Foreclosed Homeowners Break Into Former Home

[jameswenn]

[quote=Krista]Mind you, this is not an exhaustive list:

1. Borrower was laid off, and forced to take a job earning less.
2. Death or illness of principal borrower.
3. Death or illness of family member.
4. Hardship is temporary in nature, and borrowers have long history of performance and the willingness and desire to make lender whole.
5. Borrower forced to take early retirement.
6. Borrower hit by a drunk driver.
7. The property has been damaged by fire or other natural disaster and/or has defects that the buyer was not aware that have to be resolved.
[/quote]

I used to work for the servicing division at Countrywide Home Loans, and they were always willing to work with a borrower to get through temporary hardships, but 1 and 5 are not reasons for help.

[Anonymous]

I’ve posted this elsewhere, but this is classic. Check out Danielle Earl’s Christmas Light Show website:

http://www.danielleslightshow.com/index…..

Here a video that is posted to her site on the Mustang Property at Christmas:

On her website, she says this about the inspiration to create the displays:

Quote:

Around Thanksgiving 2005, I received an email from my cousin with a video of this house with their lights “dancing” to the music. There was much debate as to whether this could actually be done – or was it someone taking pictures of their house with certain lights on or off and then superimposing it to the music. After some research – I found that it could, in fact, be done! The house belonged to a man named Carson and I discovered a wonderful group of people at a magical place called “Planet Christmas”.

The Christmas bug had bit me. And although there was no way I could get something like this together by Christmas 2005 – I set my sights on 2006. By March, I had most everything I needed, except a Grinch. (He followed shortly afterwards) I spent hours at the computer, getting the lights programmed to the songs, and made my children listen to Christmas music in the car. (Yes – that was me blaring Christmas songs in February!) A picture formed in my head of how I wanted everything to look. Christmas couldn’t come fast enough!

——-

Now here is the Coto Housing blog report on public records for the property: (Note: pretty good blog)

http://www.cotohousingblog.com/?p=14340

Quote:

For the heck of it, we did the tiniest bit of research and the following is one of our chronologies on the Earl’s ownership of 5893 Mustang Drive.

3/30/01 – bought for $539,000 with a 1st for $431,000

4/15/02 – HELOC for $135,000

2/26/03 – refi 1st for $486,000

1/07/04 – refi first for $550,000

11/01/04 – refi for $750,000

5/16/05 – refi for $880,000 and fund a 2nd for $130,000 for a total of $1,100,000

date unknown – NOD records

12/20/06 – NTS records

4/25/07 – another NOD records

6/29/07 – a NTS is rescinded

10/23/07 – a new NOD records

11/21/07 – new NOD

1/28/08 – new NTS

2/20/08 – rescission

2/26/08 – NTS

4/07/08 – rescission

4/03/09 – NOD

10/09/09 – NTS

It appears to me that these folks have been given more than every opportunity to make good on their mortgage. What do you think?

2/05/10 – foreclosure auction for $697,000 to 3rd party, Conejo Capital Partners LLC.

Note that the Earls took out about $250,000 cash in May of 2005, and had recently taken out $200,000 in 11/04. She got the idea in Nov 2005, and had most of what she needed by March 2006 (by her own words).

Danielle Earl, however, justifies the display by saying the decorations were purchased prior to their financial hardships:

http://www.vcstar.com/news/2010/oct/19/e….

Quote:

With the Earl family gaining notoriety in the media, neighbors have also criticized the Earls’ lavish holiday light displays — explained at http://www.danielleslightshow.com — questioning how they got behind on their mortgage if they had money for such excess….

…Danielle Earl said the bulk of the holiday decorations were homemade and purchased prior to the start of their financial troubles. She said the decision to do the display during the years when they were struggling came after a long discussion.

Yet her website states this in regard to the 2009 show:

Quote:

This year, we are 100% LED lights! Last year we had just over 15,000 lights. This year, we have over 25,000. Last year we were at 10.5 amps, but we still had a lot of regular lights. I am interested to see what the amp change is this year – adding thousands of new lights, but being strictly LED. Just to give you a hint, though – the ENTIRE SHOW is plugged into 1 circuit.

