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

Handing back the keys

Options
13

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    FlexBrowne
    Registered Users Posts: 81 ✭✭FlexBrowne


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    FlexBrowne wrote: »
    Nonsense. So we're advocating a return to 'back in the day' are we? "We used to go to school hungry in the past so what harm again" argument? Race to the bottom? It's a welfare issue. We do not benchmark today's standards to the past. Also it's absurd to compare the downturn of the 80's with today. Simply not the same. If you think it's ok to raise two or more kids of diff sexes in shoeboxes with no baths, no storage, no wardrobe space, one windowless loo, no garden, no table to eat on etc then I'm glad you're not in charge of child welfare! That couple should tell the council where to stick it. As I said before, you simply cannot look at these situations with a calculator especially if you're not in that situation. It's amoral to be dismissive of people's situations.
    So you want who to pay for nice houses for these people? And what about the people who would like to move into those same nice houses but will now be out-competed for them by either the state or people who had their chance to buy but blew it? Where do you suggest they go?

    They're going to pay for them themselves, let the banks absorb the same losses. This is a welfare issue, families. You're still in 'economist' mode and I don't understand what you mean by 'outbid'. The market is dead. You couldn't get 30k for an apartment....


  • Options
    #63
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    FlexBrowne wrote: »
    They're going to pay for them themselves, let the banks absorb the same losses.
    The banks that billions of taxpayers' money went into? That we won't get back if the are 'absorbing' the 'losses' of people who can pay but don't want to?
    FlexBrowne wrote: »
    This is a welfare issue, families.
    It's a welfare issue for everyone else too. Other people have families, you know.
    FlexBrowne wrote: »
    You're still in 'economist' mode and I don't understand what you mean by 'outbid'. The market is dead. You couldn't get 30k for an apartment....
    There is a limited supply of 'family homes'. People who didn't buy bubble apartments are competing with those who did to buy these family homes. Why should they have to bail out (through the banks) the people competing with them to buy the houses that they also need?? Why punish the people who made the right choices?


  • Options
    #64
    StillWaters
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,799 ✭✭✭StillWaters


    FlexBrowne wrote: »
    They're going to pay for them themselves, let the banks absorb the same losses. This is a welfare issue, families. You're still in 'economist' mode and I don't understand what you mean by 'outbid'. The market is dead. You couldn't get 30k for an apartment....
    I dont quite get what you are advocating for here. Are you saying all families who live in what you deem to be unsuitable accommodation be given a debt writedown from the bank,


  • Options
    #65
    daltonmd
    Registered Users Posts: 1,246 ✭✭✭daltonmd


    FlexBrowne wrote: »
    Where would they possibly get credit to buy a new home with the old mortgage on the flat still there. Banks wouldn't give it. That's the nub of the problem. You have to sell the first prop b4 buying another and that's impossible...

    So the banks can simply give writedowns instead of credit to people who can well afford to service them?

    From the OP:

    "To be honest I'm well able to afford our mortgage and I will be well able to afford a NE mortgage on a bigger house"

    Why should he get a write - down because he doesn't want to pay? I am all for helping people, genuines people who are in serious trouble - but this? Seriously?
    FlexBrowne wrote: »
    'Original decision' didn't foresee a 70% drop in value. Could you raise kids like that? Ignorant. People like you really do make this country a vile place....

    The 70% drop in value and how the OP "chooses" to raise his kids are two entirely different matters.

    FlexBrowne wrote: »
    Nonsense. So we're advocating a return to 'back in the day' are we? "We used to go to school hungry in the past so what harm again" argument? Race to the bottom? It's a welfare issue. We do not benchmark today's standards to the past. Also it's absurd to compare the downturn of the 80's with today. Simply not the same. If you think it's ok to raise two or more kids of diff sexes in shoeboxes with no baths, no storage, no wardrobe space, one windowless loo, no garden, no table to eat on etc then I'm glad you're not in charge of child welfare! That couple should tell the council where to stick it. As I said before, you simply cannot look at these situations with a calculator especially if you're not in that situation. It's amoral to be dismissive of people's situations.

    He doesn't think it's ok, the OP does. I mean he "started" his family there did he not? That is a choice he made, he knew where he lived when he planned his family did he not?

