Viral Nature of Walking Away

[bearishgurl]

Yes, I also watched the video and understand the homeowner’s situations completely.

As to “Josh,” he claims he made $20K in payments and put $30K down and his condo is now worth $45K (if I remember right). At the time of taping of the segment, he had been “squatting” about 28 mos after trying to get a principal reduction from his lender. He stated that if he moved out the next day, the lender “got theirs” (made more $$ off him than its current market value). I can understand this way of thinking. Josh is young enough to rent awhile and recover from this lesson.

However, “Kevin” and no doubt his “defecting spouse” (brian, she could have rocketed to the moon last month, but SHE SIGNED the I/O note along with Kevin), are not. Their bad decisions will follow them into retirement and severely curtail their choices for years to come.

[briansd1]

[quote=bearishgurl] At the time of taping of the segment, he had been “squatting” about 28 mos [/quote]

I don’t agree that Josh has been “squatting”. Ownership of the house is independent from the mortgage, which is a separate agreement between the borrower and lender.

As long as the bank doesn’t foreclose (legally take away the collateral for failure to pay the mortgage) the house still belongs to Josh. He’s living in his own house, not “squatting” in it.

[briansd1]

[quote=bearishgurl] At the time of taping of the segment, he had been “squatting” about 28 mos [/quote]

I don’t agree that Josh has been “squatting”. Ownership of the house is independent from the mortgage, which is a separate agreement between the borrower and lender.

As long as the bank doesn’t foreclose (legally take away the collateral for failure to pay the mortgage) the house still belongs to Josh. He’s living in his own house, not “squatting” in it.

[briansd1]

[quote=bearishgurl] At the time of taping of the segment, he had been “squatting” about 28 mos [/quote]

I don’t agree that Josh has been “squatting”. Ownership of the house is independent from the mortgage, which is a separate agreement between the borrower and lender.

As long as the bank doesn’t foreclose (legally take away the collateral for failure to pay the mortgage) the house still belongs to Josh. He’s living in his own house, not “squatting” in it.

[briansd1]

[quote=bearishgurl] At the time of taping of the segment, he had been “squatting” about 28 mos [/quote]

I don’t agree that Josh has been “squatting”. Ownership of the house is independent from the mortgage, which is a separate agreement between the borrower and lender.

As long as the bank doesn’t foreclose (legally take away the collateral for failure to pay the mortgage) the house still belongs to Josh. He’s living in his own house, not “squatting” in it.

[briansd1]

[quote=bearishgurl] At the time of taping of the segment, he had been “squatting” about 28 mos [/quote]

I don’t agree that Josh has been “squatting”. Ownership of the house is independent from the mortgage, which is a separate agreement between the borrower and lender.

As long as the bank doesn’t foreclose (legally take away the collateral for failure to pay the mortgage) the house still belongs to Josh. He’s living in his own house, not “squatting” in it.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=briansd1][quote=bearishgurl] At the time of taping of the segment, he had been “squatting” about 28 mos [/quote]

I don’t agree that Josh has been “squatting”. Ownership of the house is independent from the mortgage, which is a separate agreement between the borrower and lender.

As long as the bank doesn’t foreclose (legally take away the collateral for failure to pay the mortgage) the house still belongs to Josh. He’s living in his own house, not “squatting” in it.[/quote]

Absolutely agree, brian, but this was the term the host (or commentator) used with him and he agreed (with the caveat that he had overpaid on his condo’s *current value*).

Josh’s lender is well aware that he still lives there w/o paying any mtg. and after all this time chose NOT to take any steps to foreclose. What happened there was a “business decision” on both sides, IMO.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=briansd1][quote=bearishgurl] At the time of taping of the segment, he had been “squatting” about 28 mos [/quote]

I don’t agree that Josh has been “squatting”. Ownership of the house is independent from the mortgage, which is a separate agreement between the borrower and lender.

