"Forced" to pay mortgage?

[merm8]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Illinois
I own a home with my husband in CA and I have resided in IL for the last three years while my husband still lives in the home in CA. I understand that he can legally hold me responsible for the mortgage payments for this home because I make significantly more than he does. It's not much; I make roughly about $3000 a month. Since we are 1. in the process of getting a divorce 2. he has paid zero for child support for 3 years and 3. I reside in another state and do not live in the house, I do not nor can not afford to pay the mortgage on that home any longer. We bought the home for $400,000 and now it has depreciated to $190,000 if we are lucky. Thus, a short sale on the home at this time is impossible. I know I can't foreclose, either, unless he agrees to foreclose as well, which he won't. Since I can't foreclose, am I am stuck paying? How much and for how long will I have to pay?

 

[nextwife]

Neither you nor he makes the decision to foreclose. Only the LENDER can foreclose.

And, should they do so, that lender may indeed have every right to hold you responsible for the mortgage you asked them to give you (depending upon whether it is a recourse loan or not).

Your CHOICE to leave the state and buy elsewhere before first selling out your interest or selling the property is not THEIR problem. I am constantly amazed at how some people think their obligations to their creditors is continquent on the status of the relationship they were in when they created the debt. You DO owe the lender, regardless of whether you chose to leave the relationship.

 

[merm8]

I know full well that the mortgage is MY responsibility, but let me get this straight: I'm going to be paying for the REST OF MY LIFE for SOMETHING I CAN"T AFFORD, nor can I sell? From what I know, YES the mortgage co. WILL foreclose if I DO NOT nor CAN NOT make the payments. Right now, I need to put a roof over my child's head, pay for daycare, attorney fees, other bills, food, etc. Am I supposed to live on the streets, yet continue to pay the mortgage for my ex to stay with his new girlfriend in a house he REFUSES to sell? It would have been sold LONG AGO if not for this horrible market. YES IT WAS my choice to leave the state, not because I'm flaky and escaping responsibilities, but because I was escaping a HORRIBLE, VIOLENT LIVING SITUATION FOR MYSELF AND MY SON!! So my obligation to the bank then, according to you, is so legal and binding that I should have stayed in that house, at whatever cost, and be eternally responsible, regardless of whether I can afford it or not. And does my moral, legal obligation to the mortgage co. supercede my soon-to-be ex husband's MORAL, LEGAL obligation to pay child support, which he has not EVER paid me? Yes, my name is on the mortgage....however, his name is on my son's birth certificate. That's a legal, binding document, too!! I AM WILLING TO GIVE THE HOUSE BACK TO THE BANK, DECLARE BANKRUPTCY, WHATEVER it takes -- I can no longer afford to pay for a home I cannot sell nor have not lived in for 3 years! And, by the way, I do not own or rent ANYTHING, nor have I since I left CA. I WORK THREE JOBS RIGHT NOW SO I CAN MAKE THOSE PAYMENTS! I CAN AFFORD LITTLE ELSE with my "legal and binding" mortgage payments on the CA home. I have been staying with friends and relatives, but I can't keep this up for the rest of my life. All I wanted to know is how to extradite myself from this situation -- can the court order a sale of the house? Can't I plead my case to the Lender and show them that I CAN't AFFORD it??? How are other families foreclosing, then????

 

[nextwife]

You could have filed for an order to sell three years ago when you left. The house might have been long gone by now.

 

[LdiJ]

