[kicksavedave]

[quote=mwtosd]If you do go the route with monthly monitoring, make sure to negotiate lower contract commitment. Many companies ask for 3-5 years, play them off one another and try to get 1-2 year contract (say the other company is offering a shorter contract).

Not many people realize how easy it is for the thief to inactivate the home security system. All they need to do is to cut the phone or cable line (depending on which you have home phone service for). The alarm will still sound, but it will not be able to contact the security company or police.

Only hope would be a neighbor to call for you in a situation like that.

I would HIGHLY recommend getting a wireless cell back up (it does cost more monthly for monitoring) but it will still allow for the system to contact the security company and/or police if the phone line is cut. Have it hidden up in an attic to make it difficult to get to.[/quote]

We had ADT in our new place in Denver, the wireless cellular backup was included for a few bucks a month, and the battery backup in the unit meant that burglars cannot disable the system by cutting phone lines or circuit breakers. We were able to get just a 1 year commitment – but we had the wiring already installed by the builder – which turned out to be our mistake. ADT will install your wiring for you on new construction for free, and they do a better job than the 3rd party that the builder used. Also ADT will screw you if you cancel early, but do offer to refund the penalty if you re-activate at a new location or if your new occupants choose to activate in your old location.

[kicksavedave]

[quote=mwtosd]If you do go the route with monthly monitoring, make sure to negotiate lower contract commitment. Many companies ask for 3-5 years, play them off one another and try to get 1-2 year contract (say the other company is offering a shorter contract).

Not many people realize how easy it is for the thief to inactivate the home security system. All they need to do is to cut the phone or cable line (depending on which you have home phone service for). The alarm will still sound, but it will not be able to contact the security company or police.

Only hope would be a neighbor to call for you in a situation like that.

I would HIGHLY recommend getting a wireless cell back up (it does cost more monthly for monitoring) but it will still allow for the system to contact the security company and/or police if the phone line is cut. Have it hidden up in an attic to make it difficult to get to.[/quote]

We had ADT in our new place in Denver, the wireless cellular backup was included for a few bucks a month, and the battery backup in the unit meant that burglars cannot disable the system by cutting phone lines or circuit breakers. We were able to get just a 1 year commitment – but we had the wiring already installed by the builder – which turned out to be our mistake. ADT will install your wiring for you on new construction for free, and they do a better job than the 3rd party that the builder used. Also ADT will screw you if you cancel early, but do offer to refund the penalty if you re-activate at a new location or if your new occupants choose to activate in your old location.

[kicksavedave]

[quote=mwtosd]If you do go the route with monthly monitoring, make sure to negotiate lower contract commitment. Many companies ask for 3-5 years, play them off one another and try to get 1-2 year contract (say the other company is offering a shorter contract).

Not many people realize how easy it is for the thief to inactivate the home security system. All they need to do is to cut the phone or cable line (depending on which you have home phone service for). The alarm will still sound, but it will not be able to contact the security company or police.

Only hope would be a neighbor to call for you in a situation like that.

I would HIGHLY recommend getting a wireless cell back up (it does cost more monthly for monitoring) but it will still allow for the system to contact the security company and/or police if the phone line is cut. Have it hidden up in an attic to make it difficult to get to.[/quote]

We had ADT in our new place in Denver, the wireless cellular backup was included for a few bucks a month, and the battery backup in the unit meant that burglars cannot disable the system by cutting phone lines or circuit breakers. We were able to get just a 1 year commitment – but we had the wiring already installed by the builder – which turned out to be our mistake. ADT will install your wiring for you on new construction for free, and they do a better job than the 3rd party that the builder used. Also ADT will screw you if you cancel early, but do offer to refund the penalty if you re-activate at a new location or if your new occupants choose to activate in your old location.

[kicksavedave]

[quote=mwtosd]If you do go the route with monthly monitoring, make sure to negotiate lower contract commitment. Many companies ask for 3-5 years, play them off one another and try to get 1-2 year contract (say the other company is offering a shorter contract).

