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

whizzbang

Kipperhell wrote: »

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.

Did any of these lawyers have any financial interest in you buying a property? Just curious.

Kipperhell

oceanclub wrote: »

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.

Then the 40 year mortgage would be called a 25 year old mortgage is how the English works on that. I just took it from what you said. If that was your argument I would find anybody who took out 100% mortgage 15 years ago would have quite a lot of equity in their house also making your scenario even more unlikely. I don't think there is any twisting need on your argument as it just can't withstand any reality.

Kipperhell

whizzbang wrote: »

Did any of these lawyers have any financial interest in you buying a property? Just curious.

None what so ever. I know the bank can take the property and for all intense purposes I don't own it out right but I was told "the bank own the house" is an incorrect statement. This is really just a silly side note on the actual topic.

I think your age and where you are at life means a lot to people.

FutureGuy

I almost bought a house 2 years ago but I didn't. The same "friends" that kept at me for not having one are mainly jobless now and one won't have a home for much longer.

Don't mind what people are telling you and do your own thing. Pay rent, and save the ****e out of it for a while. Oh, and if you haven't asked for a reduction in rent in the last 12 months, do so now.

When the time comes and the house prises drop to more reasonable levels, you will be in a great position to get your house.

oceanclub

Kipperhell wrote: »

Then the 40 year mortgage would be called a 25 year old mortgage is how the English works on that. I just took it from what you said. If that was your argument I would find anybody who took out 100% mortgage 15 years ago would have quite a lot of equity in their house also making your scenario even more unlikely. I don't think there is any twisting need on your argument as it just can't withstand any reality.

If you take out a 40 year mortgage, and you're halfway through it - you're halfway through a 40 year mortgage. It's not a 20 year mortgage. You seem to think you can win arguments by redefining terminology.

Sorry, but are you denying there are people out there who stretched themselves to buy property for long terms that they can't afford?

Wait, you're not Liz O'Kane, are you?

P.

partyguinness

Kipperhell wrote: »

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.

What is the difference?

But you cant mortgage, lease, transfer/convey the property either without their permission...so what exactly does owning the property mean in your book...

partyguinness

Kipperhell wrote: »

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.

Dont just take my word for it.

See "Property Law" 2 ed. by Paul Coughlan B.L., Chapter 17 - Mortgages pages 350-351.

That will provide you a good start on understanding the whole concept of mortgages and charges.

In fact here is a nice little quote at page 355

"The creation of a legal mortgage entails the transfer of a legal estate by the mortgagor to the mortgagee."

and another little gem

"It is immaterial that there has been no default on that part of the mortgagor so as to necessitate the initiation of legal proceedings by the mortgagee."

Those lawyers were sparing you from the truth. A white lie. No point in freaking out the client.

Kipperhell

partyguinness wrote: »

What is the difference?

But you cant mortgage, lease, transfer/convey the property either without their permission...so what exactly does owning the property mean in your book...

You don't ask their permission you notify them. The bank has a vested interest in the property as it is what the loan is based on. Having the right to decide on how it is decorated, heated, changed and the right to keep the profit from a sale, are all part of the ownership. If the bank owned the property they would have sold it and kept the profit.

It is like you never left a deposit on anything like a tenner for the pool balls.

I am done with my views on ownership versus the banks they really aren't relevant.

partyguinness

Kipperhell wrote: »

You don't ask their permission you notify them. The bank has a vested interest in the property as it is what the loan is based on. Having the right to decide on how it is decorated, heated, changed and the right to keep the profit from a sale, are all part of the ownership. If the bank owned the property they would have sold it and kept the profit.

It is like you never left a deposit on anything like a tenner for the pool balls.

I am done with my views on ownership versus the banks they really aren't relevant.

Mate you brought it up.

In case you missed my edits:

Dont just take my word for it.

See "Property Law" 2 ed. by Paul Coughlan B.L., Chapter 17 - Mortgages pages 350-351.

That will provide you a good start on understanding the whole concept of mortgages and charges.

In fact here is a nice little quote at page 355

"The creation of a legal mortgage entails the transfer of a legal estate by the mortgagor to the mortgagee."

and another little gem

"It is immaterial that there has been no default on that part of the mortgagor so as to necessitate the initiation of legal proceedings by the mortgagee."

