Chuck Long's home is going to be auctioned off in foreclosure

[SoCal]

Big 12 offensive coordinator facing home foreclosure

The San Diego area home of former San Diego State football coach Chuck Long is going to be auctioned off in foreclosure this March. He defaulted on payments, according to the SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE. Long had a record of 9–27 in three seasons as SDSU’s head coach before being fired in 2008. Long, currently the offensive coordinator at Kansas in the Big 12, has seen the four-bedroom home assessed for more than a third less than he paid for it in 2007. Long made over $2.8 million as coach of the Aztecs.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/feb/23/ex-sdsu-coach-chuck-long-facing-foreclosure/

.

[BOOMERBRADLEY]

Really Chuck?


How much is he making at KU? A couple hundgees a year? Sounds like Third and Long is terrible with money too...

[swardboy]

Sad and strange to see stories like this. I know so many people who made a fortune in California real estate. Timing is everything.

[BOOMERBRADLEY]

Sad and strange to see stories like this. I know so many people who made a fortune in California real estate. Timing is everything.

Recently they made a fortune?

[Wishboned]

He was doing good making his regular payments on time. Paying it off slowly. But then at the end he got greedy and wanted to make a big balloon payment and fell short.

[SoCaliSooner]

Recently they made a fortune?
It's entirely possible still. You just can't buy in the first phase of a property development and sell by the time the 4th or 5th phase is selling at a higher price.

The trick now is buying a bank foreclosure where people have walked away from it and left it for dead. Rehab and sell still has a market. Smaller profit, but profit nonetheless.

[BOOMERBRADLEY]

It's entirely possible still. You just can't buy in the first phase of a property development and sell by the time the 4th or 5th phase is selling at a higher price.

The trick now is buying a bank foreclosure where people have walked away from it and left it for dead. Rehab and sell still has a market. Smaller profit, but profit nonetheless.

A small profit sure, but that's assuming you are even able to sell it. It's a buyers market but not many people are able to buy right now. A company or individual may have to sit on the house for a couple of years...

[jkjsooner]

Big 12 offensive coordinator facing home foreclosure

The San Diego area home of former San Diego State football coach Chuck Long is going to be auctioned off in foreclosure this March. He defaulted on payments, according to the SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE. Long had a record of 9–27 in three seasons as SDSU’s head coach before being fired in 2008. Long, currently the offensive coordinator at Kansas in the Big 12, has seen the four-bedroom home assessed for more than a third less than he paid for it in 2007. Long made over $2.8 million as coach of the Aztecs.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/feb/23/ex-sdsu-coach-chuck-long-facing-foreclosure/

.

Buying real estate in San Diego in 2007 was a BAD idea. This might not mean he has financial troubles. It could have been just a calculated default. In California you can't go after the owner's assets in a foreclosure.

As I see it, the bank knows this rule so that is essentially part of the contract with the bank. Giving the house back to the bank is fulfilling your obligation to the bank. If the bank doesn't like it then try to get the law changed or don't do business in California. Some may disagree but let's face it, businesses make these decisions all the time.

If Long saved up his money he shouldn't have to worry about the credit hit.

[badger]

He might have to pay for his Lawrence house in cash, but I'm sure he's not hurting for any :O

[rekamrettuB]

Probably couldn't sell it for half of what he owes on it. If he's got him a house already in Kansas this may be what benefits him the best. Not real sure why any coach would buy a home until you're established.

[OUMallen]

Sometimes foreclosure is the best financial decision. It doesn't make you a bad person, nor does it mean you can't pay the mortgage.

But still, it usually means you can't pay the mortgage.

[SoCaliSooner]

I am surprised he didn't rent for his first 2-3 years anyway. SDSU in the best case was a stepping stone job. The only reason to buy would be if he wanted to have a place in San D to vacation regardless of where he coached.

[Leroy Lizard]

As I see it, the bank knows this rule so that is essentially part of the contract with the bank. Giving the house back to the bank is fulfilling your obligation to the bank. If the bank doesn't like it then try to get the law changed or don't do business in California. Some may disagree but let's face it, businesses make these decisions all the time.

Exactly. Real estate values plunged here a few years ago. If he owes $700,000 on a $500,000 house, he may have simply told the bank to shove it.

It's none of our business regardless.

EDIT: I realize there is no such thing as a $500,000 house in S.D. :D

[rainiersooner]

He was doing good making his regular payments on time. Paying it off slowly. But then at the end he got greedy and wanted to make a big balloon payment and fell short.

That was very funny.

[PhiDeltBeers]

Who would live in a lousy half a million dollar home?!


;)

[OULenexaman]

Who would live in a lousy half a million dollar home?!


;)

depends on the trees...:D

[texaspokieokie]

Who would live in a lousy half a million dollar home?!


;)

in san diego, it probly would be lousy. in da hood.

[SoCaliSooner]

Who would live in a lousy half a million dollar home?!


;)
http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/375476/56336017.jpg

[texaspokieokie]

that one was 700k.
at least that's what i heard.

[PhiDeltBeers]

http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/375476/56336017.jpg

That right there is funny!

[PhiDeltBeers]

depends on the trees...:D

All of my trees aren't worth $2500 combined!

;)

[PhiDeltBeers]

Link (http://www.californiamoves.com/Property/PropertyDetails.aspx?SearchID=7799555&PropertyID=1050540&RowNum=711&StateID=9&RegionID=4&IsRegularPS=True)

This is what half a mill gets you in San Diego!

Oh my.

[Soonermagik]

San Diego real estate is insane. My BIL lived out there for 7 years, but moved back due to the crazy prices. He really wanted to buy a house, but didn't want to plop down a half million on a dump.

When he was out there I almost went to SDSU. Instead, I made the right choice and picked OU. The Chuck Long saga just keeps getting better; I am shocked that anyone would hire the guy.

[badger]

Thank you once again for recruiting Sam Bradford, Chuck Long.

Now that I got the nicety out of the way, you're the reason we lost to LSU in the championship. Not the strongly pro-Tiger crowd in Nawlins, not JW's nonexistent knees, YOU. :mad:

[Soonerjeepman]

Link (http://www.californiamoves.com/Property/PropertyDetails.aspx?SearchID=7799555&PropertyID=1050540&RowNum=711&StateID=9&RegionID=4&IsRegularPS=True)

This is what half a mill gets you in San Diego!

Oh my.

the patio is really nice! :D

[swardboy]

Recently they made a fortune?

As in: Bought in the 1960's and sold in the 1990's and early '00's. Bandits I tell ya.....whippersnapper.

[swardboy]

Link (http://www.californiamoves.com/Property/PropertyDetails.aspx?SearchID=7799555&PropertyID=1050540&RowNum=711&StateID=9&RegionID=4&IsRegularPS=True)

This is what half a mill gets you in San Diego!

Oh my.


awesome remolded home on quiet street in clairemont, huge wide open family/living room. nice tile bathrooms, pergo style flooring, fireplace, updated kitchen, attached 2 car garage, nice rear landscaped fenced yard, move in ready,

It's that remolding that adds so much value....

[badger]

I am picturing Chuck Long's house as one that runs right up to the next property line, but then seems to stop just short.

[OUstud]

I hear these guys are pretty good at selling flipped houses.

http://cdn.static.ovimg.com/episode/1087211.jpg

[BOOMERBRADLEY]

I am picturing Chuck Long's house as one that runs right up to the next property line, but then seems to stop just short.

so wrong...

[OrlandoSooner]

Link (http://www.californiamoves.com/Property/PropertyDetails.aspx?SearchID=7799555&PropertyID=1050540&RowNum=711&StateID=9&RegionID=4&IsRegularPS=True)

This is what half a mill gets you in San Diego!

Oh my.

Here is a better one (http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/4561-Casa-Nova-Ct_San-Diego_CA_92154_M26546-70828) for that price.

[badger]

so wrong...

This is the bank's third and final longshot attempt to convert the house into money from Chuck before they punt it into foreclosure.


