Quote:
|
In most cases, a home is primarily a dwelling, not an investment. If the purpose of the mortgage was to finance an investment, the bank would have required different terms relative to an owner-occupied mortgage. If the owner wants to now look at their home as an investment, perhaps the bank should have the latitude to change the terms of the note.
|
I don't really have any sympathy for the buyer, the bank or for that matter the seller. Because using some of the logic I'm seeing here is it not concievable to bring the seller into question?
I'm a federal employee, so what about my TSP? Should the feds reimburse me for 20+ years of loses to my investment account? I think not. I knew the risk going in and this is my understanding of buying a home. If one buys a home in a hot market isn't that akin to taking a risk? But not just the potential buyer but the bank that allows the contract to take place in the first place. We've all seen the boom-bust cycles before so we know they exist.
It seems to me a
force majeure is a one time event thus not applicable here.