[permabear]

[quote=Troubled Loner]They have depleted their IRA’s and pensions down to nothing, they can no longer pay the medical bills, and they are considering bankruptcy, but really don’t want to (they don’t feel it is right ethically).[/quote]

If they can display hardship to the insurance company, they should be able to settle the bills for much lower than their face value. Kinda like a short sale.

I have an uncle in a similar position. He had to have emergency bypass surgery while not covered by insurance. The total bill was $150k or so. He paid a very nominal amount each month – I think $50 – and eventually the company realized he wasn’t going to pay it off. He showed his financial situation, and the company settled for something like $5000 total.

As a side note to others, retirement accounts are protected against debt collectors. The worst thing you can do is deplete your IRA/401k paying bills.

http://www.nedap.org/hotline/exempt.html

[permabear]

[quote=Troubled Loner]They have depleted their IRA’s and pensions down to nothing, they can no longer pay the medical bills, and they are considering bankruptcy, but really don’t want to (they don’t feel it is right ethically).[/quote]

If they can display hardship to the insurance company, they should be able to settle the bills for much lower than their face value. Kinda like a short sale.

I have an uncle in a similar position. He had to have emergency bypass surgery while not covered by insurance. The total bill was $150k or so. He paid a very nominal amount each month – I think $50 – and eventually the company realized he wasn’t going to pay it off. He showed his financial situation, and the company settled for something like $5000 total.

As a side note to others, retirement accounts are protected against debt collectors. The worst thing you can do is deplete your IRA/401k paying bills.

http://www.nedap.org/hotline/exempt.html

[permabear]

[quote=Troubled Loner]They have depleted their IRA’s and pensions down to nothing, they can no longer pay the medical bills, and they are considering bankruptcy, but really don’t want to (they don’t feel it is right ethically).[/quote]

If they can display hardship to the insurance company, they should be able to settle the bills for much lower than their face value. Kinda like a short sale.

I have an uncle in a similar position. He had to have emergency bypass surgery while not covered by insurance. The total bill was $150k or so. He paid a very nominal amount each month – I think $50 – and eventually the company realized he wasn’t going to pay it off. He showed his financial situation, and the company settled for something like $5000 total.

As a side note to others, retirement accounts are protected against debt collectors. The worst thing you can do is deplete your IRA/401k paying bills.

http://www.nedap.org/hotline/exempt.html

[permabear]

Thanks for all the advice. Here’s what I ended up doing as of now.

The buyer got initial approvals from BofA higher-ups to approve their loan. We’ve agreed on an addendum to extend escrow by 7 days. They’re going to pay me a set fee per diem for each day until escrow actually closes, to cover my costs (so if it actually takes 5 or 9 days, I get 5 or 9 days additional payment).

In addition, I sent them a Notice to Perform with 48 hours to remove all contingencies. They have stated they will do so, so that their earnest money deposit is now losable if their loan falls through again. I’m sending them a Notice to Perform for completeness sake.

It seems like a reasonable compromise, while still allowing me recourse. If they fail to fund their loan and close by the new escrow date, I have the option of sending them a Demand to Close Escrow with 72 hours notice. If they are unable to close at that point, I’ll keep their earnest money deposit and relist.

[permabear]

Thanks for all the advice. Here’s what I ended up doing as of now.

The buyer got initial approvals from BofA higher-ups to approve their loan. We’ve agreed on an addendum to extend escrow by 7 days. They’re going to pay me a set fee per diem for each day until escrow actually closes, to cover my costs (so if it actually takes 5 or 9 days, I get 5 or 9 days additional payment).

In addition, I sent them a Notice to Perform with 48 hours to remove all contingencies. They have stated they will do so, so that their earnest money deposit is now losable if their loan falls through again. I’m sending them a Notice to Perform for completeness sake.

It seems like a reasonable compromise, while still allowing me recourse. If they fail to fund their loan and close by the new escrow date, I have the option of sending them a Demand to Close Escrow with 72 hours notice. If they are unable to close at that point, I’ll keep their earnest money deposit and relist.

[permabear]

Thanks for all the advice. Here’s what I ended up doing as of now.

The buyer got initial approvals from BofA higher-ups to approve their loan. We’ve agreed on an addendum to extend escrow by 7 days. They’re going to pay me a set fee per diem for each day until escrow actually closes, to cover my costs (so if it actually takes 5 or 9 days, I get 5 or 9 days additional payment).

In addition, I sent them a Notice to Perform with 48 hours to remove all contingencies. They have stated they will do so, so that their earnest money deposit is now losable if their loan falls through again. I’m sending them a Notice to Perform for completeness sake.

It seems like a reasonable compromise, while still allowing me recourse. If they fail to fund their loan and close by the new escrow date, I have the option of sending them a Demand to Close Escrow with 72 hours notice. If they are unable to close at that point, I’ll keep their earnest money deposit and relist.

[permabear]

Thanks for all the advice. Here’s what I ended up doing as of now.

