[analyte123]

During this same time period I had a project at a part-time gig which involved updating document templates and adding a few fields here and there for a legal application. The application was used by a law firm which specialized in mortgages. So I saw the details of various documents one is served in these situations: notice of default, acceleration notices, notice to vacate, and ultimately evictions and foreclosure auctions. And of course you could see thousands of these documents being generated and mailed out. For a guy like the one in the post to show up, you probably would have had to completely ignore probably a dozen of these documents for at least 6 months, not paying your mortgage all along.

Sometimes I feel like this experience, especially the idea that the entire principal balance can be accelerated if you don't make your payments regardless of the value of the house, left a bit of a scar on me that caused me to miss out on the ZIRP real estate boom II. But I am still happy with the way things are turning out overall.

[0cf8612b2e1e]

There was a Planet Money story about Zombie Mortgages. Home owners thought a second mortgage had been annulled, sometimes even being explicitly told that. Years of no statements being sent and suddenly collections was asking for money on what the home owner thought was a done deal. Even the bank was claiming it was some weird fraud attempt. So of course you could feel safe ignoring that paperwork. Until they came and sold her house out from under her.

https://www.npr.org/2024/05/10/1197959049/zombie-second-mort...

[ToucanLoucan]

> For a guy like the one in the post to show up, you probably would have had to completely ignore probably a dozen of these documents for at least 6 months, not paying your mortgage all along.

I find it interesting that in all of these discussions it's treated as known that the person at hand is ignoring the notices and just pretending they aren't in danger of losing their home, just like in issues of evictions for rent, it's treated that for some reason the tenant has decided they don't need to pay. When IMO, in both of these, it's much more reasonable to assume they can't pay.

Maybe it's just a reflexive self-protection thing in people. It's easier to watch/envision a family being forced out of their home via state violence if you assume they were just stupid/inept in some way, that they did something wrong. That the very same thing couldn't happen to you because you would never just not pay your mortgage. And I mean, same. I would never not pay my mortgage. But I can easily conjure all kinds of nightmares that would render me unable to pay my mortgage.

Maybe people just don't like thinking about that.

[analyte123]

I'm aware that many of these people couldn't pay, mostly for lamentable reasons outside of their control, but pretending nothing is wrong usually doesn't help a bad situation. Ignoring letters from the IRS doesn't make you not owe them taxes. Ignoring letters from your lender or their lawyer doesn't make you owe less money. You still owe the money and it costs you interest and time that you could use to negotiate a settlement or forbearance. Perhaps if you make your situation bad enough, it's easier to file for bankruptcy and start over, but I doubt that people are thinking that far.

In any case, it's a big stretch to call eviction "state violence". When they're even involved, the sheriff is mostly helping to enforce a private contract between the homeowner and their lender. The only conceivable alternative to this situation that still allows lending or private property to exist at all is for the police to not exist and everyone enforces their own contracts with their own violence.

[rufus_foreman]

>> In any case, it's a big stretch to call eviction "state violence"

No, it's not, that's exactly what it is. A guy with a gun and a badge coming to your residence to enforce a contract is "state violence".

To me that's a legitimate use of state violence, but let's call it what it is. No, not everyone gets to enforce their contracts with violence, that's called "The state monopoly on violence".

[orangecat]

A guy with a gun and a badge coming to your residence

"your" is questionable in that scenario.

[fragmede]

the place where you live is your residence, no matter what a piece of paper says. Even if it's a tent on the sidewalk.

[naming_the_user]

I think it's a bit less dramatic than that really - most people accept that the world we live in has both rights and responsibilities.

One of those responsibilities is that by paying for the loans you take out, in exchange you get to keep the things that you've bought using them, permanently once you've paid it off.

I might, one day, be unable to pay my mortgage. That's a risk I'm taking.

People tend to get super emotional about this stuff but at the end of the day it's just business, you have lived somewhere else and you can live somewhere else again.

