- This topic has 25 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 12 months ago by
SD Realtor.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 10, 2008 at 8:12 PM #12059March 10, 2008 at 8:41 PM #167118
evolusd
ParticipantCorrection – In my bolded rant above, I meant qualified BORROWER, not BUYER. Again, I can’t believe they are really considering this a solution.
March 10, 2008 at 8:41 PM #167541evolusd
ParticipantCorrection – In my bolded rant above, I meant qualified BORROWER, not BUYER. Again, I can’t believe they are really considering this a solution.
March 10, 2008 at 8:41 PM #167477evolusd
ParticipantCorrection – In my bolded rant above, I meant qualified BORROWER, not BUYER. Again, I can’t believe they are really considering this a solution.
March 10, 2008 at 8:41 PM #167440evolusd
ParticipantCorrection – In my bolded rant above, I meant qualified BORROWER, not BUYER. Again, I can’t believe they are really considering this a solution.
March 10, 2008 at 8:41 PM #167444evolusd
ParticipantCorrection – In my bolded rant above, I meant qualified BORROWER, not BUYER. Again, I can’t believe they are really considering this a solution.
March 10, 2008 at 9:13 PM #167497stansd
ParticipantI think someone mentioned that they are, in effect, converting non recourse assets to recourse assets. In exchange for losing the ability to walk away, the homeowner gets to keep his/her house.
I’ll leave it to others to fully define/debate.
Stan
March 10, 2008 at 9:13 PM #167561stansd
ParticipantI think someone mentioned that they are, in effect, converting non recourse assets to recourse assets. In exchange for losing the ability to walk away, the homeowner gets to keep his/her house.
I’ll leave it to others to fully define/debate.
Stan
March 10, 2008 at 9:13 PM #167464stansd
ParticipantI think someone mentioned that they are, in effect, converting non recourse assets to recourse assets. In exchange for losing the ability to walk away, the homeowner gets to keep his/her house.
I’ll leave it to others to fully define/debate.
Stan
March 10, 2008 at 9:13 PM #167460stansd
ParticipantI think someone mentioned that they are, in effect, converting non recourse assets to recourse assets. In exchange for losing the ability to walk away, the homeowner gets to keep his/her house.
I’ll leave it to others to fully define/debate.
Stan
March 10, 2008 at 9:13 PM #167138stansd
ParticipantI think someone mentioned that they are, in effect, converting non recourse assets to recourse assets. In exchange for losing the ability to walk away, the homeowner gets to keep his/her house.
I’ll leave it to others to fully define/debate.
Stan
March 10, 2008 at 9:40 PM #167485Deal Hunter
ParticipantCRAZYYYYY!
It’s essentially getting people to add a revolving type credit debt to their already over leveraged lives – for what? To keep a house that’s underwater?
When secured loans go bad and a short sale or foreclosure must take place, at least the obligations are wiped out with the disposition of the property. This is the best outcome for borrowers who have a legitimate hardship.
With UNsecured loans, the obligation to pay that debt will follow you around for a very long time. In some states, the statute of limitations on debt collection for unsecured debt is 25 years!
HORRIBLE HORRIBLE HORRIBLE!
March 10, 2008 at 9:40 PM #167489Deal Hunter
ParticipantCRAZYYYYY!
It’s essentially getting people to add a revolving type credit debt to their already over leveraged lives – for what? To keep a house that’s underwater?
When secured loans go bad and a short sale or foreclosure must take place, at least the obligations are wiped out with the disposition of the property. This is the best outcome for borrowers who have a legitimate hardship.
With UNsecured loans, the obligation to pay that debt will follow you around for a very long time. In some states, the statute of limitations on debt collection for unsecured debt is 25 years!
HORRIBLE HORRIBLE HORRIBLE!
March 10, 2008 at 9:40 PM #167522Deal Hunter
ParticipantCRAZYYYYY!
It’s essentially getting people to add a revolving type credit debt to their already over leveraged lives – for what? To keep a house that’s underwater?
When secured loans go bad and a short sale or foreclosure must take place, at least the obligations are wiped out with the disposition of the property. This is the best outcome for borrowers who have a legitimate hardship.
With UNsecured loans, the obligation to pay that debt will follow you around for a very long time. In some states, the statute of limitations on debt collection for unsecured debt is 25 years!
HORRIBLE HORRIBLE HORRIBLE!
March 10, 2008 at 9:40 PM #167163Deal Hunter
ParticipantCRAZYYYYY!
It’s essentially getting people to add a revolving type credit debt to their already over leveraged lives – for what? To keep a house that’s underwater?
When secured loans go bad and a short sale or foreclosure must take place, at least the obligations are wiped out with the disposition of the property. This is the best outcome for borrowers who have a legitimate hardship.
With UNsecured loans, the obligation to pay that debt will follow you around for a very long time. In some states, the statute of limitations on debt collection for unsecured debt is 25 years!
HORRIBLE HORRIBLE HORRIBLE!
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.