Moved Country. Not paying my mortgage anymore

daltonmd

The Mustard wrote: »

I know he's not bankrupt.

He can make an application to become bankrupt.

Bankruptcy is a release from debt (where it is done properly).

Really? On what grounds? Afaik, you are bankrupt when you are inable to meet your debts, your assets are sold to pay off what you can. Maybe there's more to it, can't say I'm an expert.

seamus

The Mustard wrote: »

People who have gone to the UK to apply to be made bankrupt have gone over, got new jobs and a got new place to rent. Their circumstances change a lot from what they were back in Ireland.

The same rules generally apply as far as I know.
In reality it's a matter of timing for the individual. Most people struggle on for a long time to try and get out of the hole, so by the time they realise that they're done they don't have the means (or indeed the qualifications) to up sticks and move to the UK for at least six months.

Pat Mustard

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Why not just sell them, put whatever you get off the mortgages, and then tackle the combined "leftover" debt after they are sold?

Good idea.

Unfortunately, the banks can veto this.

You can't sell a property with a mortgage on it, unless you are clearing the mortgage, or unless it is with agreement of the bank.

Banks are being very sticky these days.

Pat Mustard

seamus wrote: »

The same rules generally apply as far as I know.
In reality it's a matter of timing for the individual. Most people struggle on for a long time to try and get out of the hole, so by the time they realise that they're done they don't have the means (or indeed the qualifications) to up sticks and move to the UK for at least six months.

It is 12 months to get in and out of bankruptcy in the UK. It's going to be three years here.

Pat Mustard

daltonmd wrote: »

Really? On what grounds? Afaik, you are bankrupt when you are inable to meet your debts, your assets are sold to pay off what you can. Maybe there's more to it, can't say I'm an expert.

If you are unable to meet your debts as they fall due, you are insolvent.

If you are insolvent, you could apply to court to be made bankrupt.

You are not bankrupt until a court orders that you are made bankrupt.

CiaranC

Zamboni wrote: »

You are setting a terrible example to your children by your lack of good citizenship, honesty, integrity and trustworthiness.

Come on lad, that ship has sailed. Where is Drum? Fitzpatrick is still playing golf. What happened to the AIB Garda investigation?

Its every man for himself now. Why should the poor shmucks at the bottom pay when theres no justice for those who caused the whole mess at the top? Time to get real. This is the new Ireland.

djimi

The Mustard wrote: »

If you are unable to meet your debts as they fall due, you are insolvent.

If you are insolvent, you could apply to court to be made bankrupt.

You are not bankrupt until a court orders that you are made bankrupt.

The OP isnt insolvent though; not that they say anyway. Its simply an inconvenience for them to have to pay for two houses now that they want to buy another. Insolvency/bankruptcy does not apply in this case.

OldNotWIse

The Mustard wrote: »

Good idea.

Unfortunately, the banks can veto this.

You can't sell a property with a mortgage on it, unless you are clearing the mortgage, or unless it is with agreement of the bank.

Banks are being very sticky these days.

Really? I didn't know that. So if you have a mortgage of 400k on a house valued at 200k, you have to bring the mortgage down to 200k befor eyou think about selling? Thats a bit harsh. Why cant they let you sell the house, clear half the mortgage and then turn the other half into a loan that you keep paying? So a lot of people are essentially stuck?

strandroad

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Really? I didn't know that. So if you have a mortgage of 400k on a house valued at 200k, you have to bring the mortgage down to 200k befor eyou think about selling? Thats a bit harsh. Why cant they let you sell the house, clear half the mortgage and then turn the other half into a loan that you keep paying? So a lot of people are essentially stuck?

Because by changing a mortgage to a loan they lose the collateral, and the loan becomes unsecured.

daltonmd

The Mustard wrote: »

If you are unable to meet your debts as they fall due, you are insolvent.

If you are insolvent, you could apply to court to be made bankrupt.

You are not bankrupt until a court orders that you are made bankrupt.

