Is It Wrong To Strip Everything From Your House In Revenge Against Your Bank?

[pappy]

I think it's despicable.

No one forced the homeowner to buy a home and no one forced him/her to borrow the money from a bank. They CHOSE to. And in so doing, they entered into a contractual obligation. Yes, it's too bad that so many bought a much more expensive a house than they could afford and yes, it's sad that the housing bubble burst. But, that doesn't give them a valid reason to trash the bank's property if they are unable to pay the note.

What happened to the concept of taking responsibility for your own actions?

That's my 2 cents, anyway.

what she said!! And i sometimes don't agree with you Liberty.

if i cant pay for my home it is no ones fault but my own. It disheartens me to see so many liberty advocates advocating a retaliatory activity that is the very thing they claim to hate.

take a dose of the medicine you prescribe for yourself liberty advocates--freedom and responsibilty for ones own actions.

like it or not a mortgage is entered into with full opportunity for you to read and understand its terms. if one doesn't take the time to understand or can't understand but enters into the agreement anyway I say tough.

i am not in danger at the moment of losing my house, but it may happen someday. if it does i will take it like a man (since i am not a woman)
and move on.

get real people.

oh and i was nearly foreclosed upon once and took all of my retirement out at a significant penalty to keep the house (was out of job at the time). if i had not been able to do that i would have let the house go and walk away with no shenanigans (probably would've cleaned it up for em)

really-- i almost can't believe that people here think this is OK

 

[stilltrying]

Well, it's not your house till it's paid for. The house belongs to the bank till then.

The banks didn't pay for it either. They just gave you your credit. Where the hell did they get the money from? They are not loaning you their money, so whos money are they loaning you? Why does the bank have a monopoly on credit? Lookup and see if they actually pulled from their profit cash reserves when you got the money. Ill bet you they didnt. Banking is a scam. All of it. From the fiat dollars to the promissary note. The note is the money. You created the money. So the questions are much deeper than the banks owning it and you paying it off. What happens if the bank goes bankrupt? Who then owns the house. The next bigger bank. What happens if they go bankrupt? Eventually it all goes to the FED, the last and only bank.

I am not going to defend one position or the other but the banks sure and the hell dont own it either, Logically.

 

[RideTheDirt]

So, if the banks own everybody's house, then don't they technically own the whole country...

 

[tmosley]

what she said!! And i sometimes don't agree with you Liberty.

if i cant pay for my home it is no ones fault but my own. It disheartens me to see so many liberty advocates advocating a retaliatory activity that is the very thing they claim to hate.

take a dose of the medicine you prescribe for yourself liberty advocates--freedom and responsibilty for ones own actions.

like it or not a mortgage is entered into with full opportunity for you to read and understand its terms. if one doesn't take the time to understand or can't understand but enters into the agreement anyway I say tough.

i am not in danger at the moment of losing my house, but it may happen someday. if it does i will take it like a man (since i am not a woman)
and move on.

get real people.

oh and i was nearly foreclosed upon once and took all of my retirement out at a significant penalty to keep the house (was out of job at the time). if i had not been able to do that i would have let the house go and walk away with no shenanigans (probably would've cleaned it up for em)

really-- i almost can't believe that people here think this is OK

It's not the homeowners job to maximize profits for the bank. Where is the line? You want to force them to pay to clean the carpets before they move out? The fact is that prior to foreclosure, the house belongs to the owner, not to the bank. ANYTHING they want to do to it is valid. Of course, when the bank sells the house, the remainder of the note should still be on the mortgager's shoulders, but that doesn't happen because we live in a fascist society which has instituted "consumer protections" at the cost of liberty.

In a situation were liberty was allowed and contract law ruled, the person being foreclosed upon would have every incentive to leave that house in the best condition possible in order to minimize their liability after the sale (or maximize their payout from whatever equity they may have in it). But that doesn't happen, and the bank gets to keep whatever equity you have in the house, thus creating a perverse incentive for the owner to destroy the house to whatever extent he or she can get away with.

