Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Strategic Default

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Strategic Default

    I've always been against it, here's another reason:

    House Is Gone but Debt Lives On
    by Jessica Silver-Greenberg
    Tuesday, October 4, 2011

    Joseph Reilly lost his vacation home here last year when he was out of work and stopped paying his mortgage. The bank took the house and sold it. Mr. Reilly thought that was the end of it.

    In June, he learned otherwise. A phone call informed him of a court judgment against him for $192,576.71.

    It turned out that at a foreclosure sale, his former house fetched less than a quarter of what Mr. Reilly owed on it. His bank sued him for the rest.

    The result was a foreclosure hangover that homeowners rarely anticipate but increasingly face: a "deficiency judgment."

    Forty-one states and the District of Columbia permit lenders to sue borrowers for mortgage debt still left after a foreclosure sale. The economics of today's battered housing market mean that lenders are doing so more and more.

    Foreclosed homes seldom fetch enough to cover the outstanding loan amount, both because buyers financed so much of the purchase price—up to 100% of it during the housing boom—and because today's foreclosures take place following a four-year decline in values.

    "Now there are foreclosures that leave banks holding the bag on more than $100,000 in debt," says Michael Cramer, president and chief executive of Dyck O'Neal Inc., an Arlington, Texas, firm that invests in debt. "Before, it didn't make sense [for banks] to expend the resources to go after borrowers; now it doesn't make sense not to."

    Indeed, $100,000 was roughly the average amount by which foreclosure sales fell short of loan balances in hundreds of foreclosures in seven states reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. And 64% of the 4.5 million foreclosures since the start of 2007 have taken place in states that allow deficiency judgments.

    Lenders still sue for loan shortfalls in only a small minority of cases where they legally could. Public relations is a limiting factor, some debt-buyers believe. Banks are reluctant to discuss their strategies, but some lenders say they are more likely to seek a deficiency judgment if they perceive the borrower to be a "strategic defaulter" who chose to stop paying because the property lost so much value.

    ...

    Leftover Debt:

    Some of the 41 U.S. states where lenders can pursue deficiency judgments:

    • Florida

    • Georgia

    • Illinois

    • Michigan

    • New Jersey

    • New York

    • North Carolina

    • Ohio

    • Pennsylvania

    • Texas

  • #2
    Would bankruptcy be next?
    Originally posted by MR EDD
    U defend him who use's racial slurs like hes drinking water.

    Comment


    • #3
      Sounds like the way it should happen.
      Originally posted by racrguy
      What's your beef with NPR, because their listeners are typically more informed than others?
      Originally posted by racrguy
      Voting is a constitutional right, overthrowing the government isn't.

      Comment


      • #4
        This just happened to a buddy of mine. He lost the house about 8 years ago, they sold it for like 20K less and sued him for the remainder. He just settled out of court for 15K, he was blindsided by it, but the payments are pretty affordable considering.
        Slow moving projects
        1964 C10 350/700r4
        1992 LX 5.0

        Comment


        • #5
          I've got no real problem with that....

          Comment


          • #6
            Not a single issue with it.

            People need to start being responsible and only buying what they can afford.

            Comment


            • #7
              Wouldn't a bankruptcy clear you of this. I figured if going through foreclosure and bankruptcy in the next logical step.

              The people walking away because of lost value who still have a positive net worth would be screwed, but most who lost their job and have no money won't have to pay if the file bk.


              I'd have a hard time with walking away from something, but if we are talking a six figure loss, it'd be not to.

              Comment


              • #8
                Good, you borrowed the money it isn't the banks fault the house is now worth less than what you paid for it.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by dblack1 View Post
                  Wouldn't a bankruptcy clear you of this. I figured if going through foreclosure and bankruptcy in the next logical step.

                  The people walking away because of lost value who still have a positive net worth would be screwed, but most who lost their job and have no money won't have to pay if the file bk.


                  I'd have a hard time with walking away from something, but if we are talking a six figure loss, it'd be not to.
                  It would be part of the bank's due diligence process to determine if the borrower had filed BK. If they had then the bank wouldn't be able to sue them.

                  I had a cousin who filed BK and a creditor came after him for a debt that was pre-bankruptcy in this exact manner. He just got a summons one day out of the blue. They didn't do their research. He ended up settling with them for about $50K and promised he wouldn't sue them for their mistake.
                  Originally posted by racrguy
                  What's your beef with NPR, because their listeners are typically more informed than others?
                  Originally posted by racrguy
                  Voting is a constitutional right, overthrowing the government isn't.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X