Mortgage Bailout again

[Husker Red]

Today the Fed, States, and Banks agreed to a 26 Billion dollar mortgage settlement.

 

USA today link

 

Per my understanding - if you are currently behind in your payments and upside down in your loan the government will help you pay down your priciple by an estimated national average of $20,000 (could be much higher) and help you refinance the loan to more favorable terms. If you did get foreclosed on from around 2008-2011 you will get a check for $1500-$2000. That should enough buy them a big screen 3D HDTV.

 

This sounds like a huge win-win for the banks to me. The tax payer will pay down the debt by approximately $20,000, then when the home owner still can't make payments down the road the bank gets to foreclose anyway, but now have an extra $20,000 or more in equity in the house. Then when the bank sells off the forclosure they don't have to make as much back so they can sell for less - which will push down home values ever further. The banks also get "incentives" to redo the loans and other perks immediately. Cha-ching.

 

As a responsible home owner and taxpayer, this is a lose lose. Since I made responsible decisions and paid my house as agreed I get nothing. (Not that I'm asking for anything.) Plus my taxes are going to pay down debts for people who didn't pay as agreed, plus pay down their principle which is probably just going to go back to the bank eventually anyway and have the net effect of lowering my property value further. Once again our government rewards bad decisions and irresponsible behavior. It comes at the expense of the tax payer and to the reward of big banks and debtors.

 

I'm frustrated today.

 

 

[Glenn Reed]

Husker,

 

I read a couple of the articles, including the one you linked to, and nowhere could I find taxpayer money being used to fund this program. What I read is that the funds are coming from the Mortgage Servicers themselves.

 

Did I miss something? (Wouldn't be surprising at all...)

[Quinn]

Being a simplton, there's a lot I don't understand. People who bought these houses have not had their payments go up, but are suddenly unable to make the payments? The banks loaned them the money that they asked for and were making payments based on the money they received. Now the banks should pretend that they were loaned a lesser amount accept payments based on that amount? Oh, and have me, the taxpayer, make up the difference.

 

In many cases, the mortgages are on second or third homes that were being purchased as investment properties. When the market tanked, the customers had a bad investment on their hands and wanted relief. I invested in the stock market; can I get some relief for my loses?

 

Lots I don't understand. Basically, I think it wrong that I paid off my home's mortgage (at a higher rate of interest) and am now being told that I must contribute to allow unqualified loan recepients to own a nicer house than I do.

 

-----

 

 

[Husker Red]

 

I read a couple more artcles and you appear to be correct. It's a settlement.

 

I feel better now, although I still have reservations about the selective nature of who this helps and the net effect on home values.

 

See, sometimes these discussions do help change people's minds!

[moshe_levy]

Being a simplton, there's a lot I don't understand. People who bought these houses have not had their payments go up, but are suddenly unable to make the payments?

Lots I don't understand. Basically, I think it wrong that I paid off my home's mortgage (at a higher rate of interest) and am now being told that I must contribute to allow unqualified loan recepients to own a nicer house than I do.

 

Hold on a second, now....

 

First, the payments in many cases DID go up - as in an "intro" rate that then balooned into a much higher one several years into the loan. This is the same thing loansharks do, by the way...

 

Second, you the taxpayer are contributing NOTHING to this. It's a settlement. Read those articles, because the headlines can be misleading....

 

-MKL

[Glenn Reed]

I read a couple more artcles and you appear to be correct. It's a settlement.

 

I feel better now, although I still have reservations about the selective nature of who this helps and the net effect on home values.

 

See, sometimes these discussions do help change people's minds!

 

Glad you feel better.

 

I agree that the settlement does cover a narrow segment and I'm not quite sure how that was determined. I am guessing it's like the saying about laws and sausages, we don't want to see how either get made.

 

 

[FlyingFinn]

Hold on a second, now....

 

Moshe don't such a party pooper, it's so much more fun to be outraged and upset because someone else is getting something and I'm getting nothing!

 

Even when that's not the case and the settlement is probably one of the best actions the government has been able to device so far in efforts to restore healthy real estate market. (which EVERYONE benefits from)

 

--

Mikko

[moshe_levy]

It's a lesson... See how people are just READY to be angry? They're just "in that mode." Best to step back, take a deep breath, absorb the facts, and ask if anything better could have been done.

