Couple tries to live beyond their means, banks say no and Toll keeps their $93k

[Caladan 19]

Precisely. This couple with only a 90k downpayment wanted to live in a near-million dollar property. Yuppie arrogance, is what it is. They could have afforded to live a few miles away but they had to live on the water in Hoboken. Well, I don't feel bad for them. They wanted what they could not afford. And they knew the risks (or should have).

I don't know. This doesn't sound legal to me. For example, let's say you wanted to buy this really nice guitar for 10g's at a local music store, and they said they'd hold it for you if you put down a $1,000 as a deposit. If you back out and decide not to buy the guitar, the music store should not be able to keep the entire deposit. I think they'd have to demonstrate a loss for them by holding onto the guitar. Keeping the whole amount they put down is over-reaching and shouldn't be legal. Not for the that amount of money.

This is probably where you learn about reading all the fine print.

Fine print though should not give a company the right to rob someone of their money, IMO. This is where individual rights vs. the rights of the business clash. I disagree with the concept that a contractual agreement can trump someone's rights or that someone can just willfully sign their rights away.

This has me curious. I'll try to find any court rulings on refund of deposit money.

I think that's right; usually, if financing falls through, the whole deal falls through. They had a deal; if the bank changed the terms of the deal (which is what saying "we need a bigger downpayment" means), normally that's a point at which all parties can say "the terms have changed, thanks, but no thanks."

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Live within your means and pay cash for everything.

Seems so simple.

[EasyRider 3]

Wait, they signed an agreement with the bank and now the bank is asking for a larger down payment? That's bullsh!t. Honor the agreement you made. If it was the other way around, and the couple couldn't come up with the mortgage payment they'd be in foreclosure like a lot of other people. They need to give them their money back.

[Niels Bohr 72]

This is one reason why the housing crisis happened. Families cannot afford payments to their mortgages, why even get a mortgage. Their income is insufficient, and want to live in luxury.

When is the tougher regulation coming?

[jundp 191]

I would much rather live in a modest home I can afford without worrying how to make ends meet than live in a million dollar TWO BEDROOM APARTMENT (#######?) and stress each month about the mortgage.

[Niels Bohr 72]

And, they went to the NYTimes about this for justice? They are the type who fueled the housing crisis.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Damn Toll Brothers, they ruined this couples life. I hope Obama doesn't give Toll Brothers any money.

[Caladan 19]

Live within your means and pay cash for everything.

Seems so simple.

There's nothing wrong with managing credit responsibly. (I'm not talking running up debt on credit cards, but if you decide not to go to college because you can't pay cash, that's not a smart long-term investment.)

[Heracles 417]

Fine print though should not give a company the right to rob someone of their money, IMO. This is where individual rights vs. the rights of the business clash. I disagree with the concept that a contractual agreement can trump someone's rights or that someone can just willfully sign their rights away.

This has me curious. I'll try to find any court rulings on refund of deposit money.

This is where under English law you can put a "Subject to Finance" clause and they (the couple) would receive their deposit back. Even then, under English law the courts have the final say regardless of what is written in a contract or how long it is.

I agree with you though. It's a little ridiculous to expect someone who cannot obtain finance to lose their deposit. Naturally, it would be a different story if they simply decided to change their mind and that was the reason the deal fell through.

California tends to protect consumers more in situations like this.

[mkg265 2]

Maybe now the couple will start to look at the 175K 4 bedroom, 2 bath homes in the Bronx that are under foreclosure before trying to move to another upper class oasis.

I do feel sorry for them through.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Every P&S I have ever seen in MA is always subject to the buyer obtaining financing within X number of days. Perhaps that was the case here too, and then the bank changed it's mind after the x days?

[Niels Bohr 72]

Maybe now the couple will start to look at the 175K 4 bedroom, 2 bath homes in the Bronx that are under foreclosure before trying to move to another upper class oasis.

I do feel sorry for them through.

That's a smarter way. If I was in a different situation like theirs, I would preferably move to the bronx. I'd buy an old Honda Civic with rusted exterior, and tailpipe to blend in. Living there isn't so bad after you blend in.

[Ladylethal 12]

I think part of the issue here is that if this is anything like in Brasil, these projects are sold before the company has the actual funds to build it, they start building after money starts coming in from the buyers, which could mean the down payment is long gone by now as well, invested toward the apartment they won't have anymore.

I dunno about US laws to see who is at fault here and what is the correct procedure, so I dunno if the pre-approval is a certain thing or just to give the person an idea of how much they can get until they actually sign the contract or not. I dunno if the fine print said the deposit was gone if they didn't keep the place, etc.

For sure one of the issues with this home crisis right now is people buying beyond their means, they could afford the mortadge at first but either lost jobs or maybe it wasn't a fixed mortgadge and they can no longer afford it, etc. Loads of foreclosures, bad for the banks.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

There is no evidence the couple (family actually) is/was living beyond their means.

There is evidence the couple wanted to live beyond their means. The headline says as much.

The article clearly says the 93k deposit was "all their savings". Only 93k in the bank and they want to live in a million dollar condo? That's beyond retarded.

Edited March 23, 2009 by Randomizer

[Scott & Lai 12]

Live within your means and pay cash for everything.

Following this to the letter, very few people would ever be able to own a home.

This is one reason why the housing crisis happened. Families cannot afford payments to their mortgages, why even get a mortgage. Their income is insufficient, and want to live in luxury.

When is the tougher regulation coming?

They were able to afford the mortgage before the bank changed the terms of the contract.