I just saw this post on the LA times blog, Is this true??
“In regards to the bailout that Cramer is crying for, what do you think about this aspect of the mortgage bailout?
Hope Now Alliance = banks hoping for more money NOW?
Please let me know if I’m on the right track here. As I understand it, currently in California many borrowers who have not refinanced have NON-RECOURSE LOANS.
The FB’s with these loans have the right to walk away and mail the keys to the bank.
———————
Definition of non-recourse loan: A secured loan (debt) that is secured by a pledge of collateral, typically real property, but for which the borrower is not personally liable. If the borrower defaults, the lender/issuer can seize the collateral, but the lender’s recovery is limited to the collateral. If the property is insufficient to cover the outstanding loan balance (for example, if real estate prices have dropped), the lender is simply out the difference.
———————
HOWEVER, IF the FB refinances, they LOSE their NON-RECOURSE status.
I would assume that if a FB takes the bail-out bait and calls the lender to get their interest rate increase frozen, then this revision in the contract would switch their mortgage from NON-RECOURSE to RECOURSE.
After their interest rate is frozen the FB cannot walk away from their home without losing everything: money in savings, 401k, cars… and having their wages garnished. Seems similar to the new BK laws. It’s the new indentured servitude (but didn’t the servant get their freedom after they paid for 7 years, rather than 30 years or more paying on an inflated mortgage?).
I am wondering if one reason that these bail-out plans have been announced with such vague language is to test the waters to see if the public catches on about the downside for the FB’s.
FB’S: Don’t take the bait! Preserve your right to walk away from an upside-down mortage. This right is the most valuable thing you have in this uncertain time. Be sceptical! When was the last time a bank just did you a favor without something in it for them??!!”