As long as the bank doesn’t foreclose (legally take away the collateral for failure to pay the mortgage) the house still belongs to Josh. He’s living in his own house, not “squatting” in it.[/quote]

Absolutely agree, brian, but this was the term the host (or commentator) used with him and he agreed (with the caveat that he had overpaid on his condo’s *current value*).

Josh’s lender is well aware that he still lives there w/o paying any mtg. and after all this time chose NOT to take any steps to foreclose. What happened there was a “business decision” on both sides, IMO.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=briansd1][quote=bearishgurl] At the time of taping of the segment, he had been “squatting” about 28 mos [/quote]

I don’t agree that Josh has been “squatting”. Ownership of the house is independent from the mortgage, which is a separate agreement between the borrower and lender.

As long as the bank doesn’t foreclose (legally take away the collateral for failure to pay the mortgage) the house still belongs to Josh. He’s living in his own house, not “squatting” in it.[/quote]

Absolutely agree, brian, but this was the term the host (or commentator) used with him and he agreed (with the caveat that he had overpaid on his condo’s *current value*).

Josh’s lender is well aware that he still lives there w/o paying any mtg. and after all this time chose NOT to take any steps to foreclose. What happened there was a “business decision” on both sides, IMO.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=briansd1][quote=bearishgurl] At the time of taping of the segment, he had been “squatting” about 28 mos [/quote]

I don’t agree that Josh has been “squatting”. Ownership of the house is independent from the mortgage, which is a separate agreement between the borrower and lender.

As long as the bank doesn’t foreclose (legally take away the collateral for failure to pay the mortgage) the house still belongs to Josh. He’s living in his own house, not “squatting” in it.[/quote]

Absolutely agree, brian, but this was the term the host (or commentator) used with him and he agreed (with the caveat that he had overpaid on his condo’s *current value*).

Josh’s lender is well aware that he still lives there w/o paying any mtg. and after all this time chose NOT to take any steps to foreclose. What happened there was a “business decision” on both sides, IMO.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=briansd1][quote=bearishgurl] At the time of taping of the segment, he had been “squatting” about 28 mos [/quote]

I don’t agree that Josh has been “squatting”. Ownership of the house is independent from the mortgage, which is a separate agreement between the borrower and lender.

As long as the bank doesn’t foreclose (legally take away the collateral for failure to pay the mortgage) the house still belongs to Josh. He’s living in his own house, not “squatting” in it.[/quote]

Absolutely agree, brian, but this was the term the host (or commentator) used with him and he agreed (with the caveat that he had overpaid on his condo’s *current value*).

Josh’s lender is well aware that he still lives there w/o paying any mtg. and after all this time chose NOT to take any steps to foreclose. What happened there was a “business decision” on both sides, IMO.

[briansd1]

A friend told me that Suzie Orman is now advocating walking away from upside down houses.

I never watch Suzie Orman because I find her obnoxious, but many like her.

Before, my friend was steadfast in that if you can afford the house, you should make the payments. But now he’s seeing the financial wisdom of walking away.

[briansd1]

A friend told me that Suzie Orman is now advocating walking away from upside down houses.

I never watch Suzie Orman because I find her obnoxious, but many like her.

Before, my friend was steadfast in that if you can afford the house, you should make the payments. But now he’s seeing the financial wisdom of walking away.

[briansd1]

A friend told me that Suzie Orman is now advocating walking away from upside down houses.

I never watch Suzie Orman because I find her obnoxious, but many like her.

Before, my friend was steadfast in that if you can afford the house, you should make the payments. But now he’s seeing the financial wisdom of walking away.

[briansd1]

A friend told me that Suzie Orman is now advocating walking away from upside down houses.

I never watch Suzie Orman because I find her obnoxious, but many like her.

Before, my friend was steadfast in that if you can afford the house, you should make the payments. But now he’s seeing the financial wisdom of walking away.

[Author]

Posts