[frmersdog]

This is an incredibly heartless take, and also one not aligned with the nuances lurking beneath the surface of what "most people accept" (banality of evil and all that). The rent you "agreed" to pay may have been set or raised under circumstances ranging from ethically-fraught to soon-to-be-illegal-but-not-yet-litigated. Your income stream, likewise, might have been disrupted by someone else's malfeasance. Neither the law nor landlords care that you fully intend to - in fact, will have the means to, when everything comes out in the wash - live up to your responsibilities. If the eviction proceedings are carried out before the others, you will lose the home you, by all means except a dysfunctional system that has mistimed just order, have the rights to.

Access to a stable domicile is what defines modern civilization. Philosophically, and ironically, that we have a standardized and systematized method for depriving large numbers of our population of that stability suggests a breakdown in civil order. It's reasonable to have an issue with this system without being "super emotional", but let me be clear in stating that it's also a perfectly reasonable subject to be "super emotional" over. Circumstances outside your control depriving you of a home, even temporarily, is not "just business", it's massive disruption families and communities with material ramifications for their well-being, and in a better-organized society would not happen as often as it does here.

Your flippancy also isn't without its own consequences. It turns what could be a problem with a collaborative, mutually-agreeable solution into one where it's accepted that one party is going to get thrown under the bus. The circumstances currently favor landlords. This can be changed. Careful not to let that cannonball hit you.

[naming_the_user]

Who’s talking about rent here? The article is about mortgages.

When you buy a house you know what you’re getting into.

Sorry, I don’t subscribe to the pessimistic “landlords bad, capitalism bad” viewpoint of the world, not that this has anything to do with that anyway.

[ToucanLoucan]

> Who’s talking about rent here? The article is about mortgages.

I brought up rent. While the long term consequences of paying rent and mortgages are quite different (equity, credit, assets, etc.) ultimately both are equal in that you are exchanging a pre-arranged amount of money on a schedule for a place to live.

Both are also equal in that failure to maintain such a schedule results in houselessness, one notably faster than the other.

> When you buy a house you know what you’re getting into.

A dubious assumption. Tons of people caught up in the 2008 housing crash were sold loans they couldn’t afford by financial professionals who knew damn well they could not afford it. Notably none of those families were made whole, and the banks who facilitated the crash were, because they effectively were wearing economic C4 vests and standing in the center of Wall Street, ready to blow the entire thing to bits.

> Sorry, I don’t subscribe to the pessimistic “landlords bad, capitalism bad” viewpoint of the world, not that this has anything to do with that anyway.

Yet you brought it up.

[hirvi74]

> One of those responsibilities is that by paying for the loans you take out

Sure, if one is a commoner.

If one is a large bank, then the American taxpayers can be forced to foot the bill for the government-funded bailout.

Take an out student loan? One is on the hook until the loan is paid or severely disabled/dead.

Take out a PPP loan? Ah Hell, just keep it. No worries.

[ToucanLoucan]

I wonder how many people who had a PPP loan forgiven complain about student loan forgiveness. I’d be willing to bet it’s nearly all.

[topkai22]

I think you underestimate how painful moving is to some people.

Any house I lived in for more than a year or two I miss. It can be really painful to remember I can’t take my kids to my childhood home because my parents moved. Heck, I occasionally miss living in the first house I bought and I’m just renting that one out.

I don’t disagree that people need to pay their mortgages, but we also should recognize that there are real externalities involved. Thinking you had stability and then losing it hurts. Being forced to relocate hurts. Feeling like you failed your family hurts. Those undergoing that deserve grace, compassion, and understanding. Sometimes they also deserve our charity.

It will still often be necessary for those people to move, but it’s not just a financial transaction for those being forced to leave their home.

[immibis]

Another thing to accept about the world is that "just business" kills millions of people every year, and maybe we should stop accepting it as an excuse.

[yieldcrv]

the reddit post doesn't assume that.

[DaiPlusPlus]

> you probably would have had to completely ignore probably a dozen of these documents for at least 6 months, not paying your mortgage all along.

Fun-fact: thems the benefits of being a mortgage holder.

If you're a tenant that's renting, you get no such legal protections - let alone discretion from whichever faceless entity actually owns the property: where I am in King County WA, I think, at most you can get 30 days' notice tops (and that's if nonpayment is the only thing they allege; it's trivially straightforward to make it a 3-day nuisance eviction, honestly).