I’m guessing that 25,000 LED lights in 2009 amounted to some expense. However, going back to her statement that the equipment was paid for before their financial problems began, this is clearly false as she claims on her website that she got the idea in 2005 and had the show up by 12/06. But there just happened to be a Notice of Trustee Sale recorded 12/06 at the time of the first show (just 5 days before Christmas). Although, the date of the original NOD was not available, it occurred earlier in 2006.

The reality is that they took out $500,000 in cash between 11/04 and 5/05, and the NODs and NOTS filings hit in 2006- the first year they started the show.

I’m just sayin’

[Anonymous]

I’ve posted this elsewhere, but this is classic. Check out Danielle Earl’s Christmas Light Show website:

http://www.danielleslightshow.com/index…..

Here a video that is posted to her site on the Mustang Property at Christmas:

On her website, she says this about the inspiration to create the displays:

Quote:

Around Thanksgiving 2005, I received an email from my cousin with a video of this house with their lights “dancing” to the music. There was much debate as to whether this could actually be done – or was it someone taking pictures of their house with certain lights on or off and then superimposing it to the music. After some research – I found that it could, in fact, be done! The house belonged to a man named Carson and I discovered a wonderful group of people at a magical place called “Planet Christmas”.

The Christmas bug had bit me. And although there was no way I could get something like this together by Christmas 2005 – I set my sights on 2006. By March, I had most everything I needed, except a Grinch. (He followed shortly afterwards) I spent hours at the computer, getting the lights programmed to the songs, and made my children listen to Christmas music in the car. (Yes – that was me blaring Christmas songs in February!) A picture formed in my head of how I wanted everything to look. Christmas couldn’t come fast enough!

——-

Now here is the Coto Housing blog report on public records for the property: (Note: pretty good blog)

http://www.cotohousingblog.com/?p=14340

Quote:

For the heck of it, we did the tiniest bit of research and the following is one of our chronologies on the Earl’s ownership of 5893 Mustang Drive.

3/30/01 – bought for $539,000 with a 1st for $431,000

4/15/02 – HELOC for $135,000

2/26/03 – refi 1st for $486,000

1/07/04 – refi first for $550,000

11/01/04 – refi for $750,000

5/16/05 – refi for $880,000 and fund a 2nd for $130,000 for a total of $1,100,000

date unknown – NOD records

12/20/06 – NTS records

4/25/07 – another NOD records

6/29/07 – a NTS is rescinded

10/23/07 – a new NOD records

11/21/07 – new NOD

1/28/08 – new NTS

2/20/08 – rescission

2/26/08 – NTS

4/07/08 – rescission

4/03/09 – NOD

10/09/09 – NTS

It appears to me that these folks have been given more than every opportunity to make good on their mortgage. What do you think?

2/05/10 – foreclosure auction for $697,000 to 3rd party, Conejo Capital Partners LLC.

Note that the Earls took out about $250,000 cash in May of 2005, and had recently taken out $200,000 in 11/04. She got the idea in Nov 2005, and had most of what she needed by March 2006 (by her own words).

Danielle Earl, however, justifies the display by saying the decorations were purchased prior to their financial hardships:

http://www.vcstar.com/news/2010/oct/19/e….

Quote:

With the Earl family gaining notoriety in the media, neighbors have also criticized the Earls’ lavish holiday light displays — explained at http://www.danielleslightshow.com — questioning how they got behind on their mortgage if they had money for such excess….

…Danielle Earl said the bulk of the holiday decorations were homemade and purchased prior to the start of their financial troubles. She said the decision to do the display during the years when they were struggling came after a long discussion.

Yet her website states this in regard to the 2009 show:

Quote:

This year, we are 100% LED lights! Last year we had just over 15,000 lights. This year, we have over 25,000. Last year we were at 10.5 amps, but we still had a lot of regular lights. I am interested to see what the amp change is this year – adding thousands of new lights, but being strictly LED. Just to give you a hint, though – the ENTIRE SHOW is plugged into 1 circuit.