Those lawyers were sparing you from the truth. A white lie. No point in freaking out the client.

partyguinness

Kipperhell wrote: »

You don't ask their permission you notify them. The bank has a vested interest in the property as it is what the loan is based on. Having the right to decide on how it is decorated, heated, changed and the right to keep the profit from a sale, are all part of the ownership. If the bank owned the property they would have sold it and kept the profit.

It is like you never left a deposit on anything like a tenner for the pool balls.

I am done with my views on ownership versus the banks they really aren't relevant.

You are forgetting about the mortgagors equitable right of redemption and no..it is not a mere case of notifying them. You need their consent. Of course usually just a formality. Check your mortgage deed.

whizzbang

Interesting discussion. What happens if you knock down your house for the craic and the insurance don't pay up so all you have is land and rubble. Can the bank sue you for destruction of their property? What if you then stop paying your mortgage? You have destroyed that which the loan was secured against!

partyguinness

harsea8 wrote: »

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)

Yes that is true. A lot of French/Germans cannot belive how little protection tenants have in this country.

Nicola xxx

i turned 30 in july and i am still renting, actually been renting in dublin for the past 13 years lol, moved over from england in 1995, started renting in 1996 and still doing it, doesnt bother me so long as you are happy, many of my friends have bought apartments etc, and cars, but i know that they are struggling and are not happy, i go out every weekend, have money saved for a car and i am renting, i am happy doing that, so dont worry what ur mates say, dont go to australia because of that I dont care if ppl know i am 30 and renting, dublins an expensive city, i did have a girl in work say to me i wouldnt be renting at 30, but then she has a child and as i pointed out to her, our circumstances are different, when u have no dependants you can do what u like with regards to accomodation, could live in a b+b if u wanted lol. my mate owns one in drumcondra so could always go there if i was stuck lol. 36 is still young by the way!

Kipperhell

oceanclub wrote: »

Sorry, but are you denying there are people out there who stretched themselves to buy property for long terms that they can't afford?



P.

No

You seem to have got all excited and missed this is about perception of people who don't own property in their 30s. I have clearly stated how I feel many people perceive this. I emphasised that it is worse in your 40s and how I generally feel about it. I am in my 30s and heading to the 40s my perception is based on that. What is your perception based on? Do you have many single friends in their 30s and 40s?

You have clearly got your own example mixed up as a it takes 15 years for a 25 year old to reach 40 and not 20 which is half of 40. Your example was not very good but the relevance here is pretty weak too.

I repeatedly clarified the property isn't important but what you have been doing with your life is and the property is but one indicator.

partyguinness

whizzbang wrote: »

Interesting discussion. What happens if you knock down your house for the craic and the insurance don't pay up so all you have is land and rubble. Can the bank sue you for destruction of their property? What if you then stop paying your mortgage? You have destroyed that which the loan was secured against!

An insurance company will pay out if the property is damaged/lost by one of the causes in the insurance schedule. Knocking it down for the sake of it would not be covered...

But its an interesting question to see if the insurance company would pay out. My guess is that yes they would pay back the bank and then come after you for their money back

Have we any volunteers?:D

partyguinness

Another point to consider is if you own an apartment in an apartment complex.

You would have signed a Lease for viz. 990 years.

Legally you are a Tenant and must pay rent every year i.e. €10.00 and never actually "own" the property.

di2772

partyguinness wrote: »

Another point to consider is if you own an apartment in an apartment complex.

You would have signed a Lease for viz. 990 years.

Legally you are a Tenant and must pay rent every year i.e. €10.00 and never actually "own" the property.

But then neither would the bank own it
Completely off topic i know.

gurramok

Kipperhell wrote:

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

I find its usually the person inside that counts on whether i want to pursue a relationship, materialism doesn't come into it at all.

amacca

Originally Posted by Kipperhell
"If I was single and I met somebody in their 40s who didn't own property I probably wouldn't pursue a relationship"
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Hey Kipperhell, I'm single, lonely and own lots of stuff outright but Im only interested in good looking girls.

If your interested in meeting up this weekend please pm a photo of yourself beside a daily paper with the date clearly visible + a scan of your passport or drivers license and ill make up my mind at that stage.

