Foreclosures' hidden risk: Debt that haunts for two decades (Spring Hill: fit in, leasing)

[vaughanwilliams]

Originally Posted by Mike1306

What would be the basis of the suit? It would be thrown out of court in a heartbeat.

And this was not started by uncontrolled greed. It was started back in the early 1970's because of the governments thought that everyone, even low income families that can't afford it should own a home. The government kept at it and it just mushroomed to what it became.

The CRA of 1977 and HMDA of 1975 were the start of it all.

I could be mistaken, but I've heard that the homes in CRA districts are, as a percentage and actual number, quite a bit less likely to be in foreclose than non-CRA homes. What I'm trying to say is the CRA program wasn't that big of a contributor to the mess, with most of the foreclosures coming from outside the program.

[chi_tino]

Originally Posted by Sunny-Days90

If the statue of limitations has passed they cannot collect a dime.

They can "attempt" to collect it but cannot garnish etc to collect the money.

What they have not realized is many people wont have a dime for them to go after for many years and by that time they will have wasted tons of money trying.

What they will be doing is forcing people to file bankruptcy and then they wont get a dime ever and the people can stay in the home for 6-12 months for free with the back log of bankruptcies.

As a landlord myself I am finding it hard to get tenants who have never filed bankruptcy, have a foreclosure on their record etc. Very few apps I see do not have these on the files.

1. It's "statute of limitations".

2. Your ignorance on this topic is appalling, and you should not be posting "facts" that are factually incorrect. Companies have five years to file for a deficiency claim, and up to 20 years after that to collect.

3. Much of this debt is being sold for pennies on the dollar to third party companies that are not politicially pressured like banks. They are going to aggressively move to collect. [The St Pete Times mentioned an $18 million dollar debt portfolio that was just sold for $130,000 to a collection company.]

4. With that 5+20 year window, deadbeat debtors that do not have money today may have it in the future. These debts are like long-term lottery tickets to the collection companies. They can and will track down people and nail them for years and years of interest, and they will garnish wages. In addition, defying a judge's order to pay can result in imprisonment. Bankruptcy can alleviate this, but the collection companies have the choice to just go after the people who have recovered financially: if a decade from now you have assets of $250k and a collection company demands $100k, why would you declare bankruptcy?

5. If you cannot find financially responsible people to rent to, perhaps you should reevaluate being a landlord as an investment choice. Back in 2007, I could not find tenants for my residential properties that met my criteria, so I unloaded all of my properties. It was the best financial decision I ever made, as some of these properties are now valued at 60-70% less than what I sold them for.

[Mike1306]

Originally Posted by vaughanwilliams

I could be mistaken, but I've heard that the homes in CRA districts are, as a percentage and actual number, quite a bit less likely to be in foreclose than non-CRA homes. What I'm trying to say is the CRA program wasn't that big of a contributor to the mess, with most of the foreclosures coming from outside the program.

In studies among sub-prime mortgages, which are where CRA loans are grouped, they haven't found any difference in foreclosure rates. They performed about the same as other sub-primes. My point was not to say these loans were the cause of everything but that the government involvement pushing banks to lend where they shouldn't was a major contributor to the mess and a starting point for it all.

In 1992 HUD started pushing Fannie and Freddie to buy more loans whether they were credit worthy or not.

In 1995 when the CRA changed under Clinton there became more of an emphasis on how many loans were made in a certain area rather than how the loans performed. By 1999 only 29% of the loans in lenders CRA loan programs were profitable.

It did not by any means start in the early 2000's as another poster said and I certainly won't blame it on one political party as he tried to.

[bentlebee]

Not all people filing for bankruptcy will be honored with that. At some point they want to buy again and will face a lien on that home from the prior judgment.

People need to stop blaming others since most of them were just as much to blame. Greed has caused this to happen to many people.

Most people are aware that many Real Estate professionals, Mortgage brokers, Appraisers, etc. were also buying multiple homes zero down and are now in financial trouble.

In our community there were people buying with hourly wages of $ 10-$ 12.-....how can someone think they are able to pay a $ 250,000 mortgage with income like this....serious?

Many have become tenants and have not learned much since they walk into our office paying the rent and asking if we can find them a "good deal" while just a little over 1 year ago they were foreclosed on.


I guess some people don't learn much....the worst thing to me is.....they don't teach their kids much other than how to blame other people and their kids will do exactly the same if they have the chance.