The buyer got initial approvals from BofA higher-ups to approve their loan. We’ve agreed on an addendum to extend escrow by 7 days. They’re going to pay me a set fee per diem for each day until escrow actually closes, to cover my costs (so if it actually takes 5 or 9 days, I get 5 or 9 days additional payment).

In addition, I sent them a Notice to Perform with 48 hours to remove all contingencies. They have stated they will do so, so that their earnest money deposit is now losable if their loan falls through again. I’m sending them a Notice to Perform for completeness sake.

It seems like a reasonable compromise, while still allowing me recourse. If they fail to fund their loan and close by the new escrow date, I have the option of sending them a Demand to Close Escrow with 72 hours notice. If they are unable to close at that point, I’ll keep their earnest money deposit and relist.

[permabear]

Thanks for all the advice. Here’s what I ended up doing as of now.

The buyer got initial approvals from BofA higher-ups to approve their loan. We’ve agreed on an addendum to extend escrow by 7 days. They’re going to pay me a set fee per diem for each day until escrow actually closes, to cover my costs (so if it actually takes 5 or 9 days, I get 5 or 9 days additional payment).

In addition, I sent them a Notice to Perform with 48 hours to remove all contingencies. They have stated they will do so, so that their earnest money deposit is now losable if their loan falls through again. I’m sending them a Notice to Perform for completeness sake.

It seems like a reasonable compromise, while still allowing me recourse. If they fail to fund their loan and close by the new escrow date, I have the option of sending them a Demand to Close Escrow with 72 hours notice. If they are unable to close at that point, I’ll keep their earnest money deposit and relist.

[permabear]

[quote=briansd1][quote=SD Realtor]There is no problem with BofA. The problem is with the buyer or the home. Underwriting guidelines are not soft and squishy. When someone does not get a loan it is never the banks problem. While guidelines vary with lenders when somebody has to do start from scratch that can be a red flag. [/quote]

The title of this thread implies BofA did something unethical. I’m all for blaming the banks when they deserve the blame, but not in this case.

The problem all along was too much easy credit to unqualified borrowers.[/quote]

Maybe, but I think it’s also a case of the pendulum swinging too far back in the other direction. Lenders are now hyper-critical and will sneeze at anything that is not 100% perfect.

I spoke with the realtor in depth about WHY the buyer got denied. I don’t have a denial letter yet, but I do believe the realtor is telling the truth. Bottom line, the person that is buying my home is in the TV business (a news anchor, actually) – and their employment is based on contracts. Their current contract is up w/i the next 6 months. Despite the fact that this particular anchor has approximately a 0% chance of not having their contract renewed, BofA balked.

In this case, I think BofA really is “at fault” – though just in the sense of being irrationally hyper-conservative. The realtor said they are escalating the loan w/i BofA to see if they can get a higher up to review it.

[permabear]

[quote=briansd1][quote=SD Realtor]There is no problem with BofA. The problem is with the buyer or the home. Underwriting guidelines are not soft and squishy. When someone does not get a loan it is never the banks problem. While guidelines vary with lenders when somebody has to do start from scratch that can be a red flag. [/quote]

The title of this thread implies BofA did something unethical. I’m all for blaming the banks when they deserve the blame, but not in this case.

The problem all along was too much easy credit to unqualified borrowers.[/quote]

Maybe, but I think it’s also a case of the pendulum swinging too far back in the other direction. Lenders are now hyper-critical and will sneeze at anything that is not 100% perfect.

I spoke with the realtor in depth about WHY the buyer got denied. I don’t have a denial letter yet, but I do believe the realtor is telling the truth. Bottom line, the person that is buying my home is in the TV business (a news anchor, actually) – and their employment is based on contracts. Their current contract is up w/i the next 6 months. Despite the fact that this particular anchor has approximately a 0% chance of not having their contract renewed, BofA balked.

In this case, I think BofA really is “at fault” – though just in the sense of being irrationally hyper-conservative. The realtor said they are escalating the loan w/i BofA to see if they can get a higher up to review it.

[permabear]

[quote=briansd1][quote=SD Realtor]There is no problem with BofA. The problem is with the buyer or the home. Underwriting guidelines are not soft and squishy. When someone does not get a loan it is never the banks problem. While guidelines vary with lenders when somebody has to do start from scratch that can be a red flag. [/quote]

The title of this thread implies BofA did something unethical. I’m all for blaming the banks when they deserve the blame, but not in this case.

The problem all along was too much easy credit to unqualified borrowers.[/quote]

Maybe, but I think it’s also a case of the pendulum swinging too far back in the other direction. Lenders are now hyper-critical and will sneeze at anything that is not 100% perfect.

I spoke with the realtor in depth about WHY the buyer got denied. I don’t have a denial letter yet, but I do believe the realtor is telling the truth. Bottom line, the person that is buying my home is in the TV business (a news anchor, actually) – and their employment is based on contracts. Their current contract is up w/i the next 6 months. Despite the fact that this particular anchor has approximately a 0% chance of not having their contract renewed, BofA balked.

