For anyone who faces losing their home...

WildBoots

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVYIBikzwmk

"Don't leave your home. Because you know what? When those companies say they have your mortgage, unless you have a lawyer that can put his or her finger on that mortgage, you don't have that mortgage, and you are going to find they can't find the paper".

Just say no.

Ask to see the original mortgage contract.

Send the fckers marching.

Guy:Incognito

Obviously anyone with money in a bank should just shrug and walk away when the guy in the bank greets you with "money? your have no money here sir" Yeah?

desaparecidos

Until the mortgage is paid off, it's still the banks home.

CokaColumbo

If the bank let everybody stay in their homes after they had violated the terms of their mortgage contract, then a whole lot of people would just stop paying their mortgages, crippling the bank. The result: no mortgage or homes for anybody!

Mahatma coat

CokaColumbo wrote: »

If the bank let everybody stay in their homes after they had violated the terms of their mortgage contract, then a whole lot of people would just stop paying their mortgages, crippling the bank. The result: no mortgage or homes for anybody!

But thats the point, Mass Default might not be such a bad thing, rationalise the markets.

But do you dispute the Truth of what is being said, if they cant produce a Deed which gives them Legal Rights over your Home then they dont really have that Legal Right.

CokaColumbo

Mahatma coat wrote: »

But thats the point, Mass Default might not be such a bad thing, rationalise the markets.

But do you dispute the Truth of what is being said, if they cant produce a Deed which gives them Legal Rights over your Home then they dont really have that Legal Right.

Of course it would be a bad thing. Firstly, it's theft; and secondly, if the bank didn't exist anymore, nobody would be able to afford to buy a new home.

Yes, I agree, if the bank does not have legal proof of the right to seize your property in the event of you breaking the conditions of a contract that you signed with them, then it wouldn't really have that particular right. But I don't see why a bank wouldn't have the relevant proof, i.e. the terms of the contract.

Mahatma coat

But thats the thing tho, These Banks have Traded and Bundled and Sold on the Mortgage, your Debt is to the person/institution that holds the Mortgage as security, you will find that it is not the Bank you are dealing with, they have SOLD your mortgage to someone else, therefore they have no right to collect on that debt unless they can produce your mortgage. Adverse then comes into play.

Banks wouldnt suddenly Cease to exist either, thats a disengenous scare tactic, Lots of Banks would Fail, and that would be a good thing, the Banks that would be left would be the ones that were Robust and had sane and stable lending practices, You probably still believe that Baling out Anglo was a Great Idea.

CokaColumbo

Mahatma coat wrote: »

But thats the thing tho, These Banks have Traded and Bundled and Sold on the Mortgage, your Debt is to the person/institution that holds the Mortgage as security, you will find that it is not the Bank you are dealing with, they have SOLD your mortgage to someone else, therefore they have no right to collect on that debt unless they can produce your mortgage. Adverse then comes into play.

Banks wouldnt suddenly Cease to exist either, thats a disengenous scare tactic, Lots of Banks would Fail, and that would be a good thing, the Banks that would be left would be the ones that were , You probably still believe that Baling out Anglo was a Great Idea.

No, I oppose the bailout of the banks and always have. My point is not a "disingenuous scare tactic" either. I am simply stating that if everybody was allowed to live in their homes, regardless of whether or not they kept up their payments on the mortgages they took out, there would be a knock on effect and a vast number of individuals would actively decide not to pay their mortgages, as there would be no negative consequences for them personally if they were to do such a thing. The result of this would be that every bank, regardless of its lending practices, would lose much of its assets and income and would go out of business.

At the end of the day, if you fail to keep up your mortgage payments, like the family in the video did, you lose your right to retain that piece of property and rightly so. Which bank or institution the property should go to is the problem which needs to be figured out, but whether it be bank A, bank B, or Bank C, the occupants deserve to be evicted.

Mahatma coat

OK Heres Article 41 of the constitution

Article 41 states:

1 1° The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.