Not many people realize how easy it is for the thief to inactivate the home security system. All they need to do is to cut the phone or cable line (depending on which you have home phone service for). The alarm will still sound, but it will not be able to contact the security company or police.

Only hope would be a neighbor to call for you in a situation like that.

I would HIGHLY recommend getting a wireless cell back up (it does cost more monthly for monitoring) but it will still allow for the system to contact the security company and/or police if the phone line is cut. Have it hidden up in an attic to make it difficult to get to.[/quote]

We had ADT in our new place in Denver, the wireless cellular backup was included for a few bucks a month, and the battery backup in the unit meant that burglars cannot disable the system by cutting phone lines or circuit breakers. We were able to get just a 1 year commitment – but we had the wiring already installed by the builder – which turned out to be our mistake. ADT will install your wiring for you on new construction for free, and they do a better job than the 3rd party that the builder used. Also ADT will screw you if you cancel early, but do offer to refund the penalty if you re-activate at a new location or if your new occupants choose to activate in your old location.

[kicksavedave]

[quote=mwtosd]If you do go the route with monthly monitoring, make sure to negotiate lower contract commitment. Many companies ask for 3-5 years, play them off one another and try to get 1-2 year contract (say the other company is offering a shorter contract).

Not many people realize how easy it is for the thief to inactivate the home security system. All they need to do is to cut the phone or cable line (depending on which you have home phone service for). The alarm will still sound, but it will not be able to contact the security company or police.

Only hope would be a neighbor to call for you in a situation like that.

I would HIGHLY recommend getting a wireless cell back up (it does cost more monthly for monitoring) but it will still allow for the system to contact the security company and/or police if the phone line is cut. Have it hidden up in an attic to make it difficult to get to.[/quote]

We had ADT in our new place in Denver, the wireless cellular backup was included for a few bucks a month, and the battery backup in the unit meant that burglars cannot disable the system by cutting phone lines or circuit breakers. We were able to get just a 1 year commitment – but we had the wiring already installed by the builder – which turned out to be our mistake. ADT will install your wiring for you on new construction for free, and they do a better job than the 3rd party that the builder used. Also ADT will screw you if you cancel early, but do offer to refund the penalty if you re-activate at a new location or if your new occupants choose to activate in your old location.

[kicksavedave]

In the immortal words of Bon Scott, “Its criminal, there aught to be a law”

Channeling the other thread, to me this is a classic case where there really should be a series of laws to make this sort of behavior illegal and punishable severely. For example:

A professional financial adviser giving advice that constitutes both blackmail and robbery/arson, should be illegal and his license to practice revoked, and he should be on the hook for some of the damages his advice causes the bank. Maybe even prison time… that would put a stop to that sort of advice.

Taking said advice, or performing those acts on your own, should also be a crime. A simple law which states that removing permanent fixtures from a property that is foreclosed upon within, oh lets say 2 or 3 years, is robbery. Deliberately causing damage to said property is arson. Both scenarios are punishable as any other robbery or arson – prison time.

That would put a stop to this nonsense right quick.

Its a real shame that people are so damn unethical that they will willingly screw someone who actually stuck their neck out to help them at one time. So much so that, like Bon Scott said, there aught to be a law.

[kicksavedave]

In the immortal words of Bon Scott, “Its criminal, there aught to be a law”

Channeling the other thread, to me this is a classic case where there really should be a series of laws to make this sort of behavior illegal and punishable severely. For example:

A professional financial adviser giving advice that constitutes both blackmail and robbery/arson, should be illegal and his license to practice revoked, and he should be on the hook for some of the damages his advice causes the bank. Maybe even prison time… that would put a stop to that sort of advice.

Taking said advice, or performing those acts on your own, should also be a crime. A simple law which states that removing permanent fixtures from a property that is foreclosed upon within, oh lets say 2 or 3 years, is robbery. Deliberately causing damage to said property is arson. Both scenarios are punishable as any other robbery or arson – prison time.

That would put a stop to this nonsense right quick.

