Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
DaCounselor
Participant“What about 2nd mortgage? Can I walk away from it too? Or they would come after my other asset?
2nds are recourse in California. They can come after you. If they feel they can’t get anything from you, they can 1099 you for loan loss forgiveness which gets taxed at income rates for the equivalent $$.”
________________________________If the 2nd was purchase money, like the 20% 2nd of an 80/20 deal, it is non-recourse.
Participant“What about 2nd mortgage? Can I walk away from it too? Or they would come after my other asset?
2nds are recourse in California. They can come after you. If they feel they can’t get anything from you, they can 1099 you for loan loss forgiveness which gets taxed at income rates for the equivalent $$.”
________________________________If the 2nd was purchase money, like the 20% 2nd of an 80/20 deal, it is non-recourse.
Participant“What about 2nd mortgage? Can I walk away from it too? Or they would come after my other asset?
2nds are recourse in California. They can come after you. If they feel they can’t get anything from you, they can 1099 you for loan loss forgiveness which gets taxed at income rates for the equivalent $$.”
________________________________If the 2nd was purchase money, like the 20% 2nd of an 80/20 deal, it is non-recourse.
Participant“What about 2nd mortgage? Can I walk away from it too? Or they would come after my other asset?
2nds are recourse in California. They can come after you. If they feel they can’t get anything from you, they can 1099 you for loan loss forgiveness which gets taxed at income rates for the equivalent $$.”
________________________________If the 2nd was purchase money, like the 20% 2nd of an 80/20 deal, it is non-recourse.
ParticipantLA_R – I don’t think that freezing the interest rate or in some other way modifying an existing purchase money loan would automatically change the characterization of the loan from non-recourse to recourse. I don’think this issue has been tested in the courts yet, and it very well may be down the road by some lenders who have modified purchase money loans. Nevertheless, my feeling is that a court would determine that modifications to a purchase money loan does not equate to a “re-finance” per se, and therefore the loan would remain non-recourse. Certainly anyone who agrees to a modification would want to pay close attention to any mod agreement they may be required to sign to determine if there is any language regarding recourse.
ParticipantLA_R – I don’t think that freezing the interest rate or in some other way modifying an existing purchase money loan would automatically change the characterization of the loan from non-recourse to recourse. I don’think this issue has been tested in the courts yet, and it very well may be down the road by some lenders who have modified purchase money loans. Nevertheless, my feeling is that a court would determine that modifications to a purchase money loan does not equate to a “re-finance” per se, and therefore the loan would remain non-recourse. Certainly anyone who agrees to a modification would want to pay close attention to any mod agreement they may be required to sign to determine if there is any language regarding recourse.
ParticipantLA_R – I don’t think that freezing the interest rate or in some other way modifying an existing purchase money loan would automatically change the characterization of the loan from non-recourse to recourse. I don’think this issue has been tested in the courts yet, and it very well may be down the road by some lenders who have modified purchase money loans. Nevertheless, my feeling is that a court would determine that modifications to a purchase money loan does not equate to a “re-finance” per se, and therefore the loan would remain non-recourse. Certainly anyone who agrees to a modification would want to pay close attention to any mod agreement they may be required to sign to determine if there is any language regarding recourse.
ParticipantLA_R – I don’t think that freezing the interest rate or in some other way modifying an existing purchase money loan would automatically change the characterization of the loan from non-recourse to recourse. I don’think this issue has been tested in the courts yet, and it very well may be down the road by some lenders who have modified purchase money loans. Nevertheless, my feeling is that a court would determine that modifications to a purchase money loan does not equate to a “re-finance” per se, and therefore the loan would remain non-recourse. Certainly anyone who agrees to a modification would want to pay close attention to any mod agreement they may be required to sign to determine if there is any language regarding recourse.
ParticipantLA_R – I don’t think that freezing the interest rate or in some other way modifying an existing purchase money loan would automatically change the characterization of the loan from non-recourse to recourse. I don’think this issue has been tested in the courts yet, and it very well may be down the road by some lenders who have modified purchase money loans. Nevertheless, my feeling is that a court would determine that modifications to a purchase money loan does not equate to a “re-finance” per se, and therefore the loan would remain non-recourse. Certainly anyone who agrees to a modification would want to pay close attention to any mod agreement they may be required to sign to determine if there is any language regarding recourse.