Insolvency is regarded as "temporary bankruptcy", bankuptcy is regarded as "permanently insolvent" - he is neither.

donalg1

CiaranC wrote: »

Come on lad, that ship has sailed. Where is Drum? Fitzpatrick is still playing golf. What happened to the AIB Garda investigation?

Its every man for himself now. Why should the poor shmucks at the bottom pay when theres no justice for those who caused the whole mess at the top? Time to get real. This is the new Ireland.

Because they took out the mortgage, seriously how do people keep missing that point.

I dont like paying my mortgage as it costs an awful lot and leaves my disposable income pretty much non existent, so by your argument I should just walk away let someone else pay my mortgage so I can live a life of Reilly.

Great attitude btw.:rolleyes:

Zamboni

CiaranC wrote: »

Come on lad, that ship has sailed. Where is Drum? Fitzpatrick is still playing golf. What happened to the AIB Garda investigation?

Its every man for himself now. Why should the poor shmucks at the bottom pay when theres no justice for those who caused the whole mess at the top? Time to get real. This is the new Ireland.

Ease off on the 'come on lad'.

CiaranC

donalg1 wrote: »

Because they took out the mortgage, seriously how do people keep missing that point.

Im not missing any point. What the OP proposes is technically not illegal, just like Seanie shuffling tens of millions around to cover his tracks.

donalg1

CiaranC wrote: »

Im not missing any point. What the OP proposes is technically not illegal, just like Seanie shuffling tens of millions around to cover his tracks.

So you are happy to pay the OP's debts for him then are you?

Because if thats the case I will give you my bank details and you can set up a Direct Debit to my account and pay my mortgage too.

daltonmd

CiaranC wrote: »

Im not missing any point. What the OP proposes is technically not illegal, just like Seanie shuffling tens of millions around to cover his tracks.

It is illegal if he tries to hide the fact that he has the funds to buy a new property. His proposal includes putting his new home/mortgage into his wifes name.

He wants to continue repaying on one mortgage here in Ireland (and pocket the rental income??) and use the money that he should be paying off the second to buy a new home abroad.

OldNotWIse

mhge wrote: »

Because by changing a mortgage to a loan they lose the collateral, and the loan becomes unsecured.

Gotcha

CiaranC

donalg1 wrote: »

So you are happy to pay the OP's debts for him then are you?

Im exactly as happy to pay this lads debts as I am to pay the other couple of hundred billion owed.

Btw I emigrated last year, I pay tax to a functional responsible state instead.

donalg1

CiaranC wrote: »

Im exactly as happy to pay this lads debts as I am to pay the other couple of hundred billion owed.

Btw I emigrated last year, I pay tax to a functional responsible state instead.

So then you are advising him to walk away and let everyone else pay his debt for him because it doesnt affect you, I see where you are coming from now, was wondering why someone would be willing to pay another persons mortgage for them.

strandroad

CiaranC wrote: »

Im exactly as happy to pay this lads debts as I am to pay the other couple of hundred billion owed.

Btw I emigrated last year, I pay tax to a functional responsible state instead.

Oh, so you're so generous with our money not yours? Explains a lot.

OS119

donalg1 wrote: »

So you are happy to pay the OP's debts for him then are you?

to be strictly fair, if the OP sods off and his two houses in Ireland are reposessed, while 'Ireland inc.' will own the debt, it will also own the two houses. if the property market returns and the two repossed houses are sold at a profit, will those calling for the OP's head ask the state to track him down to give him the extra?

its not the OP's fault that the government decided to socialize his private debt to the bank. had this conversation happened before the crash i don't doubt most peoples view would have been 'go for it - its the stupid banks fault for lending you more money than you could afford to pay back'. only when the debt becomes theirs are people developing this moral highground...

i would suggest that whatever the OP owes to his (former?) fellow citizens, he owes more to his children. he should find a solution that works for him - though, i think he'll have problems finding one in the EU while he, or his wife, are buying a new house with 50% capital.

caff

CiaranC wrote: »

Come on lad, that ship has sailed. Where is Drum? Fitzpatrick is still playing golf. What happened to the AIB Garda investigation?

