Quote:
Originally Posted by Smittie61984
Still, if you were expecting $100 (let's say this week and not $110 a year from now) then you'd still be upset. Then on top of that because she couldn't make her payments (wether spending too much money on Starbucks or loosing her job which is not hte banks concern) the bank has to take a hit of anything or wait for the money they were promised?
As for the $200,000, I have no clue what that's for or from.
My main concern is that the judge upholds the terms of the original contract and not rewrite them so he looks good. Not saying what the bank is doing is right, but if it's within the bounds of the contract she signed then they should be able to do it without punishment. If what they are doing violates her contract that they both signed then I want the judge to punish them then.
|
I agree that contracts should be honoured, but due to unforseen circumstances, the people wanted to work with the bank to get a mutually beneficial outcome. The bank was not interested. Why? I don't know. If they foreclose on houses, they lose more money. Houses in the area are worth less, there are less buyers, and the bank has to dump the home.
I don't know what it is like in the states, but here, I can renegotiate my mortgage any time I want. I will pay a penalty($10-20K), but that is much better than losing my home, and the bank wins(keep my mortgage, plus get a penalty from me).