Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Bank of America just gave ME attitude!!

page: 12
17
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 02:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by elevatedone
First, correct, they should not be rude to you.

Now, let's see, you're upset because you signed a loan agreement / contract to pay back so much money at a certain amount per month at a certain interest rate.

For whatever reason, now you want the bank to lower the amount you are to pay back.

Why should they? You signed, you have to pay.

To say that you're walking away is just wrong. You agreed to the terms, so keep making your payments and keep up your end of the deal.



Thats a joke, the Banks dont even possess the money they loan out to people, thats why 7 banks failed in one day in America last month. When a person goes into get ANY loan from a bank what they dont realize is their going to a institution that gives out CREDIT to the person, no real money actually exchanges hand. The bank is no different than the person going in there for a loan, neither has cash.

When you deposit money in a bank they dont put that money in a safe deposit box for you, they circulate that money around and around in various other business transactions, and they give you interest in return. Technically speaking your loaning money to the bank and the bank is promising to pay that sum back. But dont for a second be fooled into thinking your money is safe.

IF the TAX payers didnt bail out these faulty financial systems you know how many banks would of walked away from THEIR promise to pay back their loans/deposits. lol

And your sticking up for these leeches, like the original poster said, the banks are the reason why the economy is in the crappy state that its currently in, and its the people who WORK for a living that have to pull them out of crap so they can give themselves a bonus... you may be a moderator on this site, but dont give out crappy advice. we're surrounded with garbage opinions everyday.




posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 03:40 AM
link   
OP -

I suggest going after your car loan provider next, based on the fact that your car's market value started to nosedive as soon as you left the dealership.

Perhaps the credit card companies should be next, because your new patio furniture, jeans, groceries and the dinner you had at the restaurant last night have all undergone a similar depreciation in value.

If you do, please record the phone conversation and post it to youtube. Love to hear that...



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by vox2442
OP -

I suggest going after your car loan provider next, based on the fact that your car's market value started to nosedive as soon as you left the dealership.

Perhaps the credit card companies should be next, because your new patio furniture, jeans, groceries and the dinner you had at the restaurant last night have all undergone a similar depreciation in value.

If you do, please record the phone conversation and post it to youtube. Love to hear that...





Like I said, I've never defaulted on a loan before in my life, and I never will again. I always pay off my car loans early...I always pay off my credit card bill every month....I never carry the balance over, unless I run into an emergency.

But a 30 year mortgage is VASTLY different than a 5 year car loan. The amount of interest you pay on a house loan is ASTRONOMICAL compared to a car loan.



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by nikiano
Like I said, I've never defaulted on a loan before in my life, and I never will again. I always pay off my car loans early...I always pay off my credit card bill every month....I never carry the balance over, unless I run into an emergency.

But a 30 year mortgage is VASTLY different than a 5 year car loan. The amount of interest you pay on a house loan is ASTRONOMICAL compared to a car loan.


...and the amount of interest you pay on your credit card is astronomical compared to your mortgage.

Bottom line is, you're angry because your house isn't worth what you thought it would be today.

Tough cookies, frankly. You bought it. You signed the papers. You took the risk.

You knew what you were getting into. If not - you've no one to blame but yourself.

Buyer beware - oldest rule in the book.



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by vox2442


...and the amount of interest you pay on your credit card is astronomical compared to your mortgage.



I don't carry a balance on my credit cards, I pay it off every month.


You must work for a bank.



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by vox2442
 


Who's in charge of giving out these loans??? They should ultimately take the blame, as you can't blame the person who wanted a house.

You used to have to have 20% to get into a house for a reason.

Banks have shown their true colors to me(to someone who hasn't defaulted or ever paid late) quite a few times in the past two years.

I just paid off my credit cards, and will not be using them again.



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Is it just me or am i right in my impression that banks now employ salespeople as tellers. At one time they employed people for there ethics and honesty. If you pay commissions as inducements you encourage dishonesty. Its like a green light to be greedy and short term gain! What sort of example does this set? The whole world of finance encourages and rewards greed.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 12:22 AM
link   
Here's the problem...
Yes B of A recieved bail out money to Mod Loans.. BUT they were sued by their investors for doing loan mods and lost...
The Investors are not willing to take the hit, nor is the bank.

In order for them to even consider helping you, you must be considered a hard ship (behind in payments) and even then it still does not mean that you will recieve help.

