Moved Country. Not paying my mortgage anymore

Damie

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?

This is the most ridiculous remark I have ever seen on this site, and that's saying something!

So cancer and heart disease are singularly caused by cigarettes and alcohol?

FFS!

OldNotWIse

Damie wrote: »

Take responsibility for you actions or may the fleas of a thousand camels find refuge in your underpants;)

First time I have laughed out loud today

Pat Mustard

daltonmd wrote: »

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

As soon as he becomes insolvent, he can apply for bankruptcy. It's not a difficult hurdle to jump.

daltonmd

faceman wrote: »

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.

The basic rules in the UK are the same as here, the term is shorter but you still have to be bankrupt.

"When you are made bankrupt, your assets (possessions, home, income etc) can be used to pay your debts. You have to agree to certain restrictions and your financial affairs will be investigated. Find out how bankruptcy affects you and where to get advice on dealing with your debts."

From UK Government website.

Pat Mustard

piperh wrote: »

I also know personally solicitors who falsified documents

Well then, keep it to yourself and post about it anonymously on boards.ie.

Ffs.

daltonmd

The Mustard wrote: »

As soon as he becomes insolvent, he can apply for bankruptcy. It's not a difficult hurdle to jump.

Sorry, we're going around in circles here -the OP is not insolvent, he has no problem meeting his debts as they fall due. His intention is to strategically default.

As soon as he becomes insolvent is a different topic.

Pat Mustard

daltonmd wrote: »

Sorry, we're going around in circles here -the OP is not insolvent, he has no problem meeting his debts as they fall due. His intention is to strategically default.

As soon as he becomes insolvent is a different topic.

The OP is not insolvent. Agreed.

Whether changing circumstances to avail of bankruptcy is a different topic. You have your opinion. I have mine.

If most Irish people with mortgages leave their jobs, they'll be insolvent in a few months. It's very relevant, really.

But we are going around in circles, so we can agree to differ.

faceman

Damie wrote: »

This is the most ridiculous remark I have ever seen on this site, and that's saying something!

So cancer and heart disease are singularly caused by cigarettes and alcohol?

FFS!

I didn't say that. And that wasn't my point anyway.

strandroad

faceman wrote: »

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.

Yes but strategic defaulters still take the money out of the kitty. It won't be lent to responsible businesses or for reasonable mortgages and the downward spiral continues because people like him don't like their investments anymore.

I guess that either you're responsible for your actions with basic morals in place or you aren't. The frightening thing is how many people are not. See how the talk of debt forgiveness this year lured them out of the woodwork in droves; expect the number of mortgages in arrears to rise sharply. Even here on boards the evidence for this type of thinking goes beyond anecdotal into a trend. Entitlement, Celtic Tiger's bastard child.

lima

curlzy wrote: »

Oh the sanctimonious wailing :rolleyes:. Don't mind them OP, they'd soon get off their soapbox if it was them and they'd do the same as you.

The public didn't start this recession, the builders, banks and lack of regulation did. You can't blame the public for believing the hype about "the property ladder" that was rammed down everyone's throat morning, noon and night. Place your anger where it belongs; with the banks, builders and politicians.

I'd love to be able to answer your questions OP but I'd only be guessing, get legal advise to be on the safe side I'd say.

All the best, to you and your family.

Of course the public started this recession, they were the ones stupid enough to even think that Ireland was a place worthy of paying extreme amounts for property - this wet corrupt peripheral island.. what were you all thinking!!

Damie

[QUOTE=
Originally Posted by faceman]
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?
[/QUOTE]

faceman wrote: »

I didn't say that. And that wasn't my point anyway.

Well what was your point? Thats exactly what I took from what you said....

lima

curlzy wrote: »

I'm a member of the public too. I've a great job, excellent salary, I don't have a mortgage or kids so I'm sitting pretty as they say. Yeah my taxes blah blah blah but I STILL don't blame the people that are in the sh*ts now. They weren't greedy, people have very very very short memories.

We were lambasted with "property ladder", "second property to rent" morning, noon and night by people we should have been able to trust. The failings of our financial institutions and politicians are laughable and ridiculous, no lay person could be expected to foresee what was going to happen. Greed doesn't come into this. I don't blame anyone that's doing what the OP is doing, he's not some millionaire property developer, he's a dad that's trying to look after his kids.

I'm really tired of people blaming the innocent in this. It's easy to rant at Joe Public, much harder (but better) to put the blame where it belongs.

Eh it's the peoples fault for trusting...

djimi

The Mustard wrote: »

The OP is not insolvent. Agreed.

