Report shows strategic defaults increasing

[Anonymous]

[quote=SD Realtor]Look, extension of credit is extension of credit. I am loaning you money and you promise to pay me back or return the asset I loaned you the money for.[/quote]This is not true, no surprise here I expect realtors to lie.

There is no promise in the sales contract for the buyer to “return the asset the lender loaned the borrower the money for”. There is a lot of legal speak defining the options the lender has for recovering the property if the borrower fails to pay, but there is no promise to return the asset.

It’s the lender’s obligation to go through the legal process to recover the asset that is the collateral for the loan.

Try being honest for a change.

[Arraya]

[quote=BillS78]

Why in the world don’t you people understand that it’s the banks and lenders that have been bailed out, not the homeowners. TARP was a bank bailout and HAMP is completely voluntary for lenders, they only agree if it’s best for them. I’ve been advised that the modifications just screw the homeowner, same with short sales. The lawyer that I spoke with told me that neither option is worth pursuing and that lenders try to write in recourse language. It’s just another banking scam.
.[/quote]

Well this is what I’ve been saying for months. No homeowners are getting “help”, the are getting screwed over again.

Hopefully the 10s of thousands, in SD, in the same position as bill are in, wise up and don’t take the help that everybody is complaining about

[Arraya]

[quote=BillS78]

Why in the world don’t you people understand that it’s the banks and lenders that have been bailed out, not the homeowners. TARP was a bank bailout and HAMP is completely voluntary for lenders, they only agree if it’s best for them. I’ve been advised that the modifications just screw the homeowner, same with short sales. The lawyer that I spoke with told me that neither option is worth pursuing and that lenders try to write in recourse language. It’s just another banking scam.
.[/quote]

Well this is what I’ve been saying for months. No homeowners are getting “help”, the are getting screwed over again.

Hopefully the 10s of thousands, in SD, in the same position as bill are in, wise up and don’t take the help that everybody is complaining about

[Arraya]

[quote=BillS78]

Why in the world don’t you people understand that it’s the banks and lenders that have been bailed out, not the homeowners. TARP was a bank bailout and HAMP is completely voluntary for lenders, they only agree if it’s best for them. I’ve been advised that the modifications just screw the homeowner, same with short sales. The lawyer that I spoke with told me that neither option is worth pursuing and that lenders try to write in recourse language. It’s just another banking scam.
.[/quote]

Well this is what I’ve been saying for months. No homeowners are getting “help”, the are getting screwed over again.

Hopefully the 10s of thousands, in SD, in the same position as bill are in, wise up and don’t take the help that everybody is complaining about

[Arraya]

[quote=BillS78]

Why in the world don’t you people understand that it’s the banks and lenders that have been bailed out, not the homeowners. TARP was a bank bailout and HAMP is completely voluntary for lenders, they only agree if it’s best for them. I’ve been advised that the modifications just screw the homeowner, same with short sales. The lawyer that I spoke with told me that neither option is worth pursuing and that lenders try to write in recourse language. It’s just another banking scam.
.[/quote]

Well this is what I’ve been saying for months. No homeowners are getting “help”, the are getting screwed over again.

Hopefully the 10s of thousands, in SD, in the same position as bill are in, wise up and don’t take the help that everybody is complaining about

[Arraya]

[quote=BillS78]

Why in the world don’t you people understand that it’s the banks and lenders that have been bailed out, not the homeowners. TARP was a bank bailout and HAMP is completely voluntary for lenders, they only agree if it’s best for them. I’ve been advised that the modifications just screw the homeowner, same with short sales. The lawyer that I spoke with told me that neither option is worth pursuing and that lenders try to write in recourse language. It’s just another banking scam.
.[/quote]

Well this is what I’ve been saying for months. No homeowners are getting “help”, the are getting screwed over again.

Hopefully the 10s of thousands, in SD, in the same position as bill are in, wise up and don’t take the help that everybody is complaining about

[sdrealtor]

That lawyer was probably a BK lawyer and I’m guessing that just maybe he thinks BK is the solution to everyone’s problems.

