Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
bearishgurl
ParticipantLOL – didn’t realize this was an old thread until now!! Still good topic, nonetheless 🙂
ParticipantLOL – didn’t realize this was an old thread until now!! Still good topic, nonetheless 🙂
ParticipantHuckleberry, I believe it’s a conscious decision on the part of the borrower to sign up for the following loan programs:
Interest-only loan; 30 due in 5 (or 7) loan; ARM w/neg-am (and pay min [non-amortized] rate); borrow the down payment; 125 LTV; pay several pts. up front; pay voluminous garbage charges and pay HOA(s), MR, street bonds, etc.
I think homebuyers got so caught up in erroneously thinking that a particular property was going to afford them a “lifestyle” they never had that they got mesmerized in the homebuying process. Their judgment was clouded because they didn’t want to even consider properties where they could actually live comfortably.
As for repeat cash-out refinancers and those who took out 2nds, 3rds and HELOCs, my experience has been that these owners don’t give a rat’s a** how much they are being charged or what happens to them or their home, they just want CASH ASAP. They have absolutely no regard for the future payments. These are conscious decisions to expose themselves to foreclosure.
Even if there is a severe language barrier with one or all the buyers, a doc-signing notary or lending professional at closing explains everything to them, taking at least 45 minutes and answering their questions in their language.
I don’t buy into the concept that buyers (and refinancers) were “victims.”
I don’t think banks should pay foreclosure victims any money at all. Most of these “victims” have already been squatting many months before it is time to move out. They have AMPLE notice to move before the sheriff’s comes in to evict them and sit their stuff outside. The TV networks portray a “poor foreclosure victim-mentality” for human-interest purposes. Sorry, I just don’t buy it.
ParticipantHuckleberry, I believe it’s a conscious decision on the part of the borrower to sign up for the following loan programs:
Interest-only loan; 30 due in 5 (or 7) loan; ARM w/neg-am (and pay min [non-amortized] rate); borrow the down payment; 125 LTV; pay several pts. up front; pay voluminous garbage charges and pay HOA(s), MR, street bonds, etc.
I think homebuyers got so caught up in erroneously thinking that a particular property was going to afford them a “lifestyle” they never had that they got mesmerized in the homebuying process. Their judgment was clouded because they didn’t want to even consider properties where they could actually live comfortably.
As for repeat cash-out refinancers and those who took out 2nds, 3rds and HELOCs, my experience has been that these owners don’t give a rat’s a** how much they are being charged or what happens to them or their home, they just want CASH ASAP. They have absolutely no regard for the future payments. These are conscious decisions to expose themselves to foreclosure.
Even if there is a severe language barrier with one or all the buyers, a doc-signing notary or lending professional at closing explains everything to them, taking at least 45 minutes and answering their questions in their language.
I don’t buy into the concept that buyers (and refinancers) were “victims.”
I don’t think banks should pay foreclosure victims any money at all. Most of these “victims” have already been squatting many months before it is time to move out. They have AMPLE notice to move before the sheriff’s comes in to evict them and sit their stuff outside. The TV networks portray a “poor foreclosure victim-mentality” for human-interest purposes. Sorry, I just don’t buy it.
ParticipantHuckleberry, I believe it’s a conscious decision on the part of the borrower to sign up for the following loan programs:
Interest-only loan; 30 due in 5 (or 7) loan; ARM w/neg-am (and pay min [non-amortized] rate); borrow the down payment; 125 LTV; pay several pts. up front; pay voluminous garbage charges and pay HOA(s), MR, street bonds, etc.
I think homebuyers got so caught up in erroneously thinking that a particular property was going to afford them a “lifestyle” they never had that they got mesmerized in the homebuying process. Their judgment was clouded because they didn’t want to even consider properties where they could actually live comfortably.
As for repeat cash-out refinancers and those who took out 2nds, 3rds and HELOCs, my experience has been that these owners don’t give a rat’s a** how much they are being charged or what happens to them or their home, they just want CASH ASAP. They have absolutely no regard for the future payments. These are conscious decisions to expose themselves to foreclosure.
