Turko Files mortgage “victim”

[PatentGuy]

Spot on creechrr.

We are entitled to free education, free healthcare, a good paying job that is not demanding or stressful or dirty, and which leaves us plenty of spare time for fun stuff, exotic vacations, and all of the creature comforts. Or, if such good paying job does not exist, we are still entitled to the same compensation and benefits since, of course, this is somebody else’s fault for not providing me with this job.

We are entitled to not be put out or put upon. We are entitled to unlimited Mulligans and free drops onto the fairway of every wrongful lie. Everyone gets a trophy for trying.

We are entitled to not be offended based on our own personal whims on what we decide is offensive.

To each according to their entitlements; from each according to what the government can get its hands on.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bubba99]It pains me when people try to make a moral issue of mortgage payments. It is not. It is a contract, and foreclosure is a remedy in the contract to either party. The banks use it to relieve themselves of bad property investments (Morgan Stanley in SF), why should individuals be held to a higher ethical standard.

Plus part of the bank bailout consisted of a program to “modify” mortgages. The banks took the money, but have consistently failed to modify a significant number of mortgages.

The only moral issue is to ones family, to make the best financial decission for them, not just the bank.[/quote]

Fine comment. The whole thing bears repeating in case anyone missed it the first time through.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bubba99]It pains me when people try to make a moral issue of mortgage payments. It is not. It is a contract, and foreclosure is a remedy in the contract to either party. The banks use it to relieve themselves of bad property investments (Morgan Stanley in SF), why should individuals be held to a higher ethical standard.

Plus part of the bank bailout consisted of a program to “modify” mortgages. The banks took the money, but have consistently failed to modify a significant number of mortgages.

The only moral issue is to ones family, to make the best financial decission for them, not just the bank.[/quote]

Fine comment. The whole thing bears repeating in case anyone missed it the first time through.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bubba99]It pains me when people try to make a moral issue of mortgage payments. It is not. It is a contract, and foreclosure is a remedy in the contract to either party. The banks use it to relieve themselves of bad property investments (Morgan Stanley in SF), why should individuals be held to a higher ethical standard.

Plus part of the bank bailout consisted of a program to “modify” mortgages. The banks took the money, but have consistently failed to modify a significant number of mortgages.

The only moral issue is to ones family, to make the best financial decission for them, not just the bank.[/quote]

Fine comment. The whole thing bears repeating in case anyone missed it the first time through.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bubba99]It pains me when people try to make a moral issue of mortgage payments. It is not. It is a contract, and foreclosure is a remedy in the contract to either party. The banks use it to relieve themselves of bad property investments (Morgan Stanley in SF), why should individuals be held to a higher ethical standard.

Plus part of the bank bailout consisted of a program to “modify” mortgages. The banks took the money, but have consistently failed to modify a significant number of mortgages.

The only moral issue is to ones family, to make the best financial decission for them, not just the bank.[/quote]

Fine comment. The whole thing bears repeating in case anyone missed it the first time through.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bubba99]It pains me when people try to make a moral issue of mortgage payments. It is not. It is a contract, and foreclosure is a remedy in the contract to either party. The banks use it to relieve themselves of bad property investments (Morgan Stanley in SF), why should individuals be held to a higher ethical standard.

Plus part of the bank bailout consisted of a program to “modify” mortgages. The banks took the money, but have consistently failed to modify a significant number of mortgages.

The only moral issue is to ones family, to make the best financial decission for them, not just the bank.[/quote]

Fine comment. The whole thing bears repeating in case anyone missed it the first time through.

[UCGal]

I was under the impression (I could be wrong) that some banks were only approving Short Sales in cases of distress. They were trying to avoid strategic defaulters.

My friends had to give reasons for the short sale to their bank. They had to show hardship.

Whether that makes sense or not, is irrelevant… It is what is happening with some mortgage servicers.

I agree completely with the discussion of entitlement. I hear so much talk about how 16 year old kids NEED their own cars. Kids don’t walk to school or take the bus anymore. And their parents NEED that 3500 sf house for a family of 4. It’s child abuse if kids share a room.

I get blown away daily by the entitlement.

[UCGal]

I was under the impression (I could be wrong) that some banks were only approving Short Sales in cases of distress. They were trying to avoid strategic defaulters.

My friends had to give reasons for the short sale to their bank. They had to show hardship.

Whether that makes sense or not, is irrelevant… It is what is happening with some mortgage servicers.

I agree completely with the discussion of entitlement. I hear so much talk about how 16 year old kids NEED their own cars. Kids don’t walk to school or take the bus anymore. And their parents NEED that 3500 sf house for a family of 4. It’s child abuse if kids share a room.

I get blown away daily by the entitlement.

[UCGal]

I was under the impression (I could be wrong) that some banks were only approving Short Sales in cases of distress. They were trying to avoid strategic defaulters.

