Buy house, don't pay mortgage, live rent-free for 9 years. MOD WARNING POST #268

Dav010

eagle eye wrote: »

You are jumping straight past my issue. The bank that gave the mortgage should be the ones attempting to repossess imo. I'd have no issue with this and I'd be fully behind them in this particular case.
Vulture funds are exactly what it says on the tin. In this instance people are willing to dismiss what they are because of the story that the media are telling us. There are lots of cases where vulture funds show their teeth and it's not pretty.
There are many cases where these companies buy up restructured mortgages where the loanee is meeting the terms of the new arrangement. The vulture funds are just looking for the first opportunity to cancel the new arrangement and then proceed to repossession. If you think that is right then I have nothing more to say to you.
So knowing the evil side of vulture funds you'll never see me support them.

You are completely ignoring the blatant facts of this case. The bank sold the loan books to survive, it was a requirement of being bailed out and continued existence. Only non performing loans were sold, if this couple were in a position to pay their mortgage their loan would still be with the bank.

If showing their teeth means recovering assets when repayments are not being met, this was foreseeable and forewarned when the couple took out their mortgage, if you finance any purchase by borrowing and then stop paying, it is completely understandable that the lender will attempt to recover the asset, then sell it to get their money back. No economic model could function where a borrower could borrow large amounts, then repay a paltry sum. It would mean cost of borrowing for others would increase as lenders try to cover the risk.

As far as I can see, this isn’t a case of the property being repossessed at the first opportunity, this process has been ongoing for many years, and again, the vulture fund offered them a fantastic deal.

I think the fund have a right to the property, I think they were right to offer the couple a debt write off if the left the house, I think the couple were right to agree to leave by this month, I think they are wrong to believe they have a right to something they have not paid for, I think you are wrong, or you don’t understand, I’m not sure which.

eagle eye

beauf wrote:

Yes but you were asked about the fund in this specific case. Not for a general rant about investment funds.

I have an issue with the practices of vulture funds. As a result of that I will always support the other side. As I've said I wouldn't support them if it was the bank who issued the loan.
Vulture funds are cold, uncaring money grabbers. I will take pleasure out if seeing them lose out anytime it happens.
I started this, I spoke about vulture funds as a whole and not just this case. I've made it clear on this thread that I think these people are wrong based on the information given to us. I've said multiple times that I would be on the side of the mortgage lender. I'll never be on the side of a vulture fund though.

coolshannagh28

beauf wrote: »

You were asked about the fund in this specific case. Not for a general rant about investment funds.

In many cases the banks have inflamed a situation by refusing to engage, before the fund get involved. Banks behave no differently and perhaps worse than the funds do. So it makes no sense to favour banks over funds.

Banks and funds look at it as a financial transaction without the emotion. So on one hand I have no problem with this family doing the same back to them. In the middle of a housing crisis the govt should be more involved in keeping people in their homes. But the govt has assay on their hands and given the banks and funds free reign. But that's a different issue.

This story is not about the housing crisis. This family could have walked away and started over. They have the means to do so. It has taken the system 9 years to get to this point. Because both the banks and funds wanted the property to appreciate to be worth more.

The couple have the right to act anyway they think that will offer them a better future , their loan has been sold on at a discount to a hard nosed US institution , if the couple see weakness in the fund s position they have every right to exploit it.

Shelflife

coolshannagh28 wrote: »

The couple have the right to act anyway they think that will offer them a better future , their loan has been sold on at a discount to a hard nosed US institution , if the couple see weakness in the fund s position they have every right to exploit it.

Of course they do and you can see the logic of not throwing good money after bad at this stage if it’s not going to benefit them in some way.

However they made a deal and agreed to leave the premises, now they are going back on their deal and are in contempt of court.

Effectively they have gone back on their word numerous times and deserve what’s coming their way .

beauf

eagle eye wrote: »

I have an issue with the practices of vulture funds. ...[/quote/]

That is not what this topic is about. Even if it was. There's a denial that this is a business transaction. No one is obliged to give you a good deal, especially not on a luxury property. The bank took this on then walked away from it.

beauf

coolshannagh28 wrote: »

The couple have the right to act anyway they think that will offer them a better future , their loan has been sold on at a discount to a hard nosed US institution , if the couple see weakness in the fund s position they have every right to exploit it.