ParticipantI disagree with the morality card being played by some here. My first reaction is to chuckle heartily, with no offense to anyone, as I recall my own history in the world of commercial and residential finance as well as my dear longtime friends’ experience in the mortgage industry. You want to talk about morals, you better start by putting that entire idustry under the microscope. There are plenty of intelligent folks on this board, so I don’t think I need to tell you what you will see. ‘Nuff said there.
And that’s not to say that just because the lending industry is, ahem, imperfect, that it gives the consumer carte blanche to act in an “immoral” fashion. I simply think that interjecting morality into the equation is absolutely unecessary so long as the letter of the contract aka mortgage agreement is followed. I’m not inclined to beat a dead horse here – I’ve stated my position on this topic before. I will just add that to question the morality of a borrower who opts to act in his/her best interest, within the clear parameters of a written contract, with the full knowledge and understanding of the party that drafted the contract and which party is in the very business of entering into such deals and very well knows the risks and rewards…aah, you see where I am going.
How wonderful for some 7 figure net worth folks, that they would not elect to pursue a completely legal, contractually enumerated option available to them in order to avoid a potentially massive decrease in net worth and who knows what additional consequential damages. The simple fact of the matter is that most folks’ economic picture would be substantially impacted by a few thousand dollars a month savings in rent versus mortgage payment. Substantially. So instead of building a rainy day fund, taking out a disability insurance policy ($$), funding one’s children’s education, etc, etc, one should adhere to a deal that they have no obligation to do so in the name of “morality”?? Hmm, given what could be accomplished with the $$ saved, I would suspect that some may argue that it would be “immoral” to NOT mail in the keys. But I digress, as I just don’t agree with the morality card being played, not in this game. Rant off.
ParticipantI disagree with the morality card being played by some here. My first reaction is to chuckle heartily, with no offense to anyone, as I recall my own history in the world of commercial and residential finance as well as my dear longtime friends’ experience in the mortgage industry. You want to talk about morals, you better start by putting that entire idustry under the microscope. There are plenty of intelligent folks on this board, so I don’t think I need to tell you what you will see. ‘Nuff said there.
And that’s not to say that just because the lending industry is, ahem, imperfect, that it gives the consumer carte blanche to act in an “immoral” fashion. I simply think that interjecting morality into the equation is absolutely unecessary so long as the letter of the contract aka mortgage agreement is followed. I’m not inclined to beat a dead horse here – I’ve stated my position on this topic before. I will just add that to question the morality of a borrower who opts to act in his/her best interest, within the clear parameters of a written contract, with the full knowledge and understanding of the party that drafted the contract and which party is in the very business of entering into such deals and very well knows the risks and rewards…aah, you see where I am going.
How wonderful for some 7 figure net worth folks, that they would not elect to pursue a completely legal, contractually enumerated option available to them in order to avoid a potentially massive decrease in net worth and who knows what additional consequential damages. The simple fact of the matter is that most folks’ economic picture would be substantially impacted by a few thousand dollars a month savings in rent versus mortgage payment. Substantially. So instead of building a rainy day fund, taking out a disability insurance policy ($$), funding one’s children’s education, etc, etc, one should adhere to a deal that they have no obligation to do so in the name of “morality”?? Hmm, given what could be accomplished with the $$ saved, I would suspect that some may argue that it would be “immoral” to NOT mail in the keys. But I digress, as I just don’t agree with the morality card being played, not in this game. Rant off.
ParticipantI disagree with the morality card being played by some here. My first reaction is to chuckle heartily, with no offense to anyone, as I recall my own history in the world of commercial and residential finance as well as my dear longtime friends’ experience in the mortgage industry. You want to talk about morals, you better start by putting that entire idustry under the microscope. There are plenty of intelligent folks on this board, so I don’t think I need to tell you what you will see. ‘Nuff said there.
And that’s not to say that just because the lending industry is, ahem, imperfect, that it gives the consumer carte blanche to act in an “immoral” fashion. I simply think that interjecting morality into the equation is absolutely unecessary so long as the letter of the contract aka mortgage agreement is followed. I’m not inclined to beat a dead horse here – I’ve stated my position on this topic before. I will just add that to question the morality of a borrower who opts to act in his/her best interest, within the clear parameters of a written contract, with the full knowledge and understanding of the party that drafted the contract and which party is in the very business of entering into such deals and very well knows the risks and rewards…aah, you see where I am going.
