- This topic has 485 replies, 39 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 12 months ago by
SD Realtor.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 30, 2007 at 4:15 PM #105965November 30, 2007 at 4:23 PM #105820
sd gal
ParticipantI just wonder if you foreclose, do you have to give up all your savings and belongings such as car?
if you make certain amount of fixed income, do you still have to pay back some of the debt?
November 30, 2007 at 4:23 PM #105911ParticipantI just wonder if you foreclose, do you have to give up all your savings and belongings such as car?
if you make certain amount of fixed income, do you still have to pay back some of the debt?
November 30, 2007 at 4:23 PM #105944ParticipantI just wonder if you foreclose, do you have to give up all your savings and belongings such as car?
if you make certain amount of fixed income, do you still have to pay back some of the debt?
November 30, 2007 at 4:23 PM #105952ParticipantI just wonder if you foreclose, do you have to give up all your savings and belongings such as car?
if you make certain amount of fixed income, do you still have to pay back some of the debt?
November 30, 2007 at 4:23 PM #105970ParticipantI just wonder if you foreclose, do you have to give up all your savings and belongings such as car?
if you make certain amount of fixed income, do you still have to pay back some of the debt?
November 30, 2007 at 4:26 PM #105825IONEGARM
ParticipantIf you are going to take your lumps you might as well lose less money. The average time delinquent before forclosure was filed was something like 5 months. So add 120 for the NOD and trustee sale and you could probably save 9 months worth of mortgage payments if you did it right.
If they pass the mortgage debt forgiveness act (which they will) there will be no penalty whatsoever for homeowners walking away. I think the ones able to do a bit of math will do so in droves, the rest with their emotional attachment hangups will hang on and drain every savings account and retirement fund and be financially destroyed at the end anyways.
November 30, 2007 at 4:26 PM #105916ParticipantIf you are going to take your lumps you might as well lose less money. The average time delinquent before forclosure was filed was something like 5 months. So add 120 for the NOD and trustee sale and you could probably save 9 months worth of mortgage payments if you did it right.
If they pass the mortgage debt forgiveness act (which they will) there will be no penalty whatsoever for homeowners walking away. I think the ones able to do a bit of math will do so in droves, the rest with their emotional attachment hangups will hang on and drain every savings account and retirement fund and be financially destroyed at the end anyways.
November 30, 2007 at 4:26 PM #105949ParticipantIf you are going to take your lumps you might as well lose less money. The average time delinquent before forclosure was filed was something like 5 months. So add 120 for the NOD and trustee sale and you could probably save 9 months worth of mortgage payments if you did it right.
If they pass the mortgage debt forgiveness act (which they will) there will be no penalty whatsoever for homeowners walking away. I think the ones able to do a bit of math will do so in droves, the rest with their emotional attachment hangups will hang on and drain every savings account and retirement fund and be financially destroyed at the end anyways.
November 30, 2007 at 4:26 PM #105957ParticipantIf you are going to take your lumps you might as well lose less money. The average time delinquent before forclosure was filed was something like 5 months. So add 120 for the NOD and trustee sale and you could probably save 9 months worth of mortgage payments if you did it right.
If they pass the mortgage debt forgiveness act (which they will) there will be no penalty whatsoever for homeowners walking away. I think the ones able to do a bit of math will do so in droves, the rest with their emotional attachment hangups will hang on and drain every savings account and retirement fund and be financially destroyed at the end anyways.
November 30, 2007 at 4:26 PM #105975ParticipantIf you are going to take your lumps you might as well lose less money. The average time delinquent before forclosure was filed was something like 5 months. So add 120 for the NOD and trustee sale and you could probably save 9 months worth of mortgage payments if you did it right.
If they pass the mortgage debt forgiveness act (which they will) there will be no penalty whatsoever for homeowners walking away. I think the ones able to do a bit of math will do so in droves, the rest with their emotional attachment hangups will hang on and drain every savings account and retirement fund and be financially destroyed at the end anyways.
November 30, 2007 at 4:27 PM #105835DaCounselor
Participant“Where is your responsibility on this? When you were giddy with equity how come you didnt offer to pay the bank more because you were paying less than full price for the asset when the banks gave money away and inflated the value of your property.”
____________________________________If I were answering these questions I would say that I did in fact pay full price for the property at the time I bought it. Regarding offering to pay the bank more at a later date due to an increase in value based upon events out of my control…well, I would absolutely be required to do so if that were part of my agreement with the lender. If that’s what the lender wanted, write it into the deal. Period.
On a purchase money loan in CA, the deal is the borrower agrees to make the payments and if they do not, the lender can take back the property. That’s it. As with any contract, if both parties agree to modify the deal, fine. Otherwise, no tears. Especially from a lender who is in the very business of entering into such deals over and over and over….
November 30, 2007 at 4:27 PM #105926Participant“Where is your responsibility on this? When you were giddy with equity how come you didnt offer to pay the bank more because you were paying less than full price for the asset when the banks gave money away and inflated the value of your property.”
____________________________________If I were answering these questions I would say that I did in fact pay full price for the property at the time I bought it. Regarding offering to pay the bank more at a later date due to an increase in value based upon events out of my control…well, I would absolutely be required to do so if that were part of my agreement with the lender. If that’s what the lender wanted, write it into the deal. Period.
On a purchase money loan in CA, the deal is the borrower agrees to make the payments and if they do not, the lender can take back the property. That’s it. As with any contract, if both parties agree to modify the deal, fine. Otherwise, no tears. Especially from a lender who is in the very business of entering into such deals over and over and over….
November 30, 2007 at 4:27 PM #105959Participant“Where is your responsibility on this? When you were giddy with equity how come you didnt offer to pay the bank more because you were paying less than full price for the asset when the banks gave money away and inflated the value of your property.”
____________________________________If I were answering these questions I would say that I did in fact pay full price for the property at the time I bought it. Regarding offering to pay the bank more at a later date due to an increase in value based upon events out of my control…well, I would absolutely be required to do so if that were part of my agreement with the lender. If that’s what the lender wanted, write it into the deal. Period.
On a purchase money loan in CA, the deal is the borrower agrees to make the payments and if they do not, the lender can take back the property. That’s it. As with any contract, if both parties agree to modify the deal, fine. Otherwise, no tears. Especially from a lender who is in the very business of entering into such deals over and over and over….
November 30, 2007 at 4:27 PM #105967Participant“Where is your responsibility on this? When you were giddy with equity how come you didnt offer to pay the bank more because you were paying less than full price for the asset when the banks gave money away and inflated the value of your property.”
____________________________________If I were answering these questions I would say that I did in fact pay full price for the property at the time I bought it. Regarding offering to pay the bank more at a later date due to an increase in value based upon events out of my control…well, I would absolutely be required to do so if that were part of my agreement with the lender. If that’s what the lender wanted, write it into the deal. Period.
On a purchase money loan in CA, the deal is the borrower agrees to make the payments and if they do not, the lender can take back the property. That’s it. As with any contract, if both parties agree to modify the deal, fine. Otherwise, no tears. Especially from a lender who is in the very business of entering into such deals over and over and over….
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.