The whole thing doesn't feel right (I don't want to say "class warfare", but I haven't heard a better explanation for this double-standard).

[BobbyTables2]

Indeed. When I lived in an apparent, got a very angry knock at the door. Before I even got up, manager already was unlocking the door without asking, with a formal eviction notice in hand.

Every month I faithfully put my rent check in an envelope, deposited the slot at the office.

That month they accidentally threw away the check after opening the envelope.

They really didn’t believe I had paid, despite being a good tenant for years, always on time. Never caused any trouble.

Marched me to the office and they discovered they had photocopied my check but didn’t deposit it (threw it away).

That all happened in one month — no prior notice/warning/call about being late on rent.

I’m still shocked at this treatment many many years later. Can’t even chalk it up to any type of prejudice… just utter stupidity.

[jopsen]

No amount of laws can protect renters from a stupid landlord :)

I could certainly see places where using a master key without authorization is a stupid move.

[Sohcahtoa82]

Some landlords have a HUGE superiority complex which makes them look down upon or even despise their tenants for no reason at all.

[mingus88]

Landlords have a financial incentive to dehumanize their tenants. Every repair or improvement they make directly affects their take.

This is probably the #1 reason I haven’t bought a second house or investment property, despite it being the easiest way for me to kickstart some passive income. 20 years of renting has really embedded some class warfare into my psyche.

[jopsen]

Logically thinking: if you are a landlord, most of your interactions with tenants aren't with easy tenants who pay on time and don't make unreasonable demands.

A stupid landlord might not realize that easy tenants are worth gathering.

[Aeolun]

Yeah, I’m more inclined to think they hear ‘I paid my bill!’ from every single person that’ll then stop paying going forward.

[_DeadFred_]

I think this is part of the reason people don't want to live in big city condo buildings with co-ops or communal fees/maintenance. Even if you own your place you don't really own it and these other entity that care nothing about, your bill situation, etc you can impact your housing situation.

If I have a place in the burbs I only have to worry about the soulless local government.

[yellowapple]

The whole point of a housing co-op is that you do have an ownership stake in what would otherwise be a landlord and/or property manager - meaning that you, and your fellow residents, can compel that other entity to care entirely about your bill situation and so on.

The more common reason people often don't want to live in big city condo buildings is simply because they offer less space than single-family homes. There's a balance to be struck between space, affordability, and proximity to work/amenities, and while everyone prioritizes those three factors differently, a lot of people end up finding that balance to lie in the suburbs.

> If I have a place in the burbs I only have to worry about the soulless local government.

Unless/until there's an HOA, in which case you're in the exact same predicament, at best.

[bgnn]

That sounds indeed not right.

Here in the Netherlands the renters have the right, but mortgage holders do not. I was renting a place the owner had mortgage. For some reason the bank wanted to sale the place but couldn't evict me. Since this was the owners fault the bank's lawyers helped me to get like 6 months of rent back to agree to leave. The bank even offered me to buy the place, which in the hindsight, I should have done.

Long story short, what you guys have in US feels wrong and it's not always like that in the rest of the world.

[brigade]

I don’t think it’s obviously “wrong” that renters don’t automatically get the right to occupy a property indefinitely once they move in, but rather only have that right for an agreed-upon term. Or that the owner has the right to decline to renew a lease after said term with a notice period (well maybe the standard 30 or 60 days notice is a little short…)

The “3-day eviction” is that if you break the law in specific ways, the landlord can immediately terminate the lease and start court proceedings with 3 days notice. It still takes months for the eviction to grind through the courts just like it would in the Netherlands.

[ghaff]

It's very local location dependent. You can find lots of horror stories from both the renter and the landlord side. And, in a lot of cases, renters can probably get off with a lot unless the landlord is willing to take extreme illegal measures (which they may).

[bombcar]

This is why the "if you have a loan you're just renting from the bank" people aren't right - sure, in a way it's true but there really IS a legal difference, and it DOES come into play when things go south.

[santoshalper]

Yes, of course, there is a huge difference between having a mortgage (you are the owner but the investor has a lien on your property) and renting.

