[bearishgurl]

[quote=La Jolla Renter]I have heard more than a few times now, that you can buy 49% of a house from an owner, move in, then a few years later deed over the other 51% and keep the old prop 13 tax rate. Obviously this would not work with traditional financing, probably only owner financing???

Anyone know of such a strategy?[/quote]

LJ Renter, I take it you are referring to a wrap-around deed. You have completely erroneous information.

The only way to “pass on” a Prop. 13 entitlement is through an inter-spousal transfer deed or an intra-family tranfer deed or quitclaim deed to tenant-in-common (someone who was already on title) or a child. The only “quitclaim deeds” of Prop 13-eligible property I have seen were from parent to children with the same last names. If your child does not have the same last name, you must use an intrafamily transfer deed, or hyphenate their name on a quit-claim deed if this is the name they commonly use.

Original joint tenants always retain the right to the prop 13 entitlement after the death of the other joint tenant.

Your Change of Ownership Report you file with the County Assessor under oath will state who the party is that you are deeding the property to and the details of the “sale” so they can determine if it was an “arm’s length” transaction. If you fail to file one of these forms and you have deeded your property to someone other than a person already on title, then the assessor will be notified of the change-of-ownership when they get wind of the transfer thru the recorder’s office and send their owner-of-record a COO form that they will have to fill out in order to get the tax bills sent to the correct owner. If they fail to return the form, the property will lose its prop 13 eligibility. I do not know how the assessor would decide how much taxes to charge after that but my guess is that they would use comparable sales to set a market-rate tax on the property.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=La Jolla Renter]I have heard more than a few times now, that you can buy 49% of a house from an owner, move in, then a few years later deed over the other 51% and keep the old prop 13 tax rate. Obviously this would not work with traditional financing, probably only owner financing???

Anyone know of such a strategy?[/quote]

LJ Renter, I take it you are referring to a wrap-around deed. You have completely erroneous information.

The only way to “pass on” a Prop. 13 entitlement is through an inter-spousal transfer deed or an intra-family tranfer deed or quitclaim deed to tenant-in-common (someone who was already on title) or a child. The only “quitclaim deeds” of Prop 13-eligible property I have seen were from parent to children with the same last names. If your child does not have the same last name, you must use an intrafamily transfer deed, or hyphenate their name on a quit-claim deed if this is the name they commonly use.

Original joint tenants always retain the right to the prop 13 entitlement after the death of the other joint tenant.

Your Change of Ownership Report you file with the County Assessor under oath will state who the party is that you are deeding the property to and the details of the “sale” so they can determine if it was an “arm’s length” transaction. If you fail to file one of these forms and you have deeded your property to someone other than a person already on title, then the assessor will be notified of the change-of-ownership when they get wind of the transfer thru the recorder’s office and send their owner-of-record a COO form that they will have to fill out in order to get the tax bills sent to the correct owner. If they fail to return the form, the property will lose its prop 13 eligibility. I do not know how the assessor would decide how much taxes to charge after that but my guess is that they would use comparable sales to set a market-rate tax on the property.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=La Jolla Renter]I have heard more than a few times now, that you can buy 49% of a house from an owner, move in, then a few years later deed over the other 51% and keep the old prop 13 tax rate. Obviously this would not work with traditional financing, probably only owner financing???

Anyone know of such a strategy?[/quote]

LJ Renter, I take it you are referring to a wrap-around deed. You have completely erroneous information.

The only way to “pass on” a Prop. 13 entitlement is through an inter-spousal transfer deed or an intra-family tranfer deed or quitclaim deed to tenant-in-common (someone who was already on title) or a child. The only “quitclaim deeds” of Prop 13-eligible property I have seen were from parent to children with the same last names. If your child does not have the same last name, you must use an intrafamily transfer deed, or hyphenate their name on a quit-claim deed if this is the name they commonly use.

Original joint tenants always retain the right to the prop 13 entitlement after the death of the other joint tenant.

