BofA Reductions

[jpinpb]

[quote=Effective Demand]This is way way worse:

http://www.housingwire.com/2010/06/02/california-set-to-vote-on-foreclosure-mediation-bill?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=california-set-to-vote-on-foreclosure-mediation-bill%5B/quote%5D

That should delay things some more.

[Nor-LA-SD-guy]

Anyway there is a dire need for the Cities (and the State) to maintain home values, as this is where they get the majority of their funding, (real estate taxes).

The Banks are basically being paid off to do this as well.

So I am basically not surprised by anything anymore.

I still say I should have bought that Ocean View McMansion three years ago with that Option Arm.

[Nor-LA-SD-guy]

Anyway there is a dire need for the Cities (and the State) to maintain home values, as this is where they get the majority of their funding, (real estate taxes).

The Banks are basically being paid off to do this as well.

So I am basically not surprised by anything anymore.

I still say I should have bought that Ocean View McMansion three years ago with that Option Arm.

[Nor-LA-SD-guy]

Anyway there is a dire need for the Cities (and the State) to maintain home values, as this is where they get the majority of their funding, (real estate taxes).

The Banks are basically being paid off to do this as well.

So I am basically not surprised by anything anymore.

I still say I should have bought that Ocean View McMansion three years ago with that Option Arm.

[Nor-LA-SD-guy]

Anyway there is a dire need for the Cities (and the State) to maintain home values, as this is where they get the majority of their funding, (real estate taxes).

The Banks are basically being paid off to do this as well.

So I am basically not surprised by anything anymore.

I still say I should have bought that Ocean View McMansion three years ago with that Option Arm.

[Nor-LA-SD-guy]

Anyway there is a dire need for the Cities (and the State) to maintain home values, as this is where they get the majority of their funding, (real estate taxes).

The Banks are basically being paid off to do this as well.

So I am basically not surprised by anything anymore.

I still say I should have bought that Ocean View McMansion three years ago with that Option Arm.

[Arraya]

Through it, lenders are required to meet with borrowers to develop a modification plan before foreclosure.

lol

Talk about the full court press.

“Please, please pay something, really it’s a good buy now”

[Arraya]

Through it, lenders are required to meet with borrowers to develop a modification plan before foreclosure.

lol

Talk about the full court press.

“Please, please pay something, really it’s a good buy now”

[Arraya]

Through it, lenders are required to meet with borrowers to develop a modification plan before foreclosure.

lol

Talk about the full court press.

“Please, please pay something, really it’s a good buy now”

[Arraya]

Through it, lenders are required to meet with borrowers to develop a modification plan before foreclosure.

lol

Talk about the full court press.

“Please, please pay something, really it’s a good buy now”

[Arraya]

Through it, lenders are required to meet with borrowers to develop a modification plan before foreclosure.

lol

Talk about the full court press.

“Please, please pay something, really it’s a good buy now”

[bearishgurl]

Effective Demand, IMO, our Legislature is “grabbing at straws here.” If the actual bill is written like it is described in your link, it will surely die on the house floor.

It’s full of holes and doesn’t address the huge percentage of defaulters who have two loans or more.

What will compel a squatting trustor to have an in-person conversation with a lender who has filed an NOD on his property? If he does so, he will have to begin to make payments equal to 50% of his mo. mortgage payment. The only “carrot” dangling for the trustor to call his lender is possible “modification” of at least one of his/her mortgage loans. We all know that’s not gonna work because the trustor is too underwater with mostly recourse paper, which he/she has been living off of these past few years.

If it does by some stretch pass, it won’t delay the NOD time frames. The 30-day time limit to call and set up a time to meet with the lender is already built into the NOD’s legal waiting period. They will be concurrent.

I maintain that if all lenders exercised their timely right to foreclosure, we would eventually be able to see the light at the end of the tunnel.

[bearishgurl]

Effective Demand, IMO, our Legislature is “grabbing at straws here.” If the actual bill is written like it is described in your link, it will surely die on the house floor.

It’s full of holes and doesn’t address the huge percentage of defaulters who have two loans or more.

What will compel a squatting trustor to have an in-person conversation with a lender who has filed an NOD on his property? If he does so, he will have to begin to make payments equal to 50% of his mo. mortgage payment. The only “carrot” dangling for the trustor to call his lender is possible “modification” of at least one of his/her mortgage loans. We all know that’s not gonna work because the trustor is too underwater with mostly recourse paper, which he/she has been living off of these past few years.

If it does by some stretch pass, it won’t delay the NOD time frames. The 30-day time limit to call and set up a time to meet with the lender is already built into the NOD’s legal waiting period. They will be concurrent.

I maintain that if all lenders exercised their timely right to foreclosure, we would eventually be able to see the light at the end of the tunnel.

[bearishgurl]

Effective Demand, IMO, our Legislature is “grabbing at straws here.” If the actual bill is written like it is described in your link, it will surely die on the house floor.

It’s full of holes and doesn’t address the huge percentage of defaulters who have two loans or more.

What will compel a squatting trustor to have an in-person conversation with a lender who has filed an NOD on his property? If he does so, he will have to begin to make payments equal to 50% of his mo. mortgage payment. The only “carrot” dangling for the trustor to call his lender is possible “modification” of at least one of his/her mortgage loans. We all know that’s not gonna work because the trustor is too underwater with mostly recourse paper, which he/she has been living off of these past few years.

If it does by some stretch pass, it won’t delay the NOD time frames. The 30-day time limit to call and set up a time to meet with the lender is already built into the NOD’s legal waiting period. They will be concurrent.

I maintain that if all lenders exercised their timely right to foreclosure, we would eventually be able to see the light at the end of the tunnel.

[bearishgurl]

Effective Demand, IMO, our Legislature is “grabbing at straws here.” If the actual bill is written like it is described in your link, it will surely die on the house floor.

It’s full of holes and doesn’t address the huge percentage of defaulters who have two loans or more.

What will compel a squatting trustor to have an in-person conversation with a lender who has filed an NOD on his property? If he does so, he will have to begin to make payments equal to 50% of his mo. mortgage payment. The only “carrot” dangling for the trustor to call his lender is possible “modification” of at least one of his/her mortgage loans. We all know that’s not gonna work because the trustor is too underwater with mostly recourse paper, which he/she has been living off of these past few years.

If it does by some stretch pass, it won’t delay the NOD time frames. The 30-day time limit to call and set up a time to meet with the lender is already built into the NOD’s legal waiting period. They will be concurrent.

I maintain that if all lenders exercised their timely right to foreclosure, we would eventually be able to see the light at the end of the tunnel.

[Author]

Posts