Moved Country. Not paying my mortgage anymore

Damie

durano is another WUM, ignore him and the OP or else get riled up....

durano

donalg1 wrote: »

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

It might not matter to you but it certainly matters to him,he entered into a contract which had an "out" clause ie.default and you're now telling him 5 years later that in your opinion he doesn't actually have an "out" clause.
The only thing that should bind the OP are the terms of the contract he signed,any new terms that are added by the state or yourself are totally irrelevant.

durano

Damie wrote: »

durano is another WUM, ignore him and the OP or else get riled up....

What's a WUM?

donalg1

durano wrote: »

It might not matter to you but it certainly matters to him,he entered into a contract which had an "out" clause ie.default and you're now telling him 5 years later that in your opinion he doesn't actually have an "out" clause.
The only thing that should bind the OP are the terms of the contract he signed,any new terms that are added by the state or yourself are totally irrelevant.

Who the hell cares what the situation was five years ago, he is making his decision today knowing what the consequences are today so there is no excuse for it, how things were 5 or 10 years ago have absolutely no bearing on the facts today.

You still havent told me if you are going to pay my mortgage for me.

strandroad

durano wrote: »

It might not matter to you but it certainly matters to him,he entered into a contract which had an "out" clause ie.default and you're now telling him 5 years later that in your opinion he doesn't actually have an "out" clause.
The only thing that should bind the OP are the terms of the contract he signed,any new terms that are added by the state or yourself are totally irrelevant.

There is no "default at will" clause in his contract. There is "reposession and pay the rest" or alternatively "go bankrupt" one.

durano

donalg1 wrote: »

Who the hell cares what the situation was five years ago, he is making his decision today knowing what the consequences are today so there is no excuse for it, how things were 5 or 10 years ago have absolutely no bearing on the facts today.

You still havent told me if you are going to pay my mortgage for me.

:DYou seem to be the only one that cares about the "situation" years ago,neither myself nor the OP care about the "situation" years ago,that's why we haven't mentioned it.What we do care about and have mentioned numerous times are the terms of the contract,when you say "situation" do you actually mean "terms"?Or what do you mean?

I will be happy to pay your mortgage,send me on your bank account details and I'll see can I have it sorted for the next payment:D.

durano

mhge wrote: »

There is no "default at will" clause in his contract. There is "reposession and pay the rest" or alternatively "go bankrupt" one.

There is actually,although it's not called "default at will" (as you seem to have called it),it's just known as the clause dealing with default.

strandroad

durano wrote: »

There is actually,although it's not called "default at will" (as you seem to have called it),it's just known as the clause dealing with default.

Yes, in one of the ways mentioned. There is no jingle mail in Ireland and there wasn't back when the OP signed the contract.

durano

mhge wrote: »

Yes, in one of the ways mentioned. There is no jingle mail in Ireland and there wasn't back when the OP signed the contract.

I can't really understand this.
Has anybody ever noticed that people stop making sense when they have no points to back up their arguments?

Graces7

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.

Wonderful expression; thank you.

Pat Mustard

piperh wrote: »

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.

I don't have a problem. I really couldn't care less one way or the other. I just think it's amusing.

You wouldn't think to report any of these people, if what you say is true?

strandroad

durano wrote: »

I can't really understand this.
Has anybody ever noticed that people stop making sense when they have no points to back up their arguments?

What part of this simple statement do you not understand?

strandroad

Graces7 wrote: »

Wonderful expression; thank you.

Can't take credit I'm afraid, it's widely used

Pat Mustard

djimi wrote: »

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.

To dump the massive bank debt.

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

The operative word here is "con"

Whatever happened to debtors' prisons?

Pat Mustard

daltonmd wrote: »

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)

You make good points.

In a child maintenance case, if it could be shown that a father ditched his job to strategically reduce earnings, I'd say the judge would be down on top of him like a ton of bricks.

If someone moved to another country (UK) to take up residence there, I think it would be very difficult to show that the reason they are unemployed or in employment with lesser wages, was deliberate.

Strategic default has a very specific meaning, so if someone no longer had the ability to repay the debts, then they wouldn't be a strategic defaulter - But let's not get into that argument!

Pat Mustard

Graces7 wrote: »

Whatever happened to debtors' prisons?

Let us consult Charles Dickens on the matter.

Sorry, wrong century!

Graces7

The Mustard wrote: »

Let us consult Charles Dickens on the matter.

Sorry, wrong century!

lol..

But this OP!

Highly Salami

Graces7 wrote: »

Whatever happened to debtors' prisons?

The country is deep in debt and struggling to get by, we really couldn't afford this sort of thing!

donalg1

durano wrote: »

donalg1 wrote: »

Who the hell cares what the situation was five years ago, he is making his decision today knowing what the consequences are today so there is no excuse for it, how things were 5 or 10 years ago have absolutely no bearing on the facts today.

You still havent told me if you are going to pay my mortgage for me.

:DYou seem to be the only one that cares about the "situation" years ago,neither myself nor the OP care about the "situation" years ago,that's why we haven't mentioned it.What we do care about and have mentioned numerous times are the terms of the contract,when you say "situation" do you actually mean "terms"?Or what do you mean?

I will be happy to pay your mortgage,send me on your bank account details and I'll see can I have it sorted for the next payment:D.

You are the one that keeps referring to and brought up when he signed the contract so it seems to be you that is obsessed with something that happened years ago. So you have mentioned it.

My post above even said who cares about the situatio years ago so I really don't know what ur talking about you are actually making no sense at all now. WUM me thinks.

durano

mhge wrote: »

What part of this simple statement do you not understand?