I’ve seen odifications that greatly help homeowners and I’ve seen them that tdo nothing to help homeowners. I’ve seen (and done) short sales that greatly help homeowners and I’ve seen homeowners get screwed in short sales by agents that dont know what they are doing.

real example: I got a call about someone that was about to lose their home to foreclosure in 3 days. They had refinanced a few hundred thousand out of their longtime home in OC. The house was worth slightly more than the outstanding debt to the 1st. The first was about to foreclose and the recourse 2nd would have been wiped out. The sellers would have been liable for about $250,000. I got the first to postpone the sale for 45 days and said they would be paid in full without incurring foreclosure fees. I would also get all their penalties and fees incurred thus far paid. They gave me the chance to get it done. I got the property sold in 2 days at a price which left over $20,000 toward the 2nd. The sellers contributed $7,500 more out of their own pockets and the 2nd lender granted them a full written release. We closed exactly 45 days later and had we not made it, it would have gotten foreclosed on the 46th day. For $7,500 the sellers escaped a $250,000 deficiency judgement which would have forced them into BK. One of the sellers was an attorney who worked for the attorney general in Sacramento. Her career would have been over. The lawyer who was my client thanked me for saving her career and wiping out her family. I guess this is yet another homeowner who got screwed doing a short sale.

Blanket statements are worthless. Every situation is unique and needs to be evaluated on its own merits.

[sdrealtor]

That lawyer was probably a BK lawyer and I’m guessing that just maybe he thinks BK is the solution to everyone’s problems.

I’ve seen odifications that greatly help homeowners and I’ve seen them that tdo nothing to help homeowners. I’ve seen (and done) short sales that greatly help homeowners and I’ve seen homeowners get screwed in short sales by agents that dont know what they are doing.

real example: I got a call about someone that was about to lose their home to foreclosure in 3 days. They had refinanced a few hundred thousand out of their longtime home in OC. The house was worth slightly more than the outstanding debt to the 1st. The first was about to foreclose and the recourse 2nd would have been wiped out. The sellers would have been liable for about $250,000. I got the first to postpone the sale for 45 days and said they would be paid in full without incurring foreclosure fees. I would also get all their penalties and fees incurred thus far paid. They gave me the chance to get it done. I got the property sold in 2 days at a price which left over $20,000 toward the 2nd. The sellers contributed $7,500 more out of their own pockets and the 2nd lender granted them a full written release. We closed exactly 45 days later and had we not made it, it would have gotten foreclosed on the 46th day. For $7,500 the sellers escaped a $250,000 deficiency judgement which would have forced them into BK. One of the sellers was an attorney who worked for the attorney general in Sacramento. Her career would have been over. The lawyer who was my client thanked me for saving her career and wiping out her family. I guess this is yet another homeowner who got screwed doing a short sale.

Blanket statements are worthless. Every situation is unique and needs to be evaluated on its own merits.

[sdrealtor]

That lawyer was probably a BK lawyer and I’m guessing that just maybe he thinks BK is the solution to everyone’s problems.

I’ve seen odifications that greatly help homeowners and I’ve seen them that tdo nothing to help homeowners. I’ve seen (and done) short sales that greatly help homeowners and I’ve seen homeowners get screwed in short sales by agents that dont know what they are doing.

real example: I got a call about someone that was about to lose their home to foreclosure in 3 days. They had refinanced a few hundred thousand out of their longtime home in OC. The house was worth slightly more than the outstanding debt to the 1st. The first was about to foreclose and the recourse 2nd would have been wiped out. The sellers would have been liable for about $250,000. I got the first to postpone the sale for 45 days and said they would be paid in full without incurring foreclosure fees. I would also get all their penalties and fees incurred thus far paid. They gave me the chance to get it done. I got the property sold in 2 days at a price which left over $20,000 toward the 2nd. The sellers contributed $7,500 more out of their own pockets and the 2nd lender granted them a full written release. We closed exactly 45 days later and had we not made it, it would have gotten foreclosed on the 46th day. For $7,500 the sellers escaped a $250,000 deficiency judgement which would have forced them into BK. One of the sellers was an attorney who worked for the attorney general in Sacramento. Her career would have been over. The lawyer who was my client thanked me for saving her career and wiping out her family. I guess this is yet another homeowner who got screwed doing a short sale.

Blanket statements are worthless. Every situation is unique and needs to be evaluated on its own merits.

[sdrealtor]

That lawyer was probably a BK lawyer and I’m guessing that just maybe he thinks BK is the solution to everyone’s problems.

