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.
Hey everyone,
I have been placing calls to several lawyers with my calls not being returned/questions not answered. I hope someone here can give me some advice on my situation.
My husband and I bought a 1/2 of a duplex in 11/05 in Rocklin CA for $250,000. We refinanced to pay off our car and debt in 12/06 for $25,000. We have 2 loans, 1st in an ARM loan ($225,000) which will be adjusting in March and increasing our payment by $500.00 a month. 2nd is a fixed for $55,000.
We are thinking of being foreclosed on. The house is valued at $100,000 less than what we owe due to the current market/area we live in (5 others on my street are in foreclosure). We would not be able to sell for at least 3-5 years and would break even. We could rent a much larger space in a better neighborhood/school district for cheaper. We could not rent it, our mortgage is about $700.00 more than the going rental rate (we would not be able to financially rent another place and pay the $700.00 difference)
With the adjusting ARM, my leaking ceiling, a job offer to move out of the area; I am at a loss of what to do since I can not get a hold of anyone.
I have read that the mortgage company could sue us for the 2nd loan amount. I understand that we could not buy for a couple of years, but that is how long we would have to wait to sell anyways.
So what you want is for the bank to foreclose? I don't understand that? You will still be responsible for any money the bank doesnt get from selling it. For example if the house sells for 150 and you owe 225 - you still owe them 75.
You wouldnt be able to buy again for a long time, your credit will be messed up for years. This is a bad decision.
We are thinking of being foreclosed on. The house is valued at $100,000 less than what we owe due to the current market/area we live in (5 others on my street are in foreclosure). We would not be able to sell for at least 3-5 years and would break even. We could rent a much larger space in a better neighborhood/school district for cheaper. We could not rent it, our mortgage is about $700.00 more than the going rental rate (we would not be able to financially rent another place and pay the $700.00 difference)
You are thinking of being forclosed on? I'm not sure what that means. Are you saying that you are able to continue the payments, but are thinking of not doing so, because the value is less than what you owe? That it might be of some benefit to you financially to let the bank take the house?
Or am I misreading this? Do you need to get out for some reason? Are you moving, and HAVE to sell?
Last edited by Bill Keegan; 01-11-2008 at 11:20 AM..
Reason: clarification
Just because the bank takes back the house doesn't mean you're not responsible for paying the loan back. The bank will sell the house for what it can get, then hold you responsible for the balance. Before letting any foreclosure happen, you should talk the bank about your concerns and see if it's possible to re-fi again to an amount you can afford.
So what you want is for the bank to foreclose? I don't understand that? You will still be responsible for any money the bank doesnt get from selling it. For example if the house sells for 150 and you owe 225 - you still owe them 75.
You wouldnt be able to buy again for a long time, your credit will be messed up for years. This is a bad decision.
Exactly what nic529 said. Sometimes you just have to live with the results of bad decisions. While you could "allow" the bank to take it back, you'll still owe them. Sitting tight and breaking even is a lot better way to go than to just try to walk away from your responsibilities.
Exactly what nic529 said. Sometimes you just have to live with the results of bad decisions. While you could "allow" the bank to take it back, you'll still owe them. Sitting tight and breaking even is a lot better way to go than to just try to walk away from your responsibilities.
While its true that "jingle mail"ers can be pursued by lenders, will it be feasible for some? Wage garnishment might be the inevitable consequence of beefed up legal teams at mortgage companies, but right now most lenders will write off the debt.
Still, it's much much better to try a short sale if its possible.
You are thinking of being forclosed on? I'm not sure what that means. Are you saying that you are able to continue the payments, but are thinking of not doing so, because the value is less than what you owe? That it might be of some benefit to you financially to let the bank take the house?
Or am I misreading this? Do you need to get out for some reason? Are you moving, and HAVE to sell?
Thank you for your post. We have a job offer and are thinking if we should take it and leave the house. What good has come out of owning a home for us. Nothing. I think that we made a horrible decision when we bought the place. It was our first place and we didn't understand what we were getting into. I think that if the bank was to take the house back and we didn't have to pay the difference we would be in a much better financial situation than we are now. I am waiting for the bank to call to see if they can work out a loan modification for us, but I don't think that they will be able to help to much.
So is this why people who get into foreclosure also declare bankruptcy? Which I do not want to do.
So what you want is for the bank to foreclose? I don't understand that? You will still be responsible for any money the bank doesnt get from selling it. For example if the house sells for 150 and you owe 225 - you still owe them 75.
You wouldnt be able to buy again for a long time, your credit will be messed up for years. This is a bad decision.
Thank you for your post. I appreciate your input. Do you know anything about deed in lieu of foreclosure??
While its true that "jingle mail"ers can be pursued by lenders, will it be feasible for some? Wage garnishment might be the inevitable consequence of beefed up legal teams at mortgage companies, but right now most lenders will write off the debt.
Still, it's much much better to try a short sale if its possible.
Go ahead and laugh. What the hell is a jingle mailer? Are you thinking if we let the home go into foreclosure that they will garnish my wages until the debt is paid.
Thank you for your post. I appreciate your input. Do you know anything about deed in lieu of foreclosure??
Lindz - this is not a good idea. You do not want to let your home go into forecloser or any kind of unless you absolutely have to. The reason you are thinking about this is because you don't think you can get what you owe on the house until you sell it? Guess what....the bank won't either ...and what ever they don't get you will still be responsible for...you will not get ahead this way. This would be the biggest mistake I'm sure you've ever made.
Figure out another way. Pay your mortage. In a couple of years the market will correct itself, you will be able to sell your house with a plus and end up making some. If you have to go now Rent the house 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.
The house is valued at $100,000 less than what we owe due to the current market/area we live in (5 others on my street are in foreclosure). We would not be able to sell for at least 3-5 years and would break even. We could rent a much larger space in a better neighborhood/school district for cheaper. We could not rent it, our mortgage is about $700.00 more than the going rental rate (we would not be able to financially rent another place and pay the $700.00 difference)