2 1° In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

2° The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

3 1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.

2° A Court designated by law may grant a dissolution of marriage where, but only where, it is satisfied that -

i. at the date of the institution of the proceedings, the spouses have lived apart from one another for a period of, or periods amounting to, at least four years during the previous five years,

ii. there is no reasonable prospect of reconciliation between the spouses,

iii. such provision as the Court considers proper having regard to the circumstances exists or will be made for the spouses, any children of either or both of them and any other person prescribed by law, and

iv. any further conditions prescribed by law are complied with.

3° No person whose marriage has been dissolved under the civil law of any other State but is a subsisting valid marriage under the law for the time being in force within the jurisdiction of the Government and Parliament established by this Constitution shall be capable of contracting a valid marriage within that jurisdiction during the lifetime of the other party to the marriage so dissolved.

It dosent say that its the states purpose to Protect Bankers and their institutions, it Clearly States that the states responsibility is to the Families of Ireland, and that the family home is the key institution to defend not Banks

CokaColumbo

Mahatma coat wrote: »

OK Heres Article 41 of the constitution


It dosent say that its the states purpose to Protect Bankers and their institutions, it Clearly States that the states responsibility is to the Families of Ireland, and that the family home is the key institution to defend not Banks

One of the fundamental roles of government is to enforce the terms of contracts which have been agreed voluntarily between private individuals. That includes mortgages. The Article of the Constitution which you cited does not provide any grounds on which the holder of a piece of property is able to stop paying for their home and still retain control over it. Such a principal does not exist in any constitution and in fact runs contrary to the most basic laws of democratic states. If your friend reneged on a legal contract with you, and you stood to lose €200,000 as a result, it would be the state's obligation to enforce the terms of that contract and hold your friend to account. The same applies to a private lending institution.

Mahatma coat

Ah but it all comes back to who holds the Deed.

If the Bank that are trying to charge you dont hold the deed to your house then they have no claim to it.

What you will find is that a lot of the BVanks Bundled these mortages together and SOLD them to another institution, the key point is SOLD, the banks have been Paid for the money they lent you, your obligation has been released.

Legally your house has been paid for, you can say thank you to the Hedge fund that paid your mortgage, but YOU have not Contracted with them, and the Bank had no right to contract with them without First consulting you, you have signed a piece of paper with the bank, thats no longer a valid arangement as the bank dont own your House anymore.

bmw535d

but the bank holds the physical deed of the house until every last cent of a mortgage is paid back, so if you are evicted you are trespassing and will be jailed for repeated offences.

Mahatma coat

thats the point tho, Do they actually have the Physical Deed?

If you investigate it you will find that more often than not they have SOLD your Mortgage to some Hedgfund type organisation, You had a deal with the BANK not the Hedgefund, if the Bank have been Paid for your house then they no longer own it, the hedge fund does, but you have not Contracted with them so in essence they have generously Paid off your mortgage in the hope that you wouldnt notice and instead continue paying them money.

The Recliner

Moved from Cool Vids

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Were the Irish banks big into bundling and selling off mortgages etc?

I thought a big part of their problems is that they have lots of residential mortgages on their books.

AlekSmart

I`d also want to be VERY sure of the legal situation in these cases.

The provisions of Bunreacht na hÉireann are all well and good,but if the base law is sound then these provisions will be well and truly adopted.

It also needs to be realized that there are VAST differences between U.S. property/mortgage laws and Irish ones.

It`s a good topic for discussion but I`d not want to lob it up in front of a Judge of the High Court in Ireland .....:)

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Something the IMF at least are aware of:

QUESTIONER: But is there a problem or a danger in the sheer amount of floating interest mortgage loans in the Irish system which is high in comparison to other European countries? Is that something that they will be directly looking at?

MR. CHOPRA: Absolutely. I said this when I was in Dublin, that the mortgage loan book and mortgage loans will need to be looked at, that the stress tests will need to look at the implications of a possible rise in interest rates on this loan book.

