Only 2 houses sold out of Subdivision...Exit Strategy? (crime, credit)

[Atlantasfinest]

Thanks for the information guys...she hasn't had any attempted break-ins since the gentleman next door began renting his unit to college students next door for almost a year now (Before the developers boarded the windows and doors of the other remaining buildings to keep people out). That extra presence of 3 strapping your men helps I guess with people leaving in and out of there now. Before the gentleman next door was out of town on business alot so it was very lonely around there with her being the only one there for most of the time. She currently has security doors on the front and back of the entry doors with a alarm system so it's definately made a difference.

I explained what people from this forum were advising about just vacating and taking the "credit ding" but she has stated that she has worked so hard to build perfect credit and to throw it all down the drain would be disheartening to say the least. I'm helping her put ads around the campuses and on websites at schools in the AUC. With the price of gas prices way up I'm sure someone would want to live there even with the blighted buildings next door because it is REALLY NICE on the inside. She's really hoping someone buys the remaning development so it can AT LEAST become viable college student housing directly down the street from the AUC. Let's hope she gets some interested tenants so she can bide her time to see how the development will play out.

And about buying new... I believe if your buying new never buy in a new subdivision large or small from a "Fly By Night" developer like these shiesters she bought from. IT would be much different if she wouldv'e bought in a single family detached home. I bought a new Brock Built Home on the Westside and I LOVE IT .

[atlantagreg30127]

Originally Posted by Atlantasfinest

I'm helping her put ads around the campuses and on websites at schools in the AUC. With the price of gas prices way up I'm sure someone would want to live there even with the blighted buildings next door because it is REALLY NICE on the inside.

Well - let's just say we hope it STAYS really nice on the inside after a few college students rent it for a while. She needs to require a good security and cleaning deposit.

Originally Posted by Atlantasfinest

And about buying new thing I believe if your buying new never buy from a "Fly By Night" developer like these shiesters she bought from. I bought a new Brock Built Home on the Westside and I LOVE IT .

It's not that buying new is evil - it's that being one of the first people to buy into a development is risky. "New" can still be established once things get off the ground, but to be one of the very first buyers opens people up to various problems, including one such as this.

[scgraham]

Originally Posted by BobKovacs

About the only thing she could do is walk away from the mortgage- it'll hurt her credit for a while, but it's not an uncommon occurence nowadays. Some mortgage companies are even offering "cash for keys" programs, where they'll give you a few thousand $$ to hand your keys over and not destroy the unit (which is what happens in many foreclosures).

Or, she can find someone with a whole lot of $$ to buy the development from the builder, and finish the rest of the units herself and sell them. That's probably the less likely situation though.......

Is it fair to the mortgage company to even suggest such a thing?

[scgraham]

Originally Posted by Atlantasfinest

Maybe a buy-back program? Seriously I don't know. It's just a messe dup situation and she has excellent credit, it's just a shame if she has to walk away from the situation it will be ruined.

In my sole opinion, it is not the lender’s responsibility -- save some sort of unscrupulous behavior on their part.

[JPD]

Originally Posted by scgraham

Is it fair to the mortgage company to even suggest such a thing?

Sounds like if anyone is the victim of unfairness it is the buyer. They were sold a pipe dream. Sometimes you have to look out for yourself and not some poor, poor mortgage company.

I'd get the hell out of there asap.

[BobKovacs]

Originally Posted by scgraham

Is it fair to the mortgage company to even suggest such a thing?

"Fair"? Define "fair". Life's not always "fair"- and this is one such case. By no means am I saying this is a great thing to do, and she'll pay for it with a bad credit rating for some time, but if she's in a dangerous situation, the's got to do what she feels is going to protect her- not necessarily what's "fair" to all involved.

But while we're on the topic of "fair", was it "fair" for the developer to go into default on his loan? Shouldn't he have paid from his own pocket to finish the units, deliver a safe community as he promised, and even sell the units at a loss if necessary? I mean, really- if he had any business being a developer in the first place, and any sense of "fairness", he'd do the right thing, wouldn't he?????

[scgraham]

Originally Posted by BobKovacs

"Fair"? Define "fair". Life's not always "fair"- and this is one such case. By no means am I saying this is a great thing to do, and she'll pay for it with a bad credit rating for some time, but if she's in a dangerous situation, the's got to do what she feels is going to protect her- not necessarily what's "fair" to all involved.

But while we're on the topic of "fair", was it "fair" for the developer to go into default on his loan? Shouldn't he have paid from his own pocket to finish the units, deliver a safe community as he promised, and even sell the units at a loss if necessary? I mean, really- if he had any business being a developer in the first place, and any sense of "fairness", he'd do the right thing, wouldn't he?????

With all due respect, what the builder failed to do has nothing to do with the mortgagee of this particular loan. Not only does walking away hurt the lender and the borrower, but it hurts everybody; it’s a poor solution.

[JPD]

Originally Posted by scgraham

With all due respect, what the builder failed to do has nothing to do with the mortgagee of this particular loan. Not only does walking away hurt the lender and the borrower, but it hurts everybody; it’s a poor solution.

What the builder promised to do has everything to do with the mortgagee, as the mortgagee would not have purchased the home if they had even the slightest clue of what was to come.

[RainyRainyDay]

Originally Posted by JPD

What the builder promised to do has everything to do with the mortgagee, as the mortgagee would not have purchased the home if they had even the slightest clue of what was to come.

JPD, I think you may be confused by the terminology in the previous post.

mortgagee = the lender
mortgagor = the borrower/buyer

[BobKovacs]

Originally Posted by scgraham

With all due respect, what the builder failed to do has nothing to do with the mortgagee of this particular loan. Not only does walking away hurt the lender and the borrower, but it hurts everybody; it’s a poor solution.

Again, in the perfect world, this isn't the answer- but since you're calling it a "poor solution", please feel free to elaborate on what you think the correct solution to this particular problem is. After all, it's not "fair" to criticize one solution without offering a valid solution of your own......