(I am only joking because Chuck seems to not be concerned or even care. Foreclosure is usually no joking matter)

[C&CDean]

You know, I just don't understand people who say things like "meh, the foreclosure deal was a planned risk. It ain't no big deal..." WTF?

I guess my daddy raised me different. We were taught from day one that a man:

1. Goes to work
2. Takes care of his family
3. Pays his bills
4. Gets as many jobs as it takes to accomplish #3
5. Never takes out a second mortgage - no matter how bad you think you need it
6. Would rather starve than accept a handout - especially from the government
7. Goes to church

I've done good on all of them except #7.

I just can't get people that think it's groovy to file bankruptcy or get foreclosed on. To me, it would be a major embarrassment. I know people do it all the dang time, and I understand that some of these folks truly have no other way out, but I'm convinced, by and large, people who file bankruptcy or get foreclosed on are too damn lazy and/or stupid to a) keep themselves within their means, and b) get a second or third job to make ends meet.

Anyhow, to me a man's credit/reputation is everything. If you don't even pay your damn bills you're a POS. Especially if you own a cell phone, TV, cable, 3 cars, etc.

[SoCaliSooner]

You know, I just don't understand people who say things like "meh, the foreclosure deal was a planned risk. It ain't no big deal..." WTF?

I guess my daddy raised me different. We were taught from day one that a man:

1. Goes to work
2. Takes care of his family
3. Pays his bills
4. Gets as many jobs as it takes to accomplish #3
5. Never takes out a second mortgage - no matter how bad you think you need it
6. Would rather starve than accept a handout - especially from the government
7. Goes to church

I've done good on all of them except #7.

I just can't get people that think it's groovy to file bankruptcy or get foreclosed on. To me, it would be a major embarrassment. I know people do it all the dang time, and I understand that some of these folks truly have no other way out, but I'm convinced, by and large, people who file bankruptcy or get foreclosed on are too damn lazy and/or stupid to a) keep themselves within their means, and b) get a second or third job to make ends meet.

Anyhow, to me a man's credit/reputation is everything. If you don't even pay your damn bills you're a POS. Especially if you own a cell phone, TV, cable, 3 cars, etc.
Easy there chet...

With that kind of thinking Section 8 would be obsolete...

[C&CDean]

Easy there chet...

With that kind of thinking Section 8 would be obsolete...

What's so hard about typing "Dean?"

[PhiDeltBeers]

You know, I just don't understand people who say things like "meh, the foreclosure deal was a planned risk. It ain't no big deal..." WTF?

I guess my daddy raised me different. We were taught from day one that a man:

1. Goes to work
2. Takes care of his family
3. Pays his bills
4. Gets as many jobs as it takes to accomplish #3
5. Never takes out a second mortgage - no matter how bad you think you need it
6. Would rather starve than accept a handout - especially from the government
7. Goes to church

I've done good on all of them except #7.

I just can't get people that think it's groovy to file bankruptcy or get foreclosed on. To me, it would be a major embarrassment. I know people do it all the dang time, and I understand that some of these folks truly have no other way out, but I'm convinced, by and large, people who file bankruptcy or get foreclosed on are too damn lazy and/or stupid to a) keep themselves within their means, and b) get a second or third job to make ends meet.

Anyhow, to me a man's credit/reputation is everything. If you don't even pay your damn bills you're a POS. Especially if you own a cell phone, TV, cable, 3 cars, etc.

Finally, something I completely agree with you on. Except I do #7 as well.

:D

I'm betting you didn't vote for our current president.

[PhiDeltBeers]

Here is a better one (http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/4561-Casa-Nova-Ct_San-Diego_CA_92154_M26546-70828) for that price.

That house (as far as price and square footage goes) can be found in Oklahoma. I bet there was a day when that house would be around a cool million though.

[humblesooner]

You know, I just don't understand people who say things like "meh, the foreclosure deal was a planned risk. It ain't no big deal..." WTF?

I guess my daddy raised me different. We were taught from day one that a man:

1. Goes to work
2. Takes care of his family
3. Pays his bills
4. Gets as many jobs as it takes to accomplish #3
5. Never takes out a second mortgage - no matter how bad you think you need it
6. Would rather starve than accept a handout - especially from the government
7. Goes to church

I've done good on all of them except #7.

I just can't get people that think it's groovy to file bankruptcy or get foreclosed on. To me, it would be a major embarrassment. I know people do it all the dang time, and I understand that some of these folks truly have no other way out, but I'm convinced, by and large, people who file bankruptcy or get foreclosed on are too damn lazy and/or stupid to a) keep themselves within their means, and b) get a second or third job to make ends meet.

Anyhow, to me a man's credit/reputation is everything. If you don't even pay your damn bills you're a POS. Especially if you own a cell phone, TV, cable, 3 cars, etc.

(Non Sports Related) Post of the Year!!
******* called me a few years back to tell me that the engine in her car had gone out and wanted to know what she should do. I told her the name of a rebuilt engine company in Tulsa that she should call and see what the cost would be and if they financed. It wouldn't be fun making two car payments, but since she still owed money on the car and didn't have the means to just have it rebuilt, this made the most sense to me.

A couple of weeks later, I find out that she bought another car (before her credit got screwed), then just stopped making payments on the first one and told them to come get it. They threatened to sue her and she filed bankruptcy. She filed bankruptcy....over a car!!! I couldn't believe it.

[PhiDeltBeers]

Easy there chet...

With that kind of thinking Section 8 would be obsolete...

Dean doesn't sit in Section 8!

Come on dude!

[badger]

San Diego was so upset about their coach Brady Hoke leaving for Michigan that they foreclosed on Chuck Long.

[IndySooner]

For once I agree with Leroy.

1) It's none of our business. He's been gone for how many years now? He ran one of the most successful offenses in the history of college football.

2) It's probably a business decision. He's letting the bank have the house. There are MULTI-MILLIONAIRES doing the same thing out there. The market is brutal. I'm not saying it's right, but it's happening all of the time.

[PhiDeltBeers]

For once I agree with Leroy.

1) It's none of our business. He's been gone for how many years now? He ran one of the most successful offenses in the history of college football.

2) It's probably a business decision. He's letting the bank have the house. There are MULTI-MILLIONAIRES doing the same thing out there. The market is brutal. I'm not saying it's right, but it's happening all of the time.

Enron made some "business" decisions too.

[Prodigal]

Sometimes foreclosure is the best financial decision. It doesn't make you a bad person, nor does it mean you can't pay the mortgage.

But still, it usually means you can't pay the mortgage.

Actually, if you can make the payments and walk away, it does make you a bad person, or at least a person of poor character to a certain extent.

Someone has to pay, and it always ends up being me and others who are responsible.

Chuck Long is a pretty sorry individual.

[C&CDean]

Actually, if you can make the payments and walk away, it does make you a bad person, or at least a person of poor character to a certain extent.

Someone has to pay, and it always ends up being me and others who are responsible.

Chuck Long is a pretty sorry individual.

I'm considering turning you green for that one.

[badger]

Unless something has changed (and I don't think they hired as big of a sucker as Lew Perkins to replace him, so probably not), Chuck Long makes $350k per season to coordinate KU's offense.

Link (http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2010/oct/21/contract-favors-turner-gill/?sports)

He was owed $1.4 million when he was fired in 2008 after three seasons at SDSU, but the cost will be defrayed (if there's any left owed, I don't think there is) by his current KU contract. His SDSU called for him to stay at SDSU if they fired him, unless he found another job... so for a few years after his canning, he had a do-nothing desk job that annually paid him more than $700k (I think it was $716k) the same amount he got each year coaching SDSU... winning an average of three games.

OK, rant on how he has enough money to pay off his debt finished. Back to making jokes at his expense :P

...hmmm... jokes...

Chuck Long nicknamed his San Diego house "the endzone," then proceeded to travel in the opposite direction to Lawrence

[SoCaliSooner]

Actually, if you can make the payments and walk away, it does make you a bad person, or at least a person of poor character to a certain extent.