 

-MKL

[Husker Red]

First, the payments in many cases DID go up - as in an "intro" rate that then balooned into a much higher one several years into the loan. This is the same thing loansharks do, by the way...-MKL

 

True, but that's exactly what an adjustable rate mortgage does. This isn't a surprise. Everybody went into the loan knowing it could and would adjust. Buying a house carries no guarentee of it holding it's value either. Just because they usually do go up is no reason to feel cheated when they don't.

 

Predatory lending was happening, but I don't think that absolves the people who took loans they can't afford of any responsibility here. Now when there is a settlement we reward them again for their bad decision.

[Ken H.]

Bear in mind though that this (particular) deal isn’t an attempt specifically to provide mortgage relief or address the whole upside down mortgages issue in general.

 

This is a narrow settlement with the banks to avoid further litigation or admittance of wrong doing for the mortgage initiation and forclosure practice of so called robo-signers. People who were paid to sit in a back room all day and sign documents with no due-diligence.

 

As pointed out, homeowners who were caught up in that practice will get a check of about $2000. And the banks agree to provide some mortgage relief in some circumstances as part of their ‘punishment’ for violating lending laws by practicing robo-signing.

 

That being said, the banks did indeed get a sweetheart of a ‘Get Out of Jail Free Card’ deal yet again. For the homeowners it accomplishes next to nothing.

 

[moshe_levy]

True, but that's exactly what an adjustable rate mortgage does. This isn't a surprise. Everybody went into the loan knowing it could and would adjust. Buying a house carries no guarentee of it holding it's value either. Just because they usually do go up is no reason to feel cheated when they don't. Predatory lending was happening, but I don't think that absolves the people who took loans they can't afford of any responsibility here. Now when there is a settlement we reward them again for their bad decision.

 

You're absolutely right. Ken is right too. There is plenty of blame to go around here, that's for sure.

 

-MKL

[Skywagon]

Tinstaafl....do you actually think this won't cost you money. Do you think the banks are going to go sure...we will just pay this down. Any chance there might be some fees along the way for atm's, loan docs, or will the banks just cough it up. Somebody elses free lunch always comes out of the consumer pocket. Another tax without representation....

 

Another you're doing fine...let's extract some more from you to give to people who exercised poor judgement.

 

This is what I don't get..there is this view the bankers duped unsuspecting poor souls just walking down the sidewalk. Then they duped another group of people my selling off part of the portfolio, then that group duped the last dupe on earth and it suddenly melted down.

 

Go back and look. Without mentioning parties the fed pressured the institution into these loans. Low cost housing for everyone or the fed will come in and investigate your bank (thanks ms reno). Then when they couldn't pay because they never had the income to pay, then the fed steps in and says..don't worry...we will force the banks to write it down and pass that on to some more dupes..Those who act resposibly.. I feel duped.

[OoPEZoO]

Some of this kind of hit home last weekend while we were at a friends house. Same as us......younger couple with a small family in their early 30's. They have a very nice house that they bought brand new. We bought our houses around the same time, but ours is a modest ~30 year old rancher. We got to talking financial stuff and I mentioned that I had just recieved a letter in the mail telling me that I no longer had to pay PMI (woohoo!). They looked at me like they had seen a ghost. Apparently they attempted to refinance but couldn't get it to go through because they were somewhere in the neighborhood of $40-50k upside down in their mortgage. Thats when I'm sure I looked like I saw a ghost. On the flipside, I just refinanced last year dropping my interest rate almost 2% while shortening the term from 30yrs to 15yrs. Currently on track to have it payed off in 11yrs. It was a string of very sobering conversations for all of us. On the surface it doesn't seem to be effecting their day to day lives that much, but 10-15 years from now I have to think things will be a lot different. Unless the housing market makes a drastic turn around, I see a long hard road for people who got in over their heads. Being house poor in your 20's to early 30's is one thing, but I can't imagine having to deal with that when you have kids in high school. I'm wondering how the ripple effect of this will change things? Maybe a generation of kids who pinch pennies, understand the value of a dollar, and have learned to save? Trying to think "glass half full". Whatever happens, it will be interesting.

[moshe_levy]

Keith-

 

You said it! I've had that same conversation, many times (same age as you, more or less). I bought my house in 2002 and have steadily, over time, made progress. The market crash didn't mean too much to me because even now, the house is worth substantially more than I paid for it. The low interest rates have allowed multiple refinancings which cut interest payments by hundreds per month, another good thing.