Hopefully lenders will check out everything this time and although it is hard that many people can't get a loan, to me if they would ask for less they could get one but they still want more than they can afford!

Most people could save more money. Because nobody can let me to believe that all the overweight people are overweight due to an illness....most just eat to much and if they cut down they will be able to save on food, medication and feel much better about them self in the first place and from the money they save (they usually sweat more so if they lose weight they might be able to cut down on the A/C as well) they can start paying towards a down payment.

For a family of 4 that will add up pretty fast....btw they will cut down on gas to when their car doesn't weigh so much....easy saving!

[algia]

Debt Collection Statute of Limitations – What’s the Statute of Limitations On Debt

Statute of Limitations on Debt - Complete State List of Statute of Limitations on Debt

The Florida Statute of Limitations on Debt

BTW Thank you for this:

Most people could save more money. Because nobody can let me to believe that all the overweight people are overweight due to an illness....most just eat to much and if they cut down they will be able to save on food, medication and feel much better about them self in the first place and from the money they save (they usually sweat more so if they lose weight they might be able to cut down on the A/C as well) they can start paying towards a down payment.

Not to mention making crazy car payments etc...

[vaughanwilliams]

Originally Posted by Mike1306

In studies among sub-prime mortgages, which are where CRA loans are grouped, they haven't found any difference in foreclosure rates. They performed about the same as other sub-primes. My point was not to say these loans were the cause of everything but that the government involvement pushing banks to lend where they shouldn't was a major contributor to the mess and a starting point for it all.

In 1992 HUD started pushing Fannie and Freddie to buy more loans whether they were credit worthy or not.

In 1995 when the CRA changed under Clinton there became more of an emphasis on how many loans were made in a certain area rather than how the loans performed. By 1999 only 29% of the loans in lenders CRA loan programs were profitable.

It did not by any means start in the early 2000's as another poster said and I certainly won't blame it on one political party as he tried to.

Thanks for the answer, Mike.

If I may, I'd like to ask you another question (or two). You say the CRA loans are lumped in with sub-prime loans-are all the CRA loans actually sub-prime and if they are, do you know what percentage of ALL sub-prime loans (CRA and non-CRA) written they are? I ask because I have several friends that signed goofy sub-prime loans that had nothing to do with CRA or any government program.

[algia]

I bet you that a LOT of people who bought homes between 2004 and 2006 had no clue about any of this!


The Gov may have been the "starting" with every American should own a home....but from that and predatory lending practiced between 2004 and 2006 was a long 20+ year way!

Originally Posted by Mike1306

My point was not to say these loans were the cause of everything but that the government involvement pushing banks to lend where they shouldn't was a major contributor to the mess and a starting point for it all.

[Mike1306]

Originally Posted by vaughanwilliams

Thanks for the answer, Mike.

If I may, I'd like to ask you another question (or two). You say the CRA loans are lumped in with sub-prime loans-are all the CRA loans actually sub-prime and if they are, do you know what percentage of ALL sub-prime loans (CRA and non-CRA) written they are? I ask because I have several friends that signed goofy sub-prime loans that had nothing to do with CRA or any government program.

I am pretty sure that not all loans associated with CRA are sub-prime but a large enough percentage are that when they are looked at as a group they consider them sub-prime. I think a mortgage person would be able to answer that better.

My loan was considered sub-prime when I first took it out because it was a pick a pay, interest only, ARM loan. It worked out for me because my lender wanted to get everyone that was paying on time out of the ARM's and offered me a fixed rate 3.5% for the remaining term. But it was not a CRA loan.

[Mike1306]

Originally Posted by algia

I bet you that a LOT of people who bought homes between 2004 and 2006 had no clue about any of this!


The Gov may have been the "starting" with every American should own a home....but from that and predatory lending practiced between 2004 and 2006 was a long 20+ year way!

1975 HMDA
1977 CRA
1992 HUD pushes freddie and Fannie
1995 CRA is changed pushing more business where it shouldn't be

You need to look at the big picture.

[bentlebee]

Originally Posted by algia

I bet you that a LOT of people who bought homes between 2004 and 2006 had no clue about any of this!


The Gov may have been the "starting" with every American should own a home....but from that and predatory lending practiced between 2004 and 2006 was a long 20+ year way!

That is was socialism is all about...everybody needs to have what another person has....doesn't matter how! Now we have one proof that people should get what they deserve and work for what they can have, that is the only way they understand that hard work will bring them further...hand outs and bail outs will do nothing except for wanting more an dblaming others if they don't get what another person has.