Its a real shame that people are so damn unethical that they will willingly screw someone who actually stuck their neck out to help them at one time. So much so that, like Bon Scott said, there aught to be a law.

[kicksavedave]

In the immortal words of Bon Scott, “Its criminal, there aught to be a law”

Channeling the other thread, to me this is a classic case where there really should be a series of laws to make this sort of behavior illegal and punishable severely. For example:

A professional financial adviser giving advice that constitutes both blackmail and robbery/arson, should be illegal and his license to practice revoked, and he should be on the hook for some of the damages his advice causes the bank. Maybe even prison time… that would put a stop to that sort of advice.

Taking said advice, or performing those acts on your own, should also be a crime. A simple law which states that removing permanent fixtures from a property that is foreclosed upon within, oh lets say 2 or 3 years, is robbery. Deliberately causing damage to said property is arson. Both scenarios are punishable as any other robbery or arson – prison time.

That would put a stop to this nonsense right quick.

Its a real shame that people are so damn unethical that they will willingly screw someone who actually stuck their neck out to help them at one time. So much so that, like Bon Scott said, there aught to be a law.

[kicksavedave]

In the immortal words of Bon Scott, “Its criminal, there aught to be a law”

Channeling the other thread, to me this is a classic case where there really should be a series of laws to make this sort of behavior illegal and punishable severely. For example:

A professional financial adviser giving advice that constitutes both blackmail and robbery/arson, should be illegal and his license to practice revoked, and he should be on the hook for some of the damages his advice causes the bank. Maybe even prison time… that would put a stop to that sort of advice.

Taking said advice, or performing those acts on your own, should also be a crime. A simple law which states that removing permanent fixtures from a property that is foreclosed upon within, oh lets say 2 or 3 years, is robbery. Deliberately causing damage to said property is arson. Both scenarios are punishable as any other robbery or arson – prison time.

That would put a stop to this nonsense right quick.

Its a real shame that people are so damn unethical that they will willingly screw someone who actually stuck their neck out to help them at one time. So much so that, like Bon Scott said, there aught to be a law.

[kicksavedave]

In the immortal words of Bon Scott, “Its criminal, there aught to be a law”

Channeling the other thread, to me this is a classic case where there really should be a series of laws to make this sort of behavior illegal and punishable severely. For example:

A professional financial adviser giving advice that constitutes both blackmail and robbery/arson, should be illegal and his license to practice revoked, and he should be on the hook for some of the damages his advice causes the bank. Maybe even prison time… that would put a stop to that sort of advice.

Taking said advice, or performing those acts on your own, should also be a crime. A simple law which states that removing permanent fixtures from a property that is foreclosed upon within, oh lets say 2 or 3 years, is robbery. Deliberately causing damage to said property is arson. Both scenarios are punishable as any other robbery or arson – prison time.

That would put a stop to this nonsense right quick.

Its a real shame that people are so damn unethical that they will willingly screw someone who actually stuck their neck out to help them at one time. So much so that, like Bon Scott said, there aught to be a law.

[kicksavedave]

[quote=briansd1][quote=kicksavedave] Not paying because you no longer have the ability is one thing… stuff happens. Not paying even though you still have the ability, because you no longer feel good about the investment, or because paying is no longer convenient, is BS.
[/quote]

Read the mortgage note again. There are no special provisions for job losses, medical expense and other “stuff” that happen.

What if I would rather spend my money on a vacation to Tahiti rather than paying the mortgage? Does that apply?

Should you pay your doctor and hospital before your pay your mortgage? Or vice versa? What about your alimony or child support?

[/quote]

I’m not really sure if you’re agreeing with me, or with Eugene on this? To answer your hypothetical questions, you should pay them both, even if you have to be late and make smaller payments for a longer time.

My point is, if you lose your job through no fault of your own, and simply cannot pay your mortgage, then the provisions in your contract let the bank take the house back. That’s unfortunate but at times unavoidable. In cases where unforeseen medical issues force a person into an untenable financial situation, bankruptcy allows them a fresh start without them losing their home. I have a feeling that’s not the dilemma you are referring to though.