I feel it only fair to warn you however that I have taken the liberty of drawing up a draft pre nup for your perusal on our first meeting.

btw, do you like thai food?

meglome

I was talking to a friend about this earlier. He was offered a foreign holiday home a few years back, a supposed 'great deal'. A lot of his friends were pushing for him to buy it as they all had their property portfolios. He felt really that they were almost laughing at him for not getting involved. So he owns his family home outright and now that he has to cut back in the recession, no problem. Some of his friends are not so lucky. We really had almost got to the point where if you didn't have a second home some people would look at you funny.

TiwstaSista

I would look down on myself if I am 40 and have not owned a house.

Kipperhell

amacca wrote: »

Hey Kipperhell, I'm single, lonely and own lots of stuff outright but Im only interested in good looking girls.

My wife might find it strange that I would meet up with some guy.

gurramok wrote: »

I find its usually the person inside that counts on whether i want to pursue a relationship, materialism doesn't come into it at all.

Good for you, amazingly there are other people out there who don't feel the same way about what they have worked hard for being given away. I think the OP is going to meet a lot of people who see it my way in reality. . I personally think woman in their 30s are a lot more likely to judge you on achievements by this by the time you hit your 30s.

I find people's actions tell you a lot about them and have repeatedly pointed out it is not the material objects that are important but what it represents. If you are in your 30s and all you have is a big tv and a car or a nice collection of clothes many people will see that as somebody who has no forward planning. So we agree it is what is inside that counts

amacca

Kipperhell wrote: »

My wife might find it strange that I would meet up with some guy.

Its o.k. she can come too!!

Im not into exclusivivty in a relationship.

jmayo

Kipperhell wrote: »

My wife might find it strange that I would meet up with some guy.

...

Up to this point you sounded like a girl someone once fixed me up with it.
On our one and only date she asked where did I see myself careerwise in 5 years :rolleyes:
Then she proceeded to tell me how her ex boyfirend was so successful in London and their carreer paths
I know she worked in HR, but bloody hell she conducted a date like a frist round interview.
And of course I hadn't any property at the time, so I really must have looked like a right loser :mad:

EDIT: hang on what am I saying you could still be a girl, girls can have wives nowadays :eek:

am i bovvered

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

No, but they do if you own more than one house, and on Accommodation & Property you could be strung up for being a DEVELOPER !!! :eek::D

Kipperhell

jmayo wrote: »

Up to this point you sounded like a girl someone once fixed me up with it.
On our one and only date she asked where did I see myself careerwise in 5 years :rolleyes:

So to answer the OPs question you have personally met somebody who judges people on their progress through life? I don't see why people think it is so funny that I personally would judge anybody by their current progress. It really doesn't sound like many of you have reached 30 yet so probably don't really know how things change.

Amy33

I have no intention of ever owning my own home, my parents both became seriously ill in their 30's and had terrible problems for years paying their mortgage, it's a headache I can certainly do without..

D3PO

Kipperhell wrote: »

I don't see why people think it is so funny that I personally would judge anybody by their current progress. It really doesn't sound like many of you have reached 30 yet so probably don't really know how things change.

Its not funny but its not the way to conduct or try to find a relationship. Oh and Im 30 before you start.

Id give up every penny I own and Id rob a bank if I had to if the situation arose for somebody I love. Given you wouldnt be with somebody unless they had some kind of material wealth I asume you wouldnt.

Whilst somebodies career progression and material wealth might help you assertain their drive, that is a small part of anybodies personality and you clearly cant convince anybody on here otherwise.

so what if somebody is 45 and doesnt own their own house, is getting to know the person and seing how your personalities intertwine far less significant :eek:

D3PO

trish990 wrote: »

I have no intention of ever owning my own home, my parents both became seriously ill in their 30's and had terrible problems for years paying their mortgage, it's a headache I can certainly do without..

Clearly your a waster who doesnt deserve to find love. I mean just ask kipperhall :rolleyes:

oceanclub

D3PO wrote: »

Its not funny but its not the way to conduct or try to find a relationship. Oh and Im 30 before you start.

Id give up every penny I own and Id rob a bank if I had to if the situation arose for somebody I love. Given you wouldnt be with somebody unless they had some kind of material wealth I asume you wouldnt.

I'm 38, married, and think it's an appallingly cynical way to go through life personally.

P.