 

15 years out? I see alot of people underwater today getting back out. I see guys like you and I living debt-free housing-wise. And mostly I see saavy investors who have the cajones to part with their cash now on banked owned foreclosures or short-sales living high on the hog when the value come back, and meanwhile they're covered with rental income.

 

This whole debacle reminds me of the dot-com crash. I was in school at the time, where economics professors were trying to make the case that profit and loss and overhead didn't matter any more, because "brick and mortar business is dead, and the internet is changing everything." Then the theories and lectures started, and I zoned out. People - smart, educated people - can get stars in their eyes and start believing the unbelievable. It's really a scary thing....

 

-MKL

[leikam]

This strikes me as a terrible deal on both ends. The banks and mortgage houses should be prosecuted and forced to change rather than being allowed to buy their way out of trouble. People who are underwater and behind on payments should sell for a loss or walk away or go into bankruptcy -- same as any other investment that goes sideways -- rather than having their terms modified. When the TARP plan was being considered, there was much hand-wringing about moral hazard. Where is that concern now?

 

How does this encourage anybody to do anything different next time?

[Rougarou]

Hmmm, we bought our house in 2007. Actually had to buy it without even seeing it because we were living in Japan at the time (tell people we bought it over the internet). What we did was look at my estimated enlisted retirement and purchased according to that income alone. We figured in the associated costs for the house and went with it. At the worst, we would still have a home if I retired and the wife did not work and work was not available for me.

 

Anyway, I retired in 2009, the wife teaches, I was asked to work for a government contractor company and we should have our house paid off in less than seven years. Last year, we did re-finance from 30 to 15 years at less than 4%. We did all of this with no down payment and no VA loan. When we financed initially, we were asked if we wanted the adjustable rate that would keep our initial payments low or the balloon financing and we said no, we want a nice steady amount that we would have to pay with no chances of the payment going up. So far, we're doing just fine with it all and are well ahead of schedule.

 

 

[Jake]

So, your mortgage lender professionally provided you with options, and you made a rational decision based on your knowledge of your own financial considerations?! That's nuts!

 

 

[Rougarou]

So, your mortgage lender professionally provided you with options, and you made a rational decision based on your knowledge of your own financial considerations?! That's nuts!

 

 

Yep, isn't that a "duh" moment You'd think many more people would look at "options" rather than trying to buy more than they could afford.

[Glenn Reed]

I have a friend whose mortgage broker tried to talk him into an interest only refi back in about 2004 or 2005, and my friend was actually considering it until he talked over the idea with a few folks he knew. The thought process was that since the house would always be increasing in value, when he wanted to sell, the transaction would pay off the loan, and he would have the difference in payments as walking around money in the meantime.

 

He's really glad he went with a fixed rate refi.

 

The mortgage broker giving him this advice was his wife's uncle...

[FlyingFinn]

People who are underwater and behind on payments should sell for a loss or walk away or go into bankruptcy --

 

Why is that better than giving them a little help that in those select cases allows the homeowner to keep making payments, occupy and maintain the house?

 

Say that guy lives next door to you.

You'd actually prefer the house next door goes to foreclosure, turns into an eyesore possibly for years, is sold to an investor at bottom basement price (lowering YOUR house value) and then likely get occupied by renters?

 

That's better than helping the current homeowner to keep living in it and making his payments?

 

--

Mikko

[upflying]

What do I get if I have been making my mortgage payments?

Love how our government rewards irresponsibility.

 

[FlyingFinn]

What do I get if I have been making my mortgage payments?

 

You and everyone else gets a quicker recovery to healthy housing market where prices are not deflated by a vast number of bank owned properties flooding the market.

 

--

Mikko

[moshe_levy]

I have a friend whose mortgage broker tried to talk him into an interest only refi back in about 2004 or 2005, and my friend was actually considering it until he talked over the idea with a few folks he knew. The thought process was that since the house would always be increasing in value, when he wanted to sell, the transaction would pay off the loan, and he would have the difference in payments as walking around money in the meantime.He's really glad he went with a fixed rate refi.

 

This is a very subjective, individual issue and each loan has its place. For example, I had a close friend in grad school go through a nasty divorce and he found a creative way to keep his house. With an interest only mortgage he was able to cut his monthly payment to the bone for a few years, get back on his feet, and refinance when he could afford it. That cost him much less than fireselling his house to pay the exwife off.

