Do people look down on you when your in your 30's and don't own a house?

ionapaul · 07-09-2009 1:14pm

I have to admit I sorta see your point - I'm one of those saver / investor types and would find it very very difficult to settle down with someone in negative equity or with a huge mortgage; I would feel like I am risking what I've achieved with my years of care and frugality! Likewise I would find it hard to begin a relationship with someone with children; though I suppose in the end of the day you can''t control who you fall for, can you?! Might end up with a single mother of 7 who bought a house in West Dublin in 2007 and owns three Bulgarian 'investment' properties!

GeorgeBailey · 07-09-2009 1:50pm

Kipperhell wrote: »

When you buy a house with a mortgage you do own the property not the bank no matter what people like to say.

Excellent news. I'm gonna cancel the mortgage direct debit straigt away. Cause there's no way that if I stop paying the bank that they'll be able to kick me out of the house I own.

Kipperhell · 07-09-2009 1:51pm

I would like to clarify it is not the property that is important but what the person has been doing and how it may effect you. If somebody invested their money rather than buy fine but the thought of somebody who spent all they earned by the time they were in their 40s would ring serious alarm bells.

I am not throwing away or giving away something I worked hard for to somebody who didn't bother. It would simply be a trait I would not like it is not really about the possession.

Kipperhell · 07-09-2009 1:57pm

GeorgeBailey wrote: »

Excellent news. I'm gonna cancel the mortgage direct debit straigt away. Cause there's no way that if I stop paying the bank that they'll be able to kick me out of the house I own.

You still owe the mortgage and you have put the house down as the collateral. You still own it but the bank can take it way with a court order. It is common English that people use that is the problem you legally own the property. Somebody said earlier that the bank own the property and you owe a mortgage which is simply not true.

partyguinness · 07-09-2009 2:01pm

Kipperhell wrote: »

You still owe the mortgage and you have put the house down as the collateral. You still own it but the bank can take it way with a court order. It is common English that people use that is the problem you legally own the property. Somebody said earlier that the bank own the property and you owe a mortgage which is simply not true.

I am afraid you are wrong.

Read any standard Mortgage Deed.

The Mortgagor transfers/assigns to the property the bank subject to the Mortgagors right of redemption i.e. paying it back.

That is paraphrased but that is a standard clause in every mortgage.

Technically, the bank can ask for their money back at any time. But that never happens.

oceanclub · 07-09-2009 2:02pm

Kipperhell wrote: »

I would like to clarify it is not the property that is important but what the person has been doing and how it may effect you.

Perhaps then you shouldn't come out with blanket statements such as:

"If I was single and I met somebody in their 40s who didn't own property I probably wouldn't pursue a relationship"

P.

partyguinness · 07-09-2009 2:07pm

Irish people have to lose this mentaility that we all have to own property.

Ireland has one of the highest rates of home ownership in the world.

It is that obsession with owning property that got us into the property mess in the first place. Probably a hang up from the Landlord/Tenant class system that was brought it by the English and our psyche to hold onto property at all costs and passing on inheritance.

In Europe it is quiet normal to rent your entire life and raise families etc. But then again Tenants are far more protected in Eurpoe than in Ireland.

irlpic · 07-09-2009 2:10pm

I think alot of 30 somethings would look at you with envy at the moment for not owning a house.

partyguinness · 07-09-2009 2:15pm

irlpic wrote: »

I think alot of 30 somethings would look at you with envy at the moment for not owning a house.

I am 30. In 2007 I came very close to buying a house.

- €290,000.00 standard semi-d shoe box;
- 100% mortgage over 35 years with AIB

Had all the papers in front of me to sign. Went skiing and changed my mind.

In 2009, the development is only 1/2 completed and are now selling €150k. Think about how bitter I would be stuck with a 35 year mortgage and the crowd next door buying for €140k less.

