- This topic has 255 replies, 27 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 11 months ago by DaCounselor.
-
AuthorPosts
-
December 31, 2007 at 8:33 AM #126984December 31, 2007 at 2:33 PM #126926rocket scienceParticipant
Anyone who thinks that not taking responsibility for ones actions, e.g. paying a mortgage to which one agreed, even if it is ‘legal’ is adding to the unfortunate demise of this society. Next we will not want to take responsibility for pouring hot coffee in our laps and blame the seller of said coffee for making it hot. Like TheBreeze, I too am disgusted.
rs
December 31, 2007 at 2:33 PM #127088rocket scienceParticipantAnyone who thinks that not taking responsibility for ones actions, e.g. paying a mortgage to which one agreed, even if it is ‘legal’ is adding to the unfortunate demise of this society. Next we will not want to take responsibility for pouring hot coffee in our laps and blame the seller of said coffee for making it hot. Like TheBreeze, I too am disgusted.
rs
December 31, 2007 at 2:33 PM #127098rocket scienceParticipantAnyone who thinks that not taking responsibility for ones actions, e.g. paying a mortgage to which one agreed, even if it is ‘legal’ is adding to the unfortunate demise of this society. Next we will not want to take responsibility for pouring hot coffee in our laps and blame the seller of said coffee for making it hot. Like TheBreeze, I too am disgusted.
rs
December 31, 2007 at 2:33 PM #127164rocket scienceParticipantAnyone who thinks that not taking responsibility for ones actions, e.g. paying a mortgage to which one agreed, even if it is ‘legal’ is adding to the unfortunate demise of this society. Next we will not want to take responsibility for pouring hot coffee in our laps and blame the seller of said coffee for making it hot. Like TheBreeze, I too am disgusted.
rs
December 31, 2007 at 2:33 PM #127190rocket scienceParticipantAnyone who thinks that not taking responsibility for ones actions, e.g. paying a mortgage to which one agreed, even if it is ‘legal’ is adding to the unfortunate demise of this society. Next we will not want to take responsibility for pouring hot coffee in our laps and blame the seller of said coffee for making it hot. Like TheBreeze, I too am disgusted.
rs
January 1, 2008 at 3:14 AM #127122EugeneParticipantI doubt the consequences will be allocated appropriately. Some of these ridiculous mortgages were sold to hedge funds and in that case the risk is likely to be allocated appropriately.
At this point, his first mortgage is toast, so hedge funds and pension funds will take a hit regardless.
If the guy is already has a house, the next purchase has to show as a Non-Occupied status (can’t be in both at the same time).
Can’t you buy a house with intention of converting your existing house into rental?
it will be difficult to get another loan when he is already cash flow limited
The original post says that the buyer qualifies for the loan full doc. It’s not incredibly hard to do that. His current monthly payment could be as low as $3000 (he has an Option ARM) and, if he brings 80k in cash, he can get a conforming mortgage on the second house for $2500/month. Add taxes, insurance, etc. and he could be qualified with as little as $150K annual income.
January 1, 2008 at 3:14 AM #127283EugeneParticipantI doubt the consequences will be allocated appropriately. Some of these ridiculous mortgages were sold to hedge funds and in that case the risk is likely to be allocated appropriately.
At this point, his first mortgage is toast, so hedge funds and pension funds will take a hit regardless.
If the guy is already has a house, the next purchase has to show as a Non-Occupied status (can’t be in both at the same time).
Can’t you buy a house with intention of converting your existing house into rental?
it will be difficult to get another loan when he is already cash flow limited
The original post says that the buyer qualifies for the loan full doc. It’s not incredibly hard to do that. His current monthly payment could be as low as $3000 (he has an Option ARM) and, if he brings 80k in cash, he can get a conforming mortgage on the second house for $2500/month. Add taxes, insurance, etc. and he could be qualified with as little as $150K annual income.
January 1, 2008 at 3:14 AM #127291EugeneParticipantI doubt the consequences will be allocated appropriately. Some of these ridiculous mortgages were sold to hedge funds and in that case the risk is likely to be allocated appropriately.
At this point, his first mortgage is toast, so hedge funds and pension funds will take a hit regardless.
If the guy is already has a house, the next purchase has to show as a Non-Occupied status (can’t be in both at the same time).
Can’t you buy a house with intention of converting your existing house into rental?
it will be difficult to get another loan when he is already cash flow limited
The original post says that the buyer qualifies for the loan full doc. It’s not incredibly hard to do that. His current monthly payment could be as low as $3000 (he has an Option ARM) and, if he brings 80k in cash, he can get a conforming mortgage on the second house for $2500/month. Add taxes, insurance, etc. and he could be qualified with as little as $150K annual income.
January 1, 2008 at 3:14 AM #127360EugeneParticipantI doubt the consequences will be allocated appropriately. Some of these ridiculous mortgages were sold to hedge funds and in that case the risk is likely to be allocated appropriately.
At this point, his first mortgage is toast, so hedge funds and pension funds will take a hit regardless.
If the guy is already has a house, the next purchase has to show as a Non-Occupied status (can’t be in both at the same time).
Can’t you buy a house with intention of converting your existing house into rental?
it will be difficult to get another loan when he is already cash flow limited
The original post says that the buyer qualifies for the loan full doc. It’s not incredibly hard to do that. His current monthly payment could be as low as $3000 (he has an Option ARM) and, if he brings 80k in cash, he can get a conforming mortgage on the second house for $2500/month. Add taxes, insurance, etc. and he could be qualified with as little as $150K annual income.