 

Another friend went with a LIBOR type interest only and used all the excess savings (due to lower rate) to plow into the principle and drove it down in 5 years what would have taken 15 years with a fixed.

 

And so on.

 

These people had two things in common:

 

First, they were both very highly educated in finance (MBAs in Finance) and knew full well what risks they were getting into. The same cannot be said for the victims of predatory lending, making them easier marks.

 

By the same token, they took these risks in order to save their houses or as a hedge to pay down faster, not to wedge themselves into dwellings they could not afford except through "too good to be true" mortgages. The same cannot be said of the legions of homeowners who put themselves on the line for far more than they could afford.

 

Plenty of blame to go around, here, right?

 

-MKL

[Selden]

On the surface it doesn't seem to be effecting their day to day lives that much, but 10-15 years from now I have to think things will be a lot different. Unless the housing market makes a drastic turn around, I see a long hard road for people who got in over their heads.

Looking back from age 65, I cannot emphasize how important this is. When we returned in 1983 from working overseas for 5 years, we had about $60,000 in the bank and $0 debt in our mid-30s. It was a fork in the road, and made a huge difference over the next 30 years. Yes, we were careful with our money, avoiding debt like the plague, but a lot of luck was also involved.

[Mike]

There's a lot of irrationality in the way upside-down mortgages are being handled, but I do find it maddening that in many instances the buyers got exactly what they bargained for in ARMs, then bailed on their commitments.

 

However, I have no love for the banks, either. Many, it seems, were utterly reckless in their lending practices, a fact that has had negative repercussions far beyond those those who were their mortgage customers.

 

All in all, an example of greed getting the best of all of us.

[lawnchairboy]

that pretty much covers it.

 

 

 

[CoarsegoldKid]

What do I get if I have been making my mortgage payments?

Love how our government rewards irresponsibility.

Don't go getting your BP up. The gov isn't involved.

[upflying]

There's a lot of irrationality in the way upside-down mortgages are being handled, but I do find it maddening that in many instances the buyers got exactly what they bargained for in ARMs, then bailed on their commitments.

 

However, I have no love for the banks, either. Many, it seems, were utterly reckless in their lending practices, a fact that has had negative repercussions far beyond those those who were their mortgage customers.

 

All in all, an example of greed getting the best of all of us.

Who was it that forced the banks to make loans to sub-prime borrowers?

[OoPEZoO]

People who are underwater and behind on payments should sell for a loss or walk away or go into bankruptcy --

 

Why is that better than giving them a little help that in those select cases allows the homeowner to keep making payments, occupy and maintain the house?

 

Say that guy lives next door to you.

You'd actually prefer the house next door goes to foreclosure, turns into an eyesore possibly for years, is sold to an investor at bottom basement price (lowering YOUR house value) and then likely get occupied by renters?

 

That's better than helping the current homeowner to keep living in it and making his payments?

 

--

Mikko

 

Have to agree there. My thought process works in that I believe people should always be held accountable for their actions.......even if it means them being tossed out on the street. On the other hand, I cringe every time I see a foreclosure go up in the neighborhood. The main reason being that the 3-4 foreclosures are tanking the "value" of the other 100 or so houses. So being the selfish bastard that I am, I think I still would rather help bail out a few of the people who can make it work than put up another foreclosure sign. Its in everybody's best financial interest.

 

The loop hole being that it only works if those people you helped get going on the straight and narrow instead of making the same mistake again. General population = dumb as a box of rocks. Should probably just go buy more ammo and solar panels

[10ovr]

People who are underwater and behind on payments should sell for a loss or walk away or go into bankruptcy --

 

Why is that better than giving them a little help that in those select cases allows the homeowner to keep making payments, occupy and maintain the house?

 

Say that guy lives next door to you.

You'd actually prefer the house next door goes to foreclosure, turns into an eyesore possibly for years, is sold to an investor at bottom basement price (lowering YOUR house value) and then likely get occupied by renters?

 

That's better than helping the current homeowner to keep living in it and making his payments?

 

--

Mikko

LOL,,I just picked up the house next door for bottom basement price,,Want to be my renter Mikko ,,

[FlyingFinn]

I'm not sure you want ME as a renter!

 

motorcycles... pets... divorced.... No, I'm pretty sure you don't want me as renter.

