It appears to me that a large percentage of the blog postings dealing with the challenges of the short sale, criticize the lender for being slow and sometimes almost unwilling to cooperate with the homeowner requesting a short sale. I have an uneasy feeling that there is something inherently wrong with this picture.
Before I go any further, there are several points I want to make clear:
- I am not defending the banking industry and their response to short sales
- I empathize and sympathize with the homeowner who is engulfed by a financial crisis not of his own making
- I am not criticizing or judging anyone's business practices unless they are unethical and/or ileagal
- I have no idea as to an equitable solution for those trapped in distressful financial situations
Maybe I'm wrong, but I sense a spirit of entitlement that I do not believe is justifiable.
Let me use myself as an example. John, a friend comes to me asks to borrow $10.00. He's a little short this month, but he promises me that he will repay me next month. On the basis of that promise I lend him the money.
Payday of the next month comes, but I don't hear from my friend. I have my own bills to pay, and the $10.00 would sure help! I call him at home, I leave messages, I e-mail, but no response. I just can't get in touch with him.
A few days later, I receive a call from a mutual friend, Bill. He tells me that John had some unexpected expenses and was laid off and was unable to repay the $10.00 he had promised to pay. Bill then tells me that if I am willing to accept $2.00 and forgive the debt, that John can pay that $2.00.
I tell Bill to tell John that that he promised to pay me $10.00 and that's what I expect. Bill tells me that it is really in my best interest to accept the $2.00. I can accept the $2.00 or take him to court. Hmmm? filing fees $25.00, time off work, I could face a$50.00 - $100.00 loss to take him to court. Maybe $2.00 is better than nothing, but I'll tell you one thing, I will never ever loan John money again and will tell all of my friends not to loan him money, because he does not keep his word and cannot be trusted.
Maybe I will take him to court. I might not get my money, but maybe I can write the $50.00 off on my taxes as a bad debt.
Granted, that is an extremely simplified example, but why in the world do John and Bill feel that I should have to accept less than the $10.00 I was promised. I would think that if asked, it would be up to me as to whether or not I accepted and under what terms I accepted without being accused of being unreasonable or uncooperative and bad mouthed for a determination not to agree.
Maybe I'm wrong, but if the lender did not in some way take advantage of the borrower, the terms were clearly disclosed and the borrower agreed to the terms, why should there be the expectation that the lender must and will take less than he is owed?
I find this attitude somewhat disturbing, but maybe that's because I'm from the old school that believes if you make a promise, you should keep it. That's integrity. If in a bind, it is certainly acceptable to discuss the problem with the other party and if the other party modifies the agreement to respond in gratitude, but there should be no expectation of a modification, after all, a promise is a promise.
Comments(30)