Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Moved Country. Not paying my mortgage anymore

Options
1…68101112

Comments

  • Options
    #212
    strandroad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,676 ✭✭✭strandroad


    durano wrote: »
    My point is that perhaps you should direct your anger towards the person/people that made the OP's actions affect you.

    The pipe bomb that took young boy's fingers yesterday did not affect me in any way but I'm still angry at those scumbags and wish them in jail.

    The lengths people go to to justify their cons in their heads...


  • Options
    #213
    durano
    Registered Users Posts: 132 ✭✭durano


    donalg1 wrote: »
    So direct them at the OP then as it was his actions that affect me, grand got you now, but I was doing that already.
    Ok don't freak out but we're going to have to back a few years in time to figure this out,it's only 4 years so don't panic.
    Here we go,ready?
    4 years ago the OP's actions would not have affected you and you wouldn't have cared what he did(stay with me,nearly finished)but now the OP's actions do affect you and you do care.So,what has changed in the intervening 4 years to make the OP's actions affect you?


  • Options
    #214
    donalg1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,513 ✭✭✭donalg1


    durano wrote: »
    Ok don't freak out but we're going to have to back a few years in time to figure this out,it's only 4 years so don't panic.
    Here we go,ready?
    4 years ago the OP's actions would not have affected you and you wouldn't have cared what he did(stay with me,nearly finished)but now the OP's actions do affect you and you do care.So,what has changed in the intervening 4 years to make the OP's actions affect you?



    Your the one that is asking me why I keep talking about the past even though it is you that keeps bringing it up, so hows about you dont freak out ok?

    The OP is saddling us with his debt that is what affects me, how can you not see this.

    Do you think its ok for the OP to leave his debts for others to pay. Obviously you do so no need to answer that question.

    And how do you know whether I would or would not have cared what he did four years ago.


  • Options
    #215
    durano
    Registered Users Posts: 132 ✭✭durano


    mhge wrote: »
    The pipe bomb that took young boy's fingers yesterday did not affect me in any way but I'm still angry at those scumbags and wish them in jail.

    The lengths people go to to justify their cons in their heads...
    Ah c'mon,you can't just jump in whenever it suits you and start spouting gibberish,make sense please,what does this analogy mean?


  • Options
    #216
    durano
    Registered Users Posts: 132 ✭✭durano


    donalg1 wrote: »
    The OP is saddling us with his debt that is what affects me, how can you not see this.
    This is 100% incorrect.
    The people who nationalised the banks are saddling you with his debt.
    The OP is merely executing a clause in his mortgage contract.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #217
    Zamboni
    Registered Users Posts: 4,305 ✭✭✭Zamboni


    That decision is in the past that resulted in the your the ops actions was made by a dead man.
    And that policy has been kept by Fine Gael.

    I hate Brian Lenihan, Fianna Fail and Fine Gael for it creation and maintenance.

    However,
    Your The OPs decision to abandon your his contractual agreement now, is made in full knowledge of the implications for the tax payers of Ireland.

    Are you implying that you the OP would not have signed the mortgage contract if you he knew in advance that the state would end up guaranteeing the bank?
    Because that is utter bullsh1t.


  • Options
    #218
    nino1
    Registered Users Posts: 826 ✭✭✭nino1


    donalg1 wrote: »
    Thought had crossed my mind too, especially given durano's number of posts.

    I think your right and that the op is a WUM but having said that its an interesting debate anyways and I'm sure a similiar situation actually applies to some people.


  • Options
    #219
    durano
    Registered Users Posts: 132 ✭✭durano


    Zamboni wrote: »

    Are you implying that you the OP would not have signed the mortgage contract if you he knew in advance that the state would end up guaranteeing the bank?
    Because that is utter bullsh1t.
    I'm certainly not implying that.
    I'm implying that if that was the case(ie.OP signed contract knowing that if he defaulted the state would foot the bill)then all the angry people would be correct-the OP would be a selfish c**t upon default.
    However the OP signed a contract stating that should he default then a private entity(bank) would bear the losses.


  • Options
    #220
    strandroad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,676 ✭✭✭strandroad


    durano wrote: »
    Ah c'mon,you can't just jump in whenever it suits you and start spouting gibberish,make sense please,what does this analogy mean?

    I'm not going to explain pipe bomb to you like I explained jingle mail, because you're so obviously trolling.


