Another example of "It ain't over" (tenant, auction, foreclose)
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 assume you're referring to me with the cavalier attitude comment? I dispute that characterization, but admit I have stong feelings about this issue.
I do believe the part about this not being over.
What I disagree with is OP's contention that California pulling out of settlement talks has anything to do with "getting it" or having guts. It seems a whole lot more like political posturing and pandering to me.
"The agreement was supposed to settle claims of poor mortgage and foreclosure practices, including document fraud known as "robo-signing" approving documents in foreclosures without actually reading them."
Should lenders have to dot their i's and cross their t's? Absolutely. But these negotiations have been going on for 11 months now. Can you point me to even one California homeowner who was wrongly foreclosed on? Sheesh, let's even widen the net. Has anyone anywhere documented a case where a borrower who was current on their payments was foreclosed on? Sorry, but IMO anyone who was not making payments and who ends up in foreclosure has experienced a proper foreclosure as provided for in the contract they signed.
FWIW, I also believe borrowers have the same right to take advantage of any and all contracual options as lenders.
I'm watching to see if strategic default becomes more accepted and commonplace. I do think it's probably the best option for many people. Excessive debt and the diversion of income to lenders in the form of insanely high payment levels both traps borrowers, and serves as a drag on our consumption driven economy. (again a whole other discussion)
If you want to ease the burden on overextended loanowners, foreclosure will certainly do that. But everyone seems intent on finding a solution that allows people who borrowed excessively to stay in their homes. And of course no matter how you try to go about that, it will require unbelievable amounts of taxpayer money.
You believe that everyone who borrowed excessively are the only or main foreclosures?
You think its excessive to borrower on a house that the payment is only 10% of your income? Then the person loses his business or job that was related to housing and can't find other work that would satisfy the payment on the house?
Seems like your trying to put them all in a neat little... you screwed up box....so now your homeless. Next time don't be so stupid....
Not buying it... i know to many that have lost not only their homes, but their families and happiness.
You believe that everyone who borrowed excessively are the only or main foreclosures?
You think its excessive to borrower on a house that the payment is only 10% of your income? Then the person loses his business or job that was related to housing and can't find other work that would satisfy the payment on the house?
Seems like your trying to put them all in a neat little... you screwed up box....so now your homeless. Next time don't be so stupid....
Not buying it... i know to many that have lost not only their homes, but their families and happiness.
And none of it is their own fault? I'm not buying that.
"Excessive debt and the diversion of income to lenders " duh, you mean people bought homes they couldnt afford????? gee didnt they know what there montly payment would be?
I assume you're referring to me with the cavalier attitude comment? I dispute that characterization, but admit I have stong feelings about this issue.
Can you point me to even one California homeowner who was wrongly foreclosed on? Sheesh, let's even widen the net. Has anyone anywhere documented a case where a borrower who was current on their payments was foreclosed on?
ummm...that's easy. take a look at the links below or just google 'wrongful foreclosure' or something like 'paid cash' and 'still foreclosed'. lenders are going after people left and right on wrong property addresses where no mortgage exists b/c there is no mortgage, etc or where a homeowner paid cash in full...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Axiom
I'm watching to see if strategic default becomes more accepted and commonplace. I do think it's probably the best option for many people.
If you want to ease the burden on overextended loanowners, foreclosure will certainly do that. But everyone seems intent on finding a solution that allows people who borrowed excessively to stay in their homes. And of course no matter how you try to go about that, it will require unbelievable amounts of taxpayer money.
The OP's post does 'get it'. Settling with lenders that restricts a state's right or a property owners right to sue or seek justice, compensation, etc is assinine. you never give up a right when in a situation where the other party has proven to be so incompetent or in many cases fraudulent in their activities.
What making blanket statements re: homeowners going through the FC process (i.e show me a homeowner that is being FC'd upon and they have all missed payments....see links below for mistakes) ignores is that lender employees counsel homeowners that they must "miss" payments before any will even consider working with them. So instead of being proactive when a homeowner calls, the lenders force them into missed/late payments....no this is not a one size fits all example as neither is your case.
But FICO...in their infinite wisdom...has changed their credit score model to go after strategic defaulters but hitting them harder. a model does not take into account your personal life such as: lost job, medical bills, divorce, etc
I too hope that more people strategically default but until it starts to happen we will continue to creep along
It's like saying 90% of all heroin users started with marijuana.
Those statements are direct from FICO's CEO Mark Greene who said it like this (go back to the 3rd or 4th post for the yahoo link and watch the video):
Approximately 30% of all mortgages in the US are considered underwater and many people are starting to view this as an asset and asking why they should continue to pay. We estimate that 1/3 of people going through the FC process are strategic defaulters.