Hopefully, therefore, we may hear about something being done about it before it overwhelms the government's wallet. Again.

hopefully,
Scofflaw

Dempo1

CokaColumbo wrote: »

If the bank let everybody stay in their homes after they had violated the terms of their mortgage contract, then a whole lot of people would just stop paying their mortgages, crippling the bank. The result: no mortgage or homes for anybody!

Are not the banks crippled anyway? i would dearly love to know what is the true percentage of Mortgage in arrears. I think 2011 will be telling with the situation about to implode.

Dempo1

The picture will change over the next few years. Homeowners will face the perfect storm of falling wages, falling social welfare rates, rising unemployment, higher taxes (including property taxes and water charges), higher energy costs, interest rate hikes, and inflation. Many will be forced into inevitable default. We will then hear a lot more about institutions such as Permanent TSB, which have significant exposure to the residential mortgage market.[/QUOTE]

My thoughts too, an interesting development i witnessed in a district court last week suggests lots of people being crippled with consumer debt. Once lending institutions got a judgment, next step installment orders and final straw Judgment mortgage. I was astonished at what i witnessed, essentially the Judge made it clear he was not awarding Installment orders against anyone on social welfare, one after the other (and there were many) cases where adjourned. I am aware of a number of people who are currently struggling with there mortgages an whilst making every effort to maintain at least interest only payments, they are now facing Judgments against their mortgages, I suspect what i witnessed in the district court was not an isolated incident. I was astonished at the amount of cases listed by financial institutions re personal debt. I really do get a sense the **** is going to hit the fan in 2011, not just with mortgage difficulties but with consumer debt. Scary stuff!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

jimmycrackcorm

Mahatma coat wrote: »

OK Heres Article 41 of the constitution


It dosent say that its the states purpose to Protect Bankers and their institutions, it Clearly States that the states responsibility is to the Families of Ireland, and that the family home is the key institution to defend not Banks

Neither does it say that it has to protect family homes - just the family. Does it mean that families renting are actually entitled to own the house they live in?

Scofflaw

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

At times of crisis, there is always a large amount of pressure for governments to overturn legal rules by fiat - often from the same people who are most outraged the rest of the time at any use of government fiat.

The yardstick seems to be simply one of personal benefit.

cynically,
Scofflaw

daithi2011

Mahatma coat wrote: »

thats the point tho, Do they actually have the Physical Deed?

If you investigate it you will find that more often than not they have SOLD your Mortgage to some Hedgfund type organisation, You had a deal with the BANK not the Hedgefund, if the Bank have been Paid for your house then they no longer own it, the hedge fund does, but you have not Contracted with them so in essence they have generously Paid off your mortgage in the hope that you wouldnt notice and instead continue paying them money.

The bank is more likely to have the deed than you are. So if they dont have the right to move you out if you dont have the deed, then you surely dont have the right to stay there.

Irish Slaves for Europe

Dempo1 wrote: »

Are not the banks crippled anyway? i would dearly love to know what is the true percentage of Mortgage in arrears. I think 2011 will be telling with the situation about to implode.

At mid November it was 5% of mortgages over 90 days in arrears, with a further 5% which had been restructured.

Its going to be scary to see what the figures will be like in 2011 as a result of:

- The average tax payer facing a cut of about 1,000 euros to their net pay in 2011

- Nothing in the budget to make it cheaper for companies to do business here (FG have said they will reverse the minimum wage cut, which will have the knock on effect of maintaining our crazy salary levels across the board and maintaining our high cost of living in Ireland)

- The worrying comment by FF on the Frontline program a couple of days ago that they are changing legislation so that family homes will not be repossessed until social housing has been found for them. This will be an enormous additional expense for the Irish tax payer.

Late 2011 will truely be a bloodbath, it really is frightening to think about.

Leiva

Residents not paying their over sold mortgage or Banks kicking them out is both wrong .