Oh I agree. They can hard ball same as the banks and funds. They'd be stupid not to. Thus far it seems to have been the astute thing to do.

beauf

Ush1 wrote: »

Not really, the bank isn't going to sell the non-performing loan if it's actually performing.
...

That's not always true. Sometimes they want to get out of that business or they want to get out of riskier loans.

Cuddlesworth

beauf wrote: »

In many cases the banks have inflamed a situation by refusing to engage, before the fund get involved.

I saw that the couple claimed nobody would take their money. You would think that their would be some form of proof shown in court to go with that statement. Letters/Emails, proof of funds kept aside to go against their debt, etc.

Dav010

eagle eye wrote: »

I have an issue with the practices of vulture funds. As a result of that I will always support the other side..

So, even though the fund has done nothing wrong, acted legally, offered the debtor a good deal by writing off their debt and had to wait 10 years to recover their money, you support the other side?

How is that rational?

From what I have read and heard, VFs are far more likely to offer a debt write down than a bank is, you would think that would be favourable.

eagle eye

Dav010 wrote:

From what I have read and heard, VFs are far more likely to offer a debt write down than a bank is, you would think that would be favourable.

They are far more likely to want you out of the property. They won't be looking to help you make affordable repayments.

cruizer101

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

I saw that the couple claimed nobody would take their money.

I didn't see them say that, but can't ever see the bank refusing to take money.

They did say that they were told to stop making mortgage payments and made it sound like the bank told them, when actually there is no way the bank would say that and it was more likely their accountant or even just some of their friends.

They really should be evicted, they agreed to a court order to leave (probably good chance knowing they wouldn't) and have refused to go.

cruizer101

eagle eye wrote: »

They are far more likely to want you out of the property. They won't be looking to help you make affordable repayments.

Chances are if you engaged with the bank in the first place and made reasonable payments your loan wouldn't be sold off to a fund.
Their choice to not pay for so long is what resulted in the loan being passed on.

eagle eye

cruizer101 wrote:

Chances are if you engaged with the bank in the first place and made reasonable payments your loan wouldn't be sold off to a fund. Their choice to not pay for so long is what resulted in the loan being passed on.

As discussed be said already, there are many mortgages which have been rearranged that are then sold in to vulture funds.

cruizer101

And if you keep up with that re-arrangement when the loan is owned by the fund you shouldn't have any need to worry about them repossessing as no court is going to make that order if you are making a reasonable payment.

beauf

cruizer101 wrote: »

And if you keep up with that re-arrangement when the loan is owned by the fund you shouldn't have any need to worry about them repossessing as no court is going to make that order if you are making a reasonable payment.

.. even if you are not making payments apparently....

coolshannagh28

beauf wrote: »

Oh I agree. They can hard ball same as the banks and funds. They'd be stupid not to. Thus far it seems to have been the astute thing to do.

Now they may have overplayed their hand , but as they have played hardball so far they may as well continue , it would set some sort of precedent if they made any further ground but the slippage in the property market may have focused the minds of the institutions who entered the game.

Dav010

eagle eye wrote: »

As discussed be said already, there are many mortgages which have been rearranged that are then sold in to vulture funds.

They may have new payment arrangements, but they are still in breach of there mortgage t&cs and are still in arrears.

Have you any studies to show VFs are more likely or quicker to evict? Considering they own most of the non performing loans, obviously they will be involved in more repossession orders than a bank which has much fewer mortgages in arrears.

I was listening to a discussion on The Last Word a couple of weeks ago where an insolvency expert who helps people in arrears actually stated that people have a much better chance of coming to an agreement and keeping there home with a VF then they ever did with a bank.

handlemaster

eagle eye wrote: »

beauf wrote:

Yes but you were asked about the fund in this specific case. Not for a general rant about investment funds.

I have an issue with the practices of vulture funds. As a result of that I will always support the other side. As I've said I wouldn't support them if it was the bank who issued the loan.
Vulture funds are cold, uncaring money grabbers. I will take pleasure out if seeing them lose out anytime it happens.
I started this, I spoke about vulture funds as a whole and not just this case. I've made it clear on this thread that I think these people are wrong based on the information given to us. I've said multiple times that I would be on the side of the mortgage lender. I'll never be on the side of a vulture fund though.

