Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

1235718

Comments

  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    I kind of grew up thinking if I borrowed money I had to pay it back....

    I blame the parents.


  • Registered Users Posts: 570 ✭✭✭Jane98


    Do either of them currently have work?

    I think they should have to list all their assets, thereby proving whether they were unable or just unwilling to pay any of their mortgage payments.


  • Registered Users Posts: 53,028 ✭✭✭✭ButtersSuki


    That's the thing, they did pay interest until they were told not to by the bank according to them.

    I have never heard of any bank in Ireland telling a borrower to stop paying in relation to a property in negative equity, and I have some experience in this area. I simply do not believe that. It sounds like “advice” given to them by someone other than the bank.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,035 ✭✭✭rivegauche


    Even our car leasing and reposessions are a bit out there, look at the cost of leasing a new car in the US or germany vs here, a lot less fees and lower rates and payments.
    In US they are paying on average 500 dollars or more per month for cars.
    In Germany there are some absolutely stonking lease deals. If I needed a car in Germany I'd lease a brand new car for under 99 euro a month and hand it back at end of lease in 2 or 3 years time.
    http://www.sparneuwagen.de

    Back on topic; any Judge they happen to appear before from now on will show them no sympathy and probably feel some antipathy toward them for having previously gone behind the back of one of their Brethren to game the system in another Judge's courtroom.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    Lower deposit interest rates

    If people don't have a mortgage and have shares in a credit union, how are they getting lower deposit rates? In any event, the banks would not be paying any higher deposits that they are now even if there were no bad debts. They don't want deposits at the moment.
    In this case the money was loanded by a foreign bank and any profit would have gone to the foreign bank. As it happens the loss has gone to a foreign bank.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    seasidedub wrote: »
    "Why don't we bring back the English and their battering rams altogether?"

    Seriously?

    If people, no matter their circumstances simply don't have to pay their mortgages and can stay indefinitely in the property, then why would anyone bother paying? .

    Exactly. Why should people pay if it makes no sense? Why do you pay?


  • Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    Jane98 wrote: »
    Do either of them currently have work?

    I think they should have to list all their assets, thereby proving whether they were unable or just unwilling to pay any of their mortgage payments.

    It doesn't really matter why it wasn't paid. The bank are not there to be your friend. They lend you money, you dont pay it back, they take the asset. Very simple contract.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,505 ✭✭✭✭Mad_maxx


    4ensic15 wrote: »
    Why would they have paid anything? The house is in negative equity. When it is sold they will get nothing of what they paid into the house back. Why pay more into it?

    Stealing is great craic


  • Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    4ensic15 wrote: »
    Exactly. Why should people pay if it makes no sense? Why do you pay?

    How does it make no sense to pay if the house is in negative equity?

    Negative equity means nothing unless you plan to sell the house anyway. What effect does a value , high or low, that someone else is willing to pay to buy a house off you have if youre living in it and staying there? A house could be in negative equity 2 or 3 times over the course of a mortgage if the economy swung back and forth badly enough.

    Why should the bank honour the contract if the house is suddenly worth 3 times what they lent you? Maybe they should kick the person out and sell the house for a big profit. Would that be fair?


  • Registered Users Posts: 570 ✭✭✭Jane98


    It doesn't really matter why it wasn't paid. The bank are not there to be your friend. They lend you money, you dont pay it back, they take the asset. Very simple contract.

    Surely it does matter and should be taken into account as to whether you can just walk away or whether you will be left with having to pay any remaining debt after the house is sold.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    Jane98 wrote: »
    Surely it does matter and should be taken into account as to whether you can just walk away or whether you will be left with having to pay any remaining debt after the house is sold.

    You don't get forgiveness just because you had some good excuse for not paying.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,056 ✭✭✭gussieg


    this thread has taught me alot.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,216 ✭✭✭nc6000


    I wonder would this guy be happy if I ran up a big tab in one of his restaurants and told him I was advised not to pay when it came to settling the tab.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,398 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn II


    I kind of grew up thinking if I borrowed money I had to pay it back....