I honestly didn't really understand any of it,what is jingle mail mail and what does it have to do with this discussion and what does the first sentence you made mean?

iguana

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

Not a solicitor alive would have advised you to do this. It's not even slightly doable. The person who takes out the mortgage is irrelevant, what matters is the name on the deeds of the house. You are grasping at straws here.

First off no bank will give your sister in law a mortgage if she isn't going to be the owner of at least a portion of the house proportional to the ltv. If the mortgage is worth half the house the she will have to own at least half the house.

Secondly, if the house is even partly owned by you and/or your wife then your share in the house is considered an asset and if you are chased by the banks here they could force a sale. So having the sister own part of the house will not stop you from losing the house in any way shape or form.

Thirdly any bank your sister in law tries to borrow from is likely to check the credit history of her potential co-owners. They are then highly unlikely to lend to her. And it's worth bearing in mind that even applying for this loan and getting turned down will lower your sister in law's credit score, which could have personal, negative consequences for her in the future. Think very carefully before asking her to do this as it's a horrible request.

The only possible way this could work out is if the sister in law can buy the house for herself and be the sole owner on the deeds. But then you'd basically just be the tenants of your sister in law, so there wouldn't really be anything to gain from this at all.

desertcircus

If the OP is getting the new house put in his sister-in-law's name, presumably he'll be completely okay with it if she sells the place the day the last mortgage repayment is made and pockets every penny. For a guy who's happily discussing his planned dereliction of a legal contract, he seems to be placing an inordinate amount of trust in this woman's willingness to honour an unenforceable verbal one.

riclad

Lets say the sister is buying a house for 60k ,she goes to agent .Here,s my bank
Account , i have 65k in it, can i buy that house.
She,d probably be allowed to buy it, other country,s do not have cab
and have different laws re property purchase.
And they may not ask where did you get the money,
some country,s welcome foreign investors and try and make it easy for them
to live there.I never heard of an irish person going to poland to claim the dole there.
IN a country like poland you could probably buy a nice house for 50k or less.
Sure look at bertie ahern ,minister for finance and he did,nt have a bank account.
maybe he thought ,i,ve got 90k left ,i could leave now .Start a new life ,or stay in ireland and spend most of my earnings paying back the bank.
There was a woman on the radio, loan 950k, house sold for 500k,
said i,m a single mother, separated wife,
i havent a hope in hell of paying back 450k.
Bank was offered 900k, turned it down because woman had,nt got the other 50k.

Pat Mustard

riclad wrote: »

Lets say the sister is buying a house for 60k ,she goes to agent .Here,s my bank
Account , i have 65k in it, can i buy that house.
She,d probably be allowed to buy it, other country,s do not have cab
and have different laws re property purchase.
And they may not ask where did you get the money,
some country,s welcome foreign investors and try and make it easy for them
to live there.I never heard of an irish person going to poland to claim the dole there.
IN a country like poland you could probably buy a nice house for 50k or less.
Sure look at bertie ahern ,minister for finance and he did,nt have a bank account.
maybe he thought ,i,ve got 90k left ,i could leave now .Start a new life ,or stay in ireland and spend most of my earnings paying back the bank.

What point are you trying to make?

riclad

THE point is ,its possible to move to another country,buy a cheap house ,they welcome investment .
Whether its right to do so,and leave large debts behind is another question.

nino1

riclad wrote: »

THE point is ,its possible to move to another country,buy a cheap house ,they welcome investment .
Whether its right to do so,and leave large debts behind is another question.

your point is completely irrelevant to the discussion!!

strandroad

durano wrote: »

I honestly didn't really understand any of it,what is jingle mail mail and what does it have to do with this discussion and what does the first sentence you made mean?

Jingle mail is a fairly common phrase:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jingle_mail
In American banking system a strategic defaulter (or a genuine one) can give the house back to the bank; they will lose whatever they paid in and the bank will pick up the tab for the remainder of the mortgage.
There is no such provision in Irish law: you can give up the house or have it repossessed, but you still owe the remainder.
The options are therefore to suffer the repossession and be responsible for the losses incurred, or to go bankrupt - his debts are discharged but there are consequences.

cafecreme

I wouldnt bother mhge, I'm sure he knows what jingle mail is.
I say let the OP and others who simply dont fancy coughing up despite being able to pay for it alongside those who approve of these actions emigrate and wave them on their merry way. Its worth paying off their mortgages to rid the country of those genes
In about 25 years time I bet Australia will see a massive spike in tax evasion as the next generation follow in their parents footsteps. Shoebox apartments will appear overnight on Ularu and planning retention will be applied for whilst Paddy JR tells the court in outraged tones he has done Australia a great service and he should be thanked for all the employment he has created, never mind them aboroginals trying to stop progress and job creation, sure it was only an auld rock before he built them lovely duplexes.

Pat Mustard

mhge wrote: »

Jingle mail is a fairly common phrase:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jingle_mail
In American banking system a strategic defaulter (or a genuine one) can give the house back to the bank; they will lose whatever they paid in and the bank will pick up the tab for the remainder of the mortgage.
There is no such provision in Irish law: you can give up the house or have it repossessed, but you still owe the remainder.
The options are therefore to suffer the repossession and be responsible for the losses incurred, or to go bankrupt - his debts are discharged but there are consequences.

That type of mortgage is known as a non-recourse mortgage. In enforcing the debt, the bank has no recourse to the borrower beyond the secured property itself. Hence, jingle mail. People who are in trouble with payments on their mortgages can simply drop the keys back to the bank and walk away.

It'd be interesting to hear views on how that could/should be implemented into Irish law.