They really should be required to state in mortgage adds that if you don’t keep up your mortgage repayments, you are risk of losing your home.
They fucked up and cant pay it. Not the first and wont be the last
love the spacious bathroom in that house
and the garden…what buyer wouldn’t fall in love with that “sun trap” at first sight
I think I’d hand that back too
the quality of our housing stock is abysmal
Dreams of letting it out to scores of students or nurses for 20 years before ‘‘cashin’ it in for de bit of a pinshin’'. They should have dropped into Ivor Callely, Peace Commissioner- for a bit of friendly, neighbourhood slumlord 101 advice
Looks like that couple didn’t even have time to clear their plates or cups from the kitchen, before the place was put on the market.
That’s missing the key point that’s unique about their case.
If I understand the article correctly, it sounds like they are at risk of losing their own home, in addition to the investment home. If the bank are successful, both homes will be sold, they bank will fully recoup the money lent, and the couple will be left with nothing.
Of course they never should have signed such a contract, with terms so obviously stacked in favour of the bank. In fact they shouldn’t have bought the house at all: they should have seen the crash coming, and anticipated the extensive tax hikes, job losses, pay reductions and negative equity that would leave them in this predicament.
Serves then right for being such greedy shites, probably expecting big returns on their investment. Couldn’t be content with the putting it in the post office, and living off the interest and the OAP when they retire.
What on earth was going through their minds? If they had any shred of wit, they would have just ignored all the advice from the media, the government, and countless relatives. If it wasn’t for people like them, taking all that money from the banks and investing it property, we would never have had the property bubble, the bank guarantee, or the IMF/ECB bailout.
Just to make it explicable, would including their home along with the investment property as collateral reduce the interest rate on the loan?
I’m not disagreeing with any of the substance of your post - I’m just raising this, as presumably the effect of throwing your house in as collateral is that the loan on the investment property goes from (say) 100% of the purchase price to being (say) 50% of the purchase price.
I’m just raising it as using your house as collateral isn’t always a completely stupid thing to do. Its just something you need to think very, very carefully about.
Effectively your house is always collateral, even on an “unsecured” loan, as a judgment mortgage can be charged against it if you don’t pay up. The only solution is to make sure the family home is in the name of one spouse and the liabilities in the name of the other.