- This topic has 70 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 11 months ago by
Nor-LA-SD-guy.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 8, 2009 at 9:45 PM #326183January 9, 2009 at 12:57 AM #326734
Daniel
ParticipantQuite a bit of misinformation on this thread… So, to set the record straight:
1. Investors ALREADY HAVE the option of reducing (“cramming down”) mortgages by filing bankruptcy. Any debt (commercial loans, credit cards, non-owner occupied mortgages, etc) can be crammed down in bankruptcy, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF PRIMARY RESIDENCE MORTGAGES. If you believe this is weird, yes it is. Why don’t investors take advantage of this? Because it’s no fun. Foreclosure beats bankruptcy by a mile. In foreclosure you just lose the house (which is an investment anyways). In bankruptcy you lose the right to everything. The judge decides what assets you can keep, how much of your debts you must repay, etc. Definitely not fun.
2. What is a “cram down”? Say you owe $600K on a $400K house. Say you also have $30K in credit card debt. Well, the judge decides that only $400K is a “secured mortgage”, and the rest ($200K) is unsecured debt, just like the $30K credit card debt. If the judge decides that the new $400K mortgage is within your budget, then you can keep the house. Also, if the judge decides that you can still afford to pay a portion of the $230K total unsecured debt, then you must do that as well. Realistically speaking, the unsecured debt is rarely paid back; if you could afford to pay it back, you wouldn’t have declared bankruptcy in the first place. Again, bankruptcy is not a fun option, and foreclosure is usually the way to go.
3. Then, who could possibly take advantage of this? Answer: people in dire straits but who desperately want to keep their house. Not walk-aways, not flippers, not investors. People willing to go through the hell of bankruptcy to keep their house, and who could barely hang on by the skin of their teeth if their mortgage was crammed down.
In contrast, people who couldn’t afford even a crammed down mortgage would lose the house anyways. At the other end, people who could afford to pay more wouldn’t benefit either, as the judge would most likely ask them to pay the unsecured note as well.
January 9, 2009 at 12:57 AM #326562ParticipantQuite a bit of misinformation on this thread… So, to set the record straight:
1. Investors ALREADY HAVE the option of reducing (“cramming down”) mortgages by filing bankruptcy. Any debt (commercial loans, credit cards, non-owner occupied mortgages, etc) can be crammed down in bankruptcy, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF PRIMARY RESIDENCE MORTGAGES. If you believe this is weird, yes it is. Why don’t investors take advantage of this? Because it’s no fun. Foreclosure beats bankruptcy by a mile. In foreclosure you just lose the house (which is an investment anyways). In bankruptcy you lose the right to everything. The judge decides what assets you can keep, how much of your debts you must repay, etc. Definitely not fun.
2. What is a “cram down”? Say you owe $600K on a $400K house. Say you also have $30K in credit card debt. Well, the judge decides that only $400K is a “secured mortgage”, and the rest ($200K) is unsecured debt, just like the $30K credit card debt. If the judge decides that the new $400K mortgage is within your budget, then you can keep the house. Also, if the judge decides that you can still afford to pay a portion of the $230K total unsecured debt, then you must do that as well. Realistically speaking, the unsecured debt is rarely paid back; if you could afford to pay it back, you wouldn’t have declared bankruptcy in the first place. Again, bankruptcy is not a fun option, and foreclosure is usually the way to go.
3. Then, who could possibly take advantage of this? Answer: people in dire straits but who desperately want to keep their house. Not walk-aways, not flippers, not investors. People willing to go through the hell of bankruptcy to keep their house, and who could barely hang on by the skin of their teeth if their mortgage was crammed down.
In contrast, people who couldn’t afford even a crammed down mortgage would lose the house anyways. At the other end, people who could afford to pay more wouldn’t benefit either, as the judge would most likely ask them to pay the unsecured note as well.
January 9, 2009 at 12:57 AM #326650ParticipantQuite a bit of misinformation on this thread… So, to set the record straight:
1. Investors ALREADY HAVE the option of reducing (“cramming down”) mortgages by filing bankruptcy. Any debt (commercial loans, credit cards, non-owner occupied mortgages, etc) can be crammed down in bankruptcy, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF PRIMARY RESIDENCE MORTGAGES. If you believe this is weird, yes it is. Why don’t investors take advantage of this? Because it’s no fun. Foreclosure beats bankruptcy by a mile. In foreclosure you just lose the house (which is an investment anyways). In bankruptcy you lose the right to everything. The judge decides what assets you can keep, how much of your debts you must repay, etc. Definitely not fun.
2. What is a “cram down”? Say you owe $600K on a $400K house. Say you also have $30K in credit card debt. Well, the judge decides that only $400K is a “secured mortgage”, and the rest ($200K) is unsecured debt, just like the $30K credit card debt. If the judge decides that the new $400K mortgage is within your budget, then you can keep the house. Also, if the judge decides that you can still afford to pay a portion of the $230K total unsecured debt, then you must do that as well. Realistically speaking, the unsecured debt is rarely paid back; if you could afford to pay it back, you wouldn’t have declared bankruptcy in the first place. Again, bankruptcy is not a fun option, and foreclosure is usually the way to go.
3. Then, who could possibly take advantage of this? Answer: people in dire straits but who desperately want to keep their house. Not walk-aways, not flippers, not investors. People willing to go through the hell of bankruptcy to keep their house, and who could barely hang on by the skin of their teeth if their mortgage was crammed down.