    Debt repayments are for the little guys.


  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,764 Mod ✭✭✭✭ToxicPaddy


    jlm29 wrote: »
    They don’t need to live in Dublin if they have no jobs. The can move to Cavan or Donegal or somewhere else and live within their means. She can work in a shop and So can he, or whatever. The rest of us pay our way and don’t expect someone else to pick up the tab.

    I'm not defending their behaviour or making excuses for them, all I'm saying is that they have dug a big hole for themselves and obviously believe in their own minds that their quasi fame will help them by getting the fund to back down but it wont.

    The fund want them out of the property so they can sell it and the couple are probably looking at their options and realise they don't have a leg to stand on. They fcuked themselves and their financial status by doing what they did and very publicly.

    The fund have a serious asset there, its worth a damn site more empty than occupied.

    Once they get them out, let the government or banks tackle them for the outstanding amount, have them declared bankrupt or whatever. I'm sure the revenue is owed a few quid off them too.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    I wonder how many others will be encouraged to follow the same path after following this story in the media.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,201 ✭✭✭✭mickdw


    Surely the couple would have put a deposit of a couple of hundred thousand down to buy such a house.
    If they did, it's not quite the living rent free dream.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,035 ✭✭✭rivegauche


    mickdw wrote: »
    Surely the couple would have put a deposit of a couple of hundred thousand down to buy such a house.
    If they did, it's not quite the living rent free dream.
    At that time deposits weren't large and for some candidates they were being given loan approval of 110 to 120% not that these two would have qualified for that.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,057 ✭✭✭MontgomeryClift


    This thread demonstrates that the majority don't have a clue how this process works, judging by all the upvotes for comments like "Why didn't they hand back the keys and leave nine years ago?"

    For anyone in this situation, handing back the keys is financial suicide. By doing that you lose the house and still owe the bank all of the outstanding mortgage plus accruing interest.

    Nine years ago, the bank would have assessed this couples' income. The couple would have demonstrated an ability to pay X, which was probably far less than what they were earning when the mortgage was taken out four years previously. They "saved" €345,000 by not paying their mortgage since then, because they didn't have €345,000 to pay.

    The bank would have looked at X, and said, "No, that's not enough. The mortgage is not viable." At that point, it makes no sense to keep making payments because the bank is going to take the house anyway. Why would they continue to make payments on a mortgage when they know they will be evicted at some point? Because the armchair economists on boards.ie might begrudge them for it?

    From 2011, the couple didn't know that it would take eight years for the bank to reach a decision and, for all they knew, the bank could have reached a decision and served an eviction notice at any time, giving them six months to leave. Certain banks leave this kind of situation in limbo for years while they wait for the market to improve, which seems to have happened in this case.

    If you all think that this sounds good then why don't you stop paying your mortgages so that you and your children can live in a house that you can't spend a penny on because it's not yours, from which you might be evicted at any time?


  • Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    beauf wrote: »
    I wonder how many others will be encouraged to follow the same path after following this story in the media.
    Fewer now given how quickly some of these funds are moving to resolve matters and that courts are not backing such behaviour. For all their infamous reputations they will do deals more readily than banks did.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    This thread demonstrates that the majority don't have a clue how this process works, judging by all the upvotes for comments like "Why didn't they hand back the keys and leave nine years ago?"

    For anyone in this situation, handing back the keys is financial suicide. By doing that you lose the house and still owe the bank all of the outstanding mortgage plus accruing interest.

    Nine years ago, the bank would have assessed this couples' income. The couple would have demonstrated an ability to pay X, which was probably far less than what they were earning when the mortgage was taken out four years previously. They "saved" €345,000 by not paying their mortgage since then, because they didn't have €345,000 to pay.