Even if there is a severe language barrier with one or all the buyers, a doc-signing notary or lending professional at closing explains everything to them, taking at least 45 minutes and answering their questions in their language.
I don’t buy into the concept that buyers (and refinancers) were “victims.”
I don’t think banks should pay foreclosure victims any money at all. Most of these “victims” have already been squatting many months before it is time to move out. They have AMPLE notice to move before the sheriff’s comes in to evict them and sit their stuff outside. The TV networks portray a “poor foreclosure victim-mentality” for human-interest purposes. Sorry, I just don’t buy it.
ParticipantHuckleberry, I believe it’s a conscious decision on the part of the borrower to sign up for the following loan programs:
Interest-only loan; 30 due in 5 (or 7) loan; ARM w/neg-am (and pay min [non-amortized] rate); borrow the down payment; 125 LTV; pay several pts. up front; pay voluminous garbage charges and pay HOA(s), MR, street bonds, etc.
I think homebuyers got so caught up in erroneously thinking that a particular property was going to afford them a “lifestyle” they never had that they got mesmerized in the homebuying process. Their judgment was clouded because they didn’t want to even consider properties where they could actually live comfortably.
As for repeat cash-out refinancers and those who took out 2nds, 3rds and HELOCs, my experience has been that these owners don’t give a rat’s a** how much they are being charged or what happens to them or their home, they just want CASH ASAP. They have absolutely no regard for the future payments. These are conscious decisions to expose themselves to foreclosure.
Even if there is a severe language barrier with one or all the buyers, a doc-signing notary or lending professional at closing explains everything to them, taking at least 45 minutes and answering their questions in their language.
I don’t buy into the concept that buyers (and refinancers) were “victims.”
I don’t think banks should pay foreclosure victims any money at all. Most of these “victims” have already been squatting many months before it is time to move out. They have AMPLE notice to move before the sheriff’s comes in to evict them and sit their stuff outside. The TV networks portray a “poor foreclosure victim-mentality” for human-interest purposes. Sorry, I just don’t buy it.
ParticipantHuckleberry, I believe it’s a conscious decision on the part of the borrower to sign up for the following loan programs:
Interest-only loan; 30 due in 5 (or 7) loan; ARM w/neg-am (and pay min [non-amortized] rate); borrow the down payment; 125 LTV; pay several pts. up front; pay voluminous garbage charges and pay HOA(s), MR, street bonds, etc.
I think homebuyers got so caught up in erroneously thinking that a particular property was going to afford them a “lifestyle” they never had that they got mesmerized in the homebuying process. Their judgment was clouded because they didn’t want to even consider properties where they could actually live comfortably.
As for repeat cash-out refinancers and those who took out 2nds, 3rds and HELOCs, my experience has been that these owners don’t give a rat’s a** how much they are being charged or what happens to them or their home, they just want CASH ASAP. They have absolutely no regard for the future payments. These are conscious decisions to expose themselves to foreclosure.
Even if there is a severe language barrier with one or all the buyers, a doc-signing notary or lending professional at closing explains everything to them, taking at least 45 minutes and answering their questions in their language.
I don’t buy into the concept that buyers (and refinancers) were “victims.”
I don’t think banks should pay foreclosure victims any money at all. Most of these “victims” have already been squatting many months before it is time to move out. They have AMPLE notice to move before the sheriff’s comes in to evict them and sit their stuff outside. The TV networks portray a “poor foreclosure victim-mentality” for human-interest purposes. Sorry, I just don’t buy it.
Participant[quote=Huckleberry]Seems the discussion has gotten a bit off topic…
Does anyone else know of people (and their zip) whom have walked away?[/quote]
91902 family of 3 (1 minor child). Purchased 10/04 for $635K. Borrowed 500K interest-only. Mom left and eventually moved into rental with other man. Refused to pay her half of mtg. payment which adjusted from $1800 to $2800 a few mos. after she left. Dad filed for divorce, took out about $90K to split with mom, and stopped paying. The 1st TD foreclosed on 12/09. Not sure if its been marketed yet. Dad’s still living there, as far as I know, renting from bank until it sells. Both bachelor’s degrees and good jobs.