I’m guessing that 25,000 LED lights in 2009 amounted to some expense. However, going back to her statement that the equipment was paid for before their financial problems began, this is clearly false as she claims on her website that she got the idea in 2005 and had the show up by 12/06. But there just happened to be a Notice of Trustee Sale recorded 12/06 at the time of the first show (just 5 days before Christmas). Although, the date of the original NOD was not available, it occurred earlier in 2006.

The reality is that they took out $500,000 in cash between 11/04 and 5/05, and the NODs and NOTS filings hit in 2006- the first year they started the show.

I’m just sayin’

[Anonymous]

I’ve posted this elsewhere, but this is classic. Check out Danielle Earl’s Christmas Light Show website:

http://www.danielleslightshow.com/index…..

Here a video that is posted to her site on the Mustang Property at Christmas:

On her website, she says this about the inspiration to create the displays:

Quote:

Around Thanksgiving 2005, I received an email from my cousin with a video of this house with their lights “dancing” to the music. There was much debate as to whether this could actually be done – or was it someone taking pictures of their house with certain lights on or off and then superimposing it to the music. After some research – I found that it could, in fact, be done! The house belonged to a man named Carson and I discovered a wonderful group of people at a magical place called “Planet Christmas”.

The Christmas bug had bit me. And although there was no way I could get something like this together by Christmas 2005 – I set my sights on 2006. By March, I had most everything I needed, except a Grinch. (He followed shortly afterwards) I spent hours at the computer, getting the lights programmed to the songs, and made my children listen to Christmas music in the car. (Yes – that was me blaring Christmas songs in February!) A picture formed in my head of how I wanted everything to look. Christmas couldn’t come fast enough!

——-

Now here is the Coto Housing blog report on public records for the property: (Note: pretty good blog)

http://www.cotohousingblog.com/?p=14340

Quote:

For the heck of it, we did the tiniest bit of research and the following is one of our chronologies on the Earl’s ownership of 5893 Mustang Drive.

3/30/01 – bought for $539,000 with a 1st for $431,000

4/15/02 – HELOC for $135,000

2/26/03 – refi 1st for $486,000

1/07/04 – refi first for $550,000

11/01/04 – refi for $750,000

5/16/05 – refi for $880,000 and fund a 2nd for $130,000 for a total of $1,100,000

date unknown – NOD records

12/20/06 – NTS records

4/25/07 – another NOD records

6/29/07 – a NTS is rescinded

10/23/07 – a new NOD records

11/21/07 – new NOD

1/28/08 – new NTS

2/20/08 – rescission

2/26/08 – NTS

4/07/08 – rescission

4/03/09 – NOD

10/09/09 – NTS

It appears to me that these folks have been given more than every opportunity to make good on their mortgage. What do you think?

2/05/10 – foreclosure auction for $697,000 to 3rd party, Conejo Capital Partners LLC.

Note that the Earls took out about $250,000 cash in May of 2005, and had recently taken out $200,000 in 11/04. She got the idea in Nov 2005, and had most of what she needed by March 2006 (by her own words).

Danielle Earl, however, justifies the display by saying the decorations were purchased prior to their financial hardships:

http://www.vcstar.com/news/2010/oct/19/e….

Quote:

With the Earl family gaining notoriety in the media, neighbors have also criticized the Earls’ lavish holiday light displays — explained at http://www.danielleslightshow.com — questioning how they got behind on their mortgage if they had money for such excess….

…Danielle Earl said the bulk of the holiday decorations were homemade and purchased prior to the start of their financial troubles. She said the decision to do the display during the years when they were struggling came after a long discussion.

Yet her website states this in regard to the 2009 show:

Quote:

This year, we are 100% LED lights! Last year we had just over 15,000 lights. This year, we have over 25,000. Last year we were at 10.5 amps, but we still had a lot of regular lights. I am interested to see what the amp change is this year – adding thousands of new lights, but being strictly LED. Just to give you a hint, though – the ENTIRE SHOW is plugged into 1 circuit.

