My landlord is being foreclosed on. Should I confront him?
If John signs the lease he is entitled to stay there for the duration of the lease regardless of the foreclosure status.   http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/renters-foreclosure-what-are-their-30064.html I would suggest that signing a year lease (even by email), with the plan to leave as early as possible is a good thing.  The key will be to make sure the penalty for leaving early is nothing. John doesn't know the status of the foreclosure, how long it will take, who might own afterwards and a lot of other unknowns.  The worst case is to be unsure of where you are living. Sign the lease, and be secure for one whole year that you know where you will be living.  Spend that year finding a new place to live.   If the bank doesn't offer you clear and obvious ways to submit rent, open an account AT THE BANK and deposit the rent there, on time. You are establishing credibility that you deserve to stay.  You still owe the rent, so pay it. They don't want to be your landlord, but don't let a bank bully you around. I wouldn't confront him. It's really none of your business what he has done or not done with your money as long as you've been a faithful tenant. Whoever gets the house after the foreclosure wants you to stay. I mean, a faithful tenant paying rent is a whole lot better than no one in the house at all. The new landlord (if it's the bank) probably will leave you alone for the most part. Just take MrChrister's advice and document everything and don't let the bank bully you around. It's not your fault the owner got foreclosed on. Remember that the foreclosure process takes months so just because papers got served today (hypothetically) doesn't mean next week the bank takes over the house. "Verbal agreements are not legally binding. Unless you have signed a new lease agreement, you are not obligated to continue renting the property - you are free to go.  On the other hand, if you really like the place and want to stay, you should sign another lease agreement. This agreement will be binding on whomever owns the home - whether it is your current landlord, a bank or a new purchaser.  But, if you go this route, make sure that there is not a clause that says the lease agreement is void upon foreclosure (or something similar). This is a standard clause in lease agreements allowing the bank to cancel the lease. Another option, if you really like the house is to offer to buy the property. If the property is being foreclosed on, you could suggest buying on a short sale. Here is a link to an article I wrote entitled ""Buy Instead of Rent: A Recovering Real Estate Market"" that discusses the benefits of buying rather than renting."
I am; I bought the house as a preforeclosure (short sell) at 120000; 100% financed with a USDA loan and lived there for about 5 years before my wife and I took a job in Birmingham.  With a 30 yr fixed rate... 119000 is about as low as I can go before I would have to come out of pocket at closing to get the lien released... and the problem is there's nothing left in my pockets.. Another option, not yet discussed here, is to allow the loan to go into default and let the loaning agency repossess the property the loan was used for, after which they sell it and that sale should discharge some significant portion of the loan. Knowing where the friend and property is, you may be able to help them carry out the repossession by providing them information. Meanwhile, your credit will take a significant hit, but unless your name is on the deed/title of the property then you have little claim that the property is yours just because you're paying the loan. The contract you signed for the loan is not going to be easily bypassed with a lawsuit of any sort, so unless you can produce another contract between you and your friend it's unlikely that you can even sue them. In short, you have no claim to the property, but the loaning agency does - perhaps that's the only way to avoid paying most of the debt, but you do trade some of your credit for it. Hopefully you understand that what you loaned wasn't money, but your credit score and earning potential, and that you will be more careful who you choose to lend this to in the future. It seems likely that the mortgage is not in your boyfriend's name because he never would have qualified if he can't even afford utilities after paying the mortgage. It also seems unfair that his sister continues to have a 50% share of the equity if your boyfriend has been making the entire payment on the mortgage every month. What would happen if your boyfriend stopped making the payments? His sister would have no choice if the property went into foreclosure. Your boyfriend has all the leverage he needs by simply refusing to continue making the payments. Why he won't push his sister to make a deal is the real question you need to ask him. In the meantime, if he wants out, all he has to do is decide not to keep paying whether his sister feels attached or not. I believe the only thing you haven't mentioned to him is the possibility that his activity is criminally fraudulent. I would sit him down, and say something substantially similar to the following: We've talked about your investment before, and I know you believe it's fine.  I just want to make sure you understand that this is very likely fraudulent activity.  I know you believe in it, but you've said you don't understand how or why it works.  The problem with that is that if it is a fraud you can't protect yourself from criminal prosecution because you didn't understand what you were doing.  The prosecutor will ask you if you asked others to give you or the organization money, and then they will convict you based on trying to defraud others. It doesn't matter whether you did it on purpose, or just because you believed the people you are investing in. So I very strongly advise you to understand exactly what the system is, and how it works, and then make sure with a lawyer that it's legal.  If it is, then hey, you've learned something valuable.  But if it's not, then you will save yourself a whole lot of trouble and anguish down the road if you step away before someone you attract to the investment decides to talk to their accountant or lawyer.  