I think “walking away” encompasses many risky behaviors such as bleeding cash out of a property. Those that do this KNOW they are jeopardizing the roof over they (and their families’) heads but want the cash.
Huckleberry, I’m guessing that what you want to know is what is the extent that banks will PAY to get the defaulting trustor to leave quickly and quietly? I can’t answer that question. Since lenders have the right to a timely non-judicial foreclosure in CA, they would do well to exercise this right and not allow ANY squatting at all. Perhaps they are afraid of their collateral being stripped of fixtures, etc. by a bitter trustor while they wait to be evicted in a long, drawn out foreclosure process. I think this probably happens occasionally because banks loaned to anyone who could fog a mirror in recent years. Some of these people could care less what happens to their credit rating. Many of these persons probably never should have been property owners to begin with.
Participant[quote=Huckleberry]Seems the discussion has gotten a bit off topic…
Does anyone else know of people (and their zip) whom have walked away?[/quote]
91902 family of 3 (1 minor child). Purchased 10/04 for $635K. Borrowed 500K interest-only. Mom left and eventually moved into rental with other man. Refused to pay her half of mtg. payment which adjusted from $1800 to $2800 a few mos. after she left. Dad filed for divorce, took out about $90K to split with mom, and stopped paying. The 1st TD foreclosed on 12/09. Not sure if its been marketed yet. Dad’s still living there, as far as I know, renting from bank until it sells. Both bachelor’s degrees and good jobs.
I think “walking away” encompasses many risky behaviors such as bleeding cash out of a property. Those that do this KNOW they are jeopardizing the roof over they (and their families’) heads but want the cash.
Huckleberry, I’m guessing that what you want to know is what is the extent that banks will PAY to get the defaulting trustor to leave quickly and quietly? I can’t answer that question. Since lenders have the right to a timely non-judicial foreclosure in CA, they would do well to exercise this right and not allow ANY squatting at all. Perhaps they are afraid of their collateral being stripped of fixtures, etc. by a bitter trustor while they wait to be evicted in a long, drawn out foreclosure process. I think this probably happens occasionally because banks loaned to anyone who could fog a mirror in recent years. Some of these people could care less what happens to their credit rating. Many of these persons probably never should have been property owners to begin with.
Participant[quote=Huckleberry]Seems the discussion has gotten a bit off topic…
Does anyone else know of people (and their zip) whom have walked away?[/quote]
91902 family of 3 (1 minor child). Purchased 10/04 for $635K. Borrowed 500K interest-only. Mom left and eventually moved into rental with other man. Refused to pay her half of mtg. payment which adjusted from $1800 to $2800 a few mos. after she left. Dad filed for divorce, took out about $90K to split with mom, and stopped paying. The 1st TD foreclosed on 12/09. Not sure if its been marketed yet. Dad’s still living there, as far as I know, renting from bank until it sells. Both bachelor’s degrees and good jobs.
I think “walking away” encompasses many risky behaviors such as bleeding cash out of a property. Those that do this KNOW they are jeopardizing the roof over they (and their families’) heads but want the cash.
Huckleberry, I’m guessing that what you want to know is what is the extent that banks will PAY to get the defaulting trustor to leave quickly and quietly? I can’t answer that question. Since lenders have the right to a timely non-judicial foreclosure in CA, they would do well to exercise this right and not allow ANY squatting at all. Perhaps they are afraid of their collateral being stripped of fixtures, etc. by a bitter trustor while they wait to be evicted in a long, drawn out foreclosure process. I think this probably happens occasionally because banks loaned to anyone who could fog a mirror in recent years. Some of these people could care less what happens to their credit rating. Many of these persons probably never should have been property owners to begin with.