Someone has to pay, and it always ends up being me and others who are responsible.

Chuck Long is a pretty sorry individual.
Often people forget that real estate is a long term investment. As soon as they realize their house is worth less than they paid for it, they think that somehow the bank cheated them and want to no longer pay what they agreed to.

Pay your mortgage. Eventually it will turn around, faster especially in areas where real estate is a premium like San D.

[yermom]

Probably couldn't sell it for half of what he owes on it. If he's got him a house already in Kansas this may be what benefits him the best. Not real sure why any coach would buy a home until you're established.


go **** yourself, San Diego!

:D

[SoonerMom2]

Why should Long pour any more money into a home that lost that much in value? I would have walked away as well and told the bank they could have it.

Happens all the time if you are transferred and you cannot sell your home and even make enough to pay the mortgage and expenses. We built a home in TX right before we found out Kelly AFB was closing and the home was worth less when we were transferred than what we owed by quite a bit. We arranged with the bank to walk away. Bank didn't even put it on the credit report as our lawyer worked out the whole deal. Sometimes you have no choice.

[King Barry's Back]

Actually, if you can make the payments and walk away, it does make you a bad person, or at least a person of poor character to a certain extent.

Someone has to pay, and it always ends up being me and others who are responsible.

Chuck Long is a pretty sorry individual.

Look, I don't know anything about Long's real estate holdings or financial standing. Given that, I am not going to make any judgmental comments about him. If you know more than me, i would appreciate you including that information to back up your judgmental comments.

Nonetheless, you should consider that when buying a house with a home loan, both you and the lender are jointly investing in the purchase. You are betting that the house will maintain/increase it's value, and SO IS THE FINANCIER/bank.

You are BOTH assuming joint-risk that the price could fall.

If/when that price does fall, and someone is about to take a big loss, I don't see any moral reason why the banker shouldn't lose as well as the purchaser. Since losing a few ten's of thousands of dollars will wipe out most individuals, it might even be morally arguable that the bankers should take the brunt of the loss. Especially since their lax lending and VERY, SHOCKINGLY POOR oversight and evaluation of asset values got us all in this mess anyway.

[BoulderSooner79]

Why should Long pour any more money into a home that lost that much in value? I would have walked away as well and told the bank they could have it.
...


The down side is that we all pick up the tab for the losses all these banks are taking on repossessed homes. But it's a tough individual decision to honor your debts when the cheaper/easier way is to walk away and everyone else is opting for the easy path.

[sperry]

I don't think there is a moral angle to it at all. It's business plain and simple. If we don't want it to be a financially reasonable decision to just walk away from a home, than we need to adjust the laws to make it that way.

[BoulderSooner79]

I don't think there is a moral angle to it at all. It's business plain and simple. If we don't want it to be a financially reasonable decision to just walk away from a home, than we need to adjust the laws to make it that way.

I agree - I just don't want to pick up the tab for someones bad bet. Either the borrower or lender or some combination of both should take the hit. But these bank bail-outs just shifted the bad debt to the US government which is already drowning in debt. The US gov's is just printing more money to cover it which basically means spreading this debt to everyone holding dollars by reducing the value of those dollars - i.e. all of us. As you say, we need to adjust the laws, but this is getting way away from football.

[Eielson]

that one was 700k.
at least that's what i heard.

Yeah. They would never settle for a measly 500K house.

[jkjsooner]

For once I agree with Leroy.

1) It's none of our business. He's been gone for how many years now? He ran one of the most successful offenses in the history of college football.

2) It's probably a business decision. He's letting the bank have the house. There are MULTI-MILLIONAIRES doing the same thing out there. The market is brutal. I'm not saying it's right, but it's happening all of the time.

Not only are there multi-millionaires doing it but there are fortune 500 companies do it. One time they mentioned companies who have turned real estate over to the bank and it was surprising. Then again, companies don't have credit ratings like we do - they pay companies to rate them AAA.

[jkjsooner]

If/when that price does fall, and someone is about to take a big loss, I don't see any moral reason why the banker shouldn't lose as well as the purchaser. Since losing a few ten's of thousands of dollars will wipe out most individuals, it might even be morally arguable that the bankers should take the brunt of the loss. Especially since their lax lending and VERY, SHOCKINGLY POOR oversight and evaluation of asset values got us all in this mess anyway.


Playing devil's advocate here, the bank doesn't really get to take advantage of the windfall if the house value skyrockets. They get interest on the loan but that's it.

I still say that when the law states one can walk w/o financial consequences, that is implicit in the contract signed between the bank and the buyer. You are meeting 100% of your legal obligation.

[jkjsooner]

Enron made some "business" decisions too.

No, Enron committed fraud. There's a difference.

[MI Sooner]

1st mortgages in CA are non-recourse by law, as others have mentioned. Basically, Long signed an agreement in which the bank gave him money that he agreed to pay back in a mix of money and house (his choice). I don't see how exercising his option to pay back the bank in house instead of money makes him a bad person.

[C&CDean]

I don't think there is a moral angle to it at all. It's business plain and simple. If we don't want it to be a financially reasonable decision to just walk away from a home, than we need to adjust the laws to make it that way.

"Your honor, let me present Exhibit B as to why this country is in a ****hole. No moral angle at all, your honor. It's all about what is reasonable, financially speaking. Borrow, spend beyond your means, have a great time. Never worry at all about paying back what you LEGALLY promised to pay back. Heck your honor, in reality, the bank should bear the lion's share of the burden for having the audacity to loan me money in the first place."

To each his own I guess, but I honestly don't know how someone borrows money and then blows the debt off can look in a mirror or fall asleep at night. It IS a moral as well as legal obligation. If you don't feel that way, then I suggest you are a part of the problem.

Oh, and to keep it football related, Go OU!

[yermom]

on the other side, maybe the banks should be a little more picky about who they will loan money to...

maybe no money down isn't the best of ideas. it's like everyone forgets why the things that they are changing are there.

[texaspokieokie]

1st mortgages in CA are non-recourse by law, as others have mentioned. Basically, Long signed an agreement in which the bank gave him money that he agreed to pay back in a mix of money and house (his choice). I don't see how exercising his option to pay back the bank in house instead of money makes him a bad person.

people on this board just love to "badmouth" chuck long.
how else could WE be wasting our time ???

[Sooner Cal]

Exactly. Real estate values plunged here a few years ago. If he owes $700,000 on a $500,000 house, he may have simply told the bank to shove it.

It's none of our business regardless.

EDIT: I realize there is no such thing as a $500,000 house in S.D. :D

Sorry, but you are wrong. Taxpayers are paying the bill so it is our business. This is especially bad because Long has made plenty of money and he should honor his debts even if it means he loses money.

I have met Chuck Long. Seemed like a nice guy, but now I have no respct for him. It may be legal to walk. It may be economically rational. But it shows a huge character flaw. He had a choice. He isn't poor by any stretch of the imagination. If this is true, he's basically a dirtbag IMHO

[badger]

people on this board just love to "badmouth" chuck long.
how else could WE be wasting our time ???

Fire Chuck "Third and" Long. If we couldn't beat KU in it's worst year in recent history, then clearly there is something wrong with our offense. Chuck Chuck!

:cool:

[MamaMia]

He was doing good making his regular payments on time. Paying it off slowly. But then at the end he got greedy and wanted to make a big balloon payment and fell short.

I'm no financier, but when they offered me that kind of deal, not knowing what my circumstances were going to be when the big payment came due, I opted to just pay what I knew I could afford on a monthly basis no matter what. I did NOT want to be some burden to my family, who may have wanted to come to my rescue, any taxpayers, or any bank for that matter.

[cvsooner]

Uh...I think the post from Wishboned was a humorous dig at Third and Long's playcalling...a couple of short runs followed by a difficult-to-convert pass on third down.

