Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think most are mad about how the government bailed out the banks but not the homeowners. Personally nobody should have been bailed out. .
And following your logic where do you suppose Americas auto industry would be today?
Or had Wall st. not got a bail out where would Americas global financial credibility be today?..
As for people buying homes they couldnt afford? I guess their bubble burst now its accountability time for their poor financial decisions..
Many folks during the height of the "housing boom" were bombarded with
solicitation from banks for home equity/refinance - lower interest rate
type "second mortgages" based on equity.....
Could it be that is what they had - I don't know.
I do know a lot of banks pulled this scam -
Because the price of the homes during the boom did not meet the
standard for debt/ to income ratio they would offer a first and second
mortgage (second - being normally what one would use for home improvement etc - but in this case we know that isn't what it was used for) to qualify for
a mortgage to buy the house. What the home owner didn't know - even
in a state that allowed them "to walk from a mortgage - they were legally
liable for that "second mortgage"....down the road, regardless of bank
receiving home as payback from the first loan.
Seriously, let's call what happened from 2000 - 2006 with banks exactly
what it was.
A raping of America (I call them homeowners)
Maybe we are having an issue with comprehension.
Man bought property in 1992, paid on it 19 years. Has to sell, has a buyer willing to pay the ENTIRE PAYOFF owed on home. What's the issue?
According to my attorney, the money is conveyed to the borrower, who takes the money and pays off the home, and deeds the title to the new owner who has fronted all funds necessary to payoff the loan.
There is no issue with early payoff fees, or anything else, if the buyer is willing to provide funds to cover the payoff amount, pay it off and convery the deed. Done deal.
With regards to FBK's situation, I guess hardly anybody here has taken a risk to better their lives.
Now I know why the threads about foodstamps and having to pee in a cup for welfare benefits are raging nonstop.
Man bought property in 1992, paid on it 19 years. Has to sell, has a buyer willing to pay the ENTIRE PAYOFF owed on home. What's the issue?
According to my attorney, the money is conveyed to the borrower, who takes the money and pays off the home, and deeds the title to the new owner who has fronted all funds necessary to payoff the loan.
There is no issue with early payoff fees, or anything else, if the buyer is willing to provide funds to cover the payoff amount, pay it off and convery the deed. Done deal.
FBK- did you take out a second mortgage on the property?
That's the only scenario that makes sense. If a person is making full payments every month, then the orignal loan should be almost halfway paid off by now. Unless the housing market in that town has fallen off to half of its 1991 values, then it shouldn't have been a problem to sell it for the amount owed. That wouldn't be a short sell and wouldn't require the bank's approval.
Your right - what you present above is exactly right There would be
no issue.
What that person posted is: The present owner/mortgagee found a buyer AFTER they were foreclosed upon by the bank.
Actually they said
Quote:
I put the property up for sale. Our realtor found three willing buyers, who would each pay off the loan. I did not price it to make any profit. I only wanted to get out, get a buyer to pay my outstanding principle and take it so I could wash my hands of it.
All of this was submitted to the bank. They could choose which buyer could buy the property.
The bank refused to allow us to sell.
There was Obama-money to be had, the bank wanted to follow-through with a foreclosure so they could get the property to qualify for bail-out money. Instead of simply taking the cash from selling the property.
Apparently the bank thought they could get more money via the bail-out than simply the outstanding principle.
After a month of arguing with the bank, I signed a quit-claim deed and gave the property to the bank.
The bank's lawyers refused to accept the deed in that fashion.
The bank started a foreclosure, plus their lawyers filed a law-suit suing me for the principle, PLUS the deed, PLUS $10k in legal fees.
This indicates that the owner had people ready to pay off the property far in advance of the bank's foreclosure.
(The attorney I sent it to to review, because of the end of the post detailing the bankruptcy and stuff, pointed all this out to me, advising each point along the post why it could or could not have been acurate).
So, either there is more to the story we are not privy to, or it has been inaccurately relayed to us. As written, it cannot happen.
And following your logic where do you suppose Americas auto industry would be today?
Or had Wall st. not got a bail out where would Americas global financial credibility be today?..
As for people buying homes they couldnt afford? I guess their bubble burst now its accountability time for their poor financial decisions..
The auto industry should have been allowed to go under. That's called a Free Market system.
Wall St. should not have been bailed out. That's called a Free Market system.
Homeowners who bought homes they couldn't afford, wrongly assuming they would increase in value, should not be bailed out. That's just a slap in the face to homeowners that bought houses they could afford, or sacrificed to pay for their mortgage, just to see their speculating neighbor get rewarded for taking a risk that failed.
Our govt has become the mommy that lets junior reap the rewards, but not suffer the consequences of the failure. It's called enabling.
FBK- did you take out a second mortgage on the property?
That's the only scenario that makes sense. If a person is making full payments every month, then the orignal loan should be almost halfway paid off by now. Unless the housing market in that town has fallen off to half of its 1991 values, then it shouldn't have been a problem to sell it for the amount owed. That wouldn't be a short sell and wouldn't require the bank's approval.
First, selling anything was a Big problem after the bust, regardless of
equity in a property.
He would have had to have had a second mortgage or already in
foreclosure for the bank to have that kind of control...
FBK stated after the boom and then the bust, employers laid off and he lost tenants (they were paying the mortgage on this rental property) - that's why I'm thinking he was already in foreclosure
when he tried and found a buyer in order not to loose any previous equity
he had already gained in a multi rental unit over the last 19 years.
Once in foreclosure - a bank can do what ever they want.
This indicates that the owner had people ready to pay off the property far in advance of the bank's foreclosure.
(The attorney I sent it to to review, because of the end of the post detailing the bankruptcy and stuff, pointed all this out to me, advising each point along the post why it could or could not have been acurate).
So, either there is more to the story we are not privy to, or it has been inaccurately relayed to us. As written, it cannot happen.
I would agree with that - but he said no tenants no rent.
That is the only way the bank (legally) could be screwing him around like that.
Your right
With regards to FBK's situation, I guess hardly anybody here has taken a risk to better their lives.
Now I know why the threads about foodstamps and having to pee in a cup for welfare benefits are raging nonstop.
Of course we have. But it's a RISK. Not a GUARANTEE.
You want to be bailed out if your risk fails? Great. But you better be prepared to cough up your reward when your risk works out.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There would be