I know full well that the mortgage is MY responsibility, but let me get this straight: I'm going to be paying for the REST OF MY LIFE for SOMETHING I CAN"T AFFORD, nor can I sell? From what I know, YES the mortgage co. WILL foreclose if I DO NOT nor CAN NOT make the payments. Right now, I need to put a roof over my child's head, pay for daycare, attorney fees, other bills, food, etc. Am I supposed to live on the streets, yet continue to pay the mortgage for my ex to stay with his new girlfriend in a house he REFUSES to sell? It would have been sold LONG AGO if not for this horrible market. YES IT WAS my choice to leave the state, not because I'm flaky and escaping responsibilities, but because I was escaping a HORRIBLE, VIOLENT LIVING SITUATION FOR MYSELF AND MY SON!! So my obligation to the bank then, according to you, is so legal and binding that I should have stayed in that house, at whatever cost, and be eternally responsible, regardless of whether I can afford it or not. And does my moral, legal obligation to the mortgage co. supercede my soon-to-be ex husband's MORAL, LEGAL obligation to pay child support, which he has not EVER paid me? Yes, my name is on the mortgage....however, his name is on my son's birth certificate. That's a legal, binding document, too!! I AM WILLING TO GIVE THE HOUSE BACK TO THE BANK, DECLARE BANKRUPTCY, WHATEVER it takes -- I can no longer afford to pay for a home I cannot sell nor have not lived in for 3 years! And, by the way, I do not own or rent ANYTHING, nor have I since I left CA. I WORK THREE JOBS RIGHT NOW SO I CAN MAKE THOSE PAYMENTS! I CAN AFFORD LITTLE ELSE with my "legal and binding" mortgage payments on the CA home. I have been staying with friends and relatives, but I can't keep this up for the rest of my life. All I wanted to know is how to extradite myself from this situation -- can the court order a sale of the house? Can't I plead my case to the Lender and show them that I CAN't AFFORD it??? How are other families foreclosing, then????[/QUOTE]

They stop making the payments, and the bank forecloses. Or they file for bankruptcy, and the house goes back to the bank.

Typically, in a divorce, the person residing in the home is responsible for the payments until the house is disposed of one way or another.

Yes, you are legally responsible for the mortgage because you signed the loan contract. However, clearly you are seriously upside down on the house, cannot continue to make the payments, and will have to take the credit hit of foreclosure or bankruptcy or both. Obviously your ex cannot afford the home either if he makes less than you, so he will have to face the same consequences.

No one was implying that you have to continue to make the house payments whether you can afford them or not. They were stating that you have to face the ramifications of defaulting on the loan.

 

[mistoffolees]

I know full well that the mortgage is MY responsibility, but let me get this straight: I'm going to be paying for the REST OF MY LIFE for SOMETHING I CAN"T AFFORD, nor can I sell?

Yes. That's exactly what it means when you sign a loan document.

It was people like you who are responsible for the financial mess the entire country is in. You make more than him and you make $3 K per month - yet you owned a $400 K home.

You bought it, you face the consequences. That means either you come up with the money or you file for bankruptcy. Just stop whining about the injustice of the bank expecting you to live up to what you agreed to.

 

[LdiJ]

Yes. That's exactly what it means when you sign a loan document.

It was people like you who are responsible for the financial mess the entire country is in. You make more than him and you make $3 K per month - yet you owned a $400 K home.

You bought it, you face the consequences. That means either you come up with the money or you file for bankruptcy. Just stop whining about the injustice of the bank expecting you to live up to what you agreed to.

I think that's a little harsh...

The blame really belongs to the company that gave them a loan for a home that they clearly could not afford. Its a little unfair to put all the blame on the people who purchased the home.

Remember, a 400k home in CA (at the time that they bought the home) was likely a fairly small home.

 

[nextwife]

I think that's a little harsh...

The blame really belongs to the company that gave them a loan for a home that they clearly could not afford. Its a little unfair to put all the blame on the people who purchased the home.

Remember, a 400k home in CA (at the time that they bought the home) was likely a fairly small home.

Who said they "clearly cannot afford it"? SHE cannot afford it because she is not living there and has additional costs elsewhere. It is ILLEGAL to turn down the loan if the numbers and credit warrant granting the loan.

Hey, I own a 400K home, and make my payments monthly with no problem, with a combined income that is well less than she and he made. It's a matter of what you spend the rest of your money on - and how much of your own money you brought to the table when you closed.

Whats frustrating in the housing industry is all these people who jumped into home ownership without clearly knowing if they were compatible co-borrowers PRIOR to committing to the home and the mortgage. I hear the daily litany of people complaining that they can't afford the home - not because the interest rate changed, not because their income changed, but because THEY changed their relationship.

Legally that is not nor should not be the LENDER'S problem. It is not the lenders job, nor right, to question the compatibility of two co-borrowers. All these people who jump ship from their home when it suits them (rather than when they have first dispensed with their legal responsibility to the lender whom THEY asked to lend them money), are ruining the housing industry because they want to move on without first dealing with their house! I, personally, am very tired of borrowers who treat home ownership as a garment they want to simply discard when it no longer suits their needs. Home ownership should NEVER have been viewed as a short term commitment. It is a LONG term investment, and one simply should not buy a house unless they are ready willing and able to stay, with their co borrower, or financially able to handle it alone. Or willing to find a roommate to share the cost if they can't.

