[quote=sdrealtor]The wife lost her job and couldnt find employment in her industry. It wasnt voluntary or by choice. Its easy to look at these one by one and say the lenders should have acted differently but they had thousands if not millions to deal with. They couldnt absorb the losses that quickly nor were they set up to deal with loss mitigation on that many this quickly be it loan mod, deed in lieu, foreclosure etc.
Its obvious to all of us that the lenders did this to themselves. No one is contesting that point. Its now a matter of getting through it all in manner that works best from a macro perspective not a micro one.[/quote]
They should have packed up and relocated after seeking and finding work elsewhere after the husband was out of a job. They might have even gotten some “cash for keys!”
Of course, why would they, when they could live a year for free in a much nicer than avg house? That’s $8,333.33 per month (for 12 mos) in mortgage payments, late fees, penalties and any deferred interest!
I don’t buy this BS. As a mtg lender doing biz in CA, all you gotta do is hire a trustee on the 91st day (or 121st day, as the case may be) of default, provide them with a few documents and let them do what they do best. A clerk to get some records together and ONE phone call to make. $100K is an egregious amount to be in default prior to any trustees sale taking place. Because of these FB’s “job travails,” they are essentially getting a $200K remodel of “their” home for 50% off or even free if your “story” is true!!
What about the rest of homeowners out there with existing mtgs who might have “job travails? Or even be underemployed? Should they take out student loans at the age or 45, 50, 55 or 60 and “retrain” . . . lol? Of course, your people HAD to get student loans, because they’re “broke,” remember? At least too broke to make their house payments, right??
If folks like this brag enough like they did to your “mutual acquaintance,” it could cause a lot more homeowners who took cash out to just keep whatever cash is left (if any) or enjoy the fruits of their extensive remodels, “retire” early and begin stiffing their lenders (to see if they can get that proverbial knock on the door offering to make it all better).
The idea of cramdown for those who took “cash out” of their properties defeats the purpose of playing by the rules. Who’s going to if it the only penalty is 3 years lowered FICO score? In this case, at $100,000 forgiven, that’s approx $33K per year that they’re being paid for their lowered FICO score and at $200,000 forgiven, that’s approx $67K yr that they’re being paid for this inconvenience.
To the vast majority of “homeowner-debtors,” the above would be more than adequate compensation to stuff whatever remaining cash-out proceeds they still had under a mattress and begin “squatting.”
You never told us if you knew if this particular lender rec’d “bailout funds” from “we the people” and if so, if they paid any of it back. And if you don’t mind, WHO is the lender who offered them the cramdown??
