Irvine Housing Blog

I’ll have you know David, I’m going to walk away from my house because I want prices to go lower so good folk like you can afford a home. I’m HELPING to lower home prices, but no, you want everyone to keep paying an insane price to artificially keep home prices high.

Which is it? Oh that’s right, you want prices to drop, while people are in debt servitude, THEN you want to own a home so YOU can make a profit. Bottom line is…everyone is doing things for their own selfish interests, including you.

I could not care less about profiteering in real estate.  I want the damn thing paid off and affordable for future generations - unlike the boomers who control most of the real-estate these days and think it is just fine to stick young families with horrendous housing debt to pay for their own retirements.

Mr. Phoenix Renter, I agree with you 100%.  Please re-read my response.  I would have thought that you, especially, would appreciate it.

Agreed.  Color has absolutely nothing to do with it.  I am colored.  I go from pasty white to pink to red to tan.

Color in and of itself is inconsequential.

However, due to cultural norms, strategic default is not an issue that is discussed in dept on any broad levels in cultures of individuals of color.  It is a fact. 

The lessons from my culture are what NOT to do.  As in do not throw money away on things that have no worth, like an underwater home.

My culture is one of the good, the bad, the beautiful, and the ugly—-like all others.

My culture has no monopoly and I am not blaming my culture for me walking away.

You got me, I am a piece of shit.  A piece of shit can walk——-away from a 400k home that is worth 150k.

Who says shit don’t stink?

My word is not dependent upon the result or who may or may not benefit from it.  It stands alone.

I do not think you understood.  I was underwater in the last real estate cycle, 1990 - 1996.  And I paid my mortgage.  And I am glad I did.

Did it cost me?  Of course.  But my integrity does not have a price.  I care not for what others may do.  I care not if they call their decision a business decision.  My decision was based on my word.

Did my children do with less?  Materially, absolutely.  But my guess is that they know that I will do what I say no matter what and they can count on my word no matter what it may cost me.

I dunno, maybe they would have been better off with better schools, more clothes, cell phones, etc.  But, instead they just have what I say.

Lets not tell others what is right and what is not right. There will always be people looking to go along with the system as it allows and then there will be people who will follow all the rules.

1. If stretagic defaulting is the only choice you got to save ur family, do it! Doesn’t every business do it? Businesses cut head counts to meet bottomline. When it comes to survival, do what it takes.
2. If you make decent money and downturn has not affected you, you may choose to abide the rules and keep paying. Again, its a personal choice.  We should not be angry at folks, we should be angry at the system that encouraged it.

I am a firm beliver that once you get into wrongdoing as system allows you, you sooner or later become a crook (lions are not maneaters by birth, it takes first blood to become one). You can pretty much collect food stamps today as there are loop holes in the system. Ways to committing fraud are endless and greed overpowers mind once you get hooked.  Those who default due to hardships dont fall into greed trap.

I dont want to pass on to my kids my bad behaviour as I am their role model. Again, if I am suffering and my kids are hungry, I would even rob a bank.

I think romeotybalt’s position is bullshit.

I don’t know exactly what rotation we’re on but it’s official: We’re circling the drain.

When will we start responding to the same basic moral questions with similar answers?  When we sign a contract, we uphold your end of the agreement to the best of our ability, or default on the agreement and face the associated consequences.  We do our part along with everyone else or we get the hell out of the way and let somebody else do it.

Instead we seem content to make up all sorts of exceptions and excuses for ourselves so that reality fits and favors our personal perspectives and preferences.

“Didn’t you know? The Newtonian theory of gravity that doesn’t apply in MY house.” 

“Moral hazard?  Never heard of it! It must apply to everybody else but me.”

Is this for real?

OK. Fine. But if that’s our answer, if that the compass we’re going to be using and the direction in which we’re all headed, then let’s at least not pretend that there aren’t dire consequences for EVERYBODY about being wrong.

As for your answer: squatting, congratulations man on the 14 months. A tip of the hate and a salute for another 14 more! Fantastic.

Just when we thought there would be a shortage of despondency and disgust from the next generation of young Americans, some one comes along and tops it off with “it was all about my survival!” goodness. 

Pure gold.

Well said Mark.

Thank you.

Mark, how many people do you know who have gotten a divorce? Do you think it’s more important to keep your word on finances, then to your FAMILY?

The divorce rate is over 50%, and these are people who gave their WORD, in front of witnesses, to spend their lives together…and you care not a whit about that, yet when it comes to MONEY, boy oh boy, we are circling down the drain.