[MamaMia]

Uh...I think the post from Wishboned was a humorous dig at Third and Long's playcalling...a couple of short runs followed by a difficult-to-convert pass on third down. Oh, then Chuck should have kept the bank guessing. ;)

[cvsooner]

"Your honor, let me present Exhibit B as to why this country is in a ****hole. No moral angle at all, your honor. It's all about what is reasonable, financially speaking. Borrow, spend beyond your means, have a great time. Never worry at all about paying back what you LEGALLY promised to pay back. Heck your honor, in reality, the bank should bear the lion's share of the burden for having the audacity to loan me money in the first place."

To each his own I guess, but I honestly don't know how someone borrows money and then blows the debt off can look in a mirror or fall asleep at night. It IS a moral as well as legal obligation. If you don't feel that way, then I suggest you are a part of the problem.

Oh, and to keep it football related, Go OU!

We are far away from football. I will say, however, that the end buyer (Long) puts up a small down payment, and the home is used as collateral to justify the balance of the loan. The lender takes some secured risk...knowing as the buyer does that the house could fall as well as rise in value. The lender also pushes off much if not all of that risk by selling the mortgage to someone else...who may sell it someone else...collecting substantial fees along the way.

True story: before all this blew up, my home mortgage was with Norwest. Which sold it to Wells Fargo. Interest rates came down to the point it was worth refinancing. We inquired with Wells about refinancing, and they said, nope, sorry, not interested. We refinanced with an outfit in...Illinois, I think it was. Maybe Iowa. Knocked 2.5 points off our 6.6 percent mortgage. Lowered our payment and interest. Two months later, we received notice that our mortgage had been purchased by....(rim shot) Wells Fargo. So we're happily paying that off, with the same lender we were with, on our terms. We had a deal. We found a better one. Should we have honored the first one?

Considering the shenanigans involved in the housing bubble and the meltdown, and the legal, moral and ethical problems that created and popped the bubble, Chuck walking away from his house is the least of it. I can hardly fault him, frankly. If it was a bad investment, he walks away. He's out the down payment and any subsequent payments. It may smack his credit rating. (Though, considering his income, he may not care.) True, he did assume an obligation to repay, but the whole 'houses are an investment' idea leads to this kind of thinking. It's how we got here. And don't even get me started on the 'mortgage deduction' thing which also contributes to this.

A house is a place you live. You're better off owning the place you live, nearly cost-free, once it's paid for. But it's not an investment. Or shouldn't be considered as such. The rest is marketing hype and avaricious fiddle-faddle.

Much like the Whorns...

[cvsooner]

Chuck has certainly got people second-guessing and criticizing his business dealings.

[MamaMia]

Chuck has certainly got people second-guessing and criticizing his business dealings.Which is code for the fans didn't like his play calling? :confused:

[SoonerKnight]

Often people forget that real estate is a long term investment. As soon as they realize their house is worth less than they paid for it, they think that somehow the bank cheated them and want to no longer pay what they agreed to.

Pay your mortgage. Eventually it will turn around, faster especially in areas where real estate is a premium like San D.

It may turn around but it will take at least 6 years for the turning to begin. Me I am paying for my townhome even though I bought it as a starter to eventually get into a single family house. I paid $155,000 the same unit has sold for $89,000 a recent as a couple of months ago. I need a place to stay and I am making the money to pay the mortgage. Do I like it? NO! I am hoping I can recover some of what I lost but it is doubtful. I just wish I could sell!!

[C&CDean]

It may turn around but it will take at least 6 years for the turning to begin. Me I am paying for my townhome even though I bought it as a starter to eventually get into a single family house. I paid $155,000 the same unit has sold for $89,000 a recent as a couple of months ago. I need a place to stay and I am making the money to pay the mortgage. Do I like it? NO! I am hoping I can recover some of what I lost but it is doubtful. I just wish I could sell!!

A townhouse? Dude, you're ****ed. Condolences.

Stay the course though. Eventually, you'll look back on it and go "damn, WTF was I thinking, thank God it worked out." Eventually.

[Sooner_Tuf]

A man's word (signature) is either good or it's not. It is really that simple.

I never had a note that had a "If I feel like it" or "Unless it is in my best interest not to" clause.

[Leroy Lizard]

Let me ask: What are your moral obligations when hawking an item in a pawn shop?

[texaspokieokie]

your moral obligation it to not HOCK anything unless it belongs to you.

[cvsooner]

A man's word (signature) is either good or it's not. It is really that simple.

I never had a note that had a "If I feel like it" or "Unless it is in my best interest not to" clause.

But in the contract is a clause, you don't make the payments, the lender takes possession. The lender clearly understood the risk. All Chuck has done, honestly, is transfer the loss from him to the lender. Ugly? Yes. Will it affect his ability to borrow money in the future? Perhaps. Does he care? Apparently not. Does he care what we think? Definitely not.

[pphilfran]

But in the contract is a clause, you don't make the payments, the lender takes possession. The lender clearly understood the risk. All Chuck has done, honestly, is transfer the loss from him to the lender. Ugly? Yes. Will it affect his ability to borrow money in the future? Perhaps. Does he care? Apparently not. Does he care what we think? Definitely not.

Good thing he doesn't care what I think because I think he is a chicken chit bum...

[MI Sooner]

A man's word (signature) is either good or it's not. It is really that simple.

I never had a note that had a "If I feel like it" or "Unless it is in my best interest not to" clause.

I don't know why the hell everyone keeps acting like Chuck isn't giving the bank (or current mortgage holder(s)) anything. He's giving them the house, which is all they're entitled to. If they were afraid that the house wouldn't be worth as much as the face value of the loan, they shouldn't have made the loan for as high a percentage of he purchase price, or they should charge more interest on those types of loans to compensate themselves for the risk that this might happen. Or, they should stop doing business in non-recourse states.

[C&CDean]

I don't know why the hell everyone keeps acting like Chuck isn't giving the bank (or current mortgage holder(s)) anything. He's giving them the house, which is all they're entitled to. If they were afraid that the house wouldn't be worth as much as the face value of the loan, they shouldn't have made the loan for as high a percentage of he purchase price, or they should charge more interest on those types of loans to compensate themselves for the risk that this might happen. Or, they should stop doing business in non-recourse states.

What you, and a few others are completely missing is that you can talk the "business" aspect of it all damned day and it still doesn't change the fact that he is NOT honoring his personal/legal/moral obligation to pay the loan he said he would pay. Period. There's no excuse for dumping your house back on the bank when you can afford to make your payments. It's chicken**** in the extreme.

People with your attitude are a huge part of the problem in this country. Nobody gives a **** anymore about honor, integrity, honesty, and fulfilling one's obligations. If there's a legal loophole, or a crafty way you can snake out of paying the bills you go for it. It ain't right. End of story.

[yermom]

because the banks are the moral pillar of the community ;)

[BABoomer]

I don't respect him for it. Investors loaned him the money to buy his house, and he screwed them. No one put a gun to his head and made him take the money. It's a lack of integrity. You, your children, and grandchildren (should you have any) will be paying off the notes for all the dead beats in this country for years.

Every time you add that $150 PMI fee to monthly mortgage payment, you can thank all the deadbeats from the late 70's and early 80's.

I can at least understand it when some guy has a string of hard luck, gets cancer or loses his job, even though that doesn't make it right, just understandable.

Lord knows Long makes a decent salary.

[BABoomer]

Preach it C&C. I couldn't agree more with your post.

[Saul Good]

I haven't read the entire thread but does anyone know how much Chuck "Third and" Long makes currently at KU?

[yermom]

I don't respect him for it. Investors loaned him the money to buy his house, and he screwed them. No one put a gun to his head and made him take the money. It's a lack of integrity. You, your children, and grandchildren (should you have any) will be paying off the notes for all the dead beats in this country for years.

Every time you add that $150 PMI fee to monthly mortgage payment, you can thank all the deadbeats from the late 70's and early 80's.