Don't blame people. Blame government. You may be able to blame people in individual cases, but with trends like this, the cause can always be traced back to the root of all great evils, the government.

 

[Original_Intent]

I think that the banks didn't really have the money is a bit of a straw man, because you could have known that beforehand and yet you still entered into the contract rather than not entering the contract on the principle that the bank was not actually giving you anything real as their part of the agreement.

As far as where do you draw the line as to what you could strip - I would say any improvements you made after the purchase are not part of the original contract. Even there I think there would need to be some common sense judgement - if you added an A/C system I think stripping that off is legitimate. However if you redid the kitchen, then stripping everything out I don't think would be right because you would not be restoring the kitchen to how it was at the time of the purchase - you'd just be leaving it a wreck. I don't think that would be right.

 

[Dr.3D]

The banks didn't pay for it either. They just gave you your credit. Where the hell did they get the money from? They are not loaning you their money, so whos money are they loaning you? Why does the bank have a monopoly on credit? Lookup and see if they actually pulled from their profit cash reserves when you got the money. Ill bet you they didnt. Banking is a scam. All of it. From the fiat dollars to the promissary note. The note is the money. You created the money. So the questions are much deeper than the banks owning it and you paying it off. What happens if the bank goes bankrupt? Who then owns the house. The next bigger bank. What happens if they go bankrupt? Eventually it all goes to the FED, the last and only bank.

I am not going to defend one position or the other but the banks sure and the hell dont own it either, Logically.

You got the money from a bank. You would not have had the money or the house without it. If you want to ask who the house belongs to, perhaps you should consider your position. If you took a loan from a bank, you signed a contract. The house is collateral for the loan as stated in the contract. When you don't make the payments as per the contract, you forfeit the collateral. At that time, the bank owns the house. It doesn't matter where the bank got the money from. I know if I sold you a house on a land contract, I would have you in court if you stripped the house before being evicted for non payment.

I can't believe some people here don't respect property rights when it comes to the property of others. We are supposed to be all about property rights.

 

[Dr.3D]

So, if the banks own everybody's house, then don't they technically own the whole country...

I paid my house off... the bank doesn't own it anymore. The only way I can lose it now is for non payment of property taxes. So in essence, the county owns my house and property. I can't keep it without paying them twice a year to do so.

 

[tmosley]

You got the money from a bank. You would not have had the money or the house without it. If you want to ask who the house belongs to, perhaps you should consider your position. If you took a loan from a bank, you signed a contract. The house is collateral for the loan as stated in the contract. When you don't make the payments as per the contract, you forfeit the collateral. At that time, the bank owns the house. It doesn't matter where the bank got the money from. I know if I sold you a house on a land contract, I would have you in court if you stripped the house before being evicted for non payment.

I can't believe some people here don't respect property rights when it comes to the property of others. We are supposed to be all about property rights.

The government doesn't have property rights. Only individuals can have property rights. While your scenario makes sense for you, it doesn't make sense with an institution that has had it's shares stolen from the proper shareholders (via dilution, at gunpoint, I might add) and has thus become "property" of the government. Remember, these banks are now nothing more than sock puppets, and now have huge incentives to foreclose, and not to sell. It's the same as FDR burning wheat during the Great Depression. I don't blame ANY farmer who sold some of the wheat going to the fires on the side. That stopped people from starving, and helped to fight an increasingly intrusive government.

 

[amy31416]

You got the money from a bank. You would not have had the money or the house without it. If you want to ask who the house belongs to, perhaps you should consider your position. If you took a loan from a bank, you signed a contract. The house is collateral for the loan as stated in the contract. When you don't make the payments as per the contract, you forfeit the collateral. At that time, the bank owns the house. It doesn't matter where the bank got the money from. I know if I sold you a house on a land contract, I would have you in court if you stripped the house before being evicted for non payment.

I can't believe some people here don't respect property rights when it comes to the property of others. We are supposed to be all about property rights.