    Your argument is pretty much like: "I'm sorry Guard but the lights suddenly and unexpectedly turned red" They are traffic lights, that's what they do.

    It was a one bed apt - that's what it is.
    FlexBrowne wrote: »
    They're going to pay for them themselves, let the banks absorb the same losses. This is a welfare issue, families. You're still in 'economist' mode and I don't understand what you mean by 'outbid'. The market is dead. You couldn't get 30k for an apartment....

    This is not a welfare issue. This is a personal choice issue. The OP chose to start his family in a compltely unsuitable property. THe OP is choosing to remain there and hope for a bail-out, even though he does not need one - it is him that is forcing his family to live like that. Not anyone else - him.


  • Options
    #66
    FlexBrowne
    Registered Users Posts: 81 ✭✭FlexBrowne


    StillWaters wrote: »
    FlexBrowne wrote: »
    They're going to pay for them themselves, let the banks absorb the same losses. This is a welfare issue, families. You're still in 'economist' mode and I don't understand what you mean by 'outbid'. The market is dead. You couldn't get 30k for an apartment....
    I dont quite get what you are advocating for here. Are you saying all families who live in what you deem to be unsuitable accommodation be given a debt writedown from the bank,

    What 'bad choices'? Unless people had a crystal ball then buying during the bubble wasn't a bad choice. Nobody knew what was coming. I'd rather see a bank balance sheet hit than a family's well being. Like many, you're of the opinion that if a Solution doesn't affect you it shouldn't exist for anyone. That's called begrudgery.. Helps nobody as unpalatable as debt write off is to many who aren't in debt.
    We'll agree to disagree and hope that all get on with their lot....


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    FlexBrowne wrote: »
    What 'bad choices'? Unless people had a crystal ball then buying during the bubble wasn't a bad choice.
    You didn't need a crystal ball to see that paying 15 times the average industrial wage for a 2 bed box in Sandyford was a bad choice - especially with the risk that is ever present that the value of your box could fall.
    FlexBrowne wrote: »
    Nobody knew what was coming.
    Just because you keep saying it, it doesn't make it true.
    FlexBrowne wrote: »
    I'd rather see a bank balance sheet hit than a family's well being.
    The money that is propping up that bank's balance sheet has been taxed from families. Can you really not join the dots, or do you not want to?
    FlexBrowne wrote: »
    Like many, you're of the opinion that if a Solution doesn't affect you it shouldn't exist for anyone. That's called begrudgery.. Helps nobody as unpalatable as debt write off is to many who aren't in debt.
    We'll agree to disagree and hope that all get on with their lot....
    And you are of the view that if you can put your hands in other peoples' pockets, that's just fine. That's called greed.

    If your property had doubled in value, would you have happily given away half its value to someone who needed to buy a place?

    I didn't think so. But because it halved in value, you want to take money off the rest of us. What's that called?


  • Options
    #68
    StillWaters
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,799 ✭✭✭StillWaters


    FlexBrowne wrote: »
    What 'bad choices'? Unless people had a crystal ball then buying during the bubble wasn't a bad choice. Nobody knew what was coming. I'd rather see a bank balance sheet hit than a family's well being. Like many, you're of the opinion that if a Solution doesn't affect you it shouldn't exist for anyone. That's called begrudgery.. Helps nobody as unpalatable as debt write off is to many who aren't in debt.
    We'll agree to disagree and hope that all get on with their lot....

    I'm not sure why you quoted me there, I never said 'bad choices'. I am also not of the opinion that if a solution doesn't affect me it shouldn't exist. That is a bizarre allegation, and so far from the truth its crazy!


  • Options
    #69
    MadsL
    Registered Users Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    FlexBrowne wrote: »
    Nonsense. So we're advocating a return to 'back in the day' are we? "We used to go to school hungry in the past so what harm again" argument? Race to the bottom? It's a welfare issue. We do not benchmark today's standards to the past. Also it's absurd to compare the downturn of the 80's with today. Simply not the same.

    Agreed.
    If you think it's ok to raise two or more kids of diff sexes in shoeboxes with no baths,

    I believe this couple has sanitation.
    no storage, no wardrobe space, one windowless loo, no garden, no table to eat on etc then I'm glad you're not in charge of child welfare!
    Umm, how did we deduce that? No table? What the hell?
    That couple should tell the council where to stick it.