 

--

Mikko

[FlyingFinn]

Who was it that forced the banks to make loans to sub-prime borrowers?

 

Not 'who?' but 'what?'.

 

It was the the huge demand for collateralized debt obligations by investors seeking high-return fixed income investments.

Plain and simple.

 

For a little while banks pretty much abandoned all lending standards in order to create enough mortgage backed securities to satisfy their institutional investors.

 

--

Mikko

 

[Huzband]

Moderator Edit

[leikam]

Why is that better than giving them a little help that in those select cases allows the homeowner to keep making payments, occupy and maintain the house?

 

Say that guy lives next door to you.

You'd actually prefer the house next door goes to foreclosure, turns into an eyesore possibly for years, is sold to an investor at bottom basement price (lowering YOUR house value) and then likely get occupied by renters?

 

That's better than helping the current homeowner to keep living in it and making his payments?

 

First of all, the cost of giving the guy who's underwater "a little help" is letting the bank off the hook. Mortgage companies have not spontaneously written down principals and aren't going to start until they get something for it. There's no free lunch and the cost of this one is too high for me.

 

Second, if a house is foreclosed on, it ought to be maintained to community standards. If the bank can't afford maintenance or doesn't think it can sell the house, let the owner care for it in exchange for staying. Renting it to the underwater owner essentially for the cost of upkeep ought to be an option.

 

Third, providing the owner equity in a property he paid too much for doesn't sit right with me. When he bought the house, he was bidding against other interested buyers and probably won because he offered a higher price than the other bidders. The house has the price history it does because of this and he's underwater relative to his high bid. Perhaps he got into something he didn't understand; maybe he was just unfortunate as the economy collapsed; maybe he was speculating. In any case, if we're going to help the owner, I think it should be with liquidating his equity position rather than improving it.

 

If the house next door to me were put on the market at rock bottom prices, I'd try to buy it and rent it out. No objection there. A house across the street was sold to a developer a couple years ago (outbid me) and he did a really nice job of renovating it. It's more of an asset to the community.

[10ovr]

I'm not sure you want ME as a renter!

 

motorcycles... pets... divorced.... No, I'm pretty sure you don't want me as renter.

 

--

Mikko

Lets See,,I have Motorcycles,,Hot rods,,A dog and a cat and 2 X wife's,, We have more in common then you think,,,

[CoarsegoldKid]

I wish one of you guys would have bought the house next to me.

[Ken H.]

If the bank can't afford maintenance or doesn't think it can sell the house, let the owner care for it in exchange for staying. Renting it to the underwater owner essentially for the cost of upkeep ought to be an option.

Yeah I’ve often wondered why they don’t take that approach. Seems like it would have several advantages. The property owner’s credit rating still gets trashed so there is some culpability; the property is not left abandoned and likely to rapidly deteriorate so value of the asset is less likely to slide and it is potentially more marketable; and most importantly a family isn't kicked to the curb, further deteriorating their obliviously precarious social-economic situation.

[OoPEZoO]

If the bank can't afford maintenance or doesn't think it can sell the house, let the owner care for it in exchange for staying. Renting it to the underwater owner essentially for the cost of upkeep ought to be an option.

Yeah I’ve often wondered why they don’t take that approach. Seems like it would have several advantages. The property owner’s credit rating still gets trashed so there is some culpability; the property is not left abandoned and likely to rapidly deteriorate so value of the asset is less likely to slide and it is potentially more marketable; and most importantly a family isn't kicked to the curb, further deteriorating their obliviously precarious social-economic situation.

 

Probably because too many people wouldn't hold up their end of the bargain. I looked at a few forclosures when I was shopping and every single one of them was trashed. And I don't mean abandoned and left to rot. I mean people literaly destroyed the house once they no longer "owned" it. Holes in the walls, clogged and flooded the toilets, broke the fixtures. One family even sealed the basement walls and flooded the basement. The banks real estate lady I was dealing with at the time said that about 1 out of 5 leaves peacefully without intentionally doing damage. The rest go on a destructive rampage.

 

Its a great idea on paper, but unfortunatly people are jerks

[upflying]

Who was it that forced the banks to make loans to sub-prime borrowers?

 

Not 'who?' but 'what?'.

 

It was the the huge demand for collateralized debt obligations by investors seeking high-return fixed income investments.

