I have a question. If a borrower gets foreclosed on or does a short sale, do you think that the borrower should owe the bank the difference in what they owe and what the bank got?
For example say a borrower owes $125,000. But they can only sell their house for $100,000 net of selling expenses. Do you think the borrower owes the bank the $25,000? I would love to get some comments on this one.
Did the borrow make a promise to repay the loan? Yes. He did. So he does owe the money. But in our society we seem to be willing to walk away from our commitments. It’s not fun to pay it back (I know) but I do think it’s the right thing to do.
Yes the borrower promised to repay the loan
Let’s see, if the borrower painted a bleak enough picture of their financial/socioeconomical state, and filled out their hardship package with the utmost efficiency, and if we indeed currently live in a nation where the government has determined that the evils of capitalism and banking need to be righted, but only for those that failed to scrape together enough money to repay their PROMISE for months upon months upon months, and that it makes more sense to offer a reprieve to those who lived beyond their means, but penalize those who struggled to make their payments and change their lifestyle, then, yes, let’s offer a gift to the over-extended borrower. The gift of a life without consequence and accountability.
AW,
You have spent alot of time in Phx. you should know that that is the culture in many states. Live way past year means but complain when you are acountable for what you promissed