In contrast, people who couldn’t afford even a crammed down mortgage would lose the house anyways. At the other end, people who could afford to pay more wouldn’t benefit either, as the judge would most likely ask them to pay the unsecured note as well.
January 9, 2009 at 12:57 AM #326631ParticipantQuite a bit of misinformation on this thread… So, to set the record straight:
1. Investors ALREADY HAVE the option of reducing (“cramming down”) mortgages by filing bankruptcy. Any debt (commercial loans, credit cards, non-owner occupied mortgages, etc) can be crammed down in bankruptcy, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF PRIMARY RESIDENCE MORTGAGES. If you believe this is weird, yes it is. Why don’t investors take advantage of this? Because it’s no fun. Foreclosure beats bankruptcy by a mile. In foreclosure you just lose the house (which is an investment anyways). In bankruptcy you lose the right to everything. The judge decides what assets you can keep, how much of your debts you must repay, etc. Definitely not fun.
2. What is a “cram down”? Say you owe $600K on a $400K house. Say you also have $30K in credit card debt. Well, the judge decides that only $400K is a “secured mortgage”, and the rest ($200K) is unsecured debt, just like the $30K credit card debt. If the judge decides that the new $400K mortgage is within your budget, then you can keep the house. Also, if the judge decides that you can still afford to pay a portion of the $230K total unsecured debt, then you must do that as well. Realistically speaking, the unsecured debt is rarely paid back; if you could afford to pay it back, you wouldn’t have declared bankruptcy in the first place. Again, bankruptcy is not a fun option, and foreclosure is usually the way to go.
3. Then, who could possibly take advantage of this? Answer: people in dire straits but who desperately want to keep their house. Not walk-aways, not flippers, not investors. People willing to go through the hell of bankruptcy to keep their house, and who could barely hang on by the skin of their teeth if their mortgage was crammed down.
In contrast, people who couldn’t afford even a crammed down mortgage would lose the house anyways. At the other end, people who could afford to pay more wouldn’t benefit either, as the judge would most likely ask them to pay the unsecured note as well.
January 9, 2009 at 12:57 AM #326223ParticipantQuite a bit of misinformation on this thread… So, to set the record straight:
1. Investors ALREADY HAVE the option of reducing (“cramming down”) mortgages by filing bankruptcy. Any debt (commercial loans, credit cards, non-owner occupied mortgages, etc) can be crammed down in bankruptcy, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF PRIMARY RESIDENCE MORTGAGES. If you believe this is weird, yes it is. Why don’t investors take advantage of this? Because it’s no fun. Foreclosure beats bankruptcy by a mile. In foreclosure you just lose the house (which is an investment anyways). In bankruptcy you lose the right to everything. The judge decides what assets you can keep, how much of your debts you must repay, etc. Definitely not fun.
2. What is a “cram down”? Say you owe $600K on a $400K house. Say you also have $30K in credit card debt. Well, the judge decides that only $400K is a “secured mortgage”, and the rest ($200K) is unsecured debt, just like the $30K credit card debt. If the judge decides that the new $400K mortgage is within your budget, then you can keep the house. Also, if the judge decides that you can still afford to pay a portion of the $230K total unsecured debt, then you must do that as well. Realistically speaking, the unsecured debt is rarely paid back; if you could afford to pay it back, you wouldn’t have declared bankruptcy in the first place. Again, bankruptcy is not a fun option, and foreclosure is usually the way to go.
3. Then, who could possibly take advantage of this? Answer: people in dire straits but who desperately want to keep their house. Not walk-aways, not flippers, not investors. People willing to go through the hell of bankruptcy to keep their house, and who could barely hang on by the skin of their teeth if their mortgage was crammed down.
In contrast, people who couldn’t afford even a crammed down mortgage would lose the house anyways. At the other end, people who could afford to pay more wouldn’t benefit either, as the judge would most likely ask them to pay the unsecured note as well.
January 9, 2009 at 6:58 AM #326646Nor-LA-SD-guy
ParticipantThe O.C. investors I was talking about (have 10’s of homes with short sales pending) have been trying to get the banks to Basically to do a short sale to them but so far has not seemed to be working, but they are talking (I guess when you owe 5 mil or so the banks are willing to talk).
January 9, 2009 at 6:58 AM #326665ParticipantThe O.C. investors I was talking about (have 10’s of homes with short sales pending) have been trying to get the banks to Basically to do a short sale to them but so far has not seemed to be working, but they are talking (I guess when you owe 5 mil or so the banks are willing to talk).
January 9, 2009 at 6:58 AM #326576ParticipantThe O.C. investors I was talking about (have 10’s of homes with short sales pending) have been trying to get the banks to Basically to do a short sale to them but so far has not seemed to be working, but they are talking (I guess when you owe 5 mil or so the banks are willing to talk).
January 9, 2009 at 6:58 AM #326239ParticipantThe O.C. investors I was talking about (have 10’s of homes with short sales pending) have been trying to get the banks to Basically to do a short sale to them but so far has not seemed to be working, but they are talking (I guess when you owe 5 mil or so the banks are willing to talk).
January 9, 2009 at 6:58 AM #326749ParticipantThe O.C. investors I was talking about (have 10’s of homes with short sales pending) have been trying to get the banks to Basically to do a short sale to them but so far has not seemed to be working, but they are talking (I guess when you owe 5 mil or so the banks are willing to talk).
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.