[quote=sdr]. . . I honestly feel for you. Every post you make has such a strong negativity to it that I beleive you have not had it easy in life. Not that I have lived a charmed life but you seem particularly jaded by your experiences. I hope you find peace in your life sooner than later.
To address your points, unemployed dont qualify for loan mods that i have ever seen. The modification is based upon a specific formula that considers income. If you have none then you wil be denied. Intestingly, both of your people did not refuse to accept a loan mod and the one that has been resolved was denied.
I understand well that not every borrower wants to or can apply for a mod. Those who get them are getting “free money” in my mind as it betters their situation. There is no question that many are on life support and cannot be saved but getting one is still being thrown a life preserver no matter how small or ineffective.
. . . I wish all the best for you and will work on being nicer to you on this forum, sdr[/quote]
For the life of me, sdr, I don’t know where you got the impression that I’ve had it “hard in life.” Actually, the reverse is true. I’m set for life . . . when I retire, that is. I’ve owned all my own residences my entire adult life, made good decisions as an adult and have great credit – no financial problems, ever. I don’t know about you, but as a single homeowner, I’m just fine . . . I currently have everything I need and will be doing some major property repairs come the new year.
I was educated in RE in the very early eighties in another one of those “other-world” schools (your reference), SD City College and its sister school ECC, by VETERAN RE practitioners and property mgrs. Took all the classes needed for a RE Broker license at the time. Three major concepts were drilled into my head there:
-How your principal’s contract is drafted will be indicative of exactly how your deal will unfold (check-the-box CAR forms were not heavily in use at that time) and YOU, as a practitioner, are in control of that;
-the proper creation and enforcement of security devices is what makes the world go ‘round; and
-the emerging trend in the use of CC&R’s in CA land development will have a very detrimental effect on its practical use and thus, ownership rights.
Prophetic??? I would say . . .definitely . . .yes!
REAL ESTATE IS LAND, NOT the buildings that sit on it. It’s the LAND, its SIZE, its permitted USES and WHERE it is situated that determine its value. A condo is a “fractional-interest” in a building(s) that sits on land, but, in and of itself, is NOT “real estate” in the true sense of the word.
The two individuals I was/am helping with mods and now a deed-in-lieu WERE NOT “bubble purchasers” and DID NOT purchase “hummers and vacations” with their home equity. Both drive >10-year old vehicles and neither is young anymore.
ONE (who purch 1989) BY HERSELF was sued by TWO fathers for 100% custody of her children (both now grown) solely in attempt to avoid paying child support. She felt had to borrow home equity to defend these suits and retain her right to custody/visitation. The amount these fathers paid in attorneys fees and court costs WAS MORE than the sum total their lifetime CS payments WOULD HAVE BEEN (which would have indirectly gone to their children) but after many years litigation, they both prevailed out of spite (and getting bulldozed by their attys). One father has since lost his “upper-MC” home to foreclosure. This borrower was actually MAKING her high payments (after equity w/d’s over the years to pay legal expenses) until she lost her longtime job in Feb. of this year.
The other borrower’s nonresident tenant-in-common (whom she purchased with in 1988 and made all but 18 mos. of the PITI herself + took the interest deductions, as was their agreement), wrote her in 2006, insisting on the sale of the property for the return of their VA entitlement. At that time, she felt she had to keep the home for her child so she refied using a “combustible” loan product to appease the co-owner, paying him his “equity-share” and getting him off the title. She then got “stuck” when her new mtg. adjusted in 2009. By then, she had lost her longtime job and was on unemployment. Her last UI extension recently ran out. She’s readied her home to vacate and arranged for her HS age child to live with the father and is making plans to stay with a relative.
Yes, the second borrower knows now they would have been better off to have listed and sold the property, letting the non-resident joint tenant pay one-half the (forced) closing costs out of his equity share (he wasn’t entitled to half the equity), but she didn’t feel (and rightly so) she could qualify to buy another home for her child to live in at the time.
All these “distress” situations are somewhat unique, none is simple or necessarily involve “bubble-purchasing” or greed on the part of the borrower. Life happens.
IMO, both of these borrowers would benefit by taking advantage of a “cash for keys” program as opposed to a mod (even if they could qualify) as their properties will never be worth what they owe in their lifetimes.
As was stated by other piggs, mods are little more than a glorified rent program, kicking the can down the walk, if you will. In a mod, the banks just tack the deferred principal (due to artificially-low future payments) onto the unpaid balance. Mods don’t really financially benefit most borrowers at all.
Apology accepted, sdr. I just feel your “other-world” comments about South Bay (SD County) must stem from ignorance. Believe me, you aren’t the first I’ve found with this erroneous mindset. Perhaps your “sympathy,” though, might be better directed at someone who really needs and deserves it. Pollyanna . . . I’m not. But my own pragmatism and particular skill-set gained through my education and decades-long experience “on the street” has served me very well in life thus far :=)