I’m guessing that 25,000 LED lights in 2009 amounted to some expense. However, going back to her statement that the equipment was paid for before their financial problems began, this is clearly false as she claims on her website that she got the idea in 2005 and had the show up by 12/06. But there just happened to be a Notice of Trustee Sale recorded 12/06 at the time of the first show (just 5 days before Christmas). Although, the date of the original NOD was not available, it occurred earlier in 2006.

The reality is that they took out $500,000 in cash between 11/04 and 5/05, and the NODs and NOTS filings hit in 2006- the first year they started the show.

I’m just sayin’

[Anonymous]

I’ve posted this elsewhere, but this is classic. Check out Danielle Earl’s Christmas Light Show website:

http://www.danielleslightshow.com/index…..

Here a video that is posted to her site on the Mustang Property at Christmas:

On her website, she says this about the inspiration to create the displays:

Quote:

Around Thanksgiving 2005, I received an email from my cousin with a video of this house with their lights “dancing” to the music. There was much debate as to whether this could actually be done – or was it someone taking pictures of their house with certain lights on or off and then superimposing it to the music. After some research – I found that it could, in fact, be done! The house belonged to a man named Carson and I discovered a wonderful group of people at a magical place called “Planet Christmas”.

The Christmas bug had bit me. And although there was no way I could get something like this together by Christmas 2005 – I set my sights on 2006. By March, I had most everything I needed, except a Grinch. (He followed shortly afterwards) I spent hours at the computer, getting the lights programmed to the songs, and made my children listen to Christmas music in the car. (Yes – that was me blaring Christmas songs in February!) A picture formed in my head of how I wanted everything to look. Christmas couldn’t come fast enough!

——-

Now here is the Coto Housing blog report on public records for the property: (Note: pretty good blog)

http://www.cotohousingblog.com/?p=14340

Quote:

For the heck of it, we did the tiniest bit of research and the following is one of our chronologies on the Earl’s ownership of 5893 Mustang Drive.

3/30/01 – bought for $539,000 with a 1st for $431,000

4/15/02 – HELOC for $135,000

2/26/03 – refi 1st for $486,000

1/07/04 – refi first for $550,000

11/01/04 – refi for $750,000

5/16/05 – refi for $880,000 and fund a 2nd for $130,000 for a total of $1,100,000

date unknown – NOD records

12/20/06 – NTS records

4/25/07 – another NOD records

6/29/07 – a NTS is rescinded

10/23/07 – a new NOD records

11/21/07 – new NOD

1/28/08 – new NTS

2/20/08 – rescission

2/26/08 – NTS

4/07/08 – rescission

4/03/09 – NOD

10/09/09 – NTS

It appears to me that these folks have been given more than every opportunity to make good on their mortgage. What do you think?

2/05/10 – foreclosure auction for $697,000 to 3rd party, Conejo Capital Partners LLC.

Note that the Earls took out about $250,000 cash in May of 2005, and had recently taken out $200,000 in 11/04. She got the idea in Nov 2005, and had most of what she needed by March 2006 (by her own words).

Danielle Earl, however, justifies the display by saying the decorations were purchased prior to their financial hardships:

http://www.vcstar.com/news/2010/oct/19/e….

Quote:

With the Earl family gaining notoriety in the media, neighbors have also criticized the Earls’ lavish holiday light displays — explained at http://www.danielleslightshow.com — questioning how they got behind on their mortgage if they had money for such excess….

…Danielle Earl said the bulk of the holiday decorations were homemade and purchased prior to the start of their financial troubles. She said the decision to do the display during the years when they were struggling came after a long discussion.

Yet her website states this in regard to the 2009 show:

Quote:

This year, we are 100% LED lights! Last year we had just over 15,000 lights. This year, we have over 25,000. Last year we were at 10.5 amps, but we still had a lot of regular lights. I am interested to see what the amp change is this year – adding thousands of new lights, but being strictly LED. Just to give you a hint, though – the ENTIRE SHOW is plugged into 1 circuit.