A civil lawsuit may be bad, but if you're criminally prosecuted it will be so much worse. Now that I've said my piece, I won't talk to you about it anymore or bother you about it. I wish you luck, and hope that things work out fine. I wouldn't talk to the police or suggest that I'd do anything of that nature, without proof then there's no real way to start an investigation anyway, and unfortunately scams like this are incredibly hard to investigate, so the police often spend little to no time on them without a high level insider giving up evidence and associates. Chances are good nothing would happen to your friend - one day the organization will disappear and he won't recover any more money - but there's a distinct possibility that when that happens, the people below him will come for him, and he won't be able to look further up the chain for help. Perhaps the threat of illegal activity will be enough to prevent him from defrauding others, but if not I think at least you can let it go, and know that you've done everything for him that might work. He wasn't wrong that a mortgage would help your credit score, assuming that this was a perfect world and everyone held up their end of the bargain. However, now that he hasn't, you are still legally obligated to pay the loan amount (including his portion of it). As for a lawsuit, it would be hard to prove what he said verbally, however, it doesn't hurt to call a lawyer for a free consultation. Would it be worth legitimizing his business or is it too late at this point? To be blunt, you're asking if we recommend that he stop breaking the law. The answer is obviously yes, he should be declaring his income. And it would probably benefit him to get on the same page as his employer (or client) so they can both start obeying the law together. Once he's filed a tax return for 2016 that would certainly help his cause as far as a lender is concerned, and  as soon as he can provide some recent pay stubs (or paid invoices) he should be ready to move forward on the mortgage based on that additional income. You'd probably need to prove you can run the business if you want a loan. The best proof you can have is to run the business.  Unfortunately that also means that the price of the alley could go up. OP needs to start thinking about a negotiation strategy soon. "To put a different spin on it, suppose you loaned someone $100K, expecting that they would pay it back, and then a little later they decided not too. They are perfectly capable of paying back the money, but just decided they didn't want to, and it seems the laws of your state said you couldn't make them. How would you feel about that? Since this is supposed to be an answer to the question, the answer is: ""only if you can't afford to repay it"". That's what foreclosure is supposed to be about, not you deciding you would rather not pay your debts. Let's not forget who pays that bill for you - every one of your bank's other customers. EDIT:For the people decrying the moral aspect and saying ""it's perfectly alright because the law says that's the punishment and I'm willing to pay it"", the law also says ""if you kill someone, you go to prison for life"". Does that mean that someone who decides they are going to kill someone has a perfect right to do it as long as they are prepared to take the consequences?" You're the only one that knows what's going on. But in GA they are having problems getting permission to just tear down unmaintained vacant properties.  http://www.walb.com/story/15552236/dilapidated-dougherty-co-homes-may-be-demolished  http://decatur.11alive.com/news/news/139681-dekalb-county-fix-dilapidated-houses  (I had another story in mind but I don't know the right keywords to find it, basically someone abandoned a house years ago and people have been trying to find the owner, because they can't get rid of it and the property values are going down.) "I debated whether to put this in an answer or a comment, because I'm not sure that this can be answered usefully without a lot more information, which actually would then probably make it a candidate for closing as ""too localized"". At the very least we would need to know where (which jurisdiction) she is located in. So, speaking in a generic way, the options available as I see them are: Contact the mortgage companies and explain she can't continue to make payments. They will likely foreclose on the properties and if she still ends up owing money after that (if you are in the US this also depends on whether you are in a ""non-recourse"" state) then she could be declared bankrupt. This is rather the ""nuclear option"" and definitely not something to be undertaken lightly, but would at least wipe the slate clean and give her some degree of certainty about her situation. Look very carefully at the portfolio of properties and get some proper valuations done on them (depending on where she is located this may be free). Also do a careful analysis of the property sales and rental markets, to see whether property prices / rental rates are going up or down. Then decide on an individual basis whether each property is better kept or sold. You may be able to get discounts on fees if you sell multiple properties in one transaction. This option would require some cold hard analysis and decision making without letting yourselves get emotionally invested in the situation (difficult, I know). Depending on how long she has had the properties for and how she came to own them, it MIGHT be an option to pursue action against whoever advised her to acquire them. Clearly a large portfolio of decaying rental properties is not a suitable investment for a relatively elderly lady and if she only came by them relatively recently, on advice from an investment consultant or similar, you might have some redress there.  Another option: could she live in one of the properties herself to reduce costs? If she owns her own home as well then she could sell that, live in the one of the rentals and use the money saved to finance the sale of the other rentals. Aside from these thoughts, one final piece of advice: don't get your own finances tangled up in hers (so don't take out a mortgage against your own property, for example). Obviously if you have the leeway to help her out of your budget then that is great, but I would restrict that to doing things like paying for grocery shopping or whatever. If she is heading for bankruptcy or other financial difficulties, it won't help if you are entangled too." "Sure, it's irresponsible for an executor to take actions which endanger the estate.  But what about passivity or inaction?  Put it another way.  Is it the obligation of the executor to avoid making revenue for the estate?  Think about it - what a silly idea!   Consider a 12-unit apartment building full of rent paying tenants.  A tenant gives notice and leaves.  