    This is a privately owned apartment. If they chose to throw themselves on the mercy of the council I'm sure they would be offered a 2 bed (eventually)
    As I said before, you simply cannot look at these situations with a calculator especially if you're not in that situation.

    Who is doing that? This couple made some choices, these are the consequences.
    It's amoral to be dismissive of people's situations.

    Is it moral to default on your debt when you are capable of paying it and expect taxpayers to pickup the tab?


  • Options
    #70
    MadsL
    Registered Users Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    FlexBrowne wrote: »
    What 'bad choices'? Unless people had a crystal ball then buying during the bubble wasn't a bad choice.

    Patently it was a bad choice. Not knowing it was a bad choice at the time does not make it a good choice.
    Nobody knew what was coming.
    Sorry, but bollix -endless warnings were made. Those who predicted a crash were rubbished as "talking down the economy" - I repeatedly warned two colleagues not to buy - they did anyway.
    I'd rather see a bank balance sheet hit than a family's well being.
    Does that allow me to rob banks when I lose my job?
    Like many, you're of the opinion that if a Solution doesn't affect you it shouldn't exist for anyone.
    Sorry, what? You appear to be of the opinion that the rules of economics should not apply once you have a family.
    That's called begrudgery.. Helps nobody as unpalatable as debt write off is to many who aren't in debt.
    Begrudery? Myself and my wife lost large sums in the dot.com crash. Where is our bailout?
    We'll agree to disagree and hope that all get on with their lot....
    Not that simple, unfortunately. Many are taking this opportunity to simply walk away. Someone has to deal with the aftermath. I chose not to, as I simply could not find employment for both of us and emigrated. You on the other hand will be picking up the debts for years. For many, they will be leaving debts they could afford to pay.


  • Options
    #71
    Sala
    Registered Users Posts: 1,494 ✭✭✭Sala


    If you are to move to a rental, rent the 1 bed, your wife can't afford to make up the difference and falls into arrears and goes through the MARP process, they may eventually repossess it - I can't see how you are liable for the debt? I saw this online: you may be end up being indirectly liable for your partner’s debts if the bank of other lending institution decides to bankrupt your partner. In bankruptcy, possessions which belong to you cannot be taken, however your partner’s share in them can be seized and sold.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    Sala wrote: »
    If you are to move to a rental, rent the 1 bed, your wife can't afford to make up the difference and falls into arrears and goes through the MARP process, they may eventually repossess it - I can't see how you are liable for the debt? I saw this online: you may be end up being indirectly liable for your partner’s debts if the bank of other lending institution decides to bankrupt your partner. In bankruptcy, possessions which belong to you cannot be taken, however your partner’s share in them can be seized and sold.

    If you want to debate appropriations, bankruptcy and seizures- you're in the wrong forum. I'm not legally qualified to offer an opinion or moderate a topic of this nature. Please take it to a more appropriate venue.

    Regards,

    SMcCarrick


  • Options
    #73
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,411 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    nino1 wrote: »
    try to keep up with the conversation here MadsL. Judging by the intelligence level of your post I can see how you find that difficult.
    No need for comments like this.

    Moderator


  • Options
    #74
    Mr. Loverman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,001 ✭✭✭Mr. Loverman


    FlexBrowne wrote: »
    What 'bad choices'? Unless people had a crystal ball then buying during the bubble wasn't a bad choice. Nobody knew what was coming.

    Loads of people saw what was coming. I was one of the people who kept getting banned from AAM because I pointed out we were obviously in a bubble and buying is a bad idea.


  • Options
    #75
    modo85
    Registered Users Posts: 349 ✭✭modo85


    your best bet is to sell the apartment for 90k then you will have 185 ne, if you have enough savings to afford a deposit on a house buy it under a very close relatives name who u can trust now u will have the bigger house for alot cheaper and less repayments, in the mean time the bank will be looking for their negative equity so when your wife is in court you show the judge all the bills you have to pay including the "rent" she has to pay to put a roof over her head. The judge will assess all this and come to an agreement with her on what she can afford to pay each month for the next 5-10 years which will be 20 euro a month and then the 195k will be gone.. dont listen to any of the negative comments by the mugs on here trust me this is the way to go all u need is some balls and it will work less repayments and bigger house


