Nuts. We just moved up the hill to Ramona in February, now it looks like we are back down.
October 24, 2009 at 10:01 AM #473148briansd1
Guest[quote=urbanrealtor]
Putting that differently, this is the wild west of real estate. If gunfights and vendettas are happening all around, I don’t think it is particularly immoral to bring a gun or to be prepared to shoot to defend yourself.[/quote]I completely agree. Well said.
I’m a liberal and I don’t own a gun. But if necessary, I’ll buy one and shoot if it comes to that.
October 24, 2009 at 10:01 AM #473328Guest[quote=urbanrealtor]
Putting that differently, this is the wild west of real estate. If gunfights and vendettas are happening all around, I don’t think it is particularly immoral to bring a gun or to be prepared to shoot to defend yourself.[/quote]I completely agree. Well said.
I’m a liberal and I don’t own a gun. But if necessary, I’ll buy one and shoot if it comes to that.
October 24, 2009 at 10:01 AM #473690Guest[quote=urbanrealtor]
Putting that differently, this is the wild west of real estate. If gunfights and vendettas are happening all around, I don’t think it is particularly immoral to bring a gun or to be prepared to shoot to defend yourself.[/quote]I completely agree. Well said.
I’m a liberal and I don’t own a gun. But if necessary, I’ll buy one and shoot if it comes to that.
October 24, 2009 at 10:01 AM #473766Guest[quote=urbanrealtor]
Putting that differently, this is the wild west of real estate. If gunfights and vendettas are happening all around, I don’t think it is particularly immoral to bring a gun or to be prepared to shoot to defend yourself.[/quote]I completely agree. Well said.
I’m a liberal and I don’t own a gun. But if necessary, I’ll buy one and shoot if it comes to that.
October 24, 2009 at 10:01 AM #473992Guest[quote=urbanrealtor]
Putting that differently, this is the wild west of real estate. If gunfights and vendettas are happening all around, I don’t think it is particularly immoral to bring a gun or to be prepared to shoot to defend yourself.[/quote]I completely agree. Well said.
I’m a liberal and I don’t own a gun. But if necessary, I’ll buy one and shoot if it comes to that.
October 24, 2009 at 10:04 AM #473139Guest[quote=UCGal]
The landlord not paying the mortgage is a breach of their contract (mortgage) between the landlord and bank. The tenant is not a party to that contract.
Yes it sucks for the tenant if their landlord stops making payments. But isn’t withholding rent doing the same bad thing as the landlord… not paying ones agreed obligations?
Just my 2 cents.[/quote]
You are correct.
BUT when the landlord breached the mortgage contract, the bank can seek relief (foreclose then evict).
But the tenant is also free the breach the rental contract. And the landlord can seek relief (evict).
Pragmatically, either/both of the above will result in eviction, so there is no additional risk in the tenant breaching the rental agreement.
If the bank doesn’t have the resources to foreclose immediately then the landlord still owns the house.
If the landlord (who has already exhausted his resources) cannot or doesn’t bother to start an unlawful detainer action, then the tenant can remain until such time the bank negotiates cash-for-keys.
As with any suit/eviction, the tenant can respond in court and tell the judge the reason for the breach. If the judge orders payment, then the tenant can pay up and remain. In these times, it likely the judge will be sympathetic. The worse case is the judge will order the tenant to pay up, so the tenant is back to square one.
It’s costly for the landlord to hire a lawyer and start eviction. Most accidental landlords would not even know where to begin. If they defaulted on their mortgage already, they have already written off the house as water under the bridge.
It’s not a question of morals.
It’s a question of pragmatism and doing what is legal and best for one’s own interest.
If you’ve been following the financial crisis and still don’t understand that, then that’s your own fault.
October 24, 2009 at 10:04 AM #473318Guest[quote=UCGal]
The landlord not paying the mortgage is a breach of their contract (mortgage) between the landlord and bank. The tenant is not a party to that contract.
Yes it sucks for the tenant if their landlord stops making payments. But isn’t withholding rent doing the same bad thing as the landlord… not paying ones agreed obligations?
Just my 2 cents.[/quote]
You are correct.
BUT when the landlord breached the mortgage contract, the bank can seek relief (foreclose then evict).