Your Change of Ownership Report you file with the County Assessor under oath will state who the party is that you are deeding the property to and the details of the “sale” so they can determine if it was an “arm’s length” transaction. If you fail to file one of these forms and you have deeded your property to someone other than a person already on title, then the assessor will be notified of the change-of-ownership when they get wind of the transfer thru the recorder’s office and send their owner-of-record a COO form that they will have to fill out in order to get the tax bills sent to the correct owner. If they fail to return the form, the property will lose its prop 13 eligibility. I do not know how the assessor would decide how much taxes to charge after that but my guess is that they would use comparable sales to set a market-rate tax on the property.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Arraya]So you are saying if we released 40,000 homes to the SD market it would be cleared up in a few months with just a little dip. Now I have not followed local RE numbers in about 2 years, but I seem to remember that being a little more that a few months supply

Coupled with an anemic job market I think you may be down playing the severity of the correction.[/quote]

Arraya, are you SURE there are 40,000 properties in SD County where a NOS has been filed and a sale on the courthouse steps is imminent?

Are you sure you’re not counting squatters where no NOD was ever filed, perpetually postponed filings of NOS or postponed foreclosure sales where a sale was delayed (perhaps due to a BK filing)?

I think it’s more like 10,000-15,000 and that would be spread out over multiple zips with some zips getting the lion’s share. Since a non-judicial foreclosure has a predictable cycle (exc. for a “20-30 day blip” to release the stay in the case of a BK filing), if the lenders exercised their timely right here, the REOs would appear on the market in waves and most would be quickly snapped up by buyers that don’t necessarily need a “job” to acquire these properties. You might want to ask a Pigg that lists REOs for lenders but IMO, in the better areas, trustees deeds and REOs are purchased with cash and rehabbed with cash. Some of the buyers are or have relatives that are . . . general contractors. I don’t know what the percentage is that buy distressed property with all cash, but would guess it’s >30%.

Another big chunk of distressed-property buyers may have >20% downpayment. A lower-income or self-employed loan applicant might not be as scrutinized by a lender if they are making a substantial downpayment combined with purchasing a property in a good area at a “distressed” price.

All downward or upward pressure on prices is a “micro” phenomenon, esp. in CA. In other words, if one-quarter of Otay Ranch residents were evicted in the next 30 days, this would have no bearing on Coronado housing prices.

Yes, I agree that your global “downward projection” could occur and cause a lot of pain in heavily overbuilt markets such as Florida, Arizona and Nevada or even inland CA, if several thousand REO’s were dumped on a particular metro market at once. Not so in CA “coastal communities,” i.e. < 5 mi. from the coast. I don't see the high unemployment rate here as a deterrent to anyone who wants to sweep up some REO's to fix up for family or rentals. Most potential buyers who work 40+ hr. weeks and/or have a lot of child-related duties DO NOT want to buy an REO unless they are relatively modernized because most need more work than they can physically or financially manage. In other words, most of the REO buyers are different animals than your garden-variety working parent and child(ren) family.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Arraya]So you are saying if we released 40,000 homes to the SD market it would be cleared up in a few months with just a little dip. Now I have not followed local RE numbers in about 2 years, but I seem to remember that being a little more that a few months supply

Coupled with an anemic job market I think you may be down playing the severity of the correction.[/quote]

Arraya, are you SURE there are 40,000 properties in SD County where a NOS has been filed and a sale on the courthouse steps is imminent?

Are you sure you’re not counting squatters where no NOD was ever filed, perpetually postponed filings of NOS or postponed foreclosure sales where a sale was delayed (perhaps due to a BK filing)?

I think it’s more like 10,000-15,000 and that would be spread out over multiple zips with some zips getting the lion’s share. Since a non-judicial foreclosure has a predictable cycle (exc. for a “20-30 day blip” to release the stay in the case of a BK filing), if the lenders exercised their timely right here, the REOs would appear on the market in waves and most would be quickly snapped up by buyers that don’t necessarily need a “job” to acquire these properties. You might want to ask a Pigg that lists REOs for lenders but IMO, in the better areas, trustees deeds and REOs are purchased with cash and rehabbed with cash. Some of the buyers are or have relatives that are . . . general contractors. I don’t know what the percentage is that buy distressed property with all cash, but would guess it’s >30%.

Another big chunk of distressed-property buyers may have >20% downpayment. A lower-income or self-employed loan applicant might not be as scrutinized by a lender if they are making a substantial downpayment combined with purchasing a property in a good area at a “distressed” price.

All downward or upward pressure on prices is a “micro” phenomenon, esp. in CA. In other words, if one-quarter of Otay Ranch residents were evicted in the next 30 days, this would have no bearing on Coronado housing prices.