If domestic violence was the issue, she also had the option of filing charges, and getting a restraining order, and an order to sell. The house could have been long ago gone.

 

[penelope10]

Hey, I own a 400K home, and make my payments monthly with no problem, with a combined income that is well less than she and he made. It's a matter of what you spend the rest of your money on - and how much of your own money you brought to the table when you closed.

Whats frustrating in the housing industry is all these people who jumped into home ownership without clearly knowing if they were compatible co-borrowers PRIOR to committing to the home and the mortgage. I hear the daily litany of people complaining that they can't afford the home - not because the interest rate changed, not because their income changed, but because THEY changed their relationship.

Legally that is not nor should not be the LENDER'S problem. It is not the lenders job, nor right, to question the compatibility of two co-borrowers. All these people who jump ship from their home when it suits them (rather than when they have first dispensed with their legal responsibility to the lender whom THEY asked to lend them money), are ruining the housing industry because they want to move on without first dealing with their house! I, personally, am very tired of borrowers who treat home ownership as a garment they want to simply discard when it no longer suits their needs. Home ownership should NEVER have been viewed as a short term commitment. It is a LONG term investment, and one simply should not buy a house unless they are ready willing and able to stay, with their co borrower, or financially able to handle it alone. Or willing to find a roommate to share the cost if they can't.

If domestic violence was the issue, she also had the option of filing charges, and getting a restraining order, and an order to sell. The house could have been long ago.

Argee with this. And it's all in your priorities and your budget. Where I live a $400K house is a pretty nice big home (talking about over 4,000 square feet with a pool in a nice neighborhood). Budgeting can make a world of difference on what one can and can't afford. I live in a smaller home bought almost 14 years ago that is a little under 3000 square feet. I paid $159,000 for it. My ex and I could have afforded a bigger home at the time. I thank God every day that we did not purchase one, since we ended up getting divorced. I refinanced about 5 years ago at 5.125%. I would have a hard time finding a 2 bedroom apartment that I could rent for less than my mortgage payment.

I don't have my house decorated as I would like, I don't drive a fancy car, don't wear designer clothes, and bargain shop for about everything.(I'm extremely frugal) My major expense comes to the upkeep of the house because it's getting older. However, in about 6 years the house will be completely paid off. By then Lil Bit will have gone off to college and I will probably sell the house and buy something much smaller. (While the market has fallen, even today I would still be able to sell the house , pay off the mortgage, and have money over and above what I originally paid.)

Relationships and marriage often don't last. Spouses can also get ill, or lose their job. That's why it's important to look at the big picture before making a major purchase. I tend to agree that some people did not do this and that's why the foreclosure rates have become so high.

You can default on the loan if you wish or file bankruptcy. And I tend to agree that it has been the lifestyle choices of some individuals regarding housing that have gotten the mortgage industry in such a fix today.

 

[LdiJ]

Argee with this. And it's all in your priorities and your budget. Where I live a $400K house is a pretty nice big home (talking about over 4,000 square feet with a pool in a nice neighborhood). Budgeting can make a world of difference on what one can and can't afford. I live in a smaller home bought almost 14 years ago that is a little under 3000 square feet. I paid $159,000 for it. My ex and I could have afforded a bigger home at the time. I thank God every day that we did not purchase one, since we ended up getting divorced. I refinanced about 5 years ago at 5.125%. I would have a hard time finding a 2 bedroom apartment that I could rent for less than my mortgage payment.

I don't have my house decorated as I would like, I don't drive a fancy car, don't wear designer clothes, and bargain shop for about everything.(I'm extremely frugal) My major expense comes to the upkeep of the house because it's getting older. However, in about 6 years the house will be completely paid off. By then Lil Bit will have gone off to college and I will probably sell the house and buy something much smaller. (While the market has fallen, even today I would still be able to sell the house , pay off the mortgage, and have money over and above what I originally paid.)

