On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 11:56 AM, Dan Minette <danmine...@att.net> wrote: > >>> Given that, do you consider it dishonorable for me to have taken out a >>> mortgage? > >>Of course not. But I would expect an honorable person, if they were >>not foreclosed upon, and if they recovered from the illness and had a >>new income, to attempt to pay back the money. > > Given the fact that a portion of the interest I paid the bank was a premium > to cover the banks loss in case of such a default; why is it dishonorable to > consider that an insurance payment?
Because choosing not to pay back money that you agreed to pay back is dishonest. The fact that the agreement specified penalties and conditions in case of default does not change the fact that the agreement was that you would try to pay back the money. > No, I'm saying that, if you read what Nick wrote, that he had a deal with > the bank, and that they tried to back out of it on a technicality. I imagine the lender or its agents would dispute whether there was actually a "deal" to change the mortgage. Until both sides agree to the change, the old agreement is in force. It is certainly sounds like the situation has been poorly handled, and if indeed the people Nick was dealing with deliberately misled him, then they behaved dishonorably. But if someone behaves dishonorably towards me, I will be unlikely to trust them again, but I am not going to take that as carte blanche to behave dishonorably myself. > Plus, it is stupid for the bank. He's willing to pay on a mortgage bigger > which exceeds what the bank can get for the house. Given the overpriced > nature of housing in California, even a small reversal now can make a > mortgage payment overwhelming. Is it stupid? It may be, but I'm not sure we have enough information to judge for certain. Maybe Nick will keep paying at the rate he originally agreed to, rather than strategically defaulting. _______________________________________________ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
