Read an interesting article today about how in the USA some people people are handing in the keys of their house because the mortgage is substantially above what the house is valued.
The mortgages there are seen as a business tarnsaction with the bank checking that the asset backing the mortgage is worth what money they are giving.
There doesn't seem to be any further agreement that if the mortgage is unpaid then the borower is liable for the shortfall as the asset (the hosue) was the collateral and there's no agreement that any further money would be due after the house was handed in.
[broken link removed]
Does this also apply here as there has been very little mention either way about what happens if the house is repossessed or handed into the bank. - Maybe the banks are scared that they'll have 100,000 sets of keys on their desks tomorrow morning?
Whilst it has no bearing on me (bought in 1999), it would be of interest to those who bought in 2006 / 2007.
The mortgages there are seen as a business tarnsaction with the bank checking that the asset backing the mortgage is worth what money they are giving.
There doesn't seem to be any further agreement that if the mortgage is unpaid then the borower is liable for the shortfall as the asset (the hosue) was the collateral and there's no agreement that any further money would be due after the house was handed in.
[broken link removed]
Does this also apply here as there has been very little mention either way about what happens if the house is repossessed or handed into the bank. - Maybe the banks are scared that they'll have 100,000 sets of keys on their desks tomorrow morning?
Whilst it has no bearing on me (bought in 1999), it would be of interest to those who bought in 2006 / 2007.