Man, I thank my lucky stars I didnt buy. The €2k I lost on Anglo Irish shares pales in insignificance and I gladly took the hit when I thought about how close I came to buying.

Plus I am moving to England at Xmas to marry the girl I met a few months after I pulled out. If I had bought there is no way that could have happened and my life would be very very different.

ps. she owns her own house with £70k (positive) equity..:D

oceanclub · 07-09-2009 2:19pm

partyguinness wrote: »

Plus I am moving to England at Xmas to marry the girl I met a few months after I pulled out. If I had bought there is no way that could have happened and my life would be very very different.

God, what kind of loser marries a guy who doesn't have property? You should be quite willing to get into negative equity and have a mortgage over your head for 40 years, just to show how financially responsible you are.

P.

D3PO · 07-09-2009 2:19pm

partyguinness wrote: »

I am 30. In 2007 I came very close to buying a house.

- €290,000.00 standard semi-d shoe box;
- 100% mortgage over 40 years with AIB

somehow I dont believe they offered you a 40 year mortgage when you were 28.

Kipperhell · 07-09-2009 2:19pm

partyguinness wrote: »

I am afraid you are wrong.

Read any standard Mortgage Deed.

The Mortgagor transfers/assigns to the property the bank subject to the Mortgagors right of redemption i.e. paying it back.

That is paraphrased but that is a standard clause in every mortgage.

Technically, the bank can ask for their money back at any time. But that never happens.

That doesn't mean they own the property you still own it. That is just a standard clause and you still own the property legally. That clause allows them to take ownership in the event you do not pay. You still own it in every legal sense

oceanclub wrote: »

Perhaps then you shouldn't come out with blanket statements such as:

Well as I clarified it I don't see why you have then to make it an issue. Do you normally jump on somebody after they correct an error.

partyguinness · 07-09-2009 2:21pm

D3PO wrote: »

somehow I dont believe they offered you a 40 year mortgage when you were 28.

Sorry my fault. Just checked the papers. It was 35 years...my bad..:o

D3PO · 07-09-2009 2:22pm

Kipperhell wrote: »

That doesn't mean they own the property you still own it. That is just a standard clause and you still own the property legally. That clause allows them to take ownership in the event you do not pay. You still own it in every legal sense

.

what a load of rubbish. if you legally owned it you could change the name on the deeds and they would have nothing they could take in the event of you defaulting

D3PO · 07-09-2009 2:23pm

partyguinness wrote: »

Sorry my fault. Just checked the papers. It was 35 years...my bad..:o

thought so. I know they were wreckless but that would have taken the cake !!

partyguinness · 07-09-2009 2:26pm

oceanclub wrote: »

God, what kind of loser marries a guy who doesn't have property? You should be quite willing to get into negative equity and have a mortgage over your head for 40 years, just to show how financially responsible you are.

P.

I know. I am such a loser.:(

Kipperhell · 07-09-2009 2:39pm

D3PO wrote: »

what a load of rubbish. if you legally owned it you could change the name on the deeds and they would have nothing they could take in the event of you defaulting

And if the bank owned it they could sue you for altering it without their permission. :rolleyes: They have legal rights on the property which is by no means the same as them owning it. They have to bring you to court in order to take ownership in the event of you not paying otherwise it would just be an eviction letter needed.

Kipperhell · 07-09-2009 2:41pm

partyguinness wrote: »

I know. I am such a loser.:(

So you were in your 20s neither your 30s nor 40s which seems to be what the thread is about.

oceanclub · 07-09-2009 2:41pm

Kipperhell wrote: »

And if the bank owned it they could sue you for altering it without their permission. :rolleyes: They have legal rights on the property which is by no means the same as them owning it. They have to bring you to court in order to take ownership in the event of you not paying otherwise it would just be an eviction letter needed.

At the end of the day, you haven't yet paid for the house, and the bank can take it back if you don't.

P.