I can at least understand it when some guy has a string of hard luck, gets cancer or loses his job, even though that doesn't make it right, just understandable.

Lord knows Long makes a decent salary.

it's bad business to loan so much on houses. the amount banks were loaning out houses is why they cost so much.

PMI is the hedge against people not putting 20% down

remember when people used to save up for a down payment? how often do you think they walked on a house after doing that?

[Leroy Lizard]

What you, and a few others are completely missing is that you can talk the "business" aspect of it all damned day and it still doesn't change the fact that he is NOT honoring his personal/legal/moral obligation to pay the loan he said he would pay.

I understand your viewpoint, Dean, and respect it. We make a promise; we need to keep it.

But one thing that colors the argument a little is the ethical behavior in banks in this. The buyer is essentially taking advantage of a loophole. But the bank will do the same in a heartbeat, so why shouldn't the buyer? Given the opportunity to read between the lines and foreclose on a buyer, banks will do it. They don't care if you're making payments either. (Favorite trick: Order construction audits of the home to force the buyer to make expensive repairs. The buyer can still be making payments and have his home foreclosed.)

So if you play by the rules of ethics in a business deal with someone who wouldn't, are you a hero or a schmuck? Or, is taking advantage of your adversary simply a part of the business deal? I dunno.

[Leroy Lizard]

My grandfather used to say that you can't cheat an honest man. In other words, banks are being "victimized" by these buyers on account of their own greed.

[cvsooner]

Let me make it clear I don't agree with what Chuck did, either. I think he should honor his obligations. Clearly he doesn't. If he was smart he would have realized the escalation in real estate values was an absolute bubble, as Paul Krugman pointed out. But since he's one of those librul communist economists, nobody (and especially the somebodies who should've known better) listened to him.

[Leroy Lizard]

Then there are a lot of guilty people out there.

[jkjsooner]

I'm a little bit torn on this issue. For starters, as cvsooner stated, everyone with at least average intelligence should have seen the real estate bubble coming and should have steered clear of San Diego housing.

The problem I see is that if you were dumb enough to buy real estate during the bubble, you might have dug yourself a hole that is impossible to climb out of. If a $1 million house now sells for $400k (and there are cases where we've had > 50% depreciation) that's something someone will never be able to dig out of. Do you liquidate your entire life savings (including retirement) to pay up? I think that's a heavy price to pay for making one stupid decision.

Here's a quick lesson for other posters. Real estate IS an investment. This goes against what many have posted on this thread. When I say that it is an investment, I'm not saying it's a get rich quick scheme. I'm saying that buying real estate is a serious decision that will have long term implications on your net worth. You need to look at it that way and make a decision whether now is the time to own a house or whether renting makes more sense.

If you plan on living in a house for the rest of your life then that helps level out the fluctuations but if you buy at a peak you are still saddled with a much higher mortgage payment. Those factors need to be taken into consideration.

[IndySooner]

I can't understand why so many people are so worried about the poor banks? They would screw you in a heartbeat if it made them a buck.

Chuck signed a contract, he's living by the rules of the contract, I don't see a moral dilemma here. I wouldn't do it, because I am worried about my credit. That said, if I could pay cash for my next home and I was in that situation, I probably would. It's not a moral issue. It's a business issue. The terms are the terms. There's absolutely no moral obligation to pay MONEY in the terms. He paid the bank with his house. That's his moral obligation.

[jkjsooner]

I can't understand why so many people are so worried about the poor banks? They would screw you in a heartbeat if it made them a buck.

Chuck signed a contract, he's living by the rules of the contract, I don't see a moral dilemma here. I wouldn't do it, because I am worried about my credit. That said, if I could pay cash for my next home and I was in that situation, I probably would. It's not a moral issue. It's a business issue. The terms are the terms. There's absolutely no moral obligation to pay MONEY in the terms. He paid the bank with his house. That's his moral obligation.

The distinction here is whether trading the house for the loan balance is for ethical purposes part of the contract in a non-recourse state.

I will say this, if the contract explicitly stated that the house could be turned over at any time as payment for the balance of the loan, then I would say there is no moral issue at all. In fact, I would argue that if this were explicit in the contract, one would have a good reason to fight any negative impact on his credit report as he fulfilled the contract. I would guess if this were the case it would not even be considered a foreclosure.

In these cases I'd bet it's not explicit in the contract but merely a consequence of foreclosure law. That's where the moral ambiguity lies.

[IndySooner]

The distinction here is whether trading the house for the loan balance is for ethical purposes part of the contract in a non-recourse state.

I will say this, if the contract explicitly stated that the house could be turned over at any time as payment for the balance of the loan, then I would say there is no moral issue at all. In fact, I would argue that if this were explicit in the contract, one would have a good reason to fight any negative impact on his credit report as he fulfilled the contract. I would guess if this were the case it would not even be considered a foreclosure.

In these cases I'd bet it's not explicit in the contract but merely a consequence of foreclosure law. That's where the moral ambiguity lies.

If I'm not legally obligated to do something, why would I feel morally obligated to do so?

It's not like this is a handshake deal with a buddy. This is a legal contract with a big business, written so it benefits only the big business. I still don't understand why people feel so sorry for these banks?

I'm in sales for a big business. In every single way, they will screw us on commissions if they can, yet they want loyalty and "company first" attitude from us. Do I have a moral obligation to give them 100% when they don't look out for my interests? I don't think so. It's the reason people move around more in their careers these days. It's the reason people do what Chuck did. They don't look out for my best interests so I have no moral obligation to do so for them.

[Leroy Lizard]

The distinction here is whether trading the house for the loan balance is for ethical purposes part of the contract in a non-recourse state.

I will say this, if the contract explicitly stated that the house could be turned over at any time as payment for the balance of the loan, then I would say there is no moral issue at all.

Isn't that sort of implied? If I offer up collateral on a loan, and I default and allow the bank to collect the collateral, have I done anything wrong?

To me, the bank loans the money because it thinks, due to the usual increase in property values and the principal already paid, that the house is adequate collateral for the loan. Just like everyone else, the bank miscalculated and was unprepared for the economic downturn. They pay the price for their mistake. That's business.

How many in here really think that, if the tables were turned, Bank of America would continue to make payments on money you loaned them if it wasn't in their best financial interests to do so?

[IndySooner]

How many in here really think that, if the tables were turned, Bank of America would continue to make payments on money you loaned them if it wasn't in their best financial interests to do so?

This is the largest point in this whole situation. I can't believe I'm on your side on an argument! :)

Maybe I need to start another playoff thread to offset the non-sense!

[Leroy Lizard]

This is the largest point in this whole situation. I can't believe I'm on your side on an argument! :)

Maybe I need to start another playoff thread to offset the non-sense!

Now I'm salivating.

[yermom]

If I'm not legally obligated to do something, why would I feel morally obligated to do so?

It's not like this is a handshake deal with a buddy. This is a legal contract with a big business, written so it benefits only the big business. I still don't understand why people feel so sorry for these banks?

I'm in sales for a big business. In every single way, they will screw us on commissions if they can, yet they want loyalty and "company first" attitude from us. Do I have a moral obligation to give them 100% when they don't look out for my interests? I don't think so. It's the reason people move around more in their careers these days. It's the reason people do what Chuck did. They don't look out for my best interests so I have no moral obligation to do so for them.

i'm pretty much on the side of you and Leroy here, but just because something isn't illegal, doesn't mean it's not wrong. i pretty much believe the reverse as well.

[jkjsooner]

If I'm not legally obligated to do something, why would I feel morally obligated to do so?

I understand your point but you could say it's like taking your friend's money and declaring bankruptcy. Once you've declared bankruptcy you are no longer legally obligated to pay the money.

Anyway, there was a story about fortune 500 companies that had turned over bad real estate to the lender. It seems to be a common practice among corporations...


(Hell, I have two friends that owe me a combined $5k that I loaned them interest free. One pretty much disappeared after a while and the other seems to kind of forgotten that he owes me $2k. I suppose I should ask about it some day. Other than learning a very valuable lesson about lending friends money, I definitely can understand the bank's position.)