Yes, I agree that your global “downward projection” could occur and cause a lot of pain in heavily overbuilt markets such as Florida, Arizona and Nevada or even inland CA, if several thousand REO’s were dumped on a particular metro market at once. Not so in CA “coastal communities,” i.e. < 5 mi. from the coast. I don't see the high unemployment rate here as a deterrent to anyone who wants to sweep up some REO's to fix up for family or rentals. Most potential buyers who work 40+ hr. weeks and/or have a lot of child-related duties DO NOT want to buy an REO unless they are relatively modernized because most need more work than they can physically or financially manage. In other words, most of the REO buyers are different animals than your garden-variety working parent and child(ren) family.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Arraya]So you are saying if we released 40,000 homes to the SD market it would be cleared up in a few months with just a little dip. Now I have not followed local RE numbers in about 2 years, but I seem to remember that being a little more that a few months supply

Coupled with an anemic job market I think you may be down playing the severity of the correction.[/quote]

Arraya, are you SURE there are 40,000 properties in SD County where a NOS has been filed and a sale on the courthouse steps is imminent?

Are you sure you’re not counting squatters where no NOD was ever filed, perpetually postponed filings of NOS or postponed foreclosure sales where a sale was delayed (perhaps due to a BK filing)?

I think it’s more like 10,000-15,000 and that would be spread out over multiple zips with some zips getting the lion’s share. Since a non-judicial foreclosure has a predictable cycle (exc. for a “20-30 day blip” to release the stay in the case of a BK filing), if the lenders exercised their timely right here, the REOs would appear on the market in waves and most would be quickly snapped up by buyers that don’t necessarily need a “job” to acquire these properties. You might want to ask a Pigg that lists REOs for lenders but IMO, in the better areas, trustees deeds and REOs are purchased with cash and rehabbed with cash. Some of the buyers are or have relatives that are . . . general contractors. I don’t know what the percentage is that buy distressed property with all cash, but would guess it’s >30%.

Another big chunk of distressed-property buyers may have >20% downpayment. A lower-income or self-employed loan applicant might not be as scrutinized by a lender if they are making a substantial downpayment combined with purchasing a property in a good area at a “distressed” price.

All downward or upward pressure on prices is a “micro” phenomenon, esp. in CA. In other words, if one-quarter of Otay Ranch residents were evicted in the next 30 days, this would have no bearing on Coronado housing prices.

Yes, I agree that your global “downward projection” could occur and cause a lot of pain in heavily overbuilt markets such as Florida, Arizona and Nevada or even inland CA, if several thousand REO’s were dumped on a particular metro market at once. Not so in CA “coastal communities,” i.e. < 5 mi. from the coast. I don't see the high unemployment rate here as a deterrent to anyone who wants to sweep up some REO's to fix up for family or rentals. Most potential buyers who work 40+ hr. weeks and/or have a lot of child-related duties DO NOT want to buy an REO unless they are relatively modernized because most need more work than they can physically or financially manage. In other words, most of the REO buyers are different animals than your garden-variety working parent and child(ren) family.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Arraya]So you are saying if we released 40,000 homes to the SD market it would be cleared up in a few months with just a little dip. Now I have not followed local RE numbers in about 2 years, but I seem to remember that being a little more that a few months supply

Coupled with an anemic job market I think you may be down playing the severity of the correction.[/quote]

Arraya, are you SURE there are 40,000 properties in SD County where a NOS has been filed and a sale on the courthouse steps is imminent?

Are you sure you’re not counting squatters where no NOD was ever filed, perpetually postponed filings of NOS or postponed foreclosure sales where a sale was delayed (perhaps due to a BK filing)?

I think it’s more like 10,000-15,000 and that would be spread out over multiple zips with some zips getting the lion’s share. Since a non-judicial foreclosure has a predictable cycle (exc. for a “20-30 day blip” to release the stay in the case of a BK filing), if the lenders exercised their timely right here, the REOs would appear on the market in waves and most would be quickly snapped up by buyers that don’t necessarily need a “job” to acquire these properties. You might want to ask a Pigg that lists REOs for lenders but IMO, in the better areas, trustees deeds and REOs are purchased with cash and rehabbed with cash. Some of the buyers are or have relatives that are . . . general contractors. I don’t know what the percentage is that buy distressed property with all cash, but would guess it’s >30%.

Another big chunk of distressed-property buyers may have >20% downpayment. A lower-income or self-employed loan applicant might not be as scrutinized by a lender if they are making a substantial downpayment combined with purchasing a property in a good area at a “distressed” price.