However if you make stupid investment decisions or simply spend unwisely and decide that you want to pay for your vacations instead of your mortgage, then I say you are acting in an unethical manner. The contract that gives the bank the right to repossess your house doesn’t mean your selfish and irresponsible behavior is some how “OK” or “ethical”. Its not.

People make choices all the time. Getting laid off isn’t a choice one makes voluntarily. Spending irresponsibly is. In some cases a person does everything within their power to pay for their home. In other cases people walk away simply because the economics of keeping it at their agreed upon payment isn’t pleasant anymore. That’s just unethical behavior in my opinion, and its a symptom of the overall decay in American society. Decay that manifests itself in many ways. But thinking that its ok to shirk ones legitimate debts is one of those ways.

/end moral rant

[kicksavedave]

[quote=briansd1][quote=kicksavedave] Not paying because you no longer have the ability is one thing… stuff happens. Not paying even though you still have the ability, because you no longer feel good about the investment, or because paying is no longer convenient, is BS.
[/quote]

Read the mortgage note again. There are no special provisions for job losses, medical expense and other “stuff” that happen.

What if I would rather spend my money on a vacation to Tahiti rather than paying the mortgage? Does that apply?

Should you pay your doctor and hospital before your pay your mortgage? Or vice versa? What about your alimony or child support?

[/quote]

I’m not really sure if you’re agreeing with me, or with Eugene on this? To answer your hypothetical questions, you should pay them both, even if you have to be late and make smaller payments for a longer time.

My point is, if you lose your job through no fault of your own, and simply cannot pay your mortgage, then the provisions in your contract let the bank take the house back. That’s unfortunate but at times unavoidable. In cases where unforeseen medical issues force a person into an untenable financial situation, bankruptcy allows them a fresh start without them losing their home. I have a feeling that’s not the dilemma you are referring to though.

However if you make stupid investment decisions or simply spend unwisely and decide that you want to pay for your vacations instead of your mortgage, then I say you are acting in an unethical manner. The contract that gives the bank the right to repossess your house doesn’t mean your selfish and irresponsible behavior is some how “OK” or “ethical”. Its not.

People make choices all the time. Getting laid off isn’t a choice one makes voluntarily. Spending irresponsibly is. In some cases a person does everything within their power to pay for their home. In other cases people walk away simply because the economics of keeping it at their agreed upon payment isn’t pleasant anymore. That’s just unethical behavior in my opinion, and its a symptom of the overall decay in American society. Decay that manifests itself in many ways. But thinking that its ok to shirk ones legitimate debts is one of those ways.

/end moral rant

[kicksavedave]

[quote=briansd1][quote=kicksavedave] Not paying because you no longer have the ability is one thing… stuff happens. Not paying even though you still have the ability, because you no longer feel good about the investment, or because paying is no longer convenient, is BS.
[/quote]

Read the mortgage note again. There are no special provisions for job losses, medical expense and other “stuff” that happen.

What if I would rather spend my money on a vacation to Tahiti rather than paying the mortgage? Does that apply?

Should you pay your doctor and hospital before your pay your mortgage? Or vice versa? What about your alimony or child support?

[/quote]

I’m not really sure if you’re agreeing with me, or with Eugene on this? To answer your hypothetical questions, you should pay them both, even if you have to be late and make smaller payments for a longer time.

My point is, if you lose your job through no fault of your own, and simply cannot pay your mortgage, then the provisions in your contract let the bank take the house back. That’s unfortunate but at times unavoidable. In cases where unforeseen medical issues force a person into an untenable financial situation, bankruptcy allows them a fresh start without them losing their home. I have a feeling that’s not the dilemma you are referring to though.

However if you make stupid investment decisions or simply spend unwisely and decide that you want to pay for your vacations instead of your mortgage, then I say you are acting in an unethical manner. The contract that gives the bank the right to repossess your house doesn’t mean your selfish and irresponsible behavior is some how “OK” or “ethical”. Its not.

People make choices all the time. Getting laid off isn’t a choice one makes voluntarily. Spending irresponsibly is. In some cases a person does everything within their power to pay for their home. In other cases people walk away simply because the economics of keeping it at their agreed upon payment isn’t pleasant anymore. That’s just unethical behavior in my opinion, and its a symptom of the overall decay in American society. Decay that manifests itself in many ways. But thinking that its ok to shirk ones legitimate debts is one of those ways.

/end moral rant

[kicksavedave]

[quote=briansd1][quote=kicksavedave] Not paying because you no longer have the ability is one thing… stuff happens. Not paying even though you still have the ability, because you no longer feel good about the investment, or because paying is no longer convenient, is BS.
[/quote]

Read the mortgage note again. There are no special provisions for job losses, medical expense and other “stuff” that happen.

What if I would rather spend my money on a vacation to Tahiti rather than paying the mortgage? Does that apply?

Should you pay your doctor and hospital before your pay your mortgage? Or vice versa? What about your alimony or child support?

[/quote]

I’m not really sure if you’re agreeing with me, or with Eugene on this? To answer your hypothetical questions, you should pay them both, even if you have to be late and make smaller payments for a longer time.

My point is, if you lose your job through no fault of your own, and simply cannot pay your mortgage, then the provisions in your contract let the bank take the house back. That’s unfortunate but at times unavoidable. In cases where unforeseen medical issues force a person into an untenable financial situation, bankruptcy allows them a fresh start without them losing their home. I have a feeling that’s not the dilemma you are referring to though.

However if you make stupid investment decisions or simply spend unwisely and decide that you want to pay for your vacations instead of your mortgage, then I say you are acting in an unethical manner. The contract that gives the bank the right to repossess your house doesn’t mean your selfish and irresponsible behavior is some how “OK” or “ethical”. Its not.

People make choices all the time. Getting laid off isn’t a choice one makes voluntarily. Spending irresponsibly is. In some cases a person does everything within their power to pay for their home. In other cases people walk away simply because the economics of keeping it at their agreed upon payment isn’t pleasant anymore. That’s just unethical behavior in my opinion, and its a symptom of the overall decay in American society. Decay that manifests itself in many ways. But thinking that its ok to shirk ones legitimate debts is one of those ways.

/end moral rant

[kicksavedave]

[quote=briansd1][quote=kicksavedave] Not paying because you no longer have the ability is one thing… stuff happens. Not paying even though you still have the ability, because you no longer feel good about the investment, or because paying is no longer convenient, is BS.
[/quote]

Read the mortgage note again. There are no special provisions for job losses, medical expense and other “stuff” that happen.

What if I would rather spend my money on a vacation to Tahiti rather than paying the mortgage? Does that apply?

Should you pay your doctor and hospital before your pay your mortgage? Or vice versa? What about your alimony or child support?

[/quote]

I’m not really sure if you’re agreeing with me, or with Eugene on this? To answer your hypothetical questions, you should pay them both, even if you have to be late and make smaller payments for a longer time.

My point is, if you lose your job through no fault of your own, and simply cannot pay your mortgage, then the provisions in your contract let the bank take the house back. That’s unfortunate but at times unavoidable. In cases where unforeseen medical issues force a person into an untenable financial situation, bankruptcy allows them a fresh start without them losing their home. I have a feeling that’s not the dilemma you are referring to though.

However if you make stupid investment decisions or simply spend unwisely and decide that you want to pay for your vacations instead of your mortgage, then I say you are acting in an unethical manner. The contract that gives the bank the right to repossess your house doesn’t mean your selfish and irresponsible behavior is some how “OK” or “ethical”. Its not.

People make choices all the time. Getting laid off isn’t a choice one makes voluntarily. Spending irresponsibly is. In some cases a person does everything within their power to pay for their home. In other cases people walk away simply because the economics of keeping it at their agreed upon payment isn’t pleasant anymore. That’s just unethical behavior in my opinion, and its a symptom of the overall decay in American society. Decay that manifests itself in many ways. But thinking that its ok to shirk ones legitimate debts is one of those ways.

/end moral rant

[Author]

Posts