Its every man for himself now. Why should the poor shmucks at the bottom pay when theres no justice for those who caused the whole mess at the top? Time to get real. This is the new Ireland.

Same as the old Ireland :rolleyes:

Pat Mustard

daltonmd wrote: »

Insolvency is regarded as "temporary bankruptcy", bankuptcy is regarded as "permanently insolvent" - he is neither.

He has not said that he is insolvent at the moment. So, we should probably take it that he is solvent right now.

However, between his two mortgages, leaving the country and having to get a new place, his circumstances could change very quickly, as has happened to other Irish people who went to the UK previously, to apply for bankruptcy.

faceman

OP im not going to cast any moral opinion on you, frankly I hope you find a new secure life for you and your family whereever you now reside. I will share with you what i know, but dont take this as legal advice or recommended advice.

We're assuming here that you can comfortably afford to pay your mortgages but choose not to. By comfortably, i mean you arent on the bread line. If you have fled the country to another EU country, there is an EU law (sorry I cant remember the law number) that allows individuals to be pursued through the courts in other EU countries. Of course, the bank has to find you first. However if you are paying a property abroad in the UK for example, you will have to join the electoral register and you will be stung there. As to what will happen if you buy a new home and the bank is successful in court is anyone's guess at this point.

It has been recommended that you file for bankruptcy in the UK if thats where you are living. Thats all well and good and while your 'debts' are cleared after the year, do bare in mind you have a bankruptcy mark on your permanent credit record.

In Ireland at present the bankruptcy period is 12 years. Its also very expensive to apply for bankruptcy hence the infrequency. The new insolvency law (was originally going to exclude mortgage debt quite bizarrely!) is expected to bring it down to 3 years and we should get more details in the coming weeks.

Banks are becoming more flexible with negotiating nowadays but Im sure that flexibility doesnt extend to your case! That being said, I do know of one case of someone who could afford to pay his mortgages (he had 3) and played hardball with his bank. He managed to secure relief on his repayments even though he didnt need it.

As for the moral hazard, well ignore it. Banks were underwritten by the state guarantee. The bank recapitalisation was designed to take into account potential bad debts and write downs. Anyone claiming that they will "foot the bill" for default is already footing the bill. Its very much in the government's (and banks) interest to set Joe Public on one another for issues like this because it takes pressure of the people who had the power to prevent it. Its the same was the whole public sectore vs private sector debate.

No one forces people to smoke or people to consume alcohol, yet the state pays for cancer and heart disease treatment issues that result from smoking and drinking. Should we stop paying for illnesses that are ultimately self inflicted?

donalg1

OS119 wrote: »

to be strictly fair, if the OP sods off and his two houses in Ireland are reposessed, while 'Ireland inc.' will own the debt, it will also own the two houses. if the property market returns and the two repossed houses are sold at a profit, will those calling for the OP's head ask the state to track him down to give him the extra?

its not the OP's fault that the government decided to socialize his private debt to the bank. had this conversation happened before the crash i don't doubt most peoples view would have been 'go for it - its the stupid banks fault for lending you more money than you could afford to pay back'. only when the debt becomes theirs are people developing this moral highground...

i would suggest that whatever the OP owes to his (former?) fellow citizens, he owes more to his children. he should find a solution that works for him - though, i think he'll have problems finding one in the EU while he, or his wife, are buying a new house with 50% capital.

Its not the OP's fault the Government has done what its done, but thats the way it is now, and if he walks away from his debt the banks will turn to the Government and ask them to cover it who will then turn to the public and ask them to cover it all the while the OP is off in another country not giving a second thought to those he left behind lumbered with his debts.

And the banks would not have lent him the money if he didnt ask for it, yes they are at fault for lending him the money but he is far more at fault for borrowing it.

piperh

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Agree. I know so many people who lied about their wages in order to get huge, bumped up mortgages. The multiples were there for a reason - to protect people from borrowing beyond their means. Some people even took out 110% mortgages so they could use the extra money to add on conservatories or buy a new car.