  • Options
    #221
    durano
    Registered Users Posts: 132 ✭✭durano


    nino1 wrote: »
    I think your right and that the op is a WUM but having said that its an interesting debate anyways and I'm sure a similiar situation actually applies to some people.
    The same situation applies to many people,they all signed mortgage contracts with escape clauses called default,losses to be borne by the private banks.
    Years later the government decides to nationalize the banks and thus their losses and the people who originally signed the mortgage contracts are expected to forget about their escape clause?I don't think so,that's not how contracts work.
    It's an unfortunate situation no doubt,caused by the elected government,but it's silly to think that the original mortgage holders will forgo the escape clause in their contract in order to save the state/taxpayer.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #222
    donalg1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,513 ✭✭✭donalg1


    durano wrote: »
    I'm certainly not implying that.
    I'm implying that if that was the case(ie.OP signed contract knowing that if he defaulted the state would foot the bill)then all the angry people would be correct-the OP would be a selfish c**t upon default.
    However the OP signed a contract stating that should he default then a private entity(bank) would bear the losses.

    You The OP is defaulting now knowing that we will have to pick up your his tab, thats the bottom line. That and the fact you the OP doesnt actually need to default but is choosing to do so as you dont he doesnt see the point in paying the mortgage any more.


  • Options
    #223
    durano
    Registered Users Posts: 132 ✭✭durano


    mhge wrote: »
    I'm not going to explain pipe bomb to you like I explained jingle mail, because you're so obviously trolling.
    I understand pipe bomb but as to your analogy's relevance to this discussion I'm baffled.


  • Options
    #224
    Sleepy
    Registered Users Posts: 24,238 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    durano wrote: »
    Ok,if I could slightly change the analogy to suit my argument -I see it that the OP has bought a knife and is swinging it around to test how it feels(as is his right),and suddenly Fianna Fail pushes you into its path and you get stabbed.
    Who's fault is it?
    If you want to adapt the analogy, fine, however, the OP has only decided to swing the knife *after* we've been pushed into it's path.

    The blanket guarantee of all bank debt was indefensible but guaranteeing / nationalising BOI and AIB, whilst undesirable, was unavoidable were we to continue to have a banking system imo.

    Whether you agree with that assessment or not, the facts are the facts: the OP is knowingly and intentionally trying to unload debt (which he willingly took on and can clearly afford to repay since he has amassed 50% of the purchase price of a property elsewhere) onto the Irish public. That is indefensible.


  • Options
    #225
    durano
    Registered Users Posts: 132 ✭✭durano


    donalg1 wrote: »
    You The OP is defaulting now knowing that we will have to pick up your his tab, thats the bottom line. That and the fact you the OP doesnt actually need to default but is choosing to do so as you dont he doesnt see the point in paying the mortgage any more.
    It's not the bottom line,the bottom line is that the OP is exercising his right to default and it's not his fault that the tax payer is liable(ie he DID NOT SIGN UP TO A CONTRACT THAT MADE THE TAX PAYER LIABLE SHOULD HE DEFAULT).


  • Options
    #226
    Rabidlamb
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,202 ✭✭✭Rabidlamb


    Sleepy wrote: »
    Rabidlamb, if you're so happy to pick up the OP's debt why don't you cover the lot? If you can't, why on earth are you cheering on his thieving from us? Or are you one of those who thought Haughey, Ahern et all were entitled to our money too?


    All the equations involved neglect the organic squishy bit, the person.
    There's a door on the left which leads to a new life, a 2nd chance.
    There's a door on the right which leads to 30 years of debt servitude.
    Which would you pick ? Answer honestly.

    If the OP upsets you so much then what about the 1,000's who have gone before & are sure to follow after.
    What about the €34 billion sunk in Anglo that we as a nation now owe ?.
    What about the other billions lost in the other financial institutions ?.
    What about the remaining developers functioning through NAMA who say they'll honour their debts although we know they are one push away from bankruptcy in the English courts ?.
    What about all the personal loans & credit card debt that will never be repaid ?.

    If you take on board the unfairness of it all to a law abiding taxpayer you'd go mad.
    You'd also realise that the OP's case is a tiny grain of sand on a huge beach.


  • Options
    #227
    durano
    Registered Users Posts: 132 ✭✭durano


    Sleepy wrote: »

    Whether you agree with that assessment or not, the facts are the facts: the OP is knowingly and intentionally trying to unload debt (which he willingly took on and can clearly afford to repay since he has amassed 50% of the purchase price of a property elsewhere) onto the Irish public. That is indefensible.
    I see it that the OP is intentionally trying to offload debt,which is his absolute right as to the terms of the contract he signed.
    Who that debt is currently offloaded onto should not really concern him as when he took on that debt he understood that any losses would be privately borne.

    It concerns you and I,we're pissed like,but that is because the our government has nominated us to bear the debt.