I’ve seen odifications that greatly help homeowners and I’ve seen them that tdo nothing to help homeowners. I’ve seen (and done) short sales that greatly help homeowners and I’ve seen homeowners get screwed in short sales by agents that dont know what they are doing.

real example: I got a call about someone that was about to lose their home to foreclosure in 3 days. They had refinanced a few hundred thousand out of their longtime home in OC. The house was worth slightly more than the outstanding debt to the 1st. The first was about to foreclose and the recourse 2nd would have been wiped out. The sellers would have been liable for about $250,000. I got the first to postpone the sale for 45 days and said they would be paid in full without incurring foreclosure fees. I would also get all their penalties and fees incurred thus far paid. They gave me the chance to get it done. I got the property sold in 2 days at a price which left over $20,000 toward the 2nd. The sellers contributed $7,500 more out of their own pockets and the 2nd lender granted them a full written release. We closed exactly 45 days later and had we not made it, it would have gotten foreclosed on the 46th day. For $7,500 the sellers escaped a $250,000 deficiency judgement which would have forced them into BK. One of the sellers was an attorney who worked for the attorney general in Sacramento. Her career would have been over. The lawyer who was my client thanked me for saving her career and wiping out her family. I guess this is yet another homeowner who got screwed doing a short sale.

Blanket statements are worthless. Every situation is unique and needs to be evaluated on its own merits.

[sdrealtor]

That lawyer was probably a BK lawyer and I’m guessing that just maybe he thinks BK is the solution to everyone’s problems.

I’ve seen odifications that greatly help homeowners and I’ve seen them that tdo nothing to help homeowners. I’ve seen (and done) short sales that greatly help homeowners and I’ve seen homeowners get screwed in short sales by agents that dont know what they are doing.

real example: I got a call about someone that was about to lose their home to foreclosure in 3 days. They had refinanced a few hundred thousand out of their longtime home in OC. The house was worth slightly more than the outstanding debt to the 1st. The first was about to foreclose and the recourse 2nd would have been wiped out. The sellers would have been liable for about $250,000. I got the first to postpone the sale for 45 days and said they would be paid in full without incurring foreclosure fees. I would also get all their penalties and fees incurred thus far paid. They gave me the chance to get it done. I got the property sold in 2 days at a price which left over $20,000 toward the 2nd. The sellers contributed $7,500 more out of their own pockets and the 2nd lender granted them a full written release. We closed exactly 45 days later and had we not made it, it would have gotten foreclosed on the 46th day. For $7,500 the sellers escaped a $250,000 deficiency judgement which would have forced them into BK. One of the sellers was an attorney who worked for the attorney general in Sacramento. Her career would have been over. The lawyer who was my client thanked me for saving her career and wiping out her family. I guess this is yet another homeowner who got screwed doing a short sale.

Blanket statements are worthless. Every situation is unique and needs to be evaluated on its own merits.

[Anonymous]

[quote=UCGal]After a week long vacation I came back to this monster long thread.

A couple of thoughts.
* I agree with everything CAR said. The bailouts actually hurt us, longterm. We’d have been better off without them.

* I’m troubled that someone who has no financial hardship thinks it’s morally ok to just stop paying. I, personally, couldn’t do it. I’m sure I’ll be called a ball-less bitch for admitting that I like to honor my word and contractual obligations.

* I keep thinking of the contractor I’m in litigation with. He received his NOD on his house in Oct. His NOT in Dec. He’s had 2 extensions on his trustee sale. He doesn’t qualify for HAMP because his loan’s too high. Yet he’s living rent free. I actually have a slight bit more sympathy for him since he’s faced financial hardship (contracting sucks these days)… But I still feel strongly that he shouldn’t get free rent. It bothers the crap out of me that my tax dollars are helping subsidize people who have the capacity to meet their contractual obligations but selfishly choose not to.

Bill – what you’re doing is legal. In my book, it’s not moral.[/quote]I don’t have a problem with your opinion, morality is subjective. I think anyone who willingly joins the military to go fight in Iraq or Afghanistan are murderers and Bush is a war criminal. We can disagree. The problem I have is with people like SDR who are dishonest hypocrites. He has to lie to sell his position. That’s just sad.

You are very misguided when you complain about your tax dollars subsidizing people like me. Your tax dollars are subsidizing banks. I could have mailed in my keys over a year ago and the bank would probably still be sitting on the property.

I’m doing my neighborhood and lender a favor by keeping my house looking great.

[Anonymous]

[quote=UCGal]After a week long vacation I came back to this monster long thread.

A couple of thoughts.
* I agree with everything CAR said. The bailouts actually hurt us, longterm. We’d have been better off without them.