[jkjsooner]

Isn't that sort of implied? If I offer up collateral on a loan, and I default and allow the bank to collect the collateral, have I done anything wrong?

I don't necessarily disagree with your sentiment but isn't it sort of implied in every loan that bankruptcy will forfeit any debt as well? Does that make bankruptcy used as a business decision (not absolutely required) a moral choice?

[tator]

i'm pretty much on the side of you and Leroy here, but just because something isn't illegal, doesn't mean it's not wrong. i pretty much believe the reverse as well.
Pick a side, Nancy!! :D

[C&CDean]

I can't understand why so many people are so worried about the poor banks? They would screw you in a heartbeat if it made them a buck.

Chuck signed a contract, he's living by the rules of the contract, I don't see a moral dilemma here. I wouldn't do it, because I am worried about my credit. That said, if I could pay cash for my next home and I was in that situation, I probably would. It's not a moral issue. It's a business issue. The terms are the terms. There's absolutely no moral obligation to pay MONEY in the terms. He paid the bank with his house. That's his moral obligation.

Wrong. It ain't about the bank. It's about your honor. In the contract, Chuck said he would pay x amount of dollars on x days. Period. Yes, in the fine print it states that if he defaults, the bank will repo the crib.

My issue? People like Chuck (and you and Leroid) who obviously weren't raised properly. If you don't plan on paying your debt (especially when you CAN afford to) then don't enter into the contract. Once you sign the paper, you're obligated. If you don't feel a moral obligation to pay your debts you are a sorry person. That simple.

[jkjsooner]

in the fine print it states that if he defaults, the bank will repo the crib.

The law states more than this. It states that the house will settle the debt on the primary mortgage.

I don't know if this is in the contract or just assumed, but what if you actually had this put in the contract? If you gave yourself an either/or option to pay off the loan. Would you then consider that you fulfilled your obligation to "pay the debt" since one way to satisfy these terms is to turn the house over to the bank.

I think that's the key here in my opinion. If this out was specified in the loan and not just a legal limitation on lenders then I'd say it's a totally ethical action to walk. If it wasn't (or if it's specified as some sort of "default" condition not on par with paying the loan off in the normal way) then it becomes an ethically questionable practice.

[C&CDean]

It is NEVER an ethical action to walk on a debt. Wanna know what's ethical? Don't sign the ****ing contract. People are stupid/lily-livered/weak/chumps/and a bunch of bad words I can't say. Pay your galdamn ****ing bills. How hard is that? If your pop taught you to sneak around in the shadows of the "legalities" you had a bad pop. Just sayin'.

[IndySooner]

(Hell, I have two friends that owe me a combined $5k that I loaned them interest free. One pretty much disappeared after a while and the other seems to kind of forgotten that he owes me $2k. I suppose I should ask about it some day. Other than learning a very valuable lesson about lending friends money, I definitely can understand the bank's position.)

Friends and business are COMPLETELY different to me. I'd never do that to a friend. I WOULD do that, if I had to, to a corporation.

[IndySooner]

My issue? People like Chuck (and you and Leroid) who obviously weren't raised properly. If you don't plan on paying your debt (especially when you CAN afford to) then don't enter into the contract. Once you sign the paper, you're obligated. If you don't feel a moral obligation to pay your debts you are a sorry person. That simple.

Not raised right? Eff you. You don't know how I was raised. Leave my parents out of it. Bottom line is, my parents probably would NEVER do that. I, on the other hand, realize that business is business. I'm in business. I know how the world works. The bank owes me nothing. I owe the bank nothing. A contract is a contract. If there are loopholes, they're exploitable.

Here's how I feel:

Pay yourself first
Pay The Church second
Pay your debtors third

The bank is not higher priority than me. That's the bottom line.

[jkjsooner]

It is NEVER an ethical action to walk on a debt. Wanna know what's ethical? Don't sign the ****ing contract. People are stupid/lily-livered/weak/chumps/and a bunch of bad words I can't say. Pay your galdamn ****ing bills. How hard is that? If your pop taught you to sneak around in the shadows of the "legalities" you had a bad pop. Just sayin'.

But in my hypothetical it is in the contract that the house is payment for the debt - not a default condition.

It's like if I borrowed money and in the contract I specified that the debt could be paid either in cash or in widgets. If the lender didn't want widgets he shouldn't have signed the contract that allowed me to pay in widgets.

What you're saying is that the bank shouldn't have to fulfill their obligation to accept widgets.

I agree with you that that isn't really the case with non-recourse housing foreclosures but since you argued against my hypothetical I felt I needed to respond.

[C&CDean]

Not raised right? Eff you. You don't know how I was raised. Leave my parents out of it. Bottom line is, my parents probably would NEVER do that. I, on the other hand, realize that business is business. I'm in business. I know how the world works. The bank owes me nothing. I owe the bank nothing. A contract is a contract. If there are loopholes, they're exploitable.

Here's how I feel:

Pay yourself first
Pay The Church second
Pay your debtors third

The bank is not higher priority than me. That's the bottom line.

So, what you're saying is your parents raised you right, you just chose to be a "business man."

Since you're all into paying the church second, I'd probably take a look at what the Bible says about not paying your debts.

All this reminds me of a story - well not a story, but a tale - well not a tale, but truth.

My mom spent her life as a waitress and running the soup kitchen for the Salvation Army. One of her regular customers was a Jewish dude who sold jewelry and crap for a living. He had more people running him down for $$, had more debtors knocking on his door than you could count, and every day in the restaurant he'd make more jewelry deals - while stiffing my mom for a tip.

This **** went on for like 20 years. One day, dude's mom flies in from New York. Dude buys her the biggest breakfast in the house, brags about all his business "conquests" etc. My mom goes up to his mom and says "you raised a son that is good at business" His mom goes "yes I did, I am so proud." My mom goes "but he's not a decent human being. He's eaten here for 20-years, I've waited on him, taken care of him, given him everything he asks for, and he's never tipped me one red cent. Your son might be a good business man, but he's not a good man." Dude's mom goes "I didn't raise my son to be a good man. I raised him to be a business man."

Therein lies the difference. A good man pays his debts and takes care of the little people. A pompous/pious/arrogant man blows off his debt. Again, that simple.

[IndySooner]

So, what you're saying is your parents raised you right, you just chose to be a "business man."

Yes. My parents are teachers. They have no business sense. I didn't either until I learned the hard way that the only person looking out for me is me.


Therein lies the difference. A good man pays his debts and takes care of the little people. A pompous/pious/arrogant man blows off his debt. Again, that simple.

I'm a good tipper. I give to charity. I pay my debts. I promise you, however, if it came down to me or the bank, it would be me. The bank doesn't care about me. It's the same way with my business dealings. My company expects me to be company first, but they'll fire me in an instant if it benefits them. Therefore, I'm me first.

You're saying I'm not a good man. I think I am. I think anyone who knows me thinks I am. I'm not judging Chuck, though, because I'm not in his shoes. I understand why this might be a good decision, whether it be personal or business, for him.

You do know what the Bible says about judging people, right?

[Leroy Lizard]

If this had been Mike "Popular" Leach foreclosing we would have fallen all over ourselves stating how smart he was for showing those evil banks who's gots the smarts.

But it's Chuck "Unpopular" Long. Too bad for Chuck.

[C&CDean]

You're saying I'm not a good man. I think I am. I think anyone who knows me thinks I am. I'm not judging Chuck, though, because I'm not in his shoes. I understand why this might be a good decision, whether it be personal or business, for him.

You do know what the Bible says about judging people, right?