All downward or upward pressure on prices is a “micro” phenomenon, esp. in CA. In other words, if one-quarter of Otay Ranch residents were evicted in the next 30 days, this would have no bearing on Coronado housing prices.

Yes, I agree that your global “downward projection” could occur and cause a lot of pain in heavily overbuilt markets such as Florida, Arizona and Nevada or even inland CA, if several thousand REO’s were dumped on a particular metro market at once. Not so in CA “coastal communities,” i.e. < 5 mi. from the coast. I don't see the high unemployment rate here as a deterrent to anyone who wants to sweep up some REO's to fix up for family or rentals. Most potential buyers who work 40+ hr. weeks and/or have a lot of child-related duties DO NOT want to buy an REO unless they are relatively modernized because most need more work than they can physically or financially manage. In other words, most of the REO buyers are different animals than your garden-variety working parent and child(ren) family.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Arraya]So you are saying if we released 40,000 homes to the SD market it would be cleared up in a few months with just a little dip. Now I have not followed local RE numbers in about 2 years, but I seem to remember that being a little more that a few months supply

Coupled with an anemic job market I think you may be down playing the severity of the correction.[/quote]

Arraya, are you SURE there are 40,000 properties in SD County where a NOS has been filed and a sale on the courthouse steps is imminent?

Are you sure you’re not counting squatters where no NOD was ever filed, perpetually postponed filings of NOS or postponed foreclosure sales where a sale was delayed (perhaps due to a BK filing)?

I think it’s more like 10,000-15,000 and that would be spread out over multiple zips with some zips getting the lion’s share. Since a non-judicial foreclosure has a predictable cycle (exc. for a “20-30 day blip” to release the stay in the case of a BK filing), if the lenders exercised their timely right here, the REOs would appear on the market in waves and most would be quickly snapped up by buyers that don’t necessarily need a “job” to acquire these properties. You might want to ask a Pigg that lists REOs for lenders but IMO, in the better areas, trustees deeds and REOs are purchased with cash and rehabbed with cash. Some of the buyers are or have relatives that are . . . general contractors. I don’t know what the percentage is that buy distressed property with all cash, but would guess it’s >30%.

Another big chunk of distressed-property buyers may have >20% downpayment. A lower-income or self-employed loan applicant might not be as scrutinized by a lender if they are making a substantial downpayment combined with purchasing a property in a good area at a “distressed” price.

All downward or upward pressure on prices is a “micro” phenomenon, esp. in CA. In other words, if one-quarter of Otay Ranch residents were evicted in the next 30 days, this would have no bearing on Coronado housing prices.

Yes, I agree that your global “downward projection” could occur and cause a lot of pain in heavily overbuilt markets such as Florida, Arizona and Nevada or even inland CA, if several thousand REO’s were dumped on a particular metro market at once. Not so in CA “coastal communities,” i.e. < 5 mi. from the coast. I don't see the high unemployment rate here as a deterrent to anyone who wants to sweep up some REO's to fix up for family or rentals. Most potential buyers who work 40+ hr. weeks and/or have a lot of child-related duties DO NOT want to buy an REO unless they are relatively modernized because most need more work than they can physically or financially manage. In other words, most of the REO buyers are different animals than your garden-variety working parent and child(ren) family.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Arraya]Which would be a train because unleashing 7 million homes to the market, >40K in SD alone would crush prices and trigger more defaults and deflationary pressure.[/quote]

Had foreclosures been pursued timely starting over three years ago, we would have been much further along in a recovery. Because they weren’t, we now have a lot of squatters who aren’t going anywhere until they are evicted.

Even the defaults filed today are in different stages. I don’t see all the properties being marketed at once. Once a lender acquires a property, they still have to take time to ready it for sale. This should take under a month.

Isn’t the REO inventory that’s out there moving fast, often with multiple bids to choose from?

There might be some initial dip in values when all the squatters are sent packing in the same 3-6 mo. time period, but then the resulting REO’s will be quickly snapped up and we can get back to a “regular” market.

I just glanced at the Amended AB1639. It states, in pertinent part: “The bill would also provide that the timelines set forth in the provision governing the exercise of the power of sale, as specified, would be suspended until the completion of the program, as specified.”