  • Options
    #76
    Milk & Honey
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,950 ✭✭✭Milk & Honey


    modo85 wrote: »
    your best bet is to sell the apartment for 90k then you will have 185 ne, if you have enough savings to afford a deposit on a house buy it under a very close relatives name who u can trust now u will have the bigger house for alot cheaper and less repayments, in the mean time the bank will be looking for their negative equity so when your wife is in court you show the judge all the bills you have to pay including the "rent" she has to pay to put a roof over her head. The judge will assess all this and come to an agreement with her on what she can afford to pay each month for the next 5-10 years which will be 20 euro a month and then the 195k will be gone.. dont listen to any of the negative comments by the mugs on here trust me this is the way to go all u need is some balls and it will work less repayments and bigger house

    1. The apartment can't be sold without the banks say so.
    2. The trusted relative has to apply for the mortgage and be able to afford it from their own resources.
    3. The source of the deposit has to be verified under money laundering legislation.
    4. Pleading inability to pay does not result in an instalment order for a debt. Judgement is entered for the full amount. If there is an instalment order it will be on the debt plus accumulating courts interest.


  • Options
    #77
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,411 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    modo85 wrote: »
    your best bet is to sell the apartment for 90k then you will have 185 ne, if you have enough savings to afford a deposit on a house buy it under a very close relatives name who u can trust now u will have the bigger house for alot cheaper and less repayments, in the mean time the bank will be looking for their negative equity so when your wife is in court you show the judge all the bills you have to pay including the "rent" she has to pay to put a roof over her head. The judge will assess all this and come to an agreement with her on what she can afford to pay each month for the next 5-10 years which will be 20 euro a month and then the 195k will be gone.. dont listen to any of the negative comments by the mugs on here trust me this is the way to go all u need is some balls and it will work less repayments and bigger house
    Hair-brained schemes not welcome.

    Moderator


  • Options
    #78
    Procrastastudy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,224 ✭✭✭Procrastastudy


    Victor wrote: »
    Hair-brained schemes not welcome.

    Moderator

    Well I don't know if it comes under hair brained schemes but you could try http://www.newbeginning.ie/

    Note: I have no connections with these guys but do know someone who does - one of the people involved was good enough to do a talk/lecture at GCD a few weeks back. Please delete this post if it contravenes any rules.


  • Options
    #79
    MadsL
    Registered Users Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Procrastastudy wrote: »
    Well I don't know if it comes under hair brained schemes but you could try http://www.newbeginning.ie/

    Note: I have no connections with these guys but do know someone who does - one of the people involved was good enough to do a talk/lecture at GCD a few weeks back. Please delete this post if it contravenes any rules.
    http://www.newbeginning.ie wrote:
    Fairness and Recovery for all

    Hate to harp on but when do I get the cheque for my dot com losses?


  • Options
    #80
    repsol
    Registered Users Posts: 754 ✭✭✭repsol


    Tigger wrote: »
    Ye are married so you can't go bankrupt separately
    Rent out the apt and rent a bigger place to raise the family
    When the bottom comes you will have good credit and will be able to get a suitable home for peanuts

    Tigger beat me to it and he is correct.Rent difference will be minimal between the 2 properties.You gambled,you lost ,get over it.


  • Options
    #81
    anncoates
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,925 ✭✭✭✭anncoates


    nino1 wrote: »
    To be honest I'm well able to afford our mortgage and I will be well able to afford a NE mortgage on a bigger house but if Johnny next door who brought the same house as my wife and is in the same NE is getting a debt writedown after having made the exact same mistake I think we should be treated equally.

    Way to go evaporating any sympathy you may have accrued from readers up to this point.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    riclad
    Registered Users Posts: 8,184 ✭✭✭riclad


    AS far as i know banks are not doing debt writedowns,
    they are putting some people on interest only payments who can,t afford to pay the full mortgage.
    if some one sells the house with the banks permission,
    they still owe the balance on the mortgage.
    Theres some talk about new mortgages for people in negative equity to enable them to sell and move to a larger house .
    IF you were not a couple you might not have been able to get that mortgage in the first place.