Relationships and marriage often don't last. Spouses can also get ill, or lose their job. That's why it's important to look at the big picture before making a major purchase. I tend to agree that some people did not do this and that's why the foreclosure rates have become so high.

You can default on the loan if you wish or file bankruptcy. And I tend to agree that it has been the lifestyle choices of some individuals regarding housing that have gotten the mortgage industry in such a fix today.

My ex and I were also smart when we bought the home that I still own, and I am also glad that we were, because I could easily afford it on my own, and am now in the same position as you. I also couldn't get a two bedroom apartment for what my mortgage payments are.

 

[CourtClerk]

Remember, a 400k home in CA (at the time that they bought the home) was likely a fairly small home.

That is simply your assumption.... unless the OP lives in the Silicon Valley, 400K can get you a decent sized home.

 

[mistoffolees]

I think that's a little harsh...

The blame really belongs to the company that gave them a loan for a home that they clearly could not afford. Its a little unfair to put all the blame on the people who purchased the home.

No, I put the blame on both of them. It didn't take a rocket scientist to know that an interest only loan with essentially no downpayment was a bad idea. Even worse were the ones where the principal balance INCREASED over time because the borrower didn't even have to pay the full amount of interest.

People who get loans they can't afford are idiots. Banks who make loans to people who can't afford them are also idiots.

The fact that the bankers are idiots doesn't let the borrower off the hook.

Remember, a 400k home in CA (at the time that they bought the home) was likely a fairly small home.

Depends on where. My brother is looking at a very nice home that will cost far less than that. It all depends on how close you live to heavily populated areas.

But it really doesn't matter. If you can't afford the loan on a decent house, then you don't buy. There are plenty of places to rent. There is no Constitutional right to home ownership.

 

[HomeGuru]

Interesting dialogue.

 

[penelope10]

No, I put the blame on both of them. It didn't take a rocket scientist to know that an interest only loan with essentially no downpayment was a bad idea. Even worse were the ones where the principal balance INCREASED over time because the borrower didn't even have to pay the full amount of interest.

People who get loans they can't afford are idiots. Banks who make loans to people who can't afford them are also idiots.

The fact that the bankers are idiots doesn't let the borrower off the hook.



Depends on where. My brother is looking at a very nice home that will cost far less than that. It all depends on how close you live to heavily populated areas.

But it really doesn't matter. If you can't afford the loan on a decent house, then you don't buy. There are plenty of places to rent. There is no Constitutional right to home ownership.

I have friends that live in Burbank, CA in a really cool neighborhood. All the houses were built in the 30' and 40's. (Heavily treed street, fruit trees in the backyard.) They bought their home at about the same time I did and paid around $250,000 to $300,000. Two years ago the asking price on a much smaller house across the street from them was between $500K and $600K. My friend said anyone that bought the home would be extremely foolish as the prices of homes in CA would probably fall drastically, and soon. (About 20 years ago many folks lost their shirts that invested in real estate in CA when the bubble burst then).

Around the same time his mother-in-law became ill. She had a home that was only about 1600 square feet in San Francisco that sold for between $600 and $700K. (Bet those folks are kicking themselves now). My eldest daughter who is in her mid-twenties just bought a home about the same size in OK. The house was built in 1927, is in beautiful shape (pier and beam foundation and has a basement--two bedroom, one bath, one car garage.). It's in a great neighborhood and is about 3 miles from downtown OK City where she works. With PMI, taxes, and insurance rolled into her escrow the house payment is only about $600.00 per month. She has a fixed rate of 5.50% interest. Her house is cheaper than the efficiency apartment she was renting in Bricktown. (Nice part of downtown OK City). While OK may not be everyone's cup of tea to live, there are really good deals out there now, especially due to the housing slump.

I agree that if you can't afford to buy a home then don't. I can't imagine anyone talking me into taking out an interest only loan, or a 5 year arm to qualify for a house. Here anything over $400K is considered a jumbo loan. Since the credit crunch many of the folks that own these homes are finding it hard, even with decent credit, to do a refinance. Banks have tightened their lending practices. A house bought here in 2007 and sold for about $800K is probably in reality worth more like $650K to $600K now... And with layoffs and company reorganizations there are less folks that can qualify for these homes as new purchases also.