You cannot serve God and mammon, and by our actions, it is apparent for the majority of us, it is the latter. Don’t forget to attend our special divorce recovery prayer class for the active adulterer/fornicator. After all, we’re not perfect, just forgiven (except for debts, debts are not forgiven)

“A tip of the hate”  ROFLMFAO!!!

Awesome.

@Swiller:

I would just like to point out that someone’s divorce does not cost the taxpayers as much as someone’s squatting.

But given the fact that we each don’t get our own personal bailout, if I were in a situation where we had to cut and run… I would think about it. Not sure if I would squat though… because that crosses the line in my mind.

Since you asked, yes, I know people who have divorced.  Alcoholism was the reason.  Thankfully the only thing destroyed was the contract itself (no kids, no house, no accumulated wealth). All things considered, pretty “easy”.

I’m not really comfortable equating a divorce situation to a mortgage default. Both result in a lot of bitterness, irrational thought and greed, and you can easily rationalize all kinds of good reasons to default on your mortgage or good reasons to divorce your spouse.

I’m not saying that breaking all contracts is always morally and strategically the wrong thing to do.

I am saying that, if things with that girl (house)don’t work out, don’t stalk her, squat in her place, drive her car around, throw bags of cement down her sewer system, and say she “belongs” to you.

Give somebody else a chance.

Make sense?

Yes, thank you for clarifying that. I just like to point out that there are a host of other things much more detestable than squatting in a house, but those don’t get the attention.

In addition, the bailout went to the banksters, that’s why people are squatting. If the system moved as fast as it did when the banksters were pumping the bubble, no one would be squatting at all.

Whose fault is that? How many homes sit EMPTY, and people are “OK” with that, but Lord forbid someone actually use and live in the house, that’s immoral. Talk about being backwards….

Awgee, since you are a person of your word, I’m sure your HELOC debtors can count on you to “come after them”.

Yet, I am sure you rationlize it by “providing for you family”.

While our menthods are different, we are part of the same hypocrisy.

It’s seems a bit ironic that you judge squatters for not keeping their word, yet bottom feed on the very debt of which they are attempting to default.

However, from a business sense, it is a good idea.

Exactly where in my posts did I “judge squatters for not keeping their word”?  I think that if you read my posts, you will see that I told of my experience and what my experience and word meant for me.

What I find ironic is the use of terms like “squatters”, “come after them”, and “bottom feed” from someone who is accusing someone else of judging.

There is nothing in my position or behavior which is hypocritical.  Purchasing loans does not necessitate rationalization.  Do you think it does?  Are you insinuating or stating that there is something immoral or untoward in purchasing loans?  And collecting payment?

I think if you read my posts, you will see that I accused no one of bad behavior.  I am curious as to why you find it attractive to besmirch me with accusations of “coming after them”, rationalizing, hypocrisy, judging, and bottom feeding.

Clarification:  My position and behavior are not hypocritical in the context of these posts.  I am quite sure I engage in hypocrisy in many manners of everyday life.

Honcho, thanks for pointing that out.  But to us regular Joes, not having standing to conduct a foreclosure sounds pretty serious.

MERS doesn’t conduct foreclosures.  Attorneys were sometimes bringing foreclosure suits on behalf of MERS, this was not in compliance with proper protocal.  Same issue when trying to lift the automatic stay.

It’s not serious and is an easy fix.  Simply go back and bring the foreclosure on behalf of the proper party.

People are trying to make MERS out to be some evil mechanism.  It is nothing more than a system to track transfers in interests.

I am confused.  You said “Courts finding that MERS does not have standing to conduct a foreclosure in a judicial foreclosure state”.  Why would a court find that MERS does not have standing to conduct a foreclosure if “MERS doesn’t conduct foreclosures”?

Why would a court find that MERS does not have standing to do something which you say they do not do anyways?

I don’t want to disparage a group of attorneys, but those that work at/run foreclosure mills aren’t going to win any lawyer of the year awards.  They simply weren’t following protocal and were bringing suits in the name of the wrong party.

I can only tell you what’s in the MERS handbooks and guides that I have seen that detail the proper procedures for conducting a foreclosure in a judicial foreclosure state. Never is a foreclosure to be brought in MERS name. Pretty simple.  If those procedures weren’t followed, that isn’t fraud, it’s an attorney screw up. (There’s actually only a handful of these cases, so the claim above, that MERS is getting “atomized” all over the place is something I just haven’t seen).