Is making your mortgage payments a moral obligation?
Buck Sr. asked:
Home loans are recourse, which means the lender has the right to take all of your assets if you default on your loan. We agreed to this when we signed the papers.
But beyond that, does honoring our promise to pay reflect our moral character?
Should some people be legally let off the hook if they can’t pay? How do we choose who is ‘worthy’ of being forgiven?
Is this a character issue?
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, December 31st, 2008 at 1:35 pm and is filed under Home Loans.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Home loans are recourse, which means the lender has the right to take all of your assets if you default on your loan. We agreed to this when we signed the papers.
But beyond that, does honoring our promise to pay reflect our moral character?
Should some people be legally let off the hook if they can’t pay? How do we choose who is ‘worthy’ of being forgiven?
Is this a character issue?
January 2nd, 2009 at 6:10 pm
YES. ONE made an agreement, made promises to pay, gave one’s word, signed, signifying agreement to terms, became legally obliged.
There are natural consequences to one’s actions. And one is that being “let off the hook” for one’s legal debts may result in a 1099 issued, which impacts the tax return for the year with additional income.
One always has a moral obligation to make amends.
January 3rd, 2009 at 2:56 pm
No to all the above. You took out a contract. They gave you something, you need to do your side of the contract. In this case they gave you the money for the house, you in return need to pay back the money they let you borrow, plus interest.
As far as it being moral obligation, I don’t think so. I think if most people could pay their mortgage they would, so morally they are trying. Right now is just a real hard time for people.
January 5th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
You are right in that signed mortgage papers indicate an agreement to pay the mortgage loan and a default by the borrower can legally allow the lender to seize all assets of the borrower. Does it reflect on moral character? – I believe it does. Saying that, there are circumstances where a person(s) become unable to repay. In those cases, communication is a necessity for the lender and borrower to reach an equitable solution. Lenders normally do not like to repossess as it causes additional paperwork and time to liquidate those repossessions. By using guide lines for lending, the risk of non-payment is greatly reduced. Thus, a choice can be made as to the character issue.
January 8th, 2009 at 1:45 am
Your solutions…