January 1, 2008 at 3:14 AM #127384EugeneParticipantI doubt the consequences will be allocated appropriately. Some of these ridiculous mortgages were sold to hedge funds and in that case the risk is likely to be allocated appropriately.
At this point, his first mortgage is toast, so hedge funds and pension funds will take a hit regardless.
If the guy is already has a house, the next purchase has to show as a Non-Occupied status (can’t be in both at the same time).
Can’t you buy a house with intention of converting your existing house into rental?
it will be difficult to get another loan when he is already cash flow limited
The original post says that the buyer qualifies for the loan full doc. It’s not incredibly hard to do that. His current monthly payment could be as low as $3000 (he has an Option ARM) and, if he brings 80k in cash, he can get a conforming mortgage on the second house for $2500/month. Add taxes, insurance, etc. and he could be qualified with as little as $150K annual income.
January 4, 2008 at 11:01 AM #129171RaybyrnesParticipantrocket science
“Next we will not want to take responsibility for pouring hot coffee in our laps and blame the seller of said coffee for making it hot.”Little off topic but I felt you might wnat to educate yourself before throwing out this statement. I assume you are referrign to Stellaa Stubeck from the McDonalds case.
McDonalds had over 1000 compliants about the coffee being excessively hot . There were other burn victims who ahd taken Mcdonalds to court and McDonalds had won the cases. Stella’s attorney had beaten McDonalds on one of the cases and offered to settle for around 20K . McDonalds refused to settle.
McDonalds had also recieved numerous requests from the Shriners in regards to the dangerous temperature of their coffee. They dismissed the complaints.
When McDonalds was ultimately found negligent the victim earned money for paind and suffereing and McDonalds had to pay punitive damages. The punitive damage equated to less than 1 day of coffee sales.
Additioanlly the dmaages were capped so the award was bogus.
Stella stuback suffered disfoming and permanent damage to her vaginal area becaese McDonalds negligence, After all the legal fees and negotiation she earned less than a couple hundred thousands.
Just thought you might want tto know the truth of the McDonalds myth.
January 4, 2008 at 11:01 AM #129340RaybyrnesParticipantrocket science
“Next we will not want to take responsibility for pouring hot coffee in our laps and blame the seller of said coffee for making it hot.”Little off topic but I felt you might wnat to educate yourself before throwing out this statement. I assume you are referrign to Stellaa Stubeck from the McDonalds case.
McDonalds had over 1000 compliants about the coffee being excessively hot . There were other burn victims who ahd taken Mcdonalds to court and McDonalds had won the cases. Stella’s attorney had beaten McDonalds on one of the cases and offered to settle for around 20K . McDonalds refused to settle.
McDonalds had also recieved numerous requests from the Shriners in regards to the dangerous temperature of their coffee. They dismissed the complaints.
When McDonalds was ultimately found negligent the victim earned money for paind and suffereing and McDonalds had to pay punitive damages. The punitive damage equated to less than 1 day of coffee sales.
Additioanlly the dmaages were capped so the award was bogus.
Stella stuback suffered disfoming and permanent damage to her vaginal area becaese McDonalds negligence, After all the legal fees and negotiation she earned less than a couple hundred thousands.
Just thought you might want tto know the truth of the McDonalds myth.
January 4, 2008 at 11:01 AM #129347RaybyrnesParticipantrocket science
“Next we will not want to take responsibility for pouring hot coffee in our laps and blame the seller of said coffee for making it hot.”Little off topic but I felt you might wnat to educate yourself before throwing out this statement. I assume you are referrign to Stellaa Stubeck from the McDonalds case.
McDonalds had over 1000 compliants about the coffee being excessively hot . There were other burn victims who ahd taken Mcdonalds to court and McDonalds had won the cases. Stella’s attorney had beaten McDonalds on one of the cases and offered to settle for around 20K . McDonalds refused to settle.
McDonalds had also recieved numerous requests from the Shriners in regards to the dangerous temperature of their coffee. They dismissed the complaints.
When McDonalds was ultimately found negligent the victim earned money for paind and suffereing and McDonalds had to pay punitive damages. The punitive damage equated to less than 1 day of coffee sales.
Additioanlly the dmaages were capped so the award was bogus.
Stella stuback suffered disfoming and permanent damage to her vaginal area becaese McDonalds negligence, After all the legal fees and negotiation she earned less than a couple hundred thousands.
Just thought you might want tto know the truth of the McDonalds myth.
January 4, 2008 at 11:01 AM #129413RaybyrnesParticipantrocket science
“Next we will not want to take responsibility for pouring hot coffee in our laps and blame the seller of said coffee for making it hot.”Little off topic but I felt you might wnat to educate yourself before throwing out this statement. I assume you are referrign to Stellaa Stubeck from the McDonalds case.
McDonalds had over 1000 compliants about the coffee being excessively hot . There were other burn victims who ahd taken Mcdonalds to court and McDonalds had won the cases. Stella’s attorney had beaten McDonalds on one of the cases and offered to settle for around 20K . McDonalds refused to settle.
McDonalds had also recieved numerous requests from the Shriners in regards to the dangerous temperature of their coffee. They dismissed the complaints.
When McDonalds was ultimately found negligent the victim earned money for paind and suffereing and McDonalds had to pay punitive damages. The punitive damage equated to less than 1 day of coffee sales.
Additioanlly the dmaages were capped so the award was bogus.
Stella stuback suffered disfoming and permanent damage to her vaginal area becaese McDonalds negligence, After all the legal fees and negotiation she earned less than a couple hundred thousands.
Just thought you might want tto know the truth of the McDonalds myth.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.