Whether changing circumstances to avail of bankruptcy is a different topic. You have your opinion. I have mine.

If most Irish people with mortgages leave their jobs, they'll be insolvent in a few months. It's very relevant, really.

But we are going around in circles, so we can agree to differ.

Why would he leave his job? The OP is already living abroad; its not like they are planning on packing up and leaving Ireland in the morning.

daltonmd

The Mustard wrote: »

The OP is not insolvent. Agreed.

Whether changing circumstances to avail of bankruptcy is different topic. You have your opinion. I have mine.

If most Irish people with mortgages leave their jobs, they'll be insolvent in a few months. It's very relevant, really.

But we are going around in circles, so we can agree to differ.

You mean if he chooses to change his circumstances? I think for the purpose of his question, with the information he gave that he is strategically defaulting.

I agree that if people with mortgages lost their jobs they would be insolvent - but there is another question there and that is if you voluntarily leave your job and stop paying your debts, can this not also be viewed as "strategic default"?

I know someone who did this to avoid paying child maintenance and ended up in a whole lot of crap. (different debt, but same principle)

piperh

The Mustard wrote: »

Well then, keep it to yourself and post about it anonymously on boards.ie.

Ffs.

I didn't name anyone either the buyers or solicitors and didn't say it affected me personally so i don't see whats your problem?? And as i'm a person sat the otherside of a keyboard i am anonymous to you, it wouldn't matter if i was to be traced using a burner account or my sign in my isp would still be traceable.

faceman

Damie wrote: »

Well what was your point? Thats exactly what I took from what you said....

My point is about personal responsibility. In my opinion we should not throw people to the wolves for making mistakes.

mhge wrote: »

Yes but strategic defaulters still take the money out of the kitty. It won't be lent to responsible businesses or for reasonable mortgages and the downward spiral continues because people like him don't like their investments anymore.

I guess that either you're responsible for your actions with basic morals in place or you aren't. The frightening thing is how many people are not. See how the talk of debt forgiveness this year lured them out of the woodwork in droves; expect the number of mortgages in arrears to rise sharply. Even here on boards the evidence for this type of thinking goes beyond anecdotal into a trend. Entitlement, Celtic Tiger's bastard child.

I take your point however I don't believe the moral hazard is black and white. There are far too many factors at work here behind the cause of it all. But regardless of that we are here now. While there is an ethical dilemma with regard to walking away from a debt scot free, in my view there a greater ethical issue in lumbering people, regardless of their circumstances, with a property in negative equity for what looks like will be decades to come.

Statistically, I havent seen anything other than anecdotal tales of people trying to walk from their debts. I suspect that the actual numbers is small, but again thats my opinion. When you look at the level of unemployment and the published figures on mortgages arrears, I believe we are only starting to scrape the iceberg.

kegzmc

I spoke to a solicitor today. Yes you are correct in they could persue my wife.

We are going to get my wifes younger sister to take the mortgage out.Just to be on the safe side. Its not huge money we are talking so it shouldnt be a problem.

Thanks for all the help guys. If anyone else has done this before I'd be grateful if you share your experiences. Pros/Cons etc.

Kegs

Zamboni

kegzmc wrote: »

I spoke to a solicitor today. Yes you are correct in they could persue my wife.

We are going to get my wifes younger sister to take the mortgage out.Just to be on the safe side. Its not huge money we are talking so it shouldnt be a problem.

Thanks for all the help guys. If anyone else has done this before I'd be grateful if you share your experiences. Pros/Cons etc.

Kegs

The irony

OS119

donalg1 wrote: »

...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.

i disagree - he is at some fault for borrowing it, but the bank, who - given my own experience - almost certainly offered it repeatedly and at every opportunity, told him he could afford it, and employed great swathes of economists and lawyers to predict the future as well as actuaries to determine the risk they faced on each 'investment', are at far greater fault.

lets also remember that the goverment of the day were telling all and sundry to get on the property ladder - yes we should beware of shiesters, but in 2006 they weren't shiesters, they were the elected government of a sovereign, independent state that was 'the richest in Europe' - if your Head of Government tells you 'this is a good idea', and he has some credibility, then you may well believe him.

do i like what the OP wants to do? not really, but i think that if i were in his position i'd think about doing the same thing - except the 'get a mortgage in someonelses name' thing - thats just ignorant fcukwittery of the highest order.

strandroad

faceman wrote: »

I take your point however I don't believe the moral hazard is black and white. There are far too many factors at work here behind the cause of it all. But regardless of that we are here now. While there is an ethical dilemma with regard to walking away from a debt scot free, in my view there a greater ethical issue in lumbering people, regardless of their circumstances, with a property in negative equity for what looks like will be decades to come.

