Yes, but.
I am the registered owner of my house, but the registration also states the loan I had to take out. And I can’t change anything without the banks approval. I couldn’t even sell my house if the bank doesn’t agree.
So I do own my house, but that doesn’t really mean much until I paid for it.
Of course there’s a distinction between what is written in the contracts and what is actually lived.
Example: I agreed in writing that the bank can cancel the contract and collect all payment when they suspect I could not make future payments. I can fight the decision in court, but only after the fact of losing the house.
Practically, that will never happen as long as I make my payments etc, of course, as no bank wants to be known as the one kicking out owners without reason. But legally, they could.
In the US the house is yours in nearly everyway as long as you make your payments.
After the housing crash in 2008 they made it more difficult for the bank to foreclose on homes. You have to miss 4 consecutive payments before they can begin foreclosure. Also the last payment has to be 30 days past the due date before they can begin foreclosure. So 120 days of missed payments before the bank can act.
Additionally most mortgage companies have a 15 day grace period meaning you can pay 15 days past the due date with absolutely no penalty. That’s common practice, but not law. My guess is this grace period cuts down on the staff they need to manage accounts.
When it comes to the deed it’s just me and my spouse on it not the bank. Interestingly I’m not even on the mortgage just the deed, but that’s a whole different story about the bogus credit score system
The point is that people with mortgages are still trapped into thinking “I can’t afford to take risks with my job, or I’ll end up homeless”. The popularisation of mortgages is relatively new, and a deliberate way to keep the workforce in check.
Yes those are problems, but they lie in different areas. For example in US at will employment should be abolished and we desperately need better worker protection laws.
There were also regulations that caused price of property to be higher (for example a lot of restrictions showing down building new houses)
But anyway purchasing house historically was usually the biggest purchase most people made in their lives, so not everyone couple purchase it out of pocket. Mortgage allowed many of them to afford a house.
Same with mortgages
Rent to buy more like.
No it’s not. After you finish paying you own it. With rent you can pay for it for 30 years and you own it as much as you did on the first day.
You also typically own the house the whole time. You just also hold debt for a lot of its value.
Yes, but. I am the registered owner of my house, but the registration also states the loan I had to take out. And I can’t change anything without the banks approval. I couldn’t even sell my house if the bank doesn’t agree. So I do own my house, but that doesn’t really mean much until I paid for it.
“… until I paid for it.”
Proving the original point that renting is not the same as paying a mortgage.
The equity in the house is mine, not the landlord’s. That’s the major difference.
Yeah, that was not my point either. If it was, I wouldn’t have bought a house, after all. This is our retirement fund.
For the time being it is mine with a footnote, the footnote being the banks supervision. That was what I tried to say.
Where in the world do you live?
I can change anything I want at my house without the bank’s approval and there’s another 25 years on the mortgage.
Only things I have to do is pay the mortgage and take out appropriate insurance
Germany.
Of course there’s a distinction between what is written in the contracts and what is actually lived.
Example: I agreed in writing that the bank can cancel the contract and collect all payment when they suspect I could not make future payments. I can fight the decision in court, but only after the fact of losing the house.
Practically, that will never happen as long as I make my payments etc, of course, as no bank wants to be known as the one kicking out owners without reason. But legally, they could.
This does all sound very german.
In the US the house is yours in nearly everyway as long as you make your payments.
After the housing crash in 2008 they made it more difficult for the bank to foreclose on homes. You have to miss 4 consecutive payments before they can begin foreclosure. Also the last payment has to be 30 days past the due date before they can begin foreclosure. So 120 days of missed payments before the bank can act.
Additionally most mortgage companies have a 15 day grace period meaning you can pay 15 days past the due date with absolutely no penalty. That’s common practice, but not law. My guess is this grace period cuts down on the staff they need to manage accounts.
When it comes to the deed it’s just me and my spouse on it not the bank. Interestingly I’m not even on the mortgage just the deed, but that’s a whole different story about the bogus credit score system
Does the deed have a lien holder, ie the bank?
You can sell it, the banks just want their promised money, so you usually need to pay some fine unless you also get a new mortgage with them.
The point is that people with mortgages are still trapped into thinking “I can’t afford to take risks with my job, or I’ll end up homeless”. The popularisation of mortgages is relatively new, and a deliberate way to keep the workforce in check.
Yes those are problems, but they lie in different areas. For example in US at will employment should be abolished and we desperately need better worker protection laws.
There were also regulations that caused price of property to be higher (for example a lot of restrictions showing down building new houses)
But anyway purchasing house historically was usually the biggest purchase most people made in their lives, so not everyone couple purchase it out of pocket. Mortgage allowed many of them to afford a house.