[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]

In a personal trust, any equity or “cash-out” refi taken out would be legally classified as “recourse” paper, the same as for an individual or joint tenancy. The trustees are free at any time to use one trustee’s individual income to qualify for a loan, or their collective incomes. However, it would take ALL the trustees’ signatures on the trust deed and note to apply for a loan against the property, regardless of whose income/assets are used to qualify.[/quote]

Not sure what a “personal trust” is, though technically, yeah, that’s probably all accurate. But as a practical matter, lenders don’t lend to trusts, except in very rare situations. Almost invariably, (even moreso with run-of-the-mill living trusts) the lender will insist title is held by individuals, not trusts, and the borrower are individuals, not trusts. So title is transferred out of a trust, into the name of the grantor, the loan is recorded, and then the property is transferred back into the trust.

Something to do with the near impossibility of successfully bringing collection actions against trusts. I only mention it here because these particular borrowers could be the exception. You gotta know someone or have some special influence for lenders to allow it. (I’m pretty sure that it’s not allowed for conforming loans.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]

In a personal trust, any equity or “cash-out” refi taken out would be legally classified as “recourse” paper, the same as for an individual or joint tenancy. The trustees are free at any time to use one trustee’s individual income to qualify for a loan, or their collective incomes. However, it would take ALL the trustees’ signatures on the trust deed and note to apply for a loan against the property, regardless of whose income/assets are used to qualify.[/quote]

Not sure what a “personal trust” is, though technically, yeah, that’s probably all accurate. But as a practical matter, lenders don’t lend to trusts, except in very rare situations. Almost invariably, (even moreso with run-of-the-mill living trusts) the lender will insist title is held by individuals, not trusts, and the borrower are individuals, not trusts. So title is transferred out of a trust, into the name of the grantor, the loan is recorded, and then the property is transferred back into the trust.

Something to do with the near impossibility of successfully bringing collection actions against trusts. I only mention it here because these particular borrowers could be the exception. You gotta know someone or have some special influence for lenders to allow it. (I’m pretty sure that it’s not allowed for conforming loans.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]

In a personal trust, any equity or “cash-out” refi taken out would be legally classified as “recourse” paper, the same as for an individual or joint tenancy. The trustees are free at any time to use one trustee’s individual income to qualify for a loan, or their collective incomes. However, it would take ALL the trustees’ signatures on the trust deed and note to apply for a loan against the property, regardless of whose income/assets are used to qualify.[/quote]

Not sure what a “personal trust” is, though technically, yeah, that’s probably all accurate. But as a practical matter, lenders don’t lend to trusts, except in very rare situations. Almost invariably, (even moreso with run-of-the-mill living trusts) the lender will insist title is held by individuals, not trusts, and the borrower are individuals, not trusts. So title is transferred out of a trust, into the name of the grantor, the loan is recorded, and then the property is transferred back into the trust.

Something to do with the near impossibility of successfully bringing collection actions against trusts. I only mention it here because these particular borrowers could be the exception. You gotta know someone or have some special influence for lenders to allow it. (I’m pretty sure that it’s not allowed for conforming loans.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]

In a personal trust, any equity or “cash-out” refi taken out would be legally classified as “recourse” paper, the same as for an individual or joint tenancy. The trustees are free at any time to use one trustee’s individual income to qualify for a loan, or their collective incomes. However, it would take ALL the trustees’ signatures on the trust deed and note to apply for a loan against the property, regardless of whose income/assets are used to qualify.[/quote]

Not sure what a “personal trust” is, though technically, yeah, that’s probably all accurate. But as a practical matter, lenders don’t lend to trusts, except in very rare situations. Almost invariably, (even moreso with run-of-the-mill living trusts) the lender will insist title is held by individuals, not trusts, and the borrower are individuals, not trusts. So title is transferred out of a trust, into the name of the grantor, the loan is recorded, and then the property is transferred back into the trust.

Something to do with the near impossibility of successfully bringing collection actions against trusts. I only mention it here because these particular borrowers could be the exception. You gotta know someone or have some special influence for lenders to allow it. (I’m pretty sure that it’s not allowed for conforming loans.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=UCGal]What? No reactions to a former San Diego Mayor being in foreclosure after some serious equity withdrawal?

I thought it was interesting. LOL[/quote]

I find it pretty interesting. I snooped around for awhile, and I think i saw somewhere that the unit i was looking at was purchased in 2006. Was I wrong on that? Was there significant equity withdrawal after that? Also, I think at least the portion owned by former madam mayor was owned by a trust. (Maybe her sister’s portion too, I can’t remember what i saw.) Always problematic getting loans for trusts. Unless of course you know someone at the lender. If the trust was actually the borrower, even on a refi, as a practical matter it makes the loan non-recourse as to that borrower. Obviously both owners would be good for any shortage.

Very interesting.

[SK in CV]

[quote=UCGal]What? No reactions to a former San Diego Mayor being in foreclosure after some serious equity withdrawal?

I thought it was interesting. LOL[/quote]

I find it pretty interesting. I snooped around for awhile, and I think i saw somewhere that the unit i was looking at was purchased in 2006. Was I wrong on that? Was there significant equity withdrawal after that? Also, I think at least the portion owned by former madam mayor was owned by a trust. (Maybe her sister’s portion too, I can’t remember what i saw.) Always problematic getting loans for trusts. Unless of course you know someone at the lender. If the trust was actually the borrower, even on a refi, as a practical matter it makes the loan non-recourse as to that borrower. Obviously both owners would be good for any shortage.