    The bank would have looked at X, and said, "No, that's not enough. The mortgage is not viable." At that point, it makes no sense to keep making payments because the bank is going to take the house anyway. Why would they continue to make payments on a mortgage when they know they will be evicted at some point? Because the armchair economists on boards.ie might begrudge them for it?

    From 2011, the couple didn't know that it would take eight years for the bank to reach a decision and, for all they knew, the bank could have reached a decision and served an eviction notice at any time, giving them six months to leave. If you all think that this sounds good then why don't you stop paying your mortgages and start living the good life?
    The courts have found against them and they agreed to move out and now they may not be. It really paints them in a very poor light and it's very hard to have any sympathy with their self-inflicted predicament especially as one of them is playing this out in the public eye.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,057 ✭✭✭MontgomeryClift


    is_that_so wrote: »
    The courts have found against them and they agreed to move out and now they may not be. It really paints them in a very poor light and it's very hard to have any sympathy with their self-inflicted predicament especially as one of them is playing this out in the public eye.

    If they have agreed to move out and then refuse to do so then they have taken things too far, and they will be evicted. By reaching an agreement with the bank to forego the house and have their debt written off, they would have signed over all rights to the house and agreed upon a date by which they will have left. That's now it works. No court will grant them the house at this point, as that would set a dangerous precedent.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    is_that_so wrote: »
    Fewer now given how quickly some of these funds are moving to resolve matters and that courts are not backing such behaviour. For all their infamous reputations they will do deals more readily than banks did.

    Unfortunately I don't think that's the message that will come across.


  • Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    beauf wrote: »
    Unfortunately I don't think that's the message that will come across.
    Perhaps but we are near the tail end of this stuff and most of it has been resolved.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,057 ✭✭✭MontgomeryClift


    Yes, on the subject of "vulture funds," pretty much anyone in this situation who wants to move on is keen to have their mortgage taken over by such a fund. They do deals readily, and they can put an end to years of heel dragging by the banks.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    This thread demonstrates that the majority don't have a clue how this process works, judging by all the upvotes for comments like "Why didn't they hand back the keys and leave nine years ago?" ...

    People don't think it through.

    I'm just baffled why the bank took so long to sort it out. Or make up their minds.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,570 ✭✭✭vriesmays


    <SNIP>


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,410 ✭✭✭✭Blazer


    This thread demonstrates that the majority don't have a clue how this process works, judging by all the upvotes for comments like "Why didn't they hand back the keys and leave nine years ago?"

    For anyone in this situation, handing back the keys is financial suicide. By doing that you lose the house and still owe the bank all of the outstanding mortgage plus accruing interest.

    Nine years ago, the bank would have assessed this couples' income. The couple would have demonstrated an ability to pay X, which was probably far less than what they were earning when the mortgage was taken out four years previously. They "saved" €345,000 by not paying their mortgage since then, because they didn't have €345,000 to pay.

    The bank would have looked at X, and said, "No, that's not enough. The mortgage is not viable." At that point, it makes no sense to keep making payments because the bank is going to take the house anyway. Why would they continue to make payments on a mortgage when they know they will be evicted at some point? Because the armchair economists on boards.ie might begrudge them for it?

    From 2011, the couple didn't know that it would take eight years for the bank to reach a decision and, for all they knew, the bank could have reached a decision and served an eviction notice at any time, giving them six months to leave. Certain banks leave this kind of situation in limbo for years while they wait for the market to improve, which seems to have happened in this case.

    If you all think that this sounds good then why don't you stop paying your mortgages so that you and your children can live in a house that you can't spend a penny on because it's not yours, from which you might be evicted at any time?

    This makes a lot of sense. Tangiers bought these mortgages as a package from BoS 10 years ago.
    If it really takes 10 years or so to get someone of a house they're not paying for its beyond ridiculous.
    If you go more than 1-2 years without repaying a penny then out you go. 1 month to get out of the house.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Effects wrote: »

    At least someone had the decency to hide it behind a paywall. They deserve a bonus for that.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement