Moved Country. Not paying my mortgage anymore

TwoShedsJackson

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.

Your wife's younger sister is a prize fu<kwit if she does this.

paulocon2

Definitely a WUM.

Nothing to see here folks, move on please..

LittleBook

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

Your wife's younger sister is a prize fu<kwit if she does this.

But if she takes out the mortgage, surely her name would have to be on the deeds ... the deeds of a house where the OP would be making the payments but she would ultimately own.

It's a tough one to call.

paulocon2

LittleBook wrote: »

But if she takes out the mortgage, surely her name would have to be on the deeds ... the deeds of a house where the OP would be making the payments but she would ultimately own.

It's a tough one to call.

Don't be so suspicious - seem like a very trustworthy family to me!

donalg1

OS119 wrote: »

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.

Lets not beat around the bush here the OP is at fault for borrowing that money, the banks only offered it to him after he applied for it, they never dragged him off the street and never put a gun to his head.

They certainly never forced me into anything, even when I did apply for a mortgage I knew how much I wanted and if they had offered me €100k more I wouldnt have taken it.

Yes the Government may have been telling people to get on the property ladder but if you couldnt afford it you wouldnt do it regardless of what they told you, the OP was on the property ladder anyway and bought a second home for no other reason than the hope of making some money, now that that hasnt worked out for him he is walking away leaving everyone else to pick up the tab for him. Like others have said it was an investment that went the wrong way he took a risk and it didnt work out so why does he think we should pay for his mistakes.

On another note the part I have put in bold above gave me laugh out load moment, I am gonna remember that and use it soon hilarious.

donalg1

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

If your sister in law is looking for more investment opportunities will you PM her details please. Also the crown prince of Nigeria might be able to hook her up with some money making schemes ideas, all she has to do is email him her bank details and a cheque for €1,000.

nelly17

kegzmc wrote: »

Hi there,

I'm looking for some advice for my situation...

I moved my family from Ireland 2 years ago for employment reasons. I have 2 houses still in Ireland which are both in negative equity. I talked to the bank in the hope that they would let me sell one and take the negative equity across to the other leaving me with one mortgage. They refused to do this.

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. I know this is not the right thing to do but I dont see the point in paying this anymore as its a burden.

My question is this. When house is repossessed, can they take the other one in Ireland? Can they force me to sell that one or the one in new country?

Thanks

Seriously, its not just the BIG developers that got us into this mess it's also the thousands of people who thought they could make a quick buck from getting a second,third or even fourth property.

Personally I think you have some neck on ya asking people for advice on how you can rip the people replying off in a "legitimate way"

Get bent.

Oh and dont worry about it being a burden my kids will shoulder that for you.

faceman

Damie wrote: »

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.

I wasnt insinuating that all cancer and heart disease is caused by cigarettes and alcohol at all. In my post i said cancer and heart disease "that result from smoking and drinking". In other words, where cigarettes and alcohol have caused the illness.

OS119

donalg1 wrote: »

...the banks only offered it to him after he applied for it...

i don't know about your experience, but i was offered mortgages by my bank while talking to them about a credit card, or life insurance, or transfering money from one account to another, entirely, utterly without me asking about mortgages, or owning a place, or moving or anything - straight out of the blue.

i was given specific figures as to how much i could borrow from them entirely unsolicited (and they were big figures) - and it would be every time i spoke to them on the phone, or went into a branch.

while applying for one mortgage - a bog standard 'i want to sell house A and buy house B' - i was offered (and told i was missing a trick if i didn't take it) two, and told that i'd have exactly the same payment by remortgaging my old house and renting it out, and then buying the new house to live in as if i'd done it 'traditionally'.

i was 25 or so, this was 'my' bank, i'd been with them since i was 7 - they knew exactly what i earnt and what my savings were - this was the kind of 'advice' that me and all of my friends were getting. in light of this, how can you possibly say that the bank bears no responsibility for the loans that people took out at their suggestion and upon being told by institutions that they trusted that they could afford it, and that to not do so was a 'no-brainer'?

donalg1

OS119 wrote: »

i don't know about your experience, but i was offered mortgages by my bank while talking to them about a credit card, or life insurance, or transfering money from one account to another, entirely, utterly without me asking about mortgages, or owning a place, or moving or anything - straight out of the blue.

i was given specific figures as to how much i could borrow from them entirely unsolicited (and they were big figures) - and it would be every time i spoke to them on the phone, or went into a branch.

while applying for one mortgage - a bog standard 'i want to sell house A and buy house B' - i was offered (and told i was missing a trick if i didn't take it) two, and told that i'd have exactly the same payment by remortgaging my old house and renting it out, and then buying the new house to live in as if i'd done it 'traditionally'.

i was 25 or so, this was 'my' bank, i'd been with them since i was 7 - they knew exactly what i earnt and what my savings were - this was the kind of 'advice' that me and all of my friends were getting. in light of this, how can you possibly say that the bank bears no responsibility for the loans that people took out at their suggestion and upon being told by institutions that they trusted that they could afford it, and that to not do so was a 'no-brainer'?