Participant[quote=Huckleberry]Seems the discussion has gotten a bit off topic…
Does anyone else know of people (and their zip) whom have walked away?[/quote]
91902 family of 3 (1 minor child). Purchased 10/04 for $635K. Borrowed 500K interest-only. Mom left and eventually moved into rental with other man. Refused to pay her half of mtg. payment which adjusted from $1800 to $2800 a few mos. after she left. Dad filed for divorce, took out about $90K to split with mom, and stopped paying. The 1st TD foreclosed on 12/09. Not sure if its been marketed yet. Dad’s still living there, as far as I know, renting from bank until it sells. Both bachelor’s degrees and good jobs.
I think “walking away” encompasses many risky behaviors such as bleeding cash out of a property. Those that do this KNOW they are jeopardizing the roof over they (and their families’) heads but want the cash.
Huckleberry, I’m guessing that what you want to know is what is the extent that banks will PAY to get the defaulting trustor to leave quickly and quietly? I can’t answer that question. Since lenders have the right to a timely non-judicial foreclosure in CA, they would do well to exercise this right and not allow ANY squatting at all. Perhaps they are afraid of their collateral being stripped of fixtures, etc. by a bitter trustor while they wait to be evicted in a long, drawn out foreclosure process. I think this probably happens occasionally because banks loaned to anyone who could fog a mirror in recent years. Some of these people could care less what happens to their credit rating. Many of these persons probably never should have been property owners to begin with.
Participant[quote=Huckleberry]Seems the discussion has gotten a bit off topic…
Does anyone else know of people (and their zip) whom have walked away?[/quote]
91902 family of 3 (1 minor child). Purchased 10/04 for $635K. Borrowed 500K interest-only. Mom left and eventually moved into rental with other man. Refused to pay her half of mtg. payment which adjusted from $1800 to $2800 a few mos. after she left. Dad filed for divorce, took out about $90K to split with mom, and stopped paying. The 1st TD foreclosed on 12/09. Not sure if its been marketed yet. Dad’s still living there, as far as I know, renting from bank until it sells. Both bachelor’s degrees and good jobs.
I think “walking away” encompasses many risky behaviors such as bleeding cash out of a property. Those that do this KNOW they are jeopardizing the roof over they (and their families’) heads but want the cash.
Huckleberry, I’m guessing that what you want to know is what is the extent that banks will PAY to get the defaulting trustor to leave quickly and quietly? I can’t answer that question. Since lenders have the right to a timely non-judicial foreclosure in CA, they would do well to exercise this right and not allow ANY squatting at all. Perhaps they are afraid of their collateral being stripped of fixtures, etc. by a bitter trustor while they wait to be evicted in a long, drawn out foreclosure process. I think this probably happens occasionally because banks loaned to anyone who could fog a mirror in recent years. Some of these people could care less what happens to their credit rating. Many of these persons probably never should have been property owners to begin with.
Participant[quote=fuggy] . . . California employers like to employ locals who bought their home in the 1970s. Cuz you can pay them little. . . [/quote]
fuggy, CA employers DO NOT like to employ individuals “who bought their home in the ’70’s.” Do the math, here. A person who bought a home in 1979 is at least 54 years of age now and probably at least 60. Original Prop 13 homeowners are 55 years old on up. For the health insurance issues mentioned on this thread, AGE DISCRIMINATION IS ALIVE AND WELL in employment and will continue to be so.
Part of the low-wage problem in this region relative to others is our very porous border. I personally know several PROFESSIONALS, including lawyers, living in MX and working in SD County. It is MUCH CHEAPER to live in Tijuana than SD. This will never change.
Participant[quote=fuggy] . . . California employers like to employ locals who bought their home in the 1970s. Cuz you can pay them little. . . [/quote]
fuggy, CA employers DO NOT like to employ individuals “who bought their home in the ’70’s.” Do the math, here. A person who bought a home in 1979 is at least 54 years of age now and probably at least 60. Original Prop 13 homeowners are 55 years old on up. For the health insurance issues mentioned on this thread, AGE DISCRIMINATION IS ALIVE AND WELL in employment and will continue to be so.
Part of the low-wage problem in this region relative to others is our very porous border. I personally know several PROFESSIONALS, including lawyers, living in MX and working in SD County. It is MUCH CHEAPER to live in Tijuana than SD. This will never change.
-
AuthorPosts