  • Options
    #83
    gigawatt2007
    Registered Users Posts: 130 ✭✭gigawatt2007


    Oh yes they are and in the next couple of months they all will if you're in enough arrears:

    http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/move-sure-to-start-ball-rolling-and-increase-pressure-on-other-banks-3285218.html

    http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/bank-agrees-to-write-off-110k-mortgage-debt-3285228.html


  • Options
    #84
    gigawatt2007
    Registered Users Posts: 130 ✭✭gigawatt2007


    As previous posters have said the PIA will only allow a negotiation of the negative equity down to the amount that you can afford to pay.

    So if you can afford to pay the whole amount you'll be paying it pal. I've been in the MARP scheme for 3 years and now full well given the fact I submit payslips and copies of household bills on a 6 monthly basis. it'll be very difficult to hide any income and your income will be assessed as you are a married couple.

    As a previous poster said this is not a get out of jail free card and nor should it be.


  • Options
    #85
    riclad
    Registered Users Posts: 8,184 ✭✭✭riclad


    So it,s great if you have a loan with ge, or a smaller bank ,IF you are with aib or tsb, on a good wage ,you can afford the mortgage ,home value is
    in negative equity ,why would the bank be in a hurry
    to write off debt.
    AT this point anyone who bought 2002 to 2008,
    is likely in negative equity.
    That nurses case was discussed on this forum.
    SHE was able to get a writedown because she moved out of her home,her income reduced, And she was able to argue in court, bank ,delayed selling apartment ,which resulted in
    a much lower selling price .
    ITS easier for G E to do write offs, they only have
    a small amount of home loans in ireland, compared with AIB.
    it would be more accurate to say,
    i don,t think Irish banks are doing writedowns.
    That may change in the future.


  • Options
    #86
    moneyproblems
    Registered Users Posts: 4 ✭moneyproblems


    My wife owns our home, she bought it before we got married. We can't pay this mortgage. I want to sell but there will be a short fall. can the bank come after me for the short fall. I am not on the mortgage but have lived in the house as my home.


  • Options
    #87
    murphaph
    Registered Users Posts: 19,022 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    moneyproblems wrote: »
    My wife owns our home, she bought it before we got married. We can't pay this mortgage. I want to sell but there will be a short fall. can the bank come after me for the short fall. I am not on the mortgage but have lived in the house as my home.
    AFAIK the answer to this is a simple "NO". You don't "inherit" the debts of your spouse in this way, but the bigger question is how can you sell without discharging the mortgage? Your solicitor won't be able to discharge the mortgage with the sum you will receive for the sale, so the transaction can't take place (unless your bank agrees to take the shortfall and convert to an unsecured loan of some type).


  • Options
    #88
    riclad
    Registered Users Posts: 8,184 ✭✭✭riclad


    YOU should go to mabs financial advice centre, get advice there.
    You maybe able to switch over to interest only payment, on the loan.
    You can go to flac ,free legal advice centre.
    IF you marry someone,you are not responsible for their debt.
    Banks have been known to write off x amount on a mortgage,if house is sold,
    ITS up to the bank, every case is different.
    IT Depends on the degree ,of negative equity,
    if house is worth 80k, loan, is 150k, its unlikely they,ll allow a sale to go through.


  • Options
    #89
    cookie1977
    Registered Users Posts: 6,794 ✭✭✭cookie1977


    moneyproblems wrote: »
    My wife owns our home, she bought it before we got married. We can't pay this mortgage. I want to sell but there will be a short fall. can the bank come after me for the short fall. I am not on the mortgage but have lived in the house as my home.

    Go to FLAC and get some legal advice on this matter (or pay for it if you can afford it).


  • Options
    #90
    moneyproblems
    Registered Users Posts: 4 ✭moneyproblems


    So if she sells the house and we move out . If the bank doesn't write off the short fall, which is considerable, can the bank come after me for her unsecured debt. Are we in a better negociating positoin with a PPR asset rather than a huge unsecured liability when talking to the banks or does it make a difference?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    valleyoftheunos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,332 ✭✭✭valleyoftheunos


    moneyproblems wrote: »
    So if she sells the house and we move out . If the bank doesn't write off the short fall, which is considerable, can the bank come after me for her unsecured debt. Are we in a better negociating positoin with a PPR asset rather than a huge unsecured liability when talking to the banks or does it make a difference?

    It won't be possible to sell the house unless you can pay off the shortfall from some other source. The Bank won't allow the shortfall to go as an unsecured loan, it wouldn't make any sense for them.


Advertisement