I do remember getting a phone call from the bank once and they were asking me about my current account and savings account and if I was happy or if I had any questions about any of my banking, I vaguely remember them saying something about a mortgage and was I thinking of one and I should talk to them about it, but I just said no not interested thanks very much.

kegzmc

nelly17 wrote: »

Seriously, its not just the BIG developers that got us into this mess it's also the thousands of people who thought they could make a quick buck from getting a second,third or even fourth property.

Personally I think you have some neck on ya asking people for advice on how you can rip the people replying off in a "legitimate way"

Get bent.

Oh and dont worry about it being a burden my kids will shoulder that for you.

On that note I think we'll leave it there. Good luck with your kids.

donalg1

kegzmc wrote: »

On that note I think we'll leave it there. Good luck with your kids.

Two very charming posts

OS119

donalg1 wrote: »

I do remember getting a phone call from the bank once and they were asking me about my current account and savings account and if I was happy or if I had any questions about any of my banking, I vaguely remember them saying something about a mortgage and was I thinking of one and I should talk to them about it, but I just said no not interested thanks very much.

lucky you - for me, and my friends of that age group (38 now), it was constant, relentless stuff.

durano

OP don't listen to the majority of posters here that are pissed that you are burdening the state and them with your debt,they don't understand what's going on-when you got your mortgage you got it off a PRIVATE BANK,you did NOT get your mortgage with the understanding that should you default the country would foot the bill(this is something that has happened in the meantime and while unfortunate is of no concern to you).
You didn't get your mortgage off the state you got it off a private bank,so feel free to default etc...
It's not your problem that the state is going to have to foot the bill,you certainly did NOT agree to this when you were signing the contracts.

Zamboni

OS119 wrote: »

lucky you - for me, and my friends of that age group (38 now), it was constant, relentless stuff.

You are having a laugh aren't you? :pac:
How much day to day contact did you have with a bank that their service and product offerings became "constant and relentless".
I'm actually laughing.

On a number of occasions I was offered a 100% mortgage for half a million.
I just said no thanks.
They didn't chain me, handcuff me or force me to sign anything.

mikom

durano wrote: »

It's not your problem that the state is going to have to foot the bill,you certainly did NOT agree to this when you were signing the contracts.

Yeah...... that would really have made him stop and think...

donalg1

durano wrote: »

OP don't listen to the majority of posters here that are pissed that you are burdening the state and them with your debt,they don't understand what's going on-when you got your mortgage you got it off a PRIVATE BANK,you did NOT get your mortgage with the understanding that should you default the country would foot the bill(this is something that has happened in the meantime and while unfortunate is of no concern to you).
You didn't get your mortgage off the state you got it off a private bank,so feel free to default etc...
It's not your problem that the state is going to have to foot the bill,you certainly did NOT agree to this when you were signing the contracts.

I assume you have also emigrated then?

strandroad

OS119 wrote: »

lucky you - for me, and my friends of that age group (38 now), it was constant, relentless stuff.

Sales people are always trying to upsell, back then and today, it's their job. For some of us it's just constant, relentless "no thank yous"

durano

donalg1 wrote: »

I assume you have also emigrated then?

That's quite an assumption.

donalg1

durano wrote: »

That's quite an assumption.

Well someone else was telling the OP to go ahead and default, but it turned out they wouldnt be affected by it as they had emigrated so I assume you are the same seeing as you dont mind paying his mortgage for him. But if you havent emigrated and are happy to pay his mortgage maybe you would be willing to pay mine too.

durano

donalg1 wrote: »

Well someone else was telling the OP to go ahead and default, but it turned out they wouldnt be affected by it as they had emigrated so I assume you are the same seeing as you dont mind paying his mortgage for him. But if you havent emigrated and are happy to pay his mortgage maybe you would be willing to pay mine too.

How happy/unhappy I am at having to pay his debts has no bearing on the argument.
He did NOT enter into a contract with the state,he entered into a contract with a private entity,and within that contract there is the option to default,which he is availing of now.

djimi

OS119 wrote: »

lucky you - for me, and my friends of that age group (38 now), it was constant, relentless stuff.