I’m guessing that 25,000 LED lights in 2009 amounted to some expense. However, going back to her statement that the equipment was paid for before their financial problems began, this is clearly false as she claims on her website that she got the idea in 2005 and had the show up by 12/06. But there just happened to be a Notice of Trustee Sale recorded 12/06 at the time of the first show (just 5 days before Christmas). Although, the date of the original NOD was not available, it occurred earlier in 2006.

The reality is that they took out $500,000 in cash between 11/04 and 5/05, and the NODs and NOTS filings hit in 2006- the first year they started the show.

I’m just sayin’

[Anonymous]

I’ve posted this elsewhere, but this is classic. Check out Danielle Earl’s Christmas Light Show website:

http://www.danielleslightshow.com/index…..

Here a video that is posted to her site on the Mustang Property at Christmas:

On her website, she says this about the inspiration to create the displays:

Quote:

Around Thanksgiving 2005, I received an email from my cousin with a video of this house with their lights “dancing” to the music. There was much debate as to whether this could actually be done – or was it someone taking pictures of their house with certain lights on or off and then superimposing it to the music. After some research – I found that it could, in fact, be done! The house belonged to a man named Carson and I discovered a wonderful group of people at a magical place called “Planet Christmas”.

The Christmas bug had bit me. And although there was no way I could get something like this together by Christmas 2005 – I set my sights on 2006. By March, I had most everything I needed, except a Grinch. (He followed shortly afterwards) I spent hours at the computer, getting the lights programmed to the songs, and made my children listen to Christmas music in the car. (Yes – that was me blaring Christmas songs in February!) A picture formed in my head of how I wanted everything to look. Christmas couldn’t come fast enough!

——-

Now here is the Coto Housing blog report on public records for the property: (Note: pretty good blog)

http://www.cotohousingblog.com/?p=14340

Quote:

For the heck of it, we did the tiniest bit of research and the following is one of our chronologies on the Earl’s ownership of 5893 Mustang Drive.

3/30/01 – bought for $539,000 with a 1st for $431,000

4/15/02 – HELOC for $135,000

2/26/03 – refi 1st for $486,000

1/07/04 – refi first for $550,000

11/01/04 – refi for $750,000

5/16/05 – refi for $880,000 and fund a 2nd for $130,000 for a total of $1,100,000

date unknown – NOD records

12/20/06 – NTS records

4/25/07 – another NOD records

6/29/07 – a NTS is rescinded

10/23/07 – a new NOD records

11/21/07 – new NOD

1/28/08 – new NTS

2/20/08 – rescission

2/26/08 – NTS

4/07/08 – rescission

4/03/09 – NOD

10/09/09 – NTS

It appears to me that these folks have been given more than every opportunity to make good on their mortgage. What do you think?

2/05/10 – foreclosure auction for $697,000 to 3rd party, Conejo Capital Partners LLC.

Note that the Earls took out about $250,000 cash in May of 2005, and had recently taken out $200,000 in 11/04. She got the idea in Nov 2005, and had most of what she needed by March 2006 (by her own words).

Danielle Earl, however, justifies the display by saying the decorations were purchased prior to their financial hardships:

http://www.vcstar.com/news/2010/oct/19/e….

Quote:

With the Earl family gaining notoriety in the media, neighbors have also criticized the Earls’ lavish holiday light displays — explained at http://www.danielleslightshow.com — questioning how they got behind on their mortgage if they had money for such excess….

…Danielle Earl said the bulk of the holiday decorations were homemade and purchased prior to the start of their financial troubles. She said the decision to do the display during the years when they were struggling came after a long discussion.

Yet her website states this in regard to the 2009 show:

Quote:

This year, we are 100% LED lights! Last year we had just over 15,000 lights. This year, we have over 25,000. Last year we were at 10.5 amps, but we still had a lot of regular lights. I am interested to see what the amp change is this year – adding thousands of new lights, but being strictly LED. Just to give you a hint, though – the ENTIRE SHOW is plugged into 1 circuit.