[Enginerrrd]

Yeah and it goes both ways. When someone gets hurt in your front yard or something you're the one that's liable, not the bank.

[39896880]

Unless they are a trespasser. Generally, you owe no duty of care to trespassers other than to avoid intentionally harming them, unless it’s a kid and you have a pool.

Homeowner’s insurance covers it.

[Denvercoder9]

> If you're a tenant that's renting, you get no such legal protections

In the USA. Many countries in Europe have renters protection similar to that of mortgage holders.

[rayiner]

Depends on where you are in the U.S. Some places have extreme renter protections. Tenants can refuse to pay rent for months before you can even start an eviction proceeding. Then it takes months more. E.g. New York. https://www.reddit.com/r/Landlord/comments/15nn6o0/landlordu.... Landlords may forgo six months of back rent just to get the tenant out of the unit.

[throwaway2037]

In my experience, the worse the winter weather, the stronger the tenant laws. The goal is to prevent eviction during winter months.

[HarryHirsch]

Meanwhile in Alabama the only recourse you have against a landowner who rents you something not habitable is to move out. American law generally is very bad at compelling a party to uphold a contract.

[pnw]

There's a renter here in Seattle that's not paid rent in two years and hasn't been evicted yet. It's not an uncommon issue.

https://www.newsweek.com/squatter-forces-landlord-out-home-w...

[pkaye]

How long can renters go without paying their rent in those countries?

[alphager]

In Germany, the process to evict may start after three months of unpaid rent.

The eviction process itself takes about two years.

[throwaway2037]

Real question: Do landlords resort to "hired help" to encourage non-paying tenants to leave more quickly? Two years sounds crazy. Many people who only own a second home for rent might go bankrupt without rent to pay the loan.

[badpun]

In Poland, they sometimes do. For example, they rent the property to another person (they claim that it’s legal), who is a goon. The goon moves in with the original renter, and makes his life hell. Other paths are to disconnect electricity from the property, by cancelling the contract with electric provider. However, some people are ok with living without power, if the apartment is free. Next steps are - disconnecting water and/or heating, although these are less legal than disconnecting power.

There also was a tragic case of an older lady who resisted being evicted from a building in Warsaw bought by a new owner, who in turn kidnapped her, drove to city outskirts and burned her alive to get rid of her.

[mc3301]

I think that may be the point: to discourage owning a second home for rent.

[klik99]

For a bank, evicting someone from a house is expensive and the departments they have to handle it are very understaffed, their risk is so spread out that not getting 6 months payment is barely a blip. For a landlord, any loss of income for 6 months could be catastrophic, so there is much more urgency behind their action, and many act rashly and without compassion.

While there are certainly asshole landlords, I don't think this situation happened because of a systematic class warfare, it's just landlords tend to be smaller institutions that have a much higher risk profile than banks. Add to that that renters tend to have less political power, and you end up with a situation that greatly prefers mortgage owners.

[nullindividual]

Depends on where you live in King County and on the property. In Seattle, certain property owners must inform the City 90 days prior to sale (“Intent to Sell” city ordinance).

These laws are hyperlocal and making a sweeping statement about the County, State, or the US will ultimately be providing incorrect information.

[DaiPlusPlus]

Yes, you are correct; though I got my info from the King County website; there wasn’t any indication it varies.

[closeparen]

The bank will recover the money it lent you at the foreclosure sale; there's only the time-value-of-money element to whether they see it sooner or later.

The landlord will never be reimbursed for the months of rent not paid, and is paying the mortgage out of their own pocket during this time.

[lacker]

TLDR: You pay for the benefits of being a mortgage holder, when you make the down payment.

Think of it from the bank's point of view. A bank can afford to be patient with mortgage holders because there's an underlying asset. There's a $300,000 house and the owner still owes you $150,000. If you repossess right now as opposed to a few months from now, either way you're getting repaid from the value of the asset, minus the cost of dealing with everything.

Whereas when renting, if someone misses rent one month, if you evict them immediately you're out a month's rent. If you wait two more months before evicting, now you're out three months' rent. The longer you delay, the more it costs you.