  • Options
    #228
    kegzmc
    Site Banned Posts: 153 ✭✭kegzmc


    Hi all,

    It appears I have upset some people here by choosing to default on a mortgage I hold in Ireland. This wasn't my intention so I apologise to those who got upset.

    Just to be clear on the reason I have chosen this route and I hope everyone can understand why...

    I can purchase a house for 60,000 EURs. I am going to pay 50-60% of this and have a small mortgage which I hope to clear in say 5 -6 years. This leaves me with only the other mortgage I have in Ireland.

    Why should I continue to pay for a house in Ireland which I know for sure will never be worth the same again. I bought it in 2009 and it is worth at least 50k less than I paid for it.

    I have discussed this on 2 occasions with the bank and offered to sell the house and take a loan on the remainder of EQ owed to them. I am extremely busy at work and cannot be going to Ireland every time a problem arises at one of the properties (tenent moving out etc). One house is managable but not two.

    I am aware that I took out the loan and its my responsibility to pay it back. Yes I could probably afford it but why should I? Why pour money into something that I know for sure I will never want again?

    Hope you understand.

    Kegs


  • Options
    #229
    tara73
    Registered Users Posts: 2,342 ✭✭✭tara73


    ffs, it's the op's (your?) attitude which disgusts, nothing to debate about what was 4 years on or not.
    he is trying to screw around, thinking of bancruptcy to BUY ANOTHER HOUSE.
    @ durano:it really is annoying somebody defending such a f*** who even has the pervert attitude to ask on boards for advice on his stinky businesses.

    but it's good to know experience in life showed 100 % sooner or later this dumb suckers will fail about their own stupidity.


  • Options
    #230
    durano
    Registered Users Posts: 132 ✭✭durano


    kegzmc wrote: »
    Hi all,



    Why should I continue to pay for a house in Ireland which I know for sure will never be worth the same again. I bought it in 2009 and it is worth at least 50k less than I paid for it.

    Thank god you're back,some people were calling me you and it was getting very confusing.

    You should continue to pay for the house because our government has decided to make us liable if you aren't.Therefore,you should forget the terms of the contract you signed and put yourself in debt for the next 30 years to save us.:D


  • Options
    #231
    durano
    Registered Users Posts: 132 ✭✭durano


    tara73 wrote: »
    ffs, it's the op's (your?) attitude which disgusts, nothing to debate about what was 4 years on or not.
    he is trying to screw around, thinking of bancruptcy to BUY ANOTHER HOUSE.
    @ durano:it really is annoying somebody defending such a f*** who even has the pervert attitude to ask on boards for advice on his stinky businesses.

    but it's good to know experience in life showed 100 % sooner or later this dumb suckers will fail anyway.
    He's a pervert now:eek:
    What exactly about his attitude disgusts you-the fact that he's able to identify when a contract is uneconomic and thus starts to access the clauses that allow him to exit it?This is simply good business acumen,it shouldn't really disgust you.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #232
    Ms Tootsie
    Registered Users Posts: 672 ✭✭✭Ms Tootsie


    kegzmc wrote: »
    Hi all,


    Why should I continue to pay for a house in Ireland which I know for sure will never be worth the same again. I bought it in 2009 and it is worth at least 50k less than I paid for it.

    The answer is simple really because YOU took the decision to buy the house for the original price. YOU could have looked more closely at the housing market in 2009 and YOU would have realised that a down turn was on the horizon as early as 2008. YOU took out a mortgage. YOU entered into a contract. I seriously doubt someone held a gun to your head to forced you to make all these choices. It was YOU that bought the house that will not be worth the value that YOU paid for it originally and that is why YOU should continue to pay for the house.


  • Options
    #233
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    kegzmc wrote: »
    Why should I continue to pay for a house in Ireland which I know for sure will never be worth the same again. I bought it in 2009 and it is worth at least 50k less than I paid for it.

    You should pay for it, because that's what you agreed to and you can afford to. That the value went down and not up means that you're going to have to lump the loss, as you would with any other type of investment that didn't work out for you.


  • Options
    #234
    durano
    Registered Users Posts: 132 ✭✭durano


    kaza2710 wrote: »
    The answer is simple really because YOU took the decision to buy the house for the original price. YOU could have looked more closely at the housing market in 2009 and YOU would have realised that a down turn was on the horizon as early as 2008. YOU took out a mortgage. YOU entered into a contract. I seriously doubt someone held a gun to your head to forced you to make all these choices. It was YOU that bought the house that will not be worth the value that YOU paid for it originally and that is why YOU should continue to pay for the house.
    Or he could just default which is allowed for under the terms of the contract he signed.