Of course, this only applies if the TRUSTOR MEETS WITH HIS LENDER, SIGNS UP FOR THE PROGRAM, begins making payments equaling 50% of his mtg. pymts. AND provides ALL THE FINANCIALS THE BANK IS ASKING FOR with the 15-DAY TIME ALOTTED. This doesn’t allow for too much delay on the part of the delinquent borrower. The lender can reactivate the NOD during ANY point where the trustor falls down on his end of the bargain.

I don’t see this new program as being a HUGE success. It’s already been tried under various other acronyms but w/o the 50% pymt. requirement and the NOD/NOS hanging in the balance.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Arraya]Which would be a train because unleashing 7 million homes to the market, >40K in SD alone would crush prices and trigger more defaults and deflationary pressure.[/quote]

Had foreclosures been pursued timely starting over three years ago, we would have been much further along in a recovery. Because they weren’t, we now have a lot of squatters who aren’t going anywhere until they are evicted.

Even the defaults filed today are in different stages. I don’t see all the properties being marketed at once. Once a lender acquires a property, they still have to take time to ready it for sale. This should take under a month.

Isn’t the REO inventory that’s out there moving fast, often with multiple bids to choose from?

There might be some initial dip in values when all the squatters are sent packing in the same 3-6 mo. time period, but then the resulting REO’s will be quickly snapped up and we can get back to a “regular” market.

I just glanced at the Amended AB1639. It states, in pertinent part: “The bill would also provide that the timelines set forth in the provision governing the exercise of the power of sale, as specified, would be suspended until the completion of the program, as specified.”

Of course, this only applies if the TRUSTOR MEETS WITH HIS LENDER, SIGNS UP FOR THE PROGRAM, begins making payments equaling 50% of his mtg. pymts. AND provides ALL THE FINANCIALS THE BANK IS ASKING FOR with the 15-DAY TIME ALOTTED. This doesn’t allow for too much delay on the part of the delinquent borrower. The lender can reactivate the NOD during ANY point where the trustor falls down on his end of the bargain.

I don’t see this new program as being a HUGE success. It’s already been tried under various other acronyms but w/o the 50% pymt. requirement and the NOD/NOS hanging in the balance.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Arraya]Which would be a train because unleashing 7 million homes to the market, >40K in SD alone would crush prices and trigger more defaults and deflationary pressure.[/quote]

Had foreclosures been pursued timely starting over three years ago, we would have been much further along in a recovery. Because they weren’t, we now have a lot of squatters who aren’t going anywhere until they are evicted.

Even the defaults filed today are in different stages. I don’t see all the properties being marketed at once. Once a lender acquires a property, they still have to take time to ready it for sale. This should take under a month.

Isn’t the REO inventory that’s out there moving fast, often with multiple bids to choose from?

There might be some initial dip in values when all the squatters are sent packing in the same 3-6 mo. time period, but then the resulting REO’s will be quickly snapped up and we can get back to a “regular” market.

I just glanced at the Amended AB1639. It states, in pertinent part: “The bill would also provide that the timelines set forth in the provision governing the exercise of the power of sale, as specified, would be suspended until the completion of the program, as specified.”

Of course, this only applies if the TRUSTOR MEETS WITH HIS LENDER, SIGNS UP FOR THE PROGRAM, begins making payments equaling 50% of his mtg. pymts. AND provides ALL THE FINANCIALS THE BANK IS ASKING FOR with the 15-DAY TIME ALOTTED. This doesn’t allow for too much delay on the part of the delinquent borrower. The lender can reactivate the NOD during ANY point where the trustor falls down on his end of the bargain.

I don’t see this new program as being a HUGE success. It’s already been tried under various other acronyms but w/o the 50% pymt. requirement and the NOD/NOS hanging in the balance.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Arraya]Which would be a train because unleashing 7 million homes to the market, >40K in SD alone would crush prices and trigger more defaults and deflationary pressure.[/quote]

Had foreclosures been pursued timely starting over three years ago, we would have been much further along in a recovery. Because they weren’t, we now have a lot of squatters who aren’t going anywhere until they are evicted.

Even the defaults filed today are in different stages. I don’t see all the properties being marketed at once. Once a lender acquires a property, they still have to take time to ready it for sale. This should take under a month.

Isn’t the REO inventory that’s out there moving fast, often with multiple bids to choose from?

There might be some initial dip in values when all the squatters are sent packing in the same 3-6 mo. time period, but then the resulting REO’s will be quickly snapped up and we can get back to a “regular” market.