How wonderful for some 7 figure net worth folks, that they would not elect to pursue a completely legal, contractually enumerated option available to them in order to avoid a potentially massive decrease in net worth and who knows what additional consequential damages. The simple fact of the matter is that most folks’ economic picture would be substantially impacted by a few thousand dollars a month savings in rent versus mortgage payment. Substantially. So instead of building a rainy day fund, taking out a disability insurance policy ($$), funding one’s children’s education, etc, etc, one should adhere to a deal that they have no obligation to do so in the name of “morality”?? Hmm, given what could be accomplished with the $$ saved, I would suspect that some may argue that it would be “immoral” to NOT mail in the keys. But I digress, as I just don’t agree with the morality card being played, not in this game. Rant off.
ParticipantI disagree with the morality card being played by some here. My first reaction is to chuckle heartily, with no offense to anyone, as I recall my own history in the world of commercial and residential finance as well as my dear longtime friends’ experience in the mortgage industry. You want to talk about morals, you better start by putting that entire idustry under the microscope. There are plenty of intelligent folks on this board, so I don’t think I need to tell you what you will see. ‘Nuff said there.
And that’s not to say that just because the lending industry is, ahem, imperfect, that it gives the consumer carte blanche to act in an “immoral” fashion. I simply think that interjecting morality into the equation is absolutely unecessary so long as the letter of the contract aka mortgage agreement is followed. I’m not inclined to beat a dead horse here – I’ve stated my position on this topic before. I will just add that to question the morality of a borrower who opts to act in his/her best interest, within the clear parameters of a written contract, with the full knowledge and understanding of the party that drafted the contract and which party is in the very business of entering into such deals and very well knows the risks and rewards…aah, you see where I am going.
How wonderful for some 7 figure net worth folks, that they would not elect to pursue a completely legal, contractually enumerated option available to them in order to avoid a potentially massive decrease in net worth and who knows what additional consequential damages. The simple fact of the matter is that most folks’ economic picture would be substantially impacted by a few thousand dollars a month savings in rent versus mortgage payment. Substantially. So instead of building a rainy day fund, taking out a disability insurance policy ($$), funding one’s children’s education, etc, etc, one should adhere to a deal that they have no obligation to do so in the name of “morality”?? Hmm, given what could be accomplished with the $$ saved, I would suspect that some may argue that it would be “immoral” to NOT mail in the keys. But I digress, as I just don’t agree with the morality card being played, not in this game. Rant off.
ParticipantI disagree with the morality card being played by some here. My first reaction is to chuckle heartily, with no offense to anyone, as I recall my own history in the world of commercial and residential finance as well as my dear longtime friends’ experience in the mortgage industry. You want to talk about morals, you better start by putting that entire idustry under the microscope. There are plenty of intelligent folks on this board, so I don’t think I need to tell you what you will see. ‘Nuff said there.
And that’s not to say that just because the lending industry is, ahem, imperfect, that it gives the consumer carte blanche to act in an “immoral” fashion. I simply think that interjecting morality into the equation is absolutely unecessary so long as the letter of the contract aka mortgage agreement is followed. I’m not inclined to beat a dead horse here – I’ve stated my position on this topic before. I will just add that to question the morality of a borrower who opts to act in his/her best interest, within the clear parameters of a written contract, with the full knowledge and understanding of the party that drafted the contract and which party is in the very business of entering into such deals and very well knows the risks and rewards…aah, you see where I am going.
How wonderful for some 7 figure net worth folks, that they would not elect to pursue a completely legal, contractually enumerated option available to them in order to avoid a potentially massive decrease in net worth and who knows what additional consequential damages. The simple fact of the matter is that most folks’ economic picture would be substantially impacted by a few thousand dollars a month savings in rent versus mortgage payment. Substantially. So instead of building a rainy day fund, taking out a disability insurance policy ($$), funding one’s children’s education, etc, etc, one should adhere to a deal that they have no obligation to do so in the name of “morality”?? Hmm, given what could be accomplished with the $$ saved, I would suspect that some may argue that it would be “immoral” to NOT mail in the keys. But I digress, as I just don’t agree with the morality card being played, not in this game. Rant off.
-
AuthorPosts