* I’m troubled that someone who has no financial hardship thinks it’s morally ok to just stop paying. I, personally, couldn’t do it. I’m sure I’ll be called a ball-less bitch for admitting that I like to honor my word and contractual obligations.

* I keep thinking of the contractor I’m in litigation with. He received his NOD on his house in Oct. His NOT in Dec. He’s had 2 extensions on his trustee sale. He doesn’t qualify for HAMP because his loan’s too high. Yet he’s living rent free. I actually have a slight bit more sympathy for him since he’s faced financial hardship (contracting sucks these days)… But I still feel strongly that he shouldn’t get free rent. It bothers the crap out of me that my tax dollars are helping subsidize people who have the capacity to meet their contractual obligations but selfishly choose not to.

Bill – what you’re doing is legal. In my book, it’s not moral.[/quote]I don’t have a problem with your opinion, morality is subjective. I think anyone who willingly joins the military to go fight in Iraq or Afghanistan are murderers and Bush is a war criminal. We can disagree. The problem I have is with people like SDR who are dishonest hypocrites. He has to lie to sell his position. That’s just sad.

You are very misguided when you complain about your tax dollars subsidizing people like me. Your tax dollars are subsidizing banks. I could have mailed in my keys over a year ago and the bank would probably still be sitting on the property.

I’m doing my neighborhood and lender a favor by keeping my house looking great.

[Anonymous]

[quote=UCGal]After a week long vacation I came back to this monster long thread.

A couple of thoughts.
* I agree with everything CAR said. The bailouts actually hurt us, longterm. We’d have been better off without them.

* I’m troubled that someone who has no financial hardship thinks it’s morally ok to just stop paying. I, personally, couldn’t do it. I’m sure I’ll be called a ball-less bitch for admitting that I like to honor my word and contractual obligations.

* I keep thinking of the contractor I’m in litigation with. He received his NOD on his house in Oct. His NOT in Dec. He’s had 2 extensions on his trustee sale. He doesn’t qualify for HAMP because his loan’s too high. Yet he’s living rent free. I actually have a slight bit more sympathy for him since he’s faced financial hardship (contracting sucks these days)… But I still feel strongly that he shouldn’t get free rent. It bothers the crap out of me that my tax dollars are helping subsidize people who have the capacity to meet their contractual obligations but selfishly choose not to.

Bill – what you’re doing is legal. In my book, it’s not moral.[/quote]I don’t have a problem with your opinion, morality is subjective. I think anyone who willingly joins the military to go fight in Iraq or Afghanistan are murderers and Bush is a war criminal. We can disagree. The problem I have is with people like SDR who are dishonest hypocrites. He has to lie to sell his position. That’s just sad.

You are very misguided when you complain about your tax dollars subsidizing people like me. Your tax dollars are subsidizing banks. I could have mailed in my keys over a year ago and the bank would probably still be sitting on the property.

I’m doing my neighborhood and lender a favor by keeping my house looking great.

[Anonymous]

[quote=UCGal]After a week long vacation I came back to this monster long thread.

A couple of thoughts.
* I agree with everything CAR said. The bailouts actually hurt us, longterm. We’d have been better off without them.

* I’m troubled that someone who has no financial hardship thinks it’s morally ok to just stop paying. I, personally, couldn’t do it. I’m sure I’ll be called a ball-less bitch for admitting that I like to honor my word and contractual obligations.

* I keep thinking of the contractor I’m in litigation with. He received his NOD on his house in Oct. His NOT in Dec. He’s had 2 extensions on his trustee sale. He doesn’t qualify for HAMP because his loan’s too high. Yet he’s living rent free. I actually have a slight bit more sympathy for him since he’s faced financial hardship (contracting sucks these days)… But I still feel strongly that he shouldn’t get free rent. It bothers the crap out of me that my tax dollars are helping subsidize people who have the capacity to meet their contractual obligations but selfishly choose not to.

Bill – what you’re doing is legal. In my book, it’s not moral.[/quote]I don’t have a problem with your opinion, morality is subjective. I think anyone who willingly joins the military to go fight in Iraq or Afghanistan are murderers and Bush is a war criminal. We can disagree. The problem I have is with people like SDR who are dishonest hypocrites. He has to lie to sell his position. That’s just sad.

You are very misguided when you complain about your tax dollars subsidizing people like me. Your tax dollars are subsidizing banks. I could have mailed in my keys over a year ago and the bank would probably still be sitting on the property.

I’m doing my neighborhood and lender a favor by keeping my house looking great.

[Author]

Posts