Its a business we are all involved in. Your pension fund is linked directly or in directly to such companies. We are all feeding off the same system.

vriesmays

splinter65 wrote: »

The couple are more greedy and immoral than the vultures in this case

But not as greedy as Frank and Theresa.

nc6000

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/deliberate-attempt-to-obstruct-court-order-judge-rules-vulture-fund-can-immediately-take-ronan-ryan-and-pamela-floods-home-38406614.html

JMMCapital

Arthur Daley wrote: »

It's got to be fairly obvious at this stage that Ireland is some sort of experiment in this regard. Go across the water to Britain, and you'll be out on your ear after 90 days past due (not 9 effin years), and little to no public sympathy for your sob stories either.

that's the only job. this country is run by a bunch of leftist teachers we need the same stance can't let these scumbags live rent free.

dalyboy

Im no fan of hedge funds however this judge made a good decision. A great decision would have been to ensure a reasonable payment be made by the couple to cover the 9 years of pure and utter ignorance of their agreed responsibility to service their mortgage. If I missed my mortgage repayments like they did I’d be on my ear in 9 months or less NOT 9 years. Total P@&s take.

Car99

dalyboy wrote: »

Im no fan of hedge funds however this judge made a good decision. A great decision would have been to ensure a reasonable payment be made by the couple to cover the 9 years of pure and utter ignorance of their agreed responsibility to service their mortgage. If I missed my mortgage repayments like they did I’d be on my ear in 9 months or less NOT 9 years. Total P@&s take.

Yould be surprised how long you could drag it out for especially if there are kids involved.

Henry Ford III

They aren't out yet.

pc7

Henry Ford III wrote: »

They aren't out yet.

Id say they are coming to an agreement to get out, doubt the fund want any more publicity with this. Reckon it'll all go quietly, surely the family have been looking or have somewhere to go.

Lux23

JMMCapital wrote: »

that's the only job. this country is run by a bunch of leftist teachers we need the same stance can't let these scumbags live rent free.

Yes, Fine Gael, the great bastion of left leaning politics in Ireland. :rolleyes:

overkill602

pc7 wrote: »

Id say they are coming to an agreement to get out, doubt the fund want any more publicity with this. Reckon it'll all go quietly, surely the family have been looking or have somewhere to go.

After 9 years am sure they have accumulated wealth under many an off shelve company and enjoying the lime light while new mortgage holders subsidized.
will they try a book on this later...

Shelflife

pc7 wrote: »

Id say they are coming to an agreement to get out, doubt the fund want any more publicity with this. Reckon it'll all go quietly, surely the family have been looking or have somewhere to go.

They already had an agreement to leave and they didnt stick to it and then tried to frustrate the bank by getting a court order without disclosing that they had already agreed to leave.

I wouldnt trust them at all.

If I was the MD of the fund/bank Id be sending in the bailiffs today and have them on the side of the road with no regrets.

ongarboy

Shelflife wrote: »

They already had an agreement to leave and they didnt stick to it and then tried to frustrate the bank by getting a court order without disclosing that they had already agreed to leave.

I wouldnt trust them at all.

If I was the MD of the fund/bank Id be sending in the bailiffs today and have them on the side of the road with no regrets.

And this is what pissed the judge off because they were taking the proverbial piss at this stage and removed any further chance of leniency or grace period extensions being granted to them. I sense the tide has turned even more against this couple now since this latest development. There are a lot of angry people out there who suffered immediate consequences with no leeway when they entered hard times and missed a payment and it must have been galling to them (as it is to all of us who struggle and sacrifice to make our mortgage payments every month) to see this lot having glossy spread features about their home and designer furnishings when they were 7 years into defaulting on their mortgage without a penny paid as per this 2017 article. I've absolutely no sympathy for them and they deserve what comes to them!

Just google the price of the Lacanche cooker Flood gushes about in the article (5k).... or The Icaras painting which cost €2300

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/homes-and-property/interiors/at-home-with-pamela-flood-i-am-a-total-hoarder-1.3333531

Darando

Better start clearing that attic