Dude, you haven't been here long enough for me to say whether or not you're a good man. You haven't appeared at a tailgate. We haven't broken bread or had a drink or 6 together. I speak in generalities. If you're OK with blowing off your legal/moral obligations (self be DAMNED) then I am merely submitting that you might not be all you claim to be. I cannot look at self if self isn't upholding his obligations. Different strokes I guess. Sure, it might be a good short-term "legal" decision for him/you. Long term? Nuh uh. You're gonna pay your debt, one way or the other. I'm old enough to have learned this deal from the inside out. Pay now, it's much better. Pay later? You're ****ed.

[C&CDean]

If this had been Mike "Popular" Leach foreclosing we would have fallen all over ourselves stating how smart he was for showing those evil banks who's gots the smarts.

But it's Chuck "Unpopular" Long. Too bad for Chuck.

STFU Leroid. Who is this "we" you speak of? Turd in your pocket?

If Leach doesn't pay his bills he's a POS, tambien. No diff. WTF is wrong with some of you people? Play? Pay.

[HBick]

I hate paying my mortgage every month, but the bank gets money first, followed by credit cards, utilities, cell phone, cable & internet, then IF anything is left over, I spend it on myself.

I don't give money to any church, I might later on if I am able to to stop eating ramen for 6 meals a week

on a side note, I am racking up some amazon points and southwest miles. so eventually, one day, I'll be able to do something fun

[C&CDean]

I hate paying my mortgage every month, but the bank gets money first, followed by credit cards, utilities, cell phone, cable & internet, then IF anything is left over, I spend it on myself.

I don't give money to any church, I might later on if I am able to to stop eating ramen for 6 meals a week

on a side note, I am racking up some amazon points and southwest miles. so eventually, one day, I'll be able to do something fun

And the poor/meek shall inherit the Earth.

Spent many a year right there, of course no cell phone/cable/internet, but all the others. Fulfilling my obligations has payed off in damned-near miraculous ways. For realz.

[Leroy Lizard]

STFU Leroid. Who is this "we" you speak of?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We#The_author.27s_.22we.22

[IndySooner]

I hate paying my mortgage every month, but the bank gets money first, followed by credit cards, utilities, cell phone, cable & internet, then IF anything is left over, I spend it on myself.

I don't give money to any church, I might later on if I am able to to stop eating ramen for 6 meals a week

on a side note, I am racking up some amazon points and southwest miles. so eventually, one day, I'll be able to do something fun

If it comes down to groceries or mortgage I promise you I am buying groceries. That is what is meant by paying me first.

[IndySooner]

Dude, you haven't been here long enough for me to say whether or not you're a good man. You haven't appeared at a tailgate. We haven't broken bread or had a drink or 6 together. I speak in generalities. If you're OK with blowing off your legal/moral obligations (self be DAMNED) then I am merely submitting that you might not be all you claim to be. I cannot look at self if self isn't upholding his obligations. Different strokes I guess. Sure, it might be a good short-term "legal" decision for him/you. Long term? Nuh uh. You're gonna pay your debt, one way or the other. I'm old enough to have learned this deal from the inside out. Pay now, it's much better. Pay later? You're ****ed.

You wouldn't know whether I was a good man from posts on this board, anyway. It doesn't matter what people who don't know me think. I couldn't care less, really.

As for the decision that Chuck is making, that's his decision. It's a personal decision. It is not for you, me or anyone else on this board to judge. I'm sure he has an adviser telling him what is the right thing to do. Who knows what kind of debt he's in. Maybe the $1.3 million doesn't cover it? He wouldn't be the first high paid guy to be in financial trouble.

Luckily, I don't have to make that decision. I know that I would choose me over a bank any day. If that makes me immoral in your eyes, well.......?

[C&CDean]

You wouldn't know whether I was a good man from posts on this board, anyway. It doesn't matter what people who don't know me think. I couldn't care less, really.

As for the decision that Chuck is making, that's his decision. It's a personal decision. It is not for you, me or anyone else on this board to judge. I'm sure he has an adviser telling him what is the right thing to do. Who knows what kind of debt he's in. Maybe the $1.3 million doesn't cover it? He wouldn't be the first high paid guy to be in financial trouble.

Luckily, I don't have to make that decision. I know that I would choose me over a bank any day. If that makes me immoral in your eyes, well.......?

It's all good. Chuck has some red dude with horns sitting on his shoulder going "eff the bank Chuck, eff the bank. They're baaaaaad people." Whatever. Guess you do too. No biggy.

I sleep well at night knowing I pay my bills. ALL of them. Whether it's convenient/comfortable/fun/financially smart to do. You PAY YOUR BILLS. TIA. Nothing more, nothing less. You choose not to because you might not be able to hit the walmarts and get some hot pockets? Shame on you.

[MI Sooner]

I think it's been demonstrated that the biggest benefit of paying your bills and eating crappy food and not having any fun while you get out of hock is the fact that you get to lord it over a semi-hated football coach ten years later.

Pray tell, what karmic disaster will befall (literally?) poor Mr. Long because he took advantage of innocent little Citi-Mortgage? And, to all those saying that Chuck Long has to pay the bank, what if the mortgage had PMI on it, and the bank is made whole? What if he paid a higher rate of interest because mortgages like his have a higher rate of default, should the bank pay back the interest premium to everyone who didn't default?

I do agree that hiding behind some BS "legal loophole" like "non-recourse debt" is chicken****. I'm also sure that everyone here who owns stock in a company that went bankrupt or defaulted on bonds was first in line to offer up their money to cover the unpaid debts, because you wouldn't hide behind a chicken**** loophole like limited corporate liability.

[Leroy Lizard]

I'm also sure that everyone here who owns stock in a company that went bankrupt or defaulted on bonds was first in line to offer up their money to cover the unpaid debts, because you wouldn't hide behind a chicken**** loophole like limited corporate liability.

Ooooh, that's an interesting point.

Ultimately, the bank is going to play by the rules stated in the fine print. Should we as well?

[Jason]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_jcBz5hppoOs/TMXVTePGqJI/AAAAAAAAAOQ/92MluXhG5Nk/s1600/high_horse.jpg

[pphilfran]

And we wonder why we no longer believe in personal responsibility...

Some of you want make me want to puke...

[pphilfran]

Not raised right? Eff you. You don't know how I was raised. Leave my parents out of it. Bottom line is, my parents probably would NEVER do that. I, on the other hand, realize that business is business. I'm in business. I know how the world works. The bank owes me nothing. I owe the bank nothing. A contract is a contract. If there are loopholes, they're exploitable.

Here's how I feel:

Pay yourself first
Pay The Church second
Pay your debtors third

The bank is not higher priority than me. That's the bottom line.

If you place yourself at the top of the pecking order than I would think you would prioritize the protecting of your good name...

[pphilfran]

If I'm not legally obligated to do something, why would I feel morally obligated to do so?

It's not like this is a handshake deal with a buddy. This is a legal contract with a big business, written so it benefits only the big business. I still don't understand why people feel so sorry for these banks?

I'm in sales for a big business. In every single way, they will screw us on commissions if they can, yet they want loyalty and "company first" attitude from us. Do I have a moral obligation to give them 100% when they don't look out for my interests? I don't think so. It's the reason people move around more in their careers these days. It's the reason people do what Chuck did. They don't look out for my best interests so I have no moral obligation to do so for them.

You ALWAYS have the obligation to give 100%...if you can't do that then you need to find different employment...

A classic lame azz excuse...there are other people or organizations that don't give 100% and will screw me over in a heartbeat so I will stoop to their level and do the same...

[pphilfran]

BTW Long earned at least 715k in 2010...too bad he couldn't have used any of the money to pay off his debts...

http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/15758/former-sdsu-coach-long-get-best-of-both-worlds

[IndySooner]

BTW Long earned at least 715k in 2010...too bad he couldn't have used any of the money to pay off his debts...

http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/15758/former-sdsu-coach-long-get-best-of-both-worlds

Do you have his balance sheets? Have any idea what kind of debt he's in? Until then, you can't judge.

[pphilfran]

Do you have his balance sheets? Have any idea what kind of debt he's in? Until then, you can't judge.