Do you buy everything that people try to sell to you? Chuggers must love you

donalg1

durano wrote: »

How happy/unhappy I am at having to pay his debts has no bearing on the argument.
He did NOT enter into a contract with the state,he entered into a contract with a private entity,and within that contract there is the option to default,which he is availing of now.

Knowing you and I have to pick up the tab despite the fact he has no need to default, he just cant be bothered repaying the mortgage anymore.

Doesnt matter what his situation was when he entered the contract either he is screwing the tax payer now and I for one would never tell him its ok to do such a thing regardless of when he took out his mortgage.

Highly Salami

donalg1 wrote: »

Doesnt matter what his situation was when he entered the contract either he is screwing the tax payer now and I for one would never tell him its ok to do such a thing regardless of when he took out his mortgage.

Thats a very selfish position to take, there are others in the world and they have needs too.

durano

donalg1 wrote: »

Knowing you and I have to pick up the tab despite the fact he has no need to default, he just cant be bothered repaying the mortgage anymore.

Doesnt matter what his situation was when he entered the contract either he is screwing the tax payer now and I for one would never tell him its ok to do such a thing regardless of when he took out his mortgage.

The first sentence you made there makes no sense.

As to the second one,nobody cares about his "situation" when he entered the contract ,what is relevant is the terms of the contract and nowhere in those terms did it say that he would be burdening the state should he choose to default,so you can tell him "it's not ok" as much as you want but you'll be wasting your breath as the only thing that matters is the contract he entered into and with whom he entered it into with.

donalg1

durano wrote: »

The first sentence you made there makes no sense.

As to the second one,nobody cares about his "situation" when he entered the contract ,what is relevant is the terms of the contract and nowhere in those terms did it say that he would be burdening the state should he choose to default,so you can tell him "it's not ok" as much as you want but you'll be wasting your breath as the only thing that matters is the contract he entered into and with whom he entered it into with.

How does it make no sense, he will stop paying the mortgage because he doesnt want to pay it anymore, and you and I will have to pay it for him and he knows this, very straight forward.

As for the contract, dont you think he signed it saying he would pay x amount back over x number of years at x interest rate. He signed a mortgage agreement saying he would pay it back, now he doesnt want to pay it back so is leaving it to everyone else to do it for him.

OS119

djimi wrote: »

Do you buy everything that people try to sell to you? Chuggers must love you

no, i don't - and i didn't take the mortgages they offered.

your tone suggests that you're a bit of a superscillious pratt - the financial/political enivironment of the time was very different to what it is now - people felt very differently about the financial and political institutions and to a large extent believed the advice they were given by those who were qualified, and paid, to advise them. if you can't understand that, and why it was, then you're a pretty poor observer of what happened.

of course, if you are so wonderful, one might ask why your country is bankrupt...

Marcusm

seamus wrote: »

Probably, yes. For legal purposes yourself and your wife are generally considered to be a single entity unless either party can show that the debts were incurred without the other spouse's knowledge.

Not under Irish law!

durano

donalg1 wrote: »

As for the contract, dont you think he signed it saying he would pay x amount back over x number of years at x interest rate. He signed a mortgage agreement saying he would pay it back, now he doesnt want to pay it back so is leaving it to everyone else to do it for him.

Within the contract there is a part that says"if you choose to default this is what happens.....your property will be repossessed and you will be pursued through the courts for the remainder etc etc."-it does not say "if you choose to default your property will be repossessed and the state will pick up the tab".
Anybody can default on a mortgage contract at any time and many do,this is why there is a clear path of consequences upon default(repossession,chasing through the courts,bankruptcy etc..). It's quite common really, it's just unfortunate that for some inexplicable reason our elected representatives have decided to make us liable for the bill,I believe it's the first time in the history of banking that this has been done and so could hardly have been forseen by the OP.

donalg1

durano wrote: »

Within the contract there is a part that says"if you choose to default this is what happens.....your property will be repossessed and you will be pursued through the courts for the remainder etc etc."-it does not say "if you choose to default your property will be repossessed and the state will pick up the tab".
Anybody can default on a mortgage contract at any time and many do,this is why there is a clear path of consequences upon default(repossession,chasing through the courts,bankruptcy etc..). It's quite common really, it's just unfortunate that for some inexplicable reason our elected representatives have decided to make us liable for the bill,I believe it's the first time in the history of banking that this has been done and so could hardly have been forseen by the OP.

Doesnt matter if he foresaw it or not, fact is that is the way it is today, so when he defaults we will pay it for him he knows this and is going to default because he doesnt want to pay his mortgage any more.

He will still be pursued through the courts the house will be repossessed the only difference is the banks will then go to the Government and ask them for the money when the OP doesnt give it to them