I’m guessing that 25,000 LED lights in 2009 amounted to some expense. However, going back to her statement that the equipment was paid for before their financial problems began, this is clearly false as she claims on her website that she got the idea in 2005 and had the show up by 12/06. But there just happened to be a Notice of Trustee Sale recorded 12/06 at the time of the first show (just 5 days before Christmas). Although, the date of the original NOD was not available, it occurred earlier in 2006.

The reality is that they took out $500,000 in cash between 11/04 and 5/05, and the NODs and NOTS filings hit in 2006- the first year they started the show.

I’m just sayin’

[Anonymous]

#1 and #5 should absolutely be a reason to provide loss mitigation assistance- especially if the borrower is willing to pay and did not create the default due to financial mismanagement or disregard for the obligation.

Non-performing loan portfolio managers should consider whether curing the default via a change in terms makes more financial sense than foreclosing or completing a short sale. Since in the instance of #1, the borrower is reemployed and willing to pay to the best of their ability, the default might be able to be cured via a change in terms. Now lets just say that the investor purchased the portfolio at a discount, and if the loan was brought current through a modification, the borrower might be able to refinance under the short refinance program and payoff the note holder. Even if the note holder had to provide 10% debt forgiveness, the proceeds from the refinance would be quite a coup if the note was purchased for 50-60 cents on the dollar. A borrower that is in default can be refinanced into the FHA short refinance in as little as 6 months. If the modification is non-HAMP, they only need to make 3 payments.

As to #5, the borrower would not have created the hardship, and the lower income would not be the borrowers fault. Same scenario as above.

Now if it does not make sense to cure the default via loss mitigation (such as when the borrower’s capacity and affordability cannot be bridged), and short sale/foreclosure would make the most sense, then the servicer should protect the interests of the investor.

[Anonymous]

#1 and #5 should absolutely be a reason to provide loss mitigation assistance- especially if the borrower is willing to pay and did not create the default due to financial mismanagement or disregard for the obligation.

Non-performing loan portfolio managers should consider whether curing the default via a change in terms makes more financial sense than foreclosing or completing a short sale. Since in the instance of #1, the borrower is reemployed and willing to pay to the best of their ability, the default might be able to be cured via a change in terms. Now lets just say that the investor purchased the portfolio at a discount, and if the loan was brought current through a modification, the borrower might be able to refinance under the short refinance program and payoff the note holder. Even if the note holder had to provide 10% debt forgiveness, the proceeds from the refinance would be quite a coup if the note was purchased for 50-60 cents on the dollar. A borrower that is in default can be refinanced into the FHA short refinance in as little as 6 months. If the modification is non-HAMP, they only need to make 3 payments.

As to #5, the borrower would not have created the hardship, and the lower income would not be the borrowers fault. Same scenario as above.

Now if it does not make sense to cure the default via loss mitigation (such as when the borrower’s capacity and affordability cannot be bridged), and short sale/foreclosure would make the most sense, then the servicer should protect the interests of the investor.

[Anonymous]

#1 and #5 should absolutely be a reason to provide loss mitigation assistance- especially if the borrower is willing to pay and did not create the default due to financial mismanagement or disregard for the obligation.

Non-performing loan portfolio managers should consider whether curing the default via a change in terms makes more financial sense than foreclosing or completing a short sale. Since in the instance of #1, the borrower is reemployed and willing to pay to the best of their ability, the default might be able to be cured via a change in terms. Now lets just say that the investor purchased the portfolio at a discount, and if the loan was brought current through a modification, the borrower might be able to refinance under the short refinance program and payoff the note holder. Even if the note holder had to provide 10% debt forgiveness, the proceeds from the refinance would be quite a coup if the note was purchased for 50-60 cents on the dollar. A borrower that is in default can be refinanced into the FHA short refinance in as little as 6 months. If the modification is non-HAMP, they only need to make 3 payments.