For me, it comes down to this:

Are you okay with stealing from people who steal from us? Is it theft if you're stealing from thieves?

Bankers have stolen more than money from the people of the US and they consistently thumb their noses at us. Fuck 'em. I'm not going to champion soldiers who march in straight formation vs. those who use guerrilla tactics--you could say I'm unethical for that too. The bankers earned whatever hell we can give them, 100x over.

 

[stilltrying]

I am for property rights when lawful money exists. Where is the hazard to the bank? WHERE DOES THEIR COLLATERAL COME FROM? They let you create what was rightfully yours to begin with, a signed promissary note. I wonder how many loans a bank has to have defaulted on before they are bought up or foreclosed on. How many foreclosures does a bank have to have before they are foreclosed on?

How can anyone have any property rights when lawful true money (of substance) doesnt exist. You still dont own the property even when its paid off. Stop paying your property taxes and we will see who owns the property. You are a tenant.

 

[forsmant]

If you have to ask then I assume you already feel it is wrong.

 

[phill4paul]

Nothing wrong w/ it. Tear 'em up and burn them down. The government and it's lobbying cronies played everyone. Ethics and fairplay, like respect, does not apply to those that do not reciprocate.
Foreclosures are directly related to government policy on every level. From the disfunctional public school system that created individuals w/out the ability to intellectually enter a contract, to the housing bubble, to the loss of jobs.
Tear 'em up. Burn 'em down. Ethics and fairplay never won a war.

 

[Dr.3D]

Nobody forced those people to take a mortgage.

For me, it comes down to this:

Are you okay with stealing from people who steal from us? Is it theft if you're stealing from thieves?

Two wrongs don't make a right.

If you did not want to play the bank game, you could have saved up enough money to pay for the house with out the bank.

Bankers have stolen more than money from the people of the US and they consistently thumb their noses at us. Fuck 'em. I'm not going to champion soldiers who march in straight formation vs. those who use guerrilla tactics--you could say I'm unethical for that too. The bankers earned whatever hell we can give them, 100x over.

I do object to the idea of an adjustable rate mortgage. Anybody who would sign one, surely didn't understand what they were signing. If they had understood the contract, they would have known they could not afford the house they were about to buy.

Saying you don't like the banks and then using them anyway would seem rather hypocritical.

 

[klamath]

This is a pretty sad comentary on the people of the freedom movement. I have talked to a number of people that believe if in their view someone is a crook it is alright to steal form that person. No trial, no conviction just their opinion and that is what I am seeing here.
No one knows if these banks took bailouts, no one has any proof that the bank would break it's contract and screw people over if they had a chance.
The only way I would feel less disgusted at this would be if that bank took a bailout that everyone will be paying for anyhow. And another little note a lot of banks were forced to take a bailout because the government didn't want the public to identify the banks that were failing by who were receiving the bailout money.
Except for the very very stupid, most people that bought houses with adjustable rate morgages did so because they thought with greed they didn't have to worry about the rate increase because they thought they could sell that pile of sticks and drywall for a 100 of 200 thousand profit in a year or two. Or they had their house almost paid for and took a morgage out so they could buy RV's and any other number of shinny boubles. I will bet many many of these people were warned but chose to buy something beyond their means despite it. I know quit a number of them personally that I warned until I was blue in the face but they spent way beyond their means anyhow and are now bankrupt.
If you are so stupid to do business with a bank even though in your mind you think they are crooks then you are the one that is nothing but a cheap crook because you thought you could out hustle a hustler.
Save your damned money under the bed until you have enough to buy a house or find an owner financed house sale!

No matter what the business is out there someone believes they are a crooked capitalist and therefore it is fine to shoplift, steal or burn the place down. I am starting to wonder if this is the marxist Forum. Down with the exploiters! We will kill all the exploiters with our pitchforks and establish our utopia!