The answer is somewhere in the middle .

Maybe a large portion of the debt/mortgage forgiven could be an answer.

I'm afraid those that think the status quo can remain when we are due major quantities of mortgage defaults happening have their head in the sand.
Somethings gotta give and the quicker the Govt take action the better .
This is not gonna go away and I truly believe we will see decisions that will have sweeping changes for all in the next 24months .

Debt forgives raises many moral questions like " why should Billy next door get a chuck of his mortgage wiped off when I have worked fcuking hard to clear mine " etc etc .

This is where we need the smartest of our people to come up with trailblazing ideas , but that's something I fear is lacking in Dail Eireann.

RichardAnd

mixednuts wrote: »

Residents not paying their over sold mortgage or Banks kicking them out is both wrong .

The answer is somewhere in the middle .

Maybe a large portion of the debt/mortgage forgiven could be an answer.

I'm afraid those that think the status quo can remain when we are due major quantities of mortgage defaults happening have their head in the sand.
Somethings gotta give and the quicker the Govt take action the better .
This is not gonna go away and I truly believe we will see decisions that will have sweeping changes for all in the next 24months .

Debt forgives raises many moral questions like " why should Billy next door get a chuck of his mortgage wiped off when I have worked fcuking hard to clear mine " etc etc .

This is where we need the smartest of our people to come up with trailblazing ideas , but that's something I fear is lacking in Dail Eireann.

The problem with debt forgiveness is that it's a total misnomer. It should be called debt shifting because whilst Billy might get 100k knocked off his mortgage, someone is going to have to pay for it.

In short, private debt should never, ever be socialised. And yes, I am aware that is just what has happened with the banks but two wrongs don't make a right. Debts should be payed by the indebted party and no one else. Do I feel sorry for people who got into debt? In some cases I do but relieving them of that debt would just be putting it on the shoulders of people who had nothing to do with the matter.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

later12

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I agree with the need for law reform. Sadly however any such push is inevitably going to be popularly sold as a get out of jail free card for NAMA types. Reform is needed on bank resolution, unfortunately we may be too opposed to the idea of developers recovering from their debts to actually endorse such a thing nationally.

I hate to endorse a broad generalisation but such would be a clear example of Irish begrudgery choking its own potential success, or at least, recovery.

Dempo1

Irish Slaves for Europe wrote: »

At mid November it was 5% of mortgages over 90 days in arrears, with a further 5% which had been restructured.

Its going to be scary to see what the figures will be like in 2011 as a result of:

- The average tax payer facing a cut of about 1,000 euros to their net pay in 2011

- Nothing in the budget to make it cheaper for companies to do business here (FG have said they will reverse the minimum wage cut, which will have the knock on effect of maintaining our crazy salary levels across the board and maintaining our high cost of living in Ireland)

- The worrying comment by FF on the Frontline program a couple of days ago that they are changing legislation so that family homes will not be repossessed until social housing has been found for them. This will be an enormous additional expense for the Irish tax payer.

Late 2011 will truely be a bloodbath, it really is frightening to think about.

I really find it hard to believe these official statistics 5% can not realistically reflect the amount of those mortgages either in arrears or be restructured, its beggars belief when you take the infamous smart mortgages current defense of a creative action taken against them by a customer claiming smart had no authority to issue mortgages. The figures they submitted involving current and pending repossession orders to the high court in order to fast track the case the commercial court were staggering and alone probably over take the entire repossession cases last year by all the banks.

I agree fully with your other points but on the social housing situation, it is clear that if full repossession orders where to proceed, housing will be required (I'm neutral on this point) but it did occur to me that substantial amount of ghost estates lie idle and some unfinished. If its accepted this is the route to go, it seems to me to be perfectly sensible to transfer these estates to social housing and perhaps in the short term create some employment finishing them off and maintaining them. Other options being suggested such as demolishing them seems both nonsensical and extremely expense. Just a humble thought!