On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 8:09 PM, David Hobby <hob...@newpaltz.edu> wrote:
> Hi. I'm with Keith on this. A mortgage is not an > absolute promise to pay back the loan. Rather, the > deal is that if the borrower does not keep up payments, > the lender can take back the property. I'm not sure why you imply that I disagree with that, assuming we are talking about a nonrecourse loan, which is what I assume Nick has. But the issue is that Nick, for whatever reason, is not walking away. Instead, it seems he tried to get the lender to accept payback of less than he borrowed, but the lender did not agree to it. Then there was some story filed with the Justice department, which I do not know the details of, but it sounds like it must be complaints about the lender refusing to accept being paid back less than the amount that was borrowed. Nick, feel free to jump in here if I have something wrong. Another complication is that many of the mortgages are now owned, directly or indirectly, by the Federal government. That is what I meant when I wrote earlier that not paying back the full loan amount can ultimately result in the average taxpayer footing the bill. _______________________________________________ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