AS to some of those that think all peeps got thenselves into this mess, well not quite true... there were brokers and Loan agents pushing Fraudulent loans thru at an astounding rate, these barrowers were set up to fail from the start. (hmm loan givers failing in their fiduciary duties)
((A fiduciary is expected to be extremely loyal to the person to whom he owes the duty (the "principal"): he must not put his personal interests before the duty, and must not profit from his position as a fiduciary, unless the principal consents.))

Incomes were being stated and inflated unbeknownst to the Barrower and the banks were acepting them and not kicking them back when all they had to do was verify the info.

If you are in an Option Arm, Neg Am, ARM, or stated loan then the chances are VERY high that that it was a shady ( Preditory Loan) loan to start with. (unlesss you are/were an invester and had no plans on keeping the home for any length of time)
THere are folks out there that actually thought they were in a 30 year fixed and were then suprised to find AFTER they got their first statement that were not. Or their loan reset and they were suprised.

LOAN MODS DO NOT WORK for the most part. WHY? because it does not give you a reduction of Principle, and the rate of falure (forclosure) is still very high. Most loan Mods put a borrower into a 3 to 5 year intrest only that will then reset and the homeowner will find them selves in a worse position than when they started. THe amounts that they are NOT paying during that time does not go away but attaches to the back of the loan, causing an increase in principle and then an even higher P&I at the time of reset.

Options for people in bad loans that are upside down are:
Loan Mods... But the list of Cease and Desist on Loan Mod Co are growing a fast rate.. and again the rate of falure is high. this is a temp fix.
Short Sale: But again this needs the approval of the lender.
If you are in a portfolio Loan you have a better chance of working with the lender, as it was given and is serviced by the BANK and was not sold.
Walk Away...
Bankruptcy
In Calif, NV, AZ and NJ you can call a company that try's to help keep folks in their home (not a non profit and yes there is a charge) to see if you qualify for their program, They identify loan fraud, law violations and improprieties in the loan and then sue the lender for a settlement.

Yes, Be mad as heck as B of A recieved TARP and then posted a huge profit due to it and are not working with their customers.

I USED to be one that said it was the buyers own fault, I have since changed my views after seeing alot of really Bad loans.

How many of you that own houses purchased after 04 HONESTLY know your loan?
Do you have a pre pay? Do you know what a prepay is
what is the floor on your ARM rate? Why it is important?
Are you REALLY in a 30 year fixed.. if your loan will reset then you are not, you are in a ARM.
Did you have a great FICA and were told that the option arm / arm was the BEST or ONLY loan you could get.
Do you know what a yield spread preimium is? How it affects your loan?
Did you read EVERY single doc at closing to ensure that you were getting the loan that you were told you were getting, comparing your estimated TIL to your Final TIL?
Is the income that is shown on your final 1003 really what you made at the time of purchase?
Told..No worries, you can refi in a couple years?
Does your Note match the rest of your docs?
If you wish to look into it further I will gladly send you the email address and links to that Co. PM me.


[edit on 13-9-2009 by Robbi]



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Robbi
 


Robbi,

You're half right, half wrong on your statements.

Bank of America are doing loan mods, BUT the squeaky wheel definitely gets the grease. They modified my loan, albeit for 5 years, and locked in for 30.

It isn't as easy as it should be, and they should be modifying the loans of people who can KEEP their homes....not just keeping people in temporarily.

This should be a reward system to allow homeowners who remain current to take a top priority so they dont end up walking away due to the massive losses on their homes, due to speculative buyers or the subprime loan situation.
They are not doing this, but it is what they should be.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by brocket99
reply to post by Robbi
 



This should be a reward system to allow homeowners who remain current to take a top priority so they dont end up walking away due to the massive losses on their homes, due to speculative buyers or the subprime loan situation.
They are not doing this, but it is what they should be.



Exactly. I was told a new realtor (who specializes in short-sales), that if I want to do a short sale, I first have to miss payments. She said that isn't officially in the rules, but so far, she has not seen a bank accept a short sale from someone who is NOT behind on their payments.

So basically, the way the system is set up, those of us who are current on our payments, are ignored. We could easily afford to stay, but aren't willing to pay so much on a house that is no longer worth it.

And, all the people who are getting modifications? Most of them can't afford to stay even with a modification, so they usually end up leaving after all.

Meanwhile, those of us who can afford to stay in our homes are ignored and denied modification or government assistance. (Like the middle class usually is.)

So many people are going to end up walking away....

[edit on 13-9-2009 by nikiano]



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by spannera
Is it just me or am i right in my impression that banks now employ salespeople as tellers. At one time they employed people for there ethics and honesty. If you pay commissions as inducements you encourage dishonesty. Its like a green light to be greedy and short term gain! What sort of example does this set? The whole world of finance encourages and rewards greed.


