Active Users:2934 Time:03/05/2026 01:15:06 PM
That's not true actually SilverWarder Send a noteboard - 14/10/2010 02:35:43 AM

Trust - goes both ways. If the bank expects to trust you to make payments (even when it is financially stupid to do so) then the flip side of that trust is to expect that the bank will be supportive and helpful with long term, trusthworthy customers when there are issues and problems in the other direction.


...at least with this part.

The typical agreement is that the bank will lend you $x and you will pay it back under the agreed upon terms. You are breaking that agreement by walking away from that loan. You said above the flip side is to expect the bank to be supportive and helpful. Unless that was part of the agreement, it's not really the flip side, is it?

In cases of the people defaulting, they are breaking the agreement. In cases where the bank isn't supportive or helpful...they still didn't break the agreement.


The contract is that you will pay them X etc. OR forfeit the property. That forfeit is every bit as much part of the contract as the other. Walking away isn't a breach of the agreement, it's simply selecting the other option available to you in the contract.

The article makes this quite clear. So do all mortgage documents.
May God stand between you and harm in all the empty places you must walk.

Old Egyptian Blessing
Reply to message
Is walking away from a mortgage immoral? - 12/10/2010 04:45:43 PM 1609 Views
Just as a contract is a two way street - - 12/10/2010 05:12:09 PM 1077 Views
do we have a moral obligation to society? - 12/10/2010 06:00:17 PM 1072 Views
It's a good question - 14/10/2010 02:41:21 AM 975 Views
Sort of have to disagree... - 13/10/2010 02:52:07 AM 1040 Views
That's not true actually - 14/10/2010 02:35:43 AM 964 Views
Of course it's immoral. - 12/10/2010 05:13:16 PM 1044 Views
But does one sided morality work? - 12/10/2010 05:38:56 PM 1162 Views
That's the only kind of morality there is! What the hell is wrong with you? - 12/10/2010 08:15:55 PM 1002 Views
nothing wrong with me but I think you are off your meds again - 12/10/2010 09:34:33 PM 976 Views
Re: nothing wrong with me but I think you are off your meds again - 15/10/2010 02:50:49 PM 1487 Views
well I really can't argue with the wrong is wrong end of story belief system - 15/10/2010 05:40:22 PM 1183 Views
A contract isn't a promise; it's a legal agreement. *NM* - 12/10/2010 06:25:24 PM 483 Views
Which is why contracts have to be pages and pages long and combed over by bloodsucking lawyers. - 12/10/2010 06:39:18 PM 1015 Views
I would agree with you if contracts didn't provide for breaking them. - 12/10/2010 07:33:15 PM 868 Views
Hrm. - 12/10/2010 07:35:38 PM 1087 Views
It's not immoral to break the marriage contract. - 12/10/2010 08:19:50 PM 1140 Views
I don't see that as the flaw in my logic. - 12/10/2010 08:37:52 PM 1038 Views
Re: I don't see that as the flaw in my logic. - 12/10/2010 09:00:00 PM 1124 Views
also - 12/10/2010 09:37:38 PM 986 Views
That makes no sense whatsoever. - 13/10/2010 11:38:06 PM 1130 Views
That must be why they have you sign something called an agreementory note *NM* - 12/10/2010 07:33:32 PM 507 Views
Exactly *NM* - 12/10/2010 07:58:25 PM 470 Views
So, you think bankruptcy laws are immoral? - 13/10/2010 12:18:43 AM 1020 Views
I don't think it's immoral at all. The contract usually specifies penalties for breach. - 12/10/2010 05:28:34 PM 1120 Views
I thought the answer might be something like that. *NM* - 12/10/2010 05:35:35 PM 459 Views
that is close to the way I see it - 12/10/2010 05:45:25 PM 975 Views
It's both legal and immoral. - 12/10/2010 06:37:49 PM 1070 Views
You didn't mention the third party - 12/10/2010 08:26:56 PM 904 Views