My friends had to give reasons for the short sale to their bank. They had to show hardship.

Whether that makes sense or not, is irrelevant… It is what is happening with some mortgage servicers.

I agree completely with the discussion of entitlement. I hear so much talk about how 16 year old kids NEED their own cars. Kids don’t walk to school or take the bus anymore. And their parents NEED that 3500 sf house for a family of 4. It’s child abuse if kids share a room.

I get blown away daily by the entitlement.

[UCGal]

I was under the impression (I could be wrong) that some banks were only approving Short Sales in cases of distress. They were trying to avoid strategic defaulters.

My friends had to give reasons for the short sale to their bank. They had to show hardship.

Whether that makes sense or not, is irrelevant… It is what is happening with some mortgage servicers.

I agree completely with the discussion of entitlement. I hear so much talk about how 16 year old kids NEED their own cars. Kids don’t walk to school or take the bus anymore. And their parents NEED that 3500 sf house for a family of 4. It’s child abuse if kids share a room.

I get blown away daily by the entitlement.

[UCGal]

I was under the impression (I could be wrong) that some banks were only approving Short Sales in cases of distress. They were trying to avoid strategic defaulters.

My friends had to give reasons for the short sale to their bank. They had to show hardship.

Whether that makes sense or not, is irrelevant… It is what is happening with some mortgage servicers.

I agree completely with the discussion of entitlement. I hear so much talk about how 16 year old kids NEED their own cars. Kids don’t walk to school or take the bus anymore. And their parents NEED that 3500 sf house for a family of 4. It’s child abuse if kids share a room.

I get blown away daily by the entitlement.

[CA renter]

[quote=Raybyrnes]Not to sympathize but if the loan mod calculation requires that you consider Unemployment income and it was not included , it seems like you are taking her options from her.

She may very well lose the house either way but at the same time she may gain employment and make good on the loan.[/quote]
—————

If her unemployment income were enough to cover the mortgage, why wasn’t she paying all along? That’s what I have a problem with.

With the way foreclosures are being dragged out, she probably hasn’t made a payment for at least 6 months, more likely a year or more — loan mods, moratoriums, etc. AND she and her husband already filed for BK, which means they are playing the “delay at all costs” tactic. Exactly **why** does she deserve special treatment?

If a renter had stopped making payments for 6-12 months (or more!), would Turko be there to defend him/her against the “evil landlord” who wants to evict them?

[CA renter]

[quote=Raybyrnes]Not to sympathize but if the loan mod calculation requires that you consider Unemployment income and it was not included , it seems like you are taking her options from her.

She may very well lose the house either way but at the same time she may gain employment and make good on the loan.[/quote]
—————

If her unemployment income were enough to cover the mortgage, why wasn’t she paying all along? That’s what I have a problem with.

With the way foreclosures are being dragged out, she probably hasn’t made a payment for at least 6 months, more likely a year or more — loan mods, moratoriums, etc. AND she and her husband already filed for BK, which means they are playing the “delay at all costs” tactic. Exactly **why** does she deserve special treatment?

If a renter had stopped making payments for 6-12 months (or more!), would Turko be there to defend him/her against the “evil landlord” who wants to evict them?

[CA renter]

[quote=Raybyrnes]Not to sympathize but if the loan mod calculation requires that you consider Unemployment income and it was not included , it seems like you are taking her options from her.

She may very well lose the house either way but at the same time she may gain employment and make good on the loan.[/quote]
—————

If her unemployment income were enough to cover the mortgage, why wasn’t she paying all along? That’s what I have a problem with.

With the way foreclosures are being dragged out, she probably hasn’t made a payment for at least 6 months, more likely a year or more — loan mods, moratoriums, etc. AND she and her husband already filed for BK, which means they are playing the “delay at all costs” tactic. Exactly **why** does she deserve special treatment?

If a renter had stopped making payments for 6-12 months (or more!), would Turko be there to defend him/her against the “evil landlord” who wants to evict them?

[CA renter]

[quote=Raybyrnes]Not to sympathize but if the loan mod calculation requires that you consider Unemployment income and it was not included , it seems like you are taking her options from her.

She may very well lose the house either way but at the same time she may gain employment and make good on the loan.[/quote]
—————

If her unemployment income were enough to cover the mortgage, why wasn’t she paying all along? That’s what I have a problem with.

With the way foreclosures are being dragged out, she probably hasn’t made a payment for at least 6 months, more likely a year or more — loan mods, moratoriums, etc. AND she and her husband already filed for BK, which means they are playing the “delay at all costs” tactic. Exactly **why** does she deserve special treatment?

If a renter had stopped making payments for 6-12 months (or more!), would Turko be there to defend him/her against the “evil landlord” who wants to evict them?

[Author]

Posts