Not much different from Sam's Club. They try to push credit cards on everyone. Target is that way as well. I cannot stand shopping at Target. You can buy anything, no matter how small, and the cashier always tries to push a credit card on you.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   
i support the OP's decision to walk away. its hard for me to feel bad for the "poor bank" who, when they make a profit, the money is theirs, and when they sustain a loss, the loss is the taxpayers.

just make a careful plan of action for when they take the house back so you dont end up homeless.
best of luck!



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 03:05 AM
link   
You know, it's exactly things like this that make be believe conspiracy theories.

Why on Earth did Bush, then later Obama, INSIST that the solution to the problem was to shovel billions upon billions of dollars into the coffers of the banks? If they were SINCERE about ending the so-called "housing crisis" and "stimulating the economy" there is a much more elegant and effective way of doing it, and with much better results.

Problem 1: People's homes lost 50% of their value.
Problem 2: People are losing jobs and unable to make payments.
Problem 3: Banks are about to collapse because they made bad investments.

And the solution is to give the money to the BANKS?? Now, if Washington was sincere, and/or had an ounce of intelligence they would have created a program with all that money, in which homeowners (under certain conditions) could apply for no-interest loans or loan modification. Then, and ONLY then, they could take that trillion dollars and make up the loss to the banks with it. This way, the banks would have incentive to bend over backwards to work with the homeowners, people would stop losing their homes, their homes would stop losing value, and the banks would ultimately have ended up with all that money that they got instead for doing nothing.

Call me crazy, but wouldn't this solution, thought up by some idiot reading this thread, have made more sense and done more to stimulate the economy than just handing a trillion dollars to the banks and saying "Here you go! Go do what you want."? This is proof that a) I'm smarter than everyone in Washington, or b) Washington had no intention of solving any crisis, but just needed an excuse to burn billions of dollars while making their bankster buddies unimaginably richer. I'm betting on B.



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by elevatedone
yeah, God forbid you actually keep your word and pay as you promised.


[edit on 8-9-2009 by elevatedone]


I think you are missing the OP's point entirely.



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 03:13 PM
link   
So you bought a HOUSE, not a HOME...if it was a HOME the value would be pricless and never up for sale again in my eyes, but if it is just a HOUSE, why not rent it out, or part of it, for ma year or two and see how things go....


Then at least you aren't renting and paying off someone elses rediculous mortgage, because either way, YOUR money is STILL going to the banks.



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 08:16 PM
link   
The real scam here is the idea that a person can stiff their creditors and arrogantly suggest that they are somehow being "responsible citizens". Give me a break.

If you are screwing over your bank, why not screw over your credit card company?

Why not stiff the restaurant the next time you go out to dinner?

Why not stiff your auto loan company? The car depreciated in value down to $0 after just a few years, right?

Why not stiff anyone and everyone that gives you any kind of product or service? All those evil corporations out there, right?

What this all boils down to is that you have an evil person, with malicious and criminal intent, trying to justify screwing over their bank. No character, and no qualms about stiffing their bank.

This is what is wrong with America. People with no character. No strong moral fortitude. No personal moral compass.

Blame others. Boo Hoo. Whine and complain about the creditor. It's their fault, right?

If you screw over your bank by walking away from your home, and the bank takes a massive loss on the foreclosure sale, it doesn't effect the bank. The bank just passes the loss onto their customers! Who pays? We all do, in the form of tightened credit conditions, higher unemployment, a less stable real estate market, higher interest rates, etc.

So, thanks, pal, for stiffing your creditors. Those of us who do pay our bills, and act like normal, responsible adults get to work long and hard hours to compensate for your arrogant, egotistical greed.

This is what's wrong with America - We've raised a bunch of spoiled brats with an entitlement philosophy based on greed and selfishness.

If the real estate market had boomed, and you flipped your house for a huge profit, would you have complained to the bank that it was the bank's fault? Of course not. It's only when you take a loss that you whine and complain to the bank.

You are selfish, greedy, malevolent, and criminal.



posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 12:32 AM
link   
No Worries About "Morality" in Biggest Real-Estate Default in History
SOURCE: Yahoo! Finance

Over the past few months, arguments have raged about whether it is "immoral" for homeowners to send banks the keys to their houses and walk away from mortgages that it doesn't make sense to keep paying.

Regardless of which side of this debate you're on, note that experienced professional real-estate owners don't even consider this a question.