Statistically, I havent seen anything other than anecdotal tales of people trying to walk from their debts. I suspect that the actual numbers is small, but again thats my opinion. When you look at the level of unemployment and the published figures on mortgages arrears, I believe we are only starting to scrape the iceberg.

Being in negative equity is not a problem in itself. It's not a problem if you bought a house to live, it's not a problem if you bought a house to rent out if you've done your sums beforehand. It is a problem if you bought it as an investment and it galls you to see its value/your profits fall so you want to get rid, but then investments can gain or lose, which is a simple truth rejected by many including the OP.

There are of course families who are on the breadline and should have solutions available to give up their houses with a writedown, so their mistake was to think they can afford a family home, but the OP and his ilk are a different tribe altogether with different "mistakes".

Graces7

OldNotWIse wrote: »

First time I have laughed out loud today

Same here and I am ill in bed so it was needed! I will remember th at curse...

Graces7

kegzmc wrote: »

I spoke to a solicitor today. Yes you are correct in they could persue my wife.

We are going to get my wifes younger sister to take the mortgage out.Just to be on the safe side. Its not huge money we are talking so it shouldnt be a problem.

Thanks for all the help guys. If anyone else has done this before I'd be grateful if you share your experiences. Pros/Cons etc.

Kegs

Words fail... Small wonder Ireland is in this mess. Involve the whole family in a scam.

Highly Salami

djimi wrote: »

No they didnt, but they only gave out mortgages to those who asked for them. Bottom line is that its up to you, the borrower, to know how much money you can afford to pay and to understand the risks involved in borrowing that amount. The banks were stupid in how much they allowed people to borrow, but they never forced anyone to borrow a penny.

There is an onus on the lender to do due dillegence when lending too.

djimi wrote: »

People need to take responsibility for their own actions.

Exactly, people who recklessly lent should be responsible for their actions.

mikom

kegzmc wrote: »

We are going to get my wifes younger sister to take the mortgage out.Just to be on the safe side.

Nice little nest of vipers by the sounds of it.

Damie

faceman wrote: »

I didn't say that. And that wasn't my point anyway.

faceman wrote: »

My point is about personal responsibility. In my opinion we should not throw people to the wolves for making mistakes.

Firstly, nobody is throwing anyone to the wolves. Or is asking someone to take responsibility for their behavior throwing them to the wolves?

Secondly, your point about personal responsibility.

Originally Posted by faceman
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?

This remark is disgusting and offensive. I'm not sure where your 'personal responsibility' point is?

OS119

mikom wrote: »

Nice little nest of vipers halfwits by the sounds of it.

FYP.

the sister-in-law must be mentally incapable if she's going to sign her life over this guy - what happens when he gets bored of country 'B' and sods off to country 'C': she going to be left holding the mortgage in country 'B'...

Damie

OS119 wrote: »

FYP.

the sister-in-law must be mentally incapable if she's going to sign her life over this guy - what happens when he gets bored of country 'B' and sods off to country 'C': she going to be left holding the mortgage in country 'B'...

At first i thought kegzmc was a WUM in action, this confirms it tbf.....

strandroad

Damie wrote: »

At first i thought kegzmc was a WUM in action, this confirms it tbf.....

You'd hope so, but I'm afraid he's real, not alone, and has supporters.

OS119

Damie wrote: »

This remark is disgusting and offensive. I'm not sure where your 'personal responsibility' point is?

how can it be 'disgusting and offensive'? its fairly true...

there cannot be anyone in western europe since 1980 who has not known that smoking is a prime cause of lung cancer, and that alcohol causes all manner of unpleasentness.

FF might be crooks, but even they didn't tell people that smoking a drinking were the way forward.

Damie

OS119 wrote: »

how can it be 'disgusting and offensive'? its fairly true...

there cannot be anyone in western europe since 1980 who has not known that smoking is a prime cause of lung cancer, and that alcohol causes all manner of unpleasentness.

FF might be crooks, but even they didn't tell people that smoking a drinking were the way forward.

Its the insinuation that all cancer and heart disease is caused by cigarettes and alcohol, therefore we shouldn't be funding this health section, which is bullsh*t of the highest order. That's how I understand this comment and that is why its disgusting. I have an elderly relative sitting at home suffering from cancer, a drink or cigarette never passed her lips. What category would she fall into then?

I'm not trying to pick a fight, its a remark that I find disgusting and ill advised. Thats all.