D3PO · 07-09-2009 2:48pm

Kipperhell wrote: »

And if the bank owned it they could sue you for altering it without their permission. :rolleyes: They have legal rights on the property which is by no means the same as them owning it. They have to bring you to court in order to take ownership in the event of you not paying otherwise it would just be an eviction letter needed.

if you want to be in your own little fantasy world far be it for me to burst your bubble

I bet you went around talking about your paper net worth when house prices were on the rise aswell :rolleyes::rolleyes:

oceanclub · 07-09-2009 2:49pm

Kipperhell wrote: »

So you were in your 20s neither your 30s nor 40s which seems to be what the thread is about.

I think you're still in with a chance there, partyguinness.

P.

partyguinness · 07-09-2009 2:49pm

Kipperhell wrote: »

So you were in your 20s neither your 30s nor 40s which seems to be what the thread is about.

Well I am sorry for posting. I should have known my place.:(

The thread is also not about whether or not the bank actually owns your property..;)

My point was that a lot of people did buy in the last 5-6 years in the mad and obsessive scramle for property and a lot of people in their 30s/40s (some who bought 2/3 houses) deeply regret it as they are up to their necks in debt. As I am nearly 31 I would have been be in that position now.

(frantically starts searching daft.ie for overpriced properties to buy ASAP and with the longest mortgage term possible/I]

There is a lot to be said for renting and its nothing to be ashamed of.

As I said earlier, in mainland Europe entire families rent out for generations (particularly France and Germany) without any problem. The Irish need to lose that mentaility.."You have to own property"...'there must be something wrong with you if you dont buy 3-4 houses' attitude

Kipperhell · 07-09-2009 2:52pm

oceanclub wrote: »

At the end of the day, you haven't yet paid for the house, and the bank can take it back if you don't.

P.

You mean like a loan:eek: Shocking revelation.

Seeing as the topic is not how mortgages work and whether people look down on people who don't have property in their 30s the answer is some will. If you have no sizeable assets more will look down on you but if the situation remains so into your 40s the answer is more again will look down on you. Property isn't the issue but what you have been up to is and can be indicated not by your accumulation of wealth but rather the inability to have forward planning.
Anybody operating pay cheque to pay cheque indicates poor responsibility and will be looked as such. People can be unlucky and end up that way but the majority who do end up that way are normally a result of their own behaviour.

Kipperhell · 07-09-2009 2:58pm

D3PO wrote: »

if you want to be in your own little fantasy world far be it for me to burst your bubble

I bet you went around talking about your paper net worth when house prices were on the rise aswell :rolleyes::rolleyes:

No I was busy working to pay of my mortgage as quickly as I could while the economy was good. I am one of those many people who bought and aren't in negative equity or close. I doubt anybody with legal training has ever told you the bank own the property and you think you know how the legal system works.

oceanclub · 07-09-2009 3:00pm

Kipperhell wrote: »

You mean like a loan:eek: Shocking revelation.

Seeing as the topic is not how mortgages work and whether people look down on people who don't have property in their 30s the answer is some will.

The point about mortgages has everything to do with the subject. According to you, someone who is 40 and has a 40 year, 100% mortgage which they're barely covering, on a property worth 50% of what they paid for (none of these unlikely in modern Ireland), is somehow because of this more responsible than someone who has just saved for that time. It's a ridiculous point of view.

I suppose now you're going to say "ah, well, it depends on the type of mortgage, etc", to which the obvious retort is - are these the type of details you try and drill out of a guy when you're dating?

P.

partyguinness · 07-09-2009 3:09pm

Kipperhell wrote: »

No I was busy working to pay of my mortgage as quickly as I could while the economy was good. I am one of those many people who bought and aren't in negative equity or close. I doubt anybody with legal training has ever told you the bank own the property and you think you know how the legal system works.

Okay can I settle this for once and for all.

There are two types of interests when a person gets a mortgage for residential property (in the common sense of the word).