Plain and simple.

 

For a little while banks pretty much abandoned all lending standards in order to create enough mortgage backed securities to satisfy their institutional investors.

 

--

Mikko

The "who" in the correct answer is Congress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_policies_and_the_subprime_mortgage_crisis

[moshe_levy]

Bob, on your your own link, it lists both excess regulation and deregulation as potential causes for the crisis. This is the theory postulated by Larry Lessig in his book "Republic, Lost." Are you suggesting we only read the half of your link which lists excess regulation as the cause and ignore the other half?

 

-MKL

[Husker Red]

If the bank can't afford maintenance or doesn't think it can sell the house, let the owner care for it in exchange for staying. Renting it to the underwater owner essentially for the cost of upkeep ought to be an option.

Yeah I’ve often wondered why they don’t take that approach. Seems like it would have several advantages. The property owner’s credit rating still gets trashed so there is some culpability; the property is not left abandoned and likely to rapidly deteriorate so value of the asset is less likely to slide and it is potentially more marketable; and most importantly a family isn't kicked to the curb, further deteriorating their obliviously precarious social-economic situation.

 

Banks have been doing something similar to what you suggest. Bank will actually pay the homeowner up to $35,000 to short sell the house. Here's a link:

CNN - Banks paying homeowners to short sell

Of course, whoever owns the second mortgages is not going to agree to those sales.

 

Here's a quote from the link article that I find telling of the problem:

"After Pierce became disabled a few years ago and had to stop working work, she fell behind on payments on both her first and second mortgages, valued at $250,000 and $50,000, respectively. Now, she's trying to sell her three-bedroom ranch for just $95,000 -- almost half of the $179,000 she paid for the place in late 2002."

 

How the hell do you get a first mortgage for $250,000 when you buy the house for $179,000? And then somebody else gave her a second mortgage for $50,000?!?! She should have cut her losses a long time ago and got out, but banks that make such rediculous loans deserve to be defaulted on. Of course, those loans were bundled and sold as AAA long ago. So instead of actually punishing anybody in this mortgage scheme the government agrees to let the banks pay into this BS settlement that will make them more money in the long run, plus reward consumers who have already have their bad decisions come crashing down.

 

 

[Dave McReynolds]

How the hell do you get a first mortgage for $250,000 when you buy the house for $179,000? And then somebody else gave her a second mortgage for $50,000?!?! She should have cut her losses a long time ago and got out, but banks that make such rediculous loans deserve to be defaulted on.

 

Very likely the mortgages she took out subsequent to the original financing were recourse mortgages, meaning that the banks could go after her personal assets in addition to repossessing the house. She probably wanted to avoid declaring personal bankruptcy, if possible. I've had several friends/associates/clients change their minds over the past several years about defaulting on a loan on an underwater house after they found out they would still be personally on the hook for any unpaid balance.

[AviP]

How the hell do you get a first mortgage for $250,000 when you buy the house for $179,000?

Freddie Mac can answer that for you!

[Ken H.]

If the bank can't afford maintenance or doesn't think it can sell the house, let the owner care for it in exchange for staying. Renting it to the underwater owner essentially for the cost of upkeep ought to be an option.

Yeah I’ve often wondered why they don’t take that approach. Seems like it would have several advantages. The property owner’s credit rating still gets trashed so there is some culpability; the property is not left abandoned and likely to rapidly deteriorate so value of the asset is less likely to slide and it is potentially more marketable; and most importantly a family isn't kicked to the curb, further deteriorating their obliviously precarious social-economic situation.

 

Probably because too many people wouldn't hold up their end of the bargain. I looked at a few forclosures when I was shopping and every single one of them was trashed. And I don't mean abandoned and left to rot. I mean people literaly destroyed the house once they no longer "owned" it. Holes in the walls, clogged and flooded the toilets, broke the fixtures. One family even sealed the basement walls and flooded the basement. The banks real estate lady I was dealing with at the time said that about 1 out of 5 leaves peacefully without intentionally doing damage. The rest go on a destructive rampage.

 

Its a great idea on paper, but unfortunatly people are jerks

Yeah, but that's because they no longer live there, they got kicked out. It's one last middle finger to the bank on the way out the door. Would they behave that way if they were allowed to stay (as a renter)? Some would, but most I suspect would be glad to still have a roof over their head.

[pbharvey]

Winners and losers