So not my words just two fact snippets in adjacent verbal sentences. They are related in the sense that the 200+ risk managers in the 1/4'ly FICO survey weigh what they think are the risks in lending money. Strategic defaulters are the true scary part of this whole deal....they have stellar credit in everything else (at least by FICO's reckoning which is why they changed their model) except for this SS, DIL or FC on their record. So these are the worse of the worse and need to take a harder credit score hit.....
now how would you rate the risk of the market if the SS-FC's are project to continue climbing and further depressing real estate markets which drives up the % of homes underwater....nice little feedback loop....
risk managers think (85%) that things will get worse in 2012. 73% think things will get worse and remain bad through 2015, and 49% think recovery to prerecession levels will take til 2020....re: the latter, many would love that as it implies a 5 yr period of massive growth (2015-2020). my take...that 5 yr massive growth is not going to happen.
To clarify, all the links in the quoted post below are in response to the following question, yes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Axiom
Can you point me to even one California homeowner who was wrongly foreclosed on? Sheesh, let's even widen the net. Has anyone anywhere documented a case where a borrower who was current on their payments was foreclosed on?
A subcontractor screwed up, got the wrong house, and took his personal belongings. A ridiculous mistake, and one I'm sure they'll pay for, as well they should. But he was never at risk of losing ownership of the property. A wrongful seizure is not a wrongful foreclosure.
So under the civil relief act lenders are allowed to require proof of active duty if a soldier is requesting a lower interest rate, but not if he/she is invoking foreclosure protections? Crazy.
I wonder why Mr. Hurley and/or his family didn't just provide proof as requested anyway? Seems like it would have saved a lot of heartache.
Now here's my cavalier attitude coming through again...
Yes, the lender screwed up by not following proper procedure. But the loan was delinquent, and I'm sure the house would have eventually been foreclosed on legitimately.
The headline sure catches your attention doesn't it?
So the guy paid cash to purchase a property that was in foreclosure, but the lender failed to properly cancel proceedings. They acknowledged their error, and will correct all records at their expense. No personal property was taken, no one was displaced, and Mr. Grodensky still owns his property free and clear. No foreclosure here.
Really Long article, short on facts though. I admit I skimmed, but I didn't see a single example of an actual foreclosure mentioned, proper or improper.
I'm not one to come to the defense of banksters, believe me. But I admit I'm confused as to where the responsibility lies here. Ms Keyser's payment was going to a shell company, so her mortgage was delinquent.
I'd definitely say things are complicated by the fact that one of the scammers appears to have been a Countrywide employee and likely represented himself as working as their agent. I wonder if he has been caught and prosecuted, and if any damages were recovered?
I do hope Ms Keyser's case is resolved satisfactorily. I'd say her admission that she's "not very sophisticated with legal paperwork" is an understatement though.
This one is complicated, but again no foreclosure.
The Ricky Rought story sounds similar to the sun sentinel article above. I gather they paid cash to purchase a property that was in foreclosure, but the process didn't get completely cancelled. I'm sure they'll retain title free and clear and be reimbursed for any an all damages, as well they should.
Not really enough info on Ms Robison's case to know what happened there, although it did say she had some sort of loan modification. IMO most loan mods benefit the lender far more than they do the borrower. Of course that doesn't excuse the lender if they screwed up. Again, just not enough info on this one to figure out what really happened.
In the Sexton's case it seems they had an ARM that spiked just as one partner lost a job. They say "we found a mistake that gave us light at the end of the tunnel." It might be daylight at the other end of the tunnel, or it might be a freight train barreling in their direction. With my comments on loan mods above, I'm sure you can guess which one I think is more likely.
You believe that everyone who borrowed excessively are the only or main foreclosures?
You think its excessive to borrower on a house that the payment is only 10% of your income? Then the person loses his business or job that was related to housing and can't find other work that would satisfy the payment on the house?
Seems like your trying to put them all in a neat little... you screwed up box....so now your homeless. Next time don't be so stupid....
Not buying it... i know to many that have lost not only their homes, but their families and happiness.
I'm not buying it either. We purchased a home that we could and did well afford, that was until husbands employer transfered him out of state. Daughter and I stayed trying to sell the house, with no luck, not even one bite. We decided to rent the house. Unfortunatley we could only get $1300 rent on a $2800 mortgage. We continued to pay for the house using per diem money husbands company provided for a year and a half while living in New Mexico. The house was on the market this whole time. His company then transfered him to Oregon where they do not pay per diem because this is where the company is located. The rent on our house in Oregon was $1500 and with a $2800 mortgage payment and then regular bills and food there was no way we could afford to keep the Utah house. BTW, we had to evict our tenants in Utah for non-payment of rent. It was either transfer and have a job, or say no and not have a job, so it was a no brainer.
Not every foreclosure fits into the box. When we purchased the house we could afford it and planned on living in Utah for years. His job told him that he would stay on as part of the sustaining group after the main job was complete, well, that didn't happen. We tried everything with the bank and they pretty much refused to help us or themselves from having another house on their books.
If your payment is $2800 you bought way too much house. It's obvious you bought too much house if you had no way to prepare for a possible disaster.
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.