Tishman Speyer and BlackRock Realty, the owners of the huge New York residential real-estate complex Stuyvesant Town, have decided to hand over the keys and walk away, dumping the property on lenders who provided some $4.4 billion in loans.

Stuyvesant Town is now estimated to be worth less than half of what Tishman and BlackRock paid for it four years ago, but they won't be feeling much pain. Tishman put up only $112 million of equity. Other investors, like California Public Employees' Retirement System, a Florida pension fund, and the Church of England, as well the boldholders, will eat the rest.

In none of the stories reporting this decision was the question of "morality" ever mentioned. It was simply assumed, as it always is with corporate transactions, that the parties had reached their agreement at arms length and that default was always a possibility.

It's no surprise why the mortgage industry tries to convince individual homeowners that they have a "moral obligation" to pay when corporate borrowers don't -- this sense of responsibility and guilt induces more of them to pay. But it's not fair. There are dozens of good reasons not to default on your mortgage, but "morality" isn't one of them.



posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by nikiano
reply to post by SpiritoftheNightSky
 


I know. The funny thing is that my original loan was not with B of A...it was with countrywide. Then, B of A bought them out.

I had a bad experience with B of A doing some fraudulent things to me a long time ago, and I also took my money out of their bank and went somewhere else, vowing never to go back to them again.

Little did I know that my home loan would be sold to them...


You need to check out this lawsuit and see if it applies to you in any way.
you also need to have a good real estate lawyer look at the loan docs to see if countrywide did any thing illegal on the documents or the loan.

State lawsuits

The office of Attorney General of Illinois, Lisa Madigan, filed a civil lawsuit in Cook County Circuit Court against Countrywide Financial Corporation on June 25, 2008. The lawsuit cites information gathered from documents obtained via a subpoena in the fall of 2007. Madigan's office claims the "mortgage lender engaged in "unfair and deceptive" practices to get homeowners to apply for risky mortgages far beyond their means."[27][28]

California Attorney General, Jerry Brown, followed suit by filing a similar lawsuit on June 25, 2008, accusing the lender of breaking the state's laws against false advertising and unfair business practices. The lawsuit also claims the defendant mislead many consumers by misinforming them about the workings of certain mortgages such adjustable-rate mortgages, interest-only loans, low-documentation loans and home-equity loans while telling borrowers they would be able to refinance before the interest rate on their loans adjusted.[29]

In August 2008, Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal also brought suit against Countrywide, alleging that deceptive lending practices had ripped off Connecticut homeowners.[3]

The suit was settled in October 2008 after Bank of America acquired Countrywide. The settlement involves the modifying of troubled 'predatory loans' up to $8.4 billion dollars. The states currently involved in the settlement are Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, and Washington. Other states may also join the settlement.[30]
en.wikipedia.org...

There is a number of lawyer in Calif that are getting loans modified just because there were illegal items on the loan documents.
This many apply to other states.

www.predatory-lending-lawyers.com...
www.ripoffreport.com...

a mistake on the loan documents by countrywide is binding on BoA.

this could cause problems for BoA and if a lawyer found them BoA would want to clear up the problem out of court by giving you a better deal. like cutting how much you owe rether



posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 03:10 AM
link   
on the other hand.....once the materials are paid for, and houses built, if it weren't for bank interest, all houses that are standing should be free for trading by now...

A friend of mine and I were thinking of making a house trade site for trading all houses in the future to keep the banks and their 10 years interest out of it to just trade straight up.



posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 06:32 AM
link   
The New York Times... Walk Away From Your Mortgage!

--''Morgan Stanley recently decided to stop making payments on five San Francisco office buildings.''

--''Nobody has said Morgan Stanley is immoral — perhaps because no one assumed it was moral to begin with. But the average American, as if sprung from some Franklinesque mythology, is supposed to honor his debts, or so says the mortgage industry as well as government officials.''

--''Former Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. declared that “any homeowner who can afford his mortgage payment but chooses to walk away from an underwater property is simply a speculator — and one who is not honoring his obligation.” (Paulson presumably was not so censorious of speculation during his 32-year career at Goldman Sachs.) ''

--''The moral suasion has continued under President Obama, who has urged that homeowners follow the “responsible” course.''

--''Indeed, HUD-approved housing counselors are supposed to counsel people against foreclosure. In many cases, this means counseling people to throw away money.''

--''Brent White, a University of Arizona law professor, notes that a family who bought a three-bedroom home in Salinas, Calif., at the market top in 2006, with no down payment (then a common-enough occurrence), could theoretically have to wait 60 years to recover their equity.''





new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join