Wouldn’t leasing or renting be more accurate depending on what’s involved and the circumstances?

  • lovely_reader@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 days ago

    When you take out a loan/mortgage, the bank does not own the property you purchase with those funds. You own the property, and you use it essentially as collateral to secure the loan. (It’s considered a lien.) The bank can take ownership of the property if you violate the terms of the agreement, typically by failing to pay what you owe, but the bank doesn’t own the property.

    • ALostInquirer@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Mentioning @Diddlydee@feddit.uk here to address you both in your similar corrections rather than duplicate my reply: I stand corrected.

      I see that I had misconstrued my personal misgivings with the penalties of failing to pay with a lack of legal ownership.

      It still feels off, precarious, to describe it as ownership to me, but I recognize what you’re both saying regarding the legal standing of it all.

      • lovely_reader@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        It does, sure. It helps to understand that the debt is separate from the property, same as if you borrowed $20 for lunch—it feels a lot different from your friend buying you lunch, but it doesn’t feel like your friend owns your lunch until you repay them, either.

        With real estate especially, once the property begins to require your attention and money, you begin to feel that ownership more acutely. The bank has no idea when the gutters need to be cleared or there’s a drainage issue. They’re concerned only with the loan.