 

[newbitech]

You got the money from a bank. You would not have had the money or the house without it. If you want to ask who the house belongs to, perhaps you should consider your position. If you took a loan from a bank, you signed a contract. The house is collateral for the loan as stated in the contract. When you don't make the payments as per the contract, you forfeit the collateral. At that time, the bank owns the house. It doesn't matter where the bank got the money from. I know if I sold you a house on a land contract, I would have you in court if you stripped the house before being evicted for non payment.

I can't believe some people here don't respect property rights when it comes to the property of others. We are supposed to be all about property rights.

I think you are confusing owning a home that has a mortgage with renting an apartment or a house. You are absolutely right, the bank doesn't own anything until they foreclose. It is at that point that the property changes hands not before. I don't get to claim your property just because I made you a loan.

 

[Dr.3D]

I think you are confusing owning a home that has a mortgage with renting an apartment or a house. You are absolutely right, the bank doesn't own anything until they foreclose. It is at that point that the property changes hands not before. I don't get to claim your property just because I made you a loan.

I think you are confused about my confusion. The bank has interest in the collateral no matter who thinks they own it. This is the reason the owner has to have insurance on the home and property till it is paid off.

I had a mortgage for a number of years before I paid it off. I should know the difference between renting and buying.

 

[klamath]

This is exactly like if someone takes their credit card out and runs up a twenty thousand dollar bill on all kinds of toys. Guess what they can't pay their bill but they put sand and rocks in the boxes and takes the toy boxes back to the stores and get refunds. "Them toys were my toys I paid for them I can do whatever I want with them while I have them. HA, HA! Got them exploiting toy stores. Can you believe the usery prices they want for them toys!" Gad! Ha! Ha!

 

[newbitech]

I think you are confused about my confusion. The bank has interest in the collateral no matter who thinks they own it. This is the reason the owner has to have insurance on the home and property till it is paid off.

I had a mortgage for a number of years before I paid it off. I should know the difference between renting and buying.

Well, the biggest difference is that when you have a home with a mortgage, you own it. This means the property on that square is yours. Not the banks. That is all I am saying. Most people who would even consider doing something like this are not the spiteful liberty hating jerks that this thread is making them out to be.

This house has been in my family for 3 generations now. We knew what we were getting into. It has been saved from foreclosure before, and it will again. But honestly if it came down to hard times like it is coming down to now, I am going to make sure that the bank understands that I might need more than 90 days to recover from the devastation in the economy.

If the bank is going to be so eager to come in and take over the property, then they will need to understand that it might not be worth as much as they think it is. We don't have one of these stupid mortgages. The banks did try to lie to us about the value of our home. We knew better. We only got the loan for things we could afford. Like a roof, plumbing, electrical, and flooring repairs. We also consolidated higher interest bearing debts. The bank told us we had 200,000 in equity. Bullshit.

So why didn't we save the 100,000 that we used? Cause it would have taken 10 years. We needed a roof NOW. We needed updated plumbing and electric NOW. The bank considered NONE of this when the did their little "appraisal". That's their own dumb ass fault not mine.

So if this bank doesn't want to work it out. If they think they are going to get more in the short run by taking the property, rather than working out a deal that takes the true status of the risk into consideration rather than all of their ridiculously failed mathematical models, then I won't have to worry about taking what is mine from this property. But if they decided its better to take the property now, then they need to go ahead and realize that its not going to work out for them going that route as much as they might think it is.

That's is the reality. That is what is going on. Its not a threat because I own. They too have a choice, and that choice is to work out a better deal. If the bank wants to strictly enforce their rights and act like they are losing something they never had, well then its their own damn fault if the property they take over is not in the condition they thought it was.

I think just the threat of that should be enough for banks to recalculate the value of the loans they have. This helps everyone because it puts homes back to what their real value should be and FORCES banks to realize that the value isn't as high as they might think it is. They gives banks more of an incentive to rework the deal and realize a PROFIT and allows the homeowner to stay in their homes rather than being displaced to THE STREET. Or if you like, the banks can go ahead and foreclose for a LOSS and create more havoc in the economy by creating HOMELESS PEOPLE.