But the tenant is also free the breach the rental contract. And the landlord can seek relief (evict).
Pragmatically, either/both of the above will result in eviction, so there is no additional risk in the tenant breaching the rental agreement.
If the bank doesn’t have the resources to foreclose immediately then the landlord still owns the house.
If the landlord (who has already exhausted his resources) cannot or doesn’t bother to start an unlawful detainer action, then the tenant can remain until such time the bank negotiates cash-for-keys.
As with any suit/eviction, the tenant can respond in court and tell the judge the reason for the breach. If the judge orders payment, then the tenant can pay up and remain. In these times, it likely the judge will be sympathetic. The worse case is the judge will order the tenant to pay up, so the tenant is back to square one.
It’s costly for the landlord to hire a lawyer and start eviction. Most accidental landlords would not even know where to begin. If they defaulted on their mortgage already, they have already written off the house as water under the bridge.
It’s not a question of morals.
It’s a question of pragmatism and doing what is legal and best for one’s own interest.
If you’ve been following the financial crisis and still don’t understand that, then that’s your own fault.
October 24, 2009 at 10:04 AM #473681Guest[quote=UCGal]
The landlord not paying the mortgage is a breach of their contract (mortgage) between the landlord and bank. The tenant is not a party to that contract.
Yes it sucks for the tenant if their landlord stops making payments. But isn’t withholding rent doing the same bad thing as the landlord… not paying ones agreed obligations?
Just my 2 cents.[/quote]
You are correct.
BUT when the landlord breached the mortgage contract, the bank can seek relief (foreclose then evict).
But the tenant is also free the breach the rental contract. And the landlord can seek relief (evict).
Pragmatically, either/both of the above will result in eviction, so there is no additional risk in the tenant breaching the rental agreement.
If the bank doesn’t have the resources to foreclose immediately then the landlord still owns the house.
If the landlord (who has already exhausted his resources) cannot or doesn’t bother to start an unlawful detainer action, then the tenant can remain until such time the bank negotiates cash-for-keys.
As with any suit/eviction, the tenant can respond in court and tell the judge the reason for the breach. If the judge orders payment, then the tenant can pay up and remain. In these times, it likely the judge will be sympathetic. The worse case is the judge will order the tenant to pay up, so the tenant is back to square one.
It’s costly for the landlord to hire a lawyer and start eviction. Most accidental landlords would not even know where to begin. If they defaulted on their mortgage already, they have already written off the house as water under the bridge.
It’s not a question of morals.
It’s a question of pragmatism and doing what is legal and best for one’s own interest.
If you’ve been following the financial crisis and still don’t understand that, then that’s your own fault.
October 24, 2009 at 10:04 AM #473758Guest[quote=UCGal]
The landlord not paying the mortgage is a breach of their contract (mortgage) between the landlord and bank. The tenant is not a party to that contract.
Yes it sucks for the tenant if their landlord stops making payments. But isn’t withholding rent doing the same bad thing as the landlord… not paying ones agreed obligations?
Just my 2 cents.[/quote]
You are correct.
BUT when the landlord breached the mortgage contract, the bank can seek relief (foreclose then evict).
But the tenant is also free the breach the rental contract. And the landlord can seek relief (evict).
Pragmatically, either/both of the above will result in eviction, so there is no additional risk in the tenant breaching the rental agreement.
If the bank doesn’t have the resources to foreclose immediately then the landlord still owns the house.
If the landlord (who has already exhausted his resources) cannot or doesn’t bother to start an unlawful detainer action, then the tenant can remain until such time the bank negotiates cash-for-keys.
As with any suit/eviction, the tenant can respond in court and tell the judge the reason for the breach. If the judge orders payment, then the tenant can pay up and remain. In these times, it likely the judge will be sympathetic. The worse case is the judge will order the tenant to pay up, so the tenant is back to square one.
It’s costly for the landlord to hire a lawyer and start eviction. Most accidental landlords would not even know where to begin. If they defaulted on their mortgage already, they have already written off the house as water under the bridge.
It’s not a question of morals.
It’s a question of pragmatism and doing what is legal and best for one’s own interest.
If you’ve been following the financial crisis and still don’t understand that, then that’s your own fault.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.