I just glanced at the Amended AB1639. It states, in pertinent part: “The bill would also provide that the timelines set forth in the provision governing the exercise of the power of sale, as specified, would be suspended until the completion of the program, as specified.”

Of course, this only applies if the TRUSTOR MEETS WITH HIS LENDER, SIGNS UP FOR THE PROGRAM, begins making payments equaling 50% of his mtg. pymts. AND provides ALL THE FINANCIALS THE BANK IS ASKING FOR with the 15-DAY TIME ALOTTED. This doesn’t allow for too much delay on the part of the delinquent borrower. The lender can reactivate the NOD during ANY point where the trustor falls down on his end of the bargain.

I don’t see this new program as being a HUGE success. It’s already been tried under various other acronyms but w/o the 50% pymt. requirement and the NOD/NOS hanging in the balance.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Arraya]Which would be a train because unleashing 7 million homes to the market, >40K in SD alone would crush prices and trigger more defaults and deflationary pressure.[/quote]

Had foreclosures been pursued timely starting over three years ago, we would have been much further along in a recovery. Because they weren’t, we now have a lot of squatters who aren’t going anywhere until they are evicted.

Even the defaults filed today are in different stages. I don’t see all the properties being marketed at once. Once a lender acquires a property, they still have to take time to ready it for sale. This should take under a month.

Isn’t the REO inventory that’s out there moving fast, often with multiple bids to choose from?

There might be some initial dip in values when all the squatters are sent packing in the same 3-6 mo. time period, but then the resulting REO’s will be quickly snapped up and we can get back to a “regular” market.

I just glanced at the Amended AB1639. It states, in pertinent part: “The bill would also provide that the timelines set forth in the provision governing the exercise of the power of sale, as specified, would be suspended until the completion of the program, as specified.”

Of course, this only applies if the TRUSTOR MEETS WITH HIS LENDER, SIGNS UP FOR THE PROGRAM, begins making payments equaling 50% of his mtg. pymts. AND provides ALL THE FINANCIALS THE BANK IS ASKING FOR with the 15-DAY TIME ALOTTED. This doesn’t allow for too much delay on the part of the delinquent borrower. The lender can reactivate the NOD during ANY point where the trustor falls down on his end of the bargain.

I don’t see this new program as being a HUGE success. It’s already been tried under various other acronyms but w/o the 50% pymt. requirement and the NOD/NOS hanging in the balance.

[bearishgurl]

Effective Demand, IMO, our Legislature is “grabbing at straws here.” If the actual bill is written like it is described in your link, it will surely die on the house floor.

It’s full of holes and doesn’t address the huge percentage of defaulters who have two loans or more.

What will compel a squatting trustor to have an in-person conversation with a lender who has filed an NOD on his property? If he does so, he will have to begin to make payments equal to 50% of his mo. mortgage payment. The only “carrot” dangling for the trustor to call his lender is possible “modification” of at least one of his/her mortgage loans. We all know that’s not gonna work because the trustor is too underwater with mostly recourse paper, which he/she has been living off of these past few years.

If it does by some stretch pass, it won’t delay the NOD time frames. The 30-day time limit to call and set up a time to meet with the lender is already built into the NOD’s legal waiting period. They will be concurrent.

I maintain that if all lenders exercised their timely right to foreclosure, we would eventually be able to see the light at the end of the tunnel.

[bearishgurl]

Effective Demand, IMO, our Legislature is “grabbing at straws here.” If the actual bill is written like it is described in your link, it will surely die on the house floor.

It’s full of holes and doesn’t address the huge percentage of defaulters who have two loans or more.

What will compel a squatting trustor to have an in-person conversation with a lender who has filed an NOD on his property? If he does so, he will have to begin to make payments equal to 50% of his mo. mortgage payment. The only “carrot” dangling for the trustor to call his lender is possible “modification” of at least one of his/her mortgage loans. We all know that’s not gonna work because the trustor is too underwater with mostly recourse paper, which he/she has been living off of these past few years.

If it does by some stretch pass, it won’t delay the NOD time frames. The 30-day time limit to call and set up a time to meet with the lender is already built into the NOD’s legal waiting period. They will be concurrent.

I maintain that if all lenders exercised their timely right to foreclosure, we would eventually be able to see the light at the end of the tunnel.

[Author]

Posts