Take your pick. But I have thought for a long time that home prices were overvalued, and guess what these homeowners AND BANKS are starting to realize? They are! And people destroying THEIR OWN PROPERTY rather than paying for it proves this. Nothing wrong with that IMO.. When the bank decided to foreclose they decided to take the loss. That's the banks problem.. too bad so sad for the bank.. maybe they might want to think about working out a better deal and come up with ways to MAKE MONEY rather than LOSE IT. I thought that was the point of being in business. Most of these big banks that carry mortgages failed A LONG TIME AGO.. They decided to take the default route, not the homeowner.. No one wants to go broke, except maybe in this economy the banks do... tough titties for them..

 

[tmosley]

This is exactly like if someone takes their credit card out and runs up a twenty thousand dollar bill on all kinds of toys. Guess what they can't pay their bill but they put sand and rocks in the boxes and takes the toy boxes back to the stores and get refunds. "Them toys were my toys I paid for them I can do whatever I want with them while I have them. HA, HA! Got them exploiting toy stores. Can you believe the usery prices they want for them toys!" Gad! Ha! Ha!

That's a terrible metaphor. The previous owner of the home doesn't get the house back (the toy store), nor does the person who is losing the house get any money (the toy buyer). The person who bought the house isn't looking to burn the previous owner of the house either. He is looking to burn the bank, who got $30K out of his paycheck in bailout money, which cost him his job, which is why he can't pay the bills.

A more appropriate metaphor would be that someone went and bought a bunch of toys, got behind on their credit card bills, and sold the toys on the market before they could be repossessed. But then, normally things bought on credit cards aren't repossessed, so even that isn't a great metaphor.

I know it feels great to think you're better than someone because you were prudent with your money, and it's lots of fun to rub their faces in it, and to take the "
holier than thou" attitude while they fight to keep a roof over their heads, but it's not becoming. People aren't "stupid". People just followed the false economic signals sent out by the Fed, and it ruined them. BLAME THE FED, NOT THE PEOPLE. People, on the whole, act rationally. But when you create a system that feeds them lies, it becomes almost impossible to tell truth from lie. They follow the path that they think is in their best interest.

This is the government's fault, not the people's. There is a war on, whether you want to believe it or not. It's being fought with little green pieces of paper, and with ones and zeros. We have to fight back, and this is one way of doing it.

BLAME THE FED, NOT THE PEOPLE.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Don't worry, klamath-even I, an anarchist, agree with you.

This is a pretty sad comentary on the people of the freedom movement. I have talked to a number of people that believe if in their view someone is a crook it is alright to steal form that person. No trial, no conviction just their opinion and that is what I am seeing here.
No one knows if these banks took bailouts, no one has any proof that the bank would break it's contract and screw people over if they had a chance.
The only way I would feel less disgusted at this would be if that bank took a bailout that everyone will be paying for anyhow. And another little note a lot of banks were forced to take a bailout because the government didn't want the public to identify the banks that were failing by who were receiving the bailout money.
Except for the very very stupid, most people that bought houses with adjustable rate morgages did so because they thought with greed they didn't have to worry about the rate increase because they thought they could sell that pile of sticks and drywall for a 100 of 200 thousand profit in a year or two. Or they had their house almost paid for and took a morgage out so they could buy RV's and any other number of shinny boubles. I will bet many many of these people were warned but chose to buy something beyond their means despite it. I know quit a number of them personally that I warned until I was blue in the face but they spent way beyond their means anyhow and are now bankrupt.
If you are so stupid to do business with a bank even though in your mind you think they are crooks then you are the one that is nothing but a cheap crook because you thought you could out hustle a hustler.
Save your damned money under the bed until you have enough to buy a house or find an owner financed house sale!

No matter what the business is out there someone believes they are a crooked capitalist and therefore it is fine to shoplift, steal or burn the place down. I am starting to wonder if this is the marxist Forum. Down with the exploiters! We will kill all the exploiters with our pitchforks and establish our utopia!