It's kind of crazy, you'll see builders building homes starting at the $500k's ---they'll build the homes and the homes will sit because there are not enough perspective buyers that can qualify any longer......

 

[LdiJ]

I have friends that live in Burbank, CA in a really cool neighborhood. All the houses were built in the 30' and 40's. (Heavily treed street, fruit trees in the backyard.) They bought their home at about the same time I did and paid around $250,000 to $300,000. Two years ago the asking price on a much smaller house across the street from them was between $500K and $600K. My friend said anyone that bought the home would be extremely foolish as the prices of homes in CA would probably fall drastically, and soon. (About 20 years ago many folks lost their shirts that invested in real estate in CA when the bubble burst then).

Around the same time his mother-in-law became ill. She had a home that was only about 1600 square feet in San Francisco that sold for between $600 and $700K. (Bet those folks are kicking themselves now). My eldest daughter who is in her mid-twenties just bought a home about the same size in OK. The house was built in 1927, is in beautiful shape (pier and beam foundation and has a basement--two bedroom, one bath, one car garage.). It's in a great neighborhood and is about 3 miles from downtown OK City where she works. With PMI, taxes, and insurance rolled into her escrow the house payment is only about $600.00 per month. She has a fixed rate of 5.50% interest. Her house is cheaper than the efficiency apartment she was renting in Bricktown. (Nice part of downtown OK City). While OK may not be everyone's cup of tea to live, there are really good deals out there now, especially due to the housing slump.

I agree that if you can't afford to buy a home then don't. I can't imagine anyone talking me into taking out an interest only loan, or a 5 year arm to qualify for a house. Here anything over $400K is considered a jumbo loan. Since the credit crunch many of the folks that own these homes are finding it hard, even with decent credit, to do a refinance. Banks have tightened their lending practices. A house bought here in 2007 and sold for about $800K is probably in reality worth more like $650K to $600K now... And with layoffs and company reorganizations there are less folks that can qualify for these homes as new purchases also.

It's kind of crazy, you'll see builders building homes starting at the $500k's ---they'll build the homes and the homes will sit because there are not enough perspective buyers that can qualify any longer......

I have an 1800 square foot brick ranch style home in Indiana. The original house was built in the 60's and was 1300 sq ft, and a room addition was added in the 80's that brought it to 1800 sq ft. 4 bedrooms, 2 baths, living room, great room and large kitchen. I bought it for 75k, and at one time it appraised for 120k, and since the bust its down to about 95k...assuming that you could find a buyer.

About 6 years ago I was told by a friend from CA, who was visiting, that the average price for a home of my size in CA was 400k to 500k. Since I consider my house to be average/on the small side, I was basing my comments on that.

I realize that since the bust housing prices are down in CA (hence the fact that OP said that her 400k home was worth about 190k now).

What I was trying to convey is that what seems high to someone in my area, might have been very normal in CA a few years ago.

We have lots of people who are losing homes here....very reasonably priced homes, because mortgage brokers finagled to get them loans. We are talking about homes between 80 - 200k, and most of the people could have afforded something a step or two down from what they purchased, but the brokers finagled to get them into something a step or two bigger. Yes, the homeowners are also at fault, but many of them simply did not understand the ramifications of what they were doing.

Yes, I also agree that many people seem to think that they can shrug off houses like they shrug off relationships, but part of that is because during the boom, it was easy to sell, and easy to sell at a price that was higher than their mortgage balance.

Plus, there were all of the people who were encouraged to refi or take out second mortgages up to 120% of their home's appraised value (to buy a car, to pay off other debt, to finance business ventures etc.)...and those are the poeple who are the most "stuck". Lenders were handing out those mortgages like candy.

I am lucky, I owe very little on my home. Even in a "fire sale" I would walk away with a significant chunk of cash. However I was financially savy when I bought it, and financially savy every time I refinanced it. My interest rate started out at 10.75 and that was a GOOD rate when I bought the house, and its down to 5.25 now....and I took out equity twice.

However I understood exactly what I was doing...I understood an amortization tables and ran numbers up one side and down the other each time that I chose to refinance. I also deliberately bought less house than I could "afford" when I bought the house.

I am not arrogant enough to expect the average person to know what I know and to make decisions based on how I would make them. Heck, the average person doesn't even grasp that the divorce court judge's rulings are not binding on creditors.