Very interesting.

[SK in CV]

[quote=UCGal]What? No reactions to a former San Diego Mayor being in foreclosure after some serious equity withdrawal?

I thought it was interesting. LOL[/quote]

I find it pretty interesting. I snooped around for awhile, and I think i saw somewhere that the unit i was looking at was purchased in 2006. Was I wrong on that? Was there significant equity withdrawal after that? Also, I think at least the portion owned by former madam mayor was owned by a trust. (Maybe her sister’s portion too, I can’t remember what i saw.) Always problematic getting loans for trusts. Unless of course you know someone at the lender. If the trust was actually the borrower, even on a refi, as a practical matter it makes the loan non-recourse as to that borrower. Obviously both owners would be good for any shortage.

Very interesting.

[SK in CV]

[quote=UCGal]What? No reactions to a former San Diego Mayor being in foreclosure after some serious equity withdrawal?

I thought it was interesting. LOL[/quote]

I find it pretty interesting. I snooped around for awhile, and I think i saw somewhere that the unit i was looking at was purchased in 2006. Was I wrong on that? Was there significant equity withdrawal after that? Also, I think at least the portion owned by former madam mayor was owned by a trust. (Maybe her sister’s portion too, I can’t remember what i saw.) Always problematic getting loans for trusts. Unless of course you know someone at the lender. If the trust was actually the borrower, even on a refi, as a practical matter it makes the loan non-recourse as to that borrower. Obviously both owners would be good for any shortage.

Very interesting.

[SK in CV]

[quote=UCGal]What? No reactions to a former San Diego Mayor being in foreclosure after some serious equity withdrawal?

I thought it was interesting. LOL[/quote]

I find it pretty interesting. I snooped around for awhile, and I think i saw somewhere that the unit i was looking at was purchased in 2006. Was I wrong on that? Was there significant equity withdrawal after that? Also, I think at least the portion owned by former madam mayor was owned by a trust. (Maybe her sister’s portion too, I can’t remember what i saw.) Always problematic getting loans for trusts. Unless of course you know someone at the lender. If the trust was actually the borrower, even on a refi, as a practical matter it makes the loan non-recourse as to that borrower. Obviously both owners would be good for any shortage.

Very interesting.

[SK in CV]

[quote=flu]
SK, yes. Your BB is free. Because your carrier subsidizes it…But trust me, you’re paying for it (or your company is paying for it) via the monthly service plan.

[/quote]

Yeah, the carrier is subsidizing for sure, to the tune of at least a few hundred on most every phone. But my point was, there are plans available that are nowhere near $100 a month, or even $70 a month. My 5 phones average $40/month, 3 with data plans.

[SK in CV]

[quote=flu]
SK, yes. Your BB is free. Because your carrier subsidizes it…But trust me, you’re paying for it (or your company is paying for it) via the monthly service plan.

[/quote]

Yeah, the carrier is subsidizing for sure, to the tune of at least a few hundred on most every phone. But my point was, there are plans available that are nowhere near $100 a month, or even $70 a month. My 5 phones average $40/month, 3 with data plans.

[SK in CV]

[quote=flu]
SK, yes. Your BB is free. Because your carrier subsidizes it…But trust me, you’re paying for it (or your company is paying for it) via the monthly service plan.

[/quote]

Yeah, the carrier is subsidizing for sure, to the tune of at least a few hundred on most every phone. But my point was, there are plans available that are nowhere near $100 a month, or even $70 a month. My 5 phones average $40/month, 3 with data plans.

[SK in CV]

[quote=flu]
SK, yes. Your BB is free. Because your carrier subsidizes it…But trust me, you’re paying for it (or your company is paying for it) via the monthly service plan.

[/quote]

Yeah, the carrier is subsidizing for sure, to the tune of at least a few hundred on most every phone. But my point was, there are plans available that are nowhere near $100 a month, or even $70 a month. My 5 phones average $40/month, 3 with data plans.

[SK in CV]

[quote=flu]
SK, yes. Your BB is free. Because your carrier subsidizes it…But trust me, you’re paying for it (or your company is paying for it) via the monthly service plan.

[/quote]

Yeah, the carrier is subsidizing for sure, to the tune of at least a few hundred on most every phone. But my point was, there are plans available that are nowhere near $100 a month, or even $70 a month. My 5 phones average $40/month, 3 with data plans.

[SK in CV]

I don’t really know how people are spending all that money. I don’t know why either. I’m reasonably sure most don’t have to. I know I don’t.

Mine cost me nothing. (It’s a blackberry bold 9000. It isn’t top of the line, newest and greatest, but it is the one I wanted, because it has BIG keys and i have BIG fingers. And it does do most everything I want, other than take good photos.) It was refurbished, and free with a new 2 year contract, directly from AT&T. My daughters deal was even better. It cost $10 (a blackberry bold 9700) with a new 2 year contract, and it was through an outside vendor so there was an added bonus. AT&T never updated their records and she’s STILL eligible for deep discounts with a new contract.

And the total monthly cost isn’t anywhere near $100. For 5 phones, i pay around $200 a month with all the minutes we need and all the data we need for 3 phones. (2 aren’t smartphones.)

I do kinda have the hots for the new blackberry torch. I could get it now for $100 with a new contract from AT&T. I haven’t looked at outside vendors yet, but if and when it’s available for free that way, I’ll probably do it.

[Author]

Posts