  • Options
    #235
    iguana
    Registered Users Posts: 12,916 ✭✭✭✭iguana


    Rabidlamb wrote: »
    Don't worry about being chased for the balance, a young nurse received €152k forgiveness recently & she was only moving to Galway.
    There will be a legal an efficient process in place soon for you to voluntary surrender the home.

    Do you have even the first clue about Laura White's case or the OP's? Because they are so dissimilar you are comparing apples with coal.

    In White's case she surrendered her home and did not have another property in her possession. Nor was she attempting to buy a third property at the time. The terms of her debt write off are strict. She will be 6 years paying back €250 a month and will become immediately liable for a debt of €125k if she fails to meet those payments. And in those 6 years she is barred from any sort of borrowing. A big part of the reason for the write-down, as argued by her barrister, appears to be that the bank botched the sale of her house and the €170k they were suing her for was much too high a figure.

    The Op has two properties. He wants to default on one while keeping his favoured one. At the same time he wants to buy another property. He also seems to have a large lump sum at his disposal to pay for 50% of the new property he wants to buy. He would most likely not have a cent written off his debt until both assets were sold and and the proceeds of those sales plus all his savings were used to reduce the debt. And if he had a debt write-down following the loss of those assets then he would have a bar against him borrowing again along with a completely trashed credit record which would ensure that he would most certainly not be buying the property he currently wants.


  • Options
    #236
    durano
    Registered Users Posts: 132 ✭✭durano


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    You should pay for it, because that's what you agreed to and you can afford to. That the value went down and not up means that you're going to have to lump the loss, as you would with any other type of investment that didn't work out for you.
    Or just default as per the terms of the contract.


  • Options
    #237
    Ms Tootsie
    Registered Users Posts: 672 ✭✭✭Ms Tootsie


    durano wrote: »
    Or he could just default which is allowed for under the terms of the contract he signed.

    he has already stated he is in a position to buy another property for 60k in another country so clearly he is in a position to pay of his debts. He also is in a position to put down 50% of the asking price of this 3rd property.


  • Options
    #238
    djimi
    Registered Users Posts: 13,237 ✭✭✭✭djimi


    kegzmc wrote: »
    Hi all,

    It appears I have upset some people here by choosing to default on a mortgage I hold in Ireland. This wasn't my intention so I apologise to those who got upset.

    Just to be clear on the reason I have chosen this route and I hope everyone can understand why...

    I can purchase a house for 60,000 EURs. I am going to pay 50-60% of this and have a small mortgage which I hope to clear in say 5 -6 years. This leaves me with only the other mortgage I have in Ireland.

    Why should I continue to pay for a house in Ireland which I know for sure will never be worth the same again. I bought it in 2009 and it is worth at least 50k less than I paid for it.

    I have discussed this on 2 occasions with the bank and offered to sell the house and take a loan on the remainder of EQ owed to them. I am extremely busy at work and cannot be going to Ireland every time a problem arises at one of the properties (tenent moving out etc). One house is managable but not two.

    I am aware that I took out the loan and its my responsibility to pay it back. Yes I could probably afford it but why should I? Why pour money into something that I know for sure I will never want again?

    Hope you understand.

    Kegs

    Why not take the lump sum you have at the moment and put it towards getting one of the houses out of NE, then sell it properly and start again with the mortgage on your new house? Im sure its not what you want to do, but its a whole lot better a solution than defaulting on a mortgage and the consequences that come with such an action.


  • Options
    #239
    kegzmc
    Site Banned Posts: 153 ✭✭kegzmc


    durano wrote: »
    He's a pervert now:eek:
    What exactly about his attitude disgusts you-the fact that he's able to identify when a contract is uneconomic and thus starts to access the clauses that allow him to exit it?This is simply good business acumen,it shouldn't really disgust you.

    LOL how does defaulting make me a pervert?


  • Options
    #240
    Zamboni
    Registered Users Posts: 4,305 ✭✭✭Zamboni


    I'm all trolled out.

    Exit.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #241
    kegzmc
    Site Banned Posts: 153 ✭✭kegzmc


    tara73 wrote: »
    ffs, it's the op's (your?) attitude which disgusts, nothing to debate about what was 4 years on or not.
    he is trying to screw around, thinking of bancruptcy to BUY ANOTHER HOUSE.
    @ durano:it really is annoying somebody defending such a f*** who even has the pervert attitude to ask on boards for advice on his stinky businesses.

    but it's good to know experience in life showed 100 % sooner or later this dumb suckers will fail about their own stupidity.

    Someone got out of the bed on the wrong side this morning. Less of the insults you silly sausage.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement