Website sells 'peace of mind' for walking away from mortgage

[Solomwi]

No you don't.

Kid, I'm a lawyer who took, and passed, Secured Transactions, is a party to secured loans and routinely drafts loan agreements and security agreements for secured loans for my clients. On top of that, I'm not the one showing fundamental ignorance of their nature. Yes, you ****ing ****, I do.

[Ming]

Kid is probably getting his information on mortgages from the Bible... because Lord knows he can't be getting real information from legitimate sources.

[Dauphin]

Take that back Ming. I've found the Bible to be a very good source for understanding financial issues. It was written by Jews after all.

[KrazyHorse]

Bear in mind that non-recourse loans are also allowed in most, if not all, recourse states, i.e., there's nothing in the law barring enforcement of a "repay the loan or settle the full debt by handing over the collateral" K.

AFAIK this is not generally how mortgages are structured outside of non-recourse states. Practically, this is how it works due to the cost of litigation.

[duke o' york]

Ming has been infinitely more entertaining since he stepped down as moderator Almost as good as UR no longer being a mod for rather different reasons...

Since Kid has been struggling with basic concepts let's make this easy.

Bob and Jim are both kids. Bob wants to buy a computer game and loans $20 from Jim to be able to buy it. At the time that they agree to the loan Bob promises that if he can't pay back the money then he'll give Jim the computer game. Give money or give the game are the terms of the agreement. Then a few weeks later its Christmas and Bob gets a better computer game and gets bored of the computer game he bought before so he decides to give it to Jim instead of giving Jim $20, even though he got $20 from his grandma for Christmas (because he wants to buy cheeseburgers with the $20 instead because cheeseburgers are delicious). Has Bob acted unethically?

Well that depends which game it is. If Bob buys FFXIIIIIIIIIII, and finishes it within a couple of weeks then he's immoral for having bought the stupid game in the first place. His deal with Jim is entirely ethical, and legally within the terms of the loan.

Kid seems to have misunderstood the nature of ethics apropos corporations and people. Now although the courts treat companies as entities, this is only to separate them from their owners. So if Kid owns $100 of shares in a company, and the company goes under, then he only owes the creditors $100, rather than the percentage of the debt the company owes that is represented by his $100 of shares out of the total debt. Why anyone would feel ethically obliged toward a company is beyond me. So long as you stick to the terms of your contract, then you are within your rights to act howsoever you choose, as are they. Would anyone really bother 'tipping' a London shopkeeper the extra just because the dollar happened to be stronger than the pound at the time you changed currency when you came to visit, just because it was ethical, and he might not be able to afford his 40' plasma as a result?

The sensible option, as has been suggested by several political parties to date, to no effect, is for the banks to be required to hold the face value of their investors' deposits at all times, so that they can return them if necessary, although where they might make the profits through investment to support accounts' positive interest rates is anybody's guess given the unsound economic markets at the moment. It seems that the French system (probably in many other countries, but I've never held an account in any other country than France and Britain), with a 0% rate on current accounts suddenly makes sense....

[Solomwi]

AFAIK this is not generally how mortgages are structured outside of non-recourse states. Practically, this is how it works due to the cost of litigation.

As a practical matter, I think you're right, at least in the mortgage sector. I've drawn up several non-recourse secured loans for clients even though I practice in a recourse state, but none of them have been mortgages. I only added that as a point of interest, since even Sloww doesn't accuse you of claiming to be a legal expert.

[KrazyHorse]

I have no idea what that last clause means.

[Solomwi]

I've seen you post before that you're not a legal expert. I've seen Sloww criticize you for claiming expertise on all manner of topics (whether the criticism was deserved or not). All the last clause means is that you haven't held yourself out as a legal expert, which I think is uncontroversial, and even your detractors don't accuse you of such. And with that said, I didn't know how familiar you may or may not be with the legal mechanism for distinguishing between recourse and non-recourse states.

The preceding paragraph is proof enough that it was just a bad joke, on the "if it needs explanation..." premise.

[KrazyHorse]

Compared to slow, I'm an expert on everything except illiteracy.

[rah]

At my daughters graduation this weekend their was a catholic priest there so I asked him if one walked away from a mortgage if it was a sin. He laughed for a minute and said "if the contract you signed allows it, of course not". I asked for clarification saying that the bible stated that a just man should always pay his debt, and he stated that the bank getting the house back satisfied the debt since that was the arrangement agreed upon.

antidotal evidence for the win.
I assume he was thinking I was asking about myself and thought I would feel better after that answer.

[Kidlicious]

Kid, I'm a lawyer who took, and passed, Secured Transactions, is a party to secured loans and routinely drafts loan agreements and security agreements for secured loans for my clients. On top of that, I'm not the one showing fundamental ignorance of their nature. Yes, you ****ing ****, I do.

I'm just judging by what you've said in this thread. I don't know you personally.

[Kidlicious]

Kid is probably getting his information on mortgages from the Bible... because Lord knows he can't be getting real information from legitimate sources.

You don't even know what the term "to borrow" means.

To borrow: to receive (something) from somebody temporarily, expecting to return it.

I never realized how full of **** you are Ming.

[Flubber]

I borrow stuff from Blockbuster. They have an automatic purchase option where if you don't bring it back in so long , you buy it. Is it unethical if I decide to keep the movie??

Oh and Blockbuster staff says they don't care.


Honestly Kid I liked fighing with you better when you were a communist. Can you dust off that persona and start using it again. This persona is positively Ben Kenobian

[Ming]

You don't even know what the term "to borrow" means.

To borrow: to receive (something) from somebody temporarily, expecting to return it.

I never realized how full of **** you are Ming.

You seem to be the one full of it... You make stuff up, with no real facts to support what you say, and then call people that actually state facts full of it.

Maybe you should read contract law instead of the Bible.

[Ben Kenobi]

This persona is positively Ben Kenobian

Obviously not, because I've argued to the contrary.