I don't give a flip about his balance sheets...he was pulling down over a half million a year and now we want to give him a break and allow him to step away from his commitment..

If he can't keep his finances in order while pulling down that kind of cash he is a dumb azz...

[pphilfran]

If it comes down to groceries or mortgage I promise you I am buying groceries. That is what is meant by paying me first.

So poor old Chuck was starving on a half mill a year...

[pphilfran]

Indy...you have made your stance perfectly clear...

You will lay down on the job if you think you are getting screwed...

You will screw over a corporation because you believe they will screw you over sometime in the future...

You believe in pointing the finger at everyone except the person the signed their name on the bottom line...

If is your ilk that has caused the US to fall so far when it comes to personal responsibility and what it means to do your best to make your name stellar...

I am done with this topic...

[IndySooner]

Indy...you have made your stance perfectly clear...

You will lay down on the job if you think you are getting screwed...

You will screw over a corporation because you believe they will screw you over sometime in the future...

You believe in pointing the finger at everyone except the person the signed their name on the bottom line...

If is your ilk that has caused the US to fall so far when it comes to personal responsibility and what it means to do your best to make your name stellar...

I am done with this topic...

I won't lay down on the job, I'll find another job. I give 100%. I'm not loyal to a company. They're not loyal to me.

I won't screw over a corporation, but I'll do what is within my rights. Walking out of a mortgage would be the absolute last resort, but if it's within my rights, I'd do it if I had to.

My "ilk" has not caused the downfall of the U.S. The downfall has come as corporations get more power, the rich get richer and the middle class is evaporating, all at the same time that those corporations are running the government and disguising their views as "small government". Luckily, I fall on the good side of the middle class. So, I can support my family without taking drastic measures. I don't do that by giving less than 100%.

I think it's funny that you and yours can judge Chuck Long's character through a mortgage failure. I'm not disagreeing he might be bad with money. That could very well be the case. But since we don't know, we can't judge. Other than the fact that he didn't average over 50 pts. per game and he didn't continue to run the ball in the Sugar Bowl, so everyone will criticize EVERYTHING the guy does for the rest of his life.

[texaspokieokie]

Indy Sooner.
Agree, especially with last paragraph.

[yermom]

you guys talk about honor and duty, but let's see how hard you'd work to give away $500k for honor to keep a house in a state you don't live in

[pphilfran]

If I'm not legally obligated to do something, why would I feel morally obligated to do so?

It's not like this is a handshake deal with a buddy. This is a legal contract with a big business, written so it benefits only the big business. I still don't understand why people feel so sorry for these banks?

I'm in sales for a big business. In every single way, they will screw us on commissions if they can, yet they want loyalty and "company first" attitude from us. Do I have a moral obligation to give them 100% when they don't look out for my interests? I don't think so. It's the reason people move around more in their careers these days. It's the reason people do what Chuck did. They don't look out for my best interests so I have no moral obligation to do so for them.

...

[soonersam]

Maybe if he would throw the ball on first downs every once in awhile things like this wouldnt happen!!!

[Leroy Lizard]

To me, it's like a business canceling an order. They ordered two tons of concrete, but now decided they don't need it. In the fine print, it says there will be a 10% charge on cancellations. The company reads it and decides it's worth it.

Yes, the cement company is going to be pissed because they lost a contract, but that just comes with the territory. If 10% is not enough to cover the heartbreak, then they need to raise the percentage.

If you buy a stereo and return it, you are reneging on a deal. Is it moral to return an item that you purchased? Sure sounds like it according to the arguments in here.

I think too many in here consider a bank loan to purchase property similar to a handshake deal where you borrow money from a friend and promise him you will pay him back. It is not. This is a business deal, and the fine print governs the transaction. You play according to the rules.

Now, if you borrow the money with the express purpose of taking advantage of a loophole, then that is much more predatory since you didn't enter the deal with the proper spirit. And I don't think bankruptcy is relevant to this discussion.

[C&CDean]

you guys talk about honor and duty, but let's see how hard you'd work to give away $500k for honor to keep a house in a state you don't live in

STFU hippy boy. You sign a note, you honor it. I don't give a **** if it's in Asscrackistan. Why is that so hard to get?

[C&CDean]

To me, it's like a business canceling an order. They ordered two tons of concrete, but now decided they don't need it. In the fine print, it says there will be a 10% charge on cancellations. The company reads it and decides it's worth it.

Yes, the cement company is going to be pissed because they lost a contract, but that just comes with the territory. If 10% is not enough to cover the heartbreak, then they need to raise the percentage.

If you buy a stereo and return it, you are reneging on a deal. Is it moral to return an item that you purchased? Sure sounds like it according to the arguments in here.

I think too many in here consider a bank loan to purchase property similar to a handshake deal where you borrow money from a friend and promise him you will pay him back. It is not. This is a business deal, and the fine print governs the transaction. You play according to the rules.

Now, if you borrow the money with the express purpose of taking advantage of a loophole, then that is much more predatory since you didn't enter the deal with the proper spirit. And I don't think bankruptcy is relevant to this discussion.

Wanna know what I just read?

Blah, blah, blah, blah blah.

Let me know when you say something leroid. Long (and obviously many others) think it's groovy to skate on a loan. It ain't. It's why this country is ****ed.

[agoo758]

Apparently, there is no moral obligation to be respectful of opposing opinions.

[C&CDean]

Apparently, there is no moral obligation to be respectful of opposing opinions.

I pay my bills. WTF do you want?

[Leroy Lizard]

Wanna know what I just read?

Blah, blah, blah, blah blah.

Let me know when you say something leroid. Long (and obviously many others) think it's groovy to skate on a loan. It ain't. It's why this country is ****ed.

Businesses fail for a number of reasons, and one of the biggest is the owner doing the "right thing," but not the smart thing. Either they honor commitments that any idiot can see is foolhardy, or they retain staff because putting them out in the street is a "terrible thing to do to someone." When he does, he puts the livelihood of all of his employees at peril.

And why? So he can look at himself in the mirror and boast how virtuous he is.

William J. Bennett mentioned this in his book. You don't be honest just for the sake of being honest. That in itself is not virtuous. You have to do it for the right reasons.

So sometimes you end up with a choice: Do I do the smart thing or the righteous thing? Believe it or not, I choose the latter... but not to the point where I begin to let my family down. At that point I'm doing the righteous thing for the wrong reasons.

Sorry if I sound like I went blah, blah, blah. I try to put forth somewhat reasonable arguments in here and I sometimes don't do so well. (I think most posters will tell you that I never do well.)

[bonkuba]

This thread was about Chuck Long walking on an obligation or some poster saying he would walk on just about everything because it is his right???.....man these thread are getting tough......:D

[swardboy]

Maybe if he would throw the ball on first downs every once in awhile things like this wouldnt happen!!!

Smartest post in this whole thread.

[Sooner Cal]

Well, people who feel the way Indy does are why we are in the mess. Chuck Long didn't have to walk out on his obligation, he chose to. He's made more than enough money to absorb the financial loss. Indy and his kids, along with all of ours will pay for this for years.

Indy asks why if something isn't illegal why should it be immoral. Here is the simple answer, are you average or better than average. If you are better than average it is because you have higher stndards than average. Morals are your standards of behavior. If you just follow the law, your are average. If most people are just law abiders then society is below average because we know there are many lawbreakers. If society is to improve, people have to do more than the law requires. That is how society advances.

[Half a Hundred]

It's called "efficient breach." Even the most conservative of contract scholars recognize that there are times where it makes the most sense for both parties if one breaks the contract, and acts according to the terms regarding breach. It's as simple as that - no issues of morality whatsoever.

[Leroy Lizard]

It's called "efficient breach." Even the most conservative of contract scholars recognize that there are times where it makes the most sense for both parties if one breaks the contract, and acts according to the terms regarding breach. It's as simple as that - no issues of morality whatsoever.

I don't think the bank is benefiting here. But this is just one case out of a thousand they lost. Sucks being them, but they can't win on every deal.