As to #5, the borrower would not have created the hardship, and the lower income would not be the borrowers fault. Same scenario as above.

Now if it does not make sense to cure the default via loss mitigation (such as when the borrower’s capacity and affordability cannot be bridged), and short sale/foreclosure would make the most sense, then the servicer should protect the interests of the investor.

[Anonymous]

#1 and #5 should absolutely be a reason to provide loss mitigation assistance- especially if the borrower is willing to pay and did not create the default due to financial mismanagement or disregard for the obligation.

Non-performing loan portfolio managers should consider whether curing the default via a change in terms makes more financial sense than foreclosing or completing a short sale. Since in the instance of #1, the borrower is reemployed and willing to pay to the best of their ability, the default might be able to be cured via a change in terms. Now lets just say that the investor purchased the portfolio at a discount, and if the loan was brought current through a modification, the borrower might be able to refinance under the short refinance program and payoff the note holder. Even if the note holder had to provide 10% debt forgiveness, the proceeds from the refinance would be quite a coup if the note was purchased for 50-60 cents on the dollar. A borrower that is in default can be refinanced into the FHA short refinance in as little as 6 months. If the modification is non-HAMP, they only need to make 3 payments.

As to #5, the borrower would not have created the hardship, and the lower income would not be the borrowers fault. Same scenario as above.

Now if it does not make sense to cure the default via loss mitigation (such as when the borrower’s capacity and affordability cannot be bridged), and short sale/foreclosure would make the most sense, then the servicer should protect the interests of the investor.

[Anonymous]

#1 and #5 should absolutely be a reason to provide loss mitigation assistance- especially if the borrower is willing to pay and did not create the default due to financial mismanagement or disregard for the obligation.

Non-performing loan portfolio managers should consider whether curing the default via a change in terms makes more financial sense than foreclosing or completing a short sale. Since in the instance of #1, the borrower is reemployed and willing to pay to the best of their ability, the default might be able to be cured via a change in terms. Now lets just say that the investor purchased the portfolio at a discount, and if the loan was brought current through a modification, the borrower might be able to refinance under the short refinance program and payoff the note holder. Even if the note holder had to provide 10% debt forgiveness, the proceeds from the refinance would be quite a coup if the note was purchased for 50-60 cents on the dollar. A borrower that is in default can be refinanced into the FHA short refinance in as little as 6 months. If the modification is non-HAMP, they only need to make 3 payments.

As to #5, the borrower would not have created the hardship, and the lower income would not be the borrowers fault. Same scenario as above.

Now if it does not make sense to cure the default via loss mitigation (such as when the borrower’s capacity and affordability cannot be bridged), and short sale/foreclosure would make the most sense, then the servicer should protect the interests of the investor.

[ocrenter]

according to Walmart.com, a 150 count LED string cost $20. And this is not counting specialized shapes.

She at least spent $3600 if not more for the 25,000 LED lights.

And remember, this is not counting the cranes she hire to bring the lights up into her palm trees.

all of this just prior to getting foreclosed upon.

[ocrenter]

according to Walmart.com, a 150 count LED string cost $20. And this is not counting specialized shapes.

She at least spent $3600 if not more for the 25,000 LED lights.

And remember, this is not counting the cranes she hire to bring the lights up into her palm trees.

all of this just prior to getting foreclosed upon.

[ocrenter]

according to Walmart.com, a 150 count LED string cost $20. And this is not counting specialized shapes.

She at least spent $3600 if not more for the 25,000 LED lights.

And remember, this is not counting the cranes she hire to bring the lights up into her palm trees.

all of this just prior to getting foreclosed upon.

[ocrenter]

according to Walmart.com, a 150 count LED string cost $20. And this is not counting specialized shapes.

She at least spent $3600 if not more for the 25,000 LED lights.

And remember, this is not counting the cranes she hire to bring the lights up into her palm trees.

all of this just prior to getting foreclosed upon.

[Author]

Posts