In this case, I think BofA really is “at fault” – though just in the sense of being irrationally hyper-conservative. The realtor said they are escalating the loan w/i BofA to see if they can get a higher up to review it.

[permabear]

[quote=briansd1][quote=SD Realtor]There is no problem with BofA. The problem is with the buyer or the home. Underwriting guidelines are not soft and squishy. When someone does not get a loan it is never the banks problem. While guidelines vary with lenders when somebody has to do start from scratch that can be a red flag. [/quote]

The title of this thread implies BofA did something unethical. I’m all for blaming the banks when they deserve the blame, but not in this case.

The problem all along was too much easy credit to unqualified borrowers.[/quote]

Maybe, but I think it’s also a case of the pendulum swinging too far back in the other direction. Lenders are now hyper-critical and will sneeze at anything that is not 100% perfect.

I spoke with the realtor in depth about WHY the buyer got denied. I don’t have a denial letter yet, but I do believe the realtor is telling the truth. Bottom line, the person that is buying my home is in the TV business (a news anchor, actually) – and their employment is based on contracts. Their current contract is up w/i the next 6 months. Despite the fact that this particular anchor has approximately a 0% chance of not having their contract renewed, BofA balked.

In this case, I think BofA really is “at fault” – though just in the sense of being irrationally hyper-conservative. The realtor said they are escalating the loan w/i BofA to see if they can get a higher up to review it.

[permabear]

[quote=briansd1][quote=SD Realtor]There is no problem with BofA. The problem is with the buyer or the home. Underwriting guidelines are not soft and squishy. When someone does not get a loan it is never the banks problem. While guidelines vary with lenders when somebody has to do start from scratch that can be a red flag. [/quote]

The title of this thread implies BofA did something unethical. I’m all for blaming the banks when they deserve the blame, but not in this case.

The problem all along was too much easy credit to unqualified borrowers.[/quote]

Maybe, but I think it’s also a case of the pendulum swinging too far back in the other direction. Lenders are now hyper-critical and will sneeze at anything that is not 100% perfect.

I spoke with the realtor in depth about WHY the buyer got denied. I don’t have a denial letter yet, but I do believe the realtor is telling the truth. Bottom line, the person that is buying my home is in the TV business (a news anchor, actually) – and their employment is based on contracts. Their current contract is up w/i the next 6 months. Despite the fact that this particular anchor has approximately a 0% chance of not having their contract renewed, BofA balked.

In this case, I think BofA really is “at fault” – though just in the sense of being irrationally hyper-conservative. The realtor said they are escalating the loan w/i BofA to see if they can get a higher up to review it.

[permabear]

[quote=walterwhite]not legla advice, but what about a rent contract with really strict terms in addition to the big deposit. something like, “in the event the sale of the house fails to occur, and the buy is still in the property living under the terms of this Lease, and it becomes necessary for the Seller to evict the buyer because the Buyer refuses to vacate, then the Buyer agrees that the Seller shall be entitled to liquidated damage sin the amount of $50,000.00. With a big deposit and a big judgment hanging over their heads, they’d probably leave. maybe.[/quote]

That’s one of those things that sounds good on paper, but I think would be difficult to make reality. I had a band teacher back in high school who had a parent steal a whole bunch of instruments and sell them. He took the guy to court and the judge ruled in his favor, but the guy didn’t have any money, so the “solution” was that the band teacher could go into the guy’s house and take stuff of equivalent value!

I think it’s easiest to just tell them that they’ll have to stay in one of those temporary corporate housing places. I would rather avoid any type of drama.

Anyone have input on whether I should relist the house and get back-up offers, or even go so far as to cancel their offer and start over? I should mention my home is very desirable, ocean views, highly-upgraded, and it literally had offers on day one. The negative part is that we’ve moved out, so the house is vacant now (has really nice MLS pics, though).

[permabear]

[quote=walterwhite]not legla advice, but what about a rent contract with really strict terms in addition to the big deposit. something like, “in the event the sale of the house fails to occur, and the buy is still in the property living under the terms of this Lease, and it becomes necessary for the Seller to evict the buyer because the Buyer refuses to vacate, then the Buyer agrees that the Seller shall be entitled to liquidated damage sin the amount of $50,000.00. With a big deposit and a big judgment hanging over their heads, they’d probably leave. maybe.[/quote]

That’s one of those things that sounds good on paper, but I think would be difficult to make reality. I had a band teacher back in high school who had a parent steal a whole bunch of instruments and sell them. He took the guy to court and the judge ruled in his favor, but the guy didn’t have any money, so the “solution” was that the band teacher could go into the guy’s house and take stuff of equivalent value!

I think it’s easiest to just tell them that they’ll have to stay in one of those temporary corporate housing places. I would rather avoid any type of drama.

Anyone have input on whether I should relist the house and get back-up offers, or even go so far as to cancel their offer and start over? I should mention my home is very desirable, ocean views, highly-upgraded, and it literally had offers on day one. The negative part is that we’ve moved out, so the house is vacant now (has really nice MLS pics, though).

[Author]

Posts