So do 4 more.  With only 7/12 tenants, the building stops being a revenue center and becomes a massive money pit.  Is that acceptable?  Heck no!  Realistically this will be managed by a property management company, and of course they'll seek new tenants, not stopping merely because the owner died.  This situation is not different; the same fiscal logic applies.  The counter-argument is usually along the lines of ""stuff might happen if you rent it out""... true. But the stuff that happens to abandoned houses is much worse, and much more likely: squatters, teen ""urban explorers"", pot growers, copper thieves, winter pipe freeze flooding and wrecking interiors, etc.  Don't take my word on it -- ask your insurer for the cost of insuring an abandoned house vs. a rented one.  Renting brings a chunk of cash that comes in from tenants - $12,000/year on a $1000/mo. rental. And that will barely pay the bills if you have a young mortgage on a freshly purchased house at recent market rates.  But on an old mortgage, renting is like printing money.  That money propagates first to the estate (presumably it is holding back a ""fix the roof"" emergency fund), and then to the beneficiaries.  It means getting annual checks from the estate, instead of constantly being dunned for another repair.  But I don't care about making revenue (outside of putting back a kitty to replace the roof).  Even if it was net zero, it means the maintenance is being done.  This being the point.  It is keeping the house in good repair, occupied, insured, and professionally managed -- fit and ready for the bequest's purpose: occupancy of an aunt.  What's the alternative?  Move an aunt into a house that's been 10 years abandoned?  Realistically the heirs are going to get tired/bored of maintaining the place at a total cash loss, maintenance will slip, and you'll be moving them into a neglected house with some serious issues.  That betrays the bequest, and it's not fair to the aunts. Rental is a very responsible thing to do.  The executor shouldn't fail to do it merely out of passivity.  If you decide not to do it, there needs to be a viable alternative to funding the home's decent upkeep.  (I don't think there is one).  Excluding a revenue-producing asset from the economy is an expensive thing to do." "&gt;I mean, if this were the mortgage market, you would be arguing to banks ""What the hell made you think this homeowner would keep paying you 6% interest on this money when you're not providing any kind of value twenty years later?""  Small difference: if the homeowner stops, the bank can take the home. If the employer stops, the retiree is left with no choice but to try and sue. Perhaps track down some other people whose payments were cut and sue together.  As you observe, it's the disparity of strength between the parties that makes some people uneasy about this." No, I really do.  Things break at least once a month, and never get fixed.  The worst one was the bathroom window that broke from opening it...3 weeks later, and several pieces of cardboard and duct tape later, it finally got replaced.  And the slumlords I rent from now are no where near the neighborhood that I moved out of when I could no longer afford my house.  The cost of living went up, and our pay went down.  That is not the specific lending bank's fault, indeed.  But the economy is crap, and crap runs downhill.  I didn't know how bad the schools were in the place we lived formerly until she'd been there for a couple years.  The schools here...despite the neighborhood...are excellent.  Tldr:  We were making more when we bought the house.  But it was a 50,000 house that someone stuck a 100,000 price tag on.  Lots of hidden problems that got glossed over in the home inspection. According to LegalZoom:  If your debtor is unwilling to pay and you know they have the means,   it's time to use your local sheriff. You have three options to   collect: a bank levy, wage garnishment, or a real estate lien. It sounds like you'll need to reach out to your local police/sheriff's department and they can further help you out and get you your money. "Gold may have some ""intrinsic value"" but it cannot be accurately determined by investors by any known valuation techniques. In fact, if you were to apply the dividend discount model of John Burr Williams - a variation of which is the basis of Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) analysis and the basis of most valuation techniques - gold would have zero intrinsic value because it produces no cash flow. Legendary focus investor Warren Buffett argues that investing in gold is pure speculation because of the reason mentioned above. As others have mentioned, gold prices are affected by supply and demand, but the bigger influence on the price of gold is how the economy is. Gold is seen as a store of value because, according to some, it does not ""lose value"" unlike paper currency during inflation. In inflationary times, demand increases so gold prices do go up, which is why gold behaves similar to a commodity but has far less uses.  It is difficult to argue whether or not gold gains or loses value because we can't determine the intrinsic value of gold, and anyone who attempts to justify any given price is pulling blinders over your eyes. It is indisputable that, over history, gold represents wealth and that in the past century and the last decade, gold prices rise in inflationary conditions as people dump dollars for gold, and it has fallen when the purchasing power of currency increases. Many investors have talked about a ""gold bubble"" by arguing that gold prices are inflated because of inflation and the Fed's money policy and that once interest rates rise, the money supply will contract and gold will fall, but again, nobody can say with any reasonable accuracy what the fair value of gold at any given point is.  This article on seeking alpha: http://seekingalpha.com/article/112794-the-intrinsic-value-of-gold gives a quick overview, but it is also vague because gold can't be accurately priced.  I wouldn't say that gold has zero intrinsic value because gold is not a business so traditional models are inappropriate, but I would say that gold *certainly * doesn't have a value of $1,500 and it's propped so high only because of investor expectation.  In conclusion, I do not believe you can accurately state whether gold is undervalued or overvalued - you must make judgments based on what you think about the future of the market and of monetary policy, but there are too many variables to be accurate consistently."