in a way I did since I did mention society - 12/10/2010 08:54:07 PM 1045 Views
Thus the edit - 12/10/2010 09:10:53 PM 1057 Views
either way I think you made a good point *NM* - 12/10/2010 09:38:58 PM 443 Views
will those neighbors... - 14/10/2010 04:52:26 AM 1213 Views
All depends where you get your morals from, really. - 12/10/2010 08:28:41 PM 1044 Views
I guess what i was trying to ask, at least in part - 12/10/2010 09:48:24 PM 1050 Views
What if you look at it from the other perspective? - 12/10/2010 09:00:20 PM 1075 Views
do you think they would if they had a legal way to do it? - 12/10/2010 10:04:57 PM 1026 Views
Good point. *NM* - 12/10/2010 11:10:26 PM 470 Views
Sure, you could do that. - 13/10/2010 01:54:55 AM 1064 Views
Much like the concept of morality itself. - 12/10/2010 11:47:23 PM 967 Views
I find this line particularly interesting. - 13/10/2010 12:13:18 AM 1005 Views
Dunno. - 13/10/2010 12:56:56 AM 1114 Views
As a professional in financial services - no, it is not. - 13/10/2010 01:44:18 AM 1003 Views
but almost nobody sees it that way - 13/10/2010 12:53:25 PM 1004 Views
Is the deal that if you default, the bank gets the house and nothing else, though? - 13/10/2010 02:40:48 PM 993 Views
yes but the bank has a limited ability to collect - 13/10/2010 02:47:34 PM 917 Views
I think it's morally wrong to walk away from credit card debt. *NM* - 13/10/2010 09:43:11 PM 459 Views
I'm curious how you reconcile that - 13/10/2010 09:47:59 PM 1038 Views
Collateral - 19/10/2010 07:21:14 PM 1520 Views
I agree, what do you think is different? - 13/10/2010 09:59:36 PM 1009 Views
I lost sleep over it, but I did it anyway. - 13/10/2010 05:24:19 AM 1100 Views
OK what if you take it a step further - 13/10/2010 03:44:30 PM 1107 Views
Good question - 14/10/2010 05:13:41 AM 1080 Views
I have some questions about this issue. - 13/10/2010 08:14:37 AM 1015 Views
how do those questions affect the morality of the situation? - 13/10/2010 03:20:14 PM 967 Views
Obviously, the essential difference is can't pay versus won't pay. - 13/10/2010 02:16:07 PM 984 Views
are you socializing your debt when it is a private bank? - 13/10/2010 03:14:48 PM 1046 Views
You are when said bank requires a bailout. And very many of them do. - 13/10/2010 03:22:59 PM 980 Views
it is the home fault that the banks have to be bailed out - 13/10/2010 03:49:37 PM 1030 Views
I believe it immoral to do harm. - 13/10/2010 04:38:28 PM 1052 Views
I really don't understand a system where this could be an advantage. - 13/10/2010 11:16:57 PM 995 Views
There's generally something like a 7 or 10 year limit on credit reporting here. - 13/10/2010 11:46:58 PM 1029 Views
What's the use of suing someone who has no money? *NM* - 13/10/2010 11:48:47 PM 524 Views
You can garnish their wages. - 13/10/2010 11:49:36 PM 1005 Views
With parsley? - 13/10/2010 11:51:37 PM 1074 Views
No, "someone" most certainly did not, wicked young Miss! Hmph! *NM* - 13/10/2010 11:52:40 PM 506 Views
If they suddenly come into some, you're entitled to it. *NM* - 14/10/2010 12:07:34 AM 581 Views
Bit of a long shot. *NM* - 14/10/2010 12:09:12 AM 457 Views
Very. Best to cover your bases though. *NM* - 14/10/2010 10:04:25 PM 472 Views
Not if the doctrine of election applies. - 14/10/2010 10:14:07 PM 980 Views
Are we not talking about credit companies going after people who owe them money? - 14/10/2010 10:18:47 PM 1031 Views
Yeah, I guess we are. - 14/10/2010 10:28:40 PM 1053 Views
Re: - 14/10/2010 03:09:18 AM 1024 Views
I am currently in that situation... - 14/10/2010 05:03:23 AM 1120 Views
Re: I am currently in that situation... - 14/10/2010 05:49:24 PM 1342 Views
it is easy for me and others to be glib when it is just a theory *NM* - 14/10/2010 08:19:16 PM 460 Views

Reply to Message