I also know personally solicitors who falsified documents, arranged wage slips and stated that a deposit was lodged with them when it wasn't so people could say they had money to buy the house they wanted. But nobody made the buyers agree to all this, they wanted what everyone else had.

We can debate the legallities and morals of the op argument all we like but it won't change his mind about what he wants to do. All he is interested in is how it affects the house he wants to buy in another country and unless we have a solicitor lurking here i don't think any of us can answer that with any real certainty.

Damie

CiaranC wrote: »

Im exactly as happy to pay this lads debts as I am to pay the other couple of hundred billion owed.

Btw I emigrated last year, I pay tax to a functional responsible state instead.

You are an obvious WUM then, I will take your comments with a very large pinch of salt.

There's an argument here that its not the OP's fault, but the Banks that offered the money.

1. It's the OP's fault for taking out two mortgages without having the foresight to see if he could afford them over the term, I don't see how this can be argued against.

2. The banks should not have loaned astronomic mortgages, recklessly - lack of regulation and a wheeler-dealer government/developers have attributed to the horrendous mess we are in.

In no way am I a financial sage, I am not trying to say 'I told you so', but during the 'boom' years, I checked my salary, multiplied it by 4 and with the result, seen what I could afford. Obviously there was little more than a parking space that I could purchase.

Even in the present circumstances, I recently went to a Bank looking for a mortgage. I knew what figure I could afford, yet, still was offered substantially more for a mortgage. I was looked at as if I had two heads as I declined the amount and asked for what 'I' could afford.

Even now, the banks will either dismiss you or offer more than they should. Golden Rule, figure out for yourself what you can afford, do not listen to vested interests about what you can afford. If more people used common sense, rather than letting greed take over, we would not be experiencing the fiscal measures currently imposed.

Oh, for the OP, what the hell gives you the right to pick and choose when to pay a mortgage? Take responsibility for you actions or may the fleas of a thousand camels find refuge in your underpants;)

End of rant

Pat Mustard

djimi wrote: »

The OP isnt insolvent though; not that they say anyway. Its simply an inconvenience for them to have to pay for two houses now that they want to buy another. Insolvency/bankruptcy does not apply in this case.

OK. Yes. You are right, at the moment. Strictly speaking.

But as I said, Irish people have changed their circumstances when they left Ireland to take up a new job and place to live in the UK, before they applied for bankruptcy - successfully.

daltonmd

The Mustard wrote: »

He has not said that he is insolvent at the moment. So, we should probably take it that he is solvent right now.

However, between his two mortgages, leaving the country and having to get a new place, his circumstances could change very quickly, as has happened to other Irish people who went to the UK previously, to apply for bankruptcy.

He is solvent, I didn't take that he was anything but solvent. So he cannot apply for bankruptcy.

"I've never missed a payment in 7 years on one and 4 on the other. We are in process of purchasing a house in new country. It is my intention now to only pay one Irish mortgage and forget about the other and allow it to be repossessed."

Strategic default: decision by a borrower to stop making payments on a debt despite having the financial ability to make the payments.

Arkmar

Why can't he rent both Irish houses out, and if there's a shortfall in the rent, surely it wouldn't be much more than what the mortgage would be on the house he is willing to keep paying for? It doesn't sound like you've tried everything to lessen your burden in a responsible and moral way, you tried one thing with the bank and because they turned you down you feel like you have the right to run away from your responsibilities??? Where is your moral compass? Yes the banks have fecked us all over, and we're suffering because of that and giving out stink about them day in day out... why do you think you can join them and receive advice on how to do so efficiently?

OldNotWIse

faceman wrote: »

No one forces people to smoke or people to consume alcohol, yet the state pays for cancer and heart disease treatment issues that result from smoking and drinking. Should we stop paying for illnesses that are ultimately self inflicted?

Drinkers and smokers pay vast amounts of revenue on alcohol and tobacco products.