The bank takes either:

1. A Charge over the property (registered title)

2. A Mortgage (unregistered titles).

To the lay person, the difference doesnt mean anything.

A Mortgage is the transfer of rights of ownership on the understanding that they are to be reconveyed or released in the event of the obligation being performed (the right of redemption i.e. paid back)

Unlike a Mortgage, a Charge does not transfer or confer any estate or interest in the property and does not confer a right to possession on the Mortgagee (bank/lender).

With a Mortgage, the bank does own the property.

With a Charge, the bank does not own the property but realises the debt by exercising the rights under the Charge Deed.

Whether one has a Mortgage or a Charge depends on the type of property.

ps I do have legal training and have worked with Mortgages/Charges for years.

Kipperhell · 07-09-2009 3:12pm

oceanclub wrote: »

The point about mortgages has everything to do with the subject. According to you, someone who is 40 and has a 40 year, 100% mortgage which they're barely covering, on a property worth 50% of what they paid for (none of these unlikely in modern Ireland), is somehow because of this more responsible than someone who has just saved for that time. It's a ridiculous point of view.

P.

The cross posting is very certainly a personal attack and I think you should remove it. I stand by it and don't care what others think of me

If you can tell me which bank is giving an unsecured 100% mortgage for 40 years to a 40 year old I will concede all my points and hail you as the next supreme being. None of what you said is likely and it misrepresents what I said by selectively ignore the context.

oceanclub · 07-09-2009 3:17pm

Kipperhell wrote: »

The cross posting is very certainly a personal attack and I think you should remove it. I stand by it and don't care what others think of me

If you can tell me which bank is giving an unsecured 100% mortgage for 40 years to a 40 year old I will concede all my points and hail you as the next supreme being. None of what you said is likely and it misrepresents what I said by selectively ignore the context.

If you're going to go on about how linking to your own posting is a "personal attack" (if you don't care what others think, then why are you bothered about me linking to it?), then perhaps you could refrain from twisting my arguments. I said a 40 year old _with_ a 40 year mortgage (that is, say, someone who got one at 25) - not a 40 year old who _just_ got one.

P.

Kipperhell · 07-09-2009 3:23pm

partyguinness wrote: »

Okay can I settle this for once and for all.

etc...

The bank do not own the property they have some ownership rights but never actually own the property. They cannot sell the property. This is my understanding based on legal advise face to face with more than one lawyer.

You will have to forgive me for not believing what you say. In all fairness why would I believe you over that of more than one lawyer? I will not believe you on that basis.
My response was however directed at the comment that you don't own the property and have a mortgage which is not true by any understanding of saying the bank own the property. If they own it it is part of the mortgage then that is all you have not both.

harsea8 · 07-09-2009 3:25pm

partyguinness wrote: »

Well I am sorry for posting. I should have known my place.:(

The thread is also not about whether or not the bank actually owns your property..;)

My point was that a lot of people did buy in the last 5-6 years in the mad and obsessive scramle for property and a lot of people in their 30s/40s (some who bought 2/3 houses) deeply regret it as they are up to their necks in debt. As I am nearly 31 I would have been be in that position now.

(frantically starts searching daft.ie for overpriced properties to buy ASAP and with the longest mortgage term possible/I]

There is a lot to be said for renting and its nothing to be ashamed of.

As I said earlier, in mainland Europe entire families rent out for generations (particularly France and Germany) without any problem. The Irish need to lose that mentaility.."You have to own property"...'there must be something wrong with you if you dont buy 3-4 houses' attitude

As has been said before, that mentality will never be lost until we get comparable tenant laws to mainland europe. I'd also be interested to know how well France and Germany look after their elderly, cos I know many people who bought here and in UK in order to try and give themselves a "nest-egg" for retirement based on the fact that the state pension is a pile of sh*te (I'm not saying it is , I'm just saying that is what they said)

Do people look down on you when your in your 30's and don't own a house?

Comments