[SK in CV]

[quote=Veritas]Obama Care, The Next Generation: Time to go, Grampa.
by Pat Buchanan
Beneath this controversy lie conflicting concepts about life. To traditional Christians, God is the author of life and innocent life, be it of the unborn or terminally ill, may not be taken. Heroic means to keep the dying alive are not necessary, but to advance a natural death by assisting a suicide or euthanasia is a violation of the God’s commandment, Thou shalt not kill.

To secularists and atheists who believe life begins and ends here, however, the woman alone decides whether her unborn child lives, and the terminally ill and elderly, and those closest to them, have the final say as to when their lives shall end. As it would be cruel to let one’s cat or dog spend its last months or weeks in terrible pain, they argue, why would one allow one’s parents to endure such agony?

In the early 20th century, with the influence of Social Darwinism, the utilitarian concept that not all life is worth living or preserving prevailed. In Virginia and other states, sterilization laws were upheld by the Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who said famously, “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

In Weimar Germany, two professors published “The Permission to Destroy Life Unworthy of Life,” which advocated assisted suicide for the terminally ill and “empty shells of human beings.” Hitler’s Third Reich, marrying Social Darwinism to Aryan racial supremacy, carried the concepts to their logical if horrible conclusion.

Revulsion to Nazism led to revival of the Christian ideal of the sanctity of all human life and the moral obligation of all to defend it. But the utilitarian idea — of the quality of life trumping the faith-based idea of the sanctity of life — has made a strong comeback.

And the logic remains inexorable. If government intends to “bend the curve” of rising health care costs, and half of those costs are incurred in the last six months of life, and physician-counselors will be sent to the seriously ill to advise them of what costs will no longer be covered, and what their options are — what do you think is going to be Option A?

Let’s hope you make the right decision when it is your time to go….[/quote]

Beautifully written by a racist fear monger. But it has nothing to do with any proposal now in congress. It is without basis. It is devoid of any conclusive truth.

Currently, the insurance companies constantly try to “bend the curve” of rising health care costs. They do this in order to increase profits. So the more important question is not whether you trust the government to make the right decision, but whether you trust an insurance company. Too many times, for too many people, that question has already been answered. With cancellations, with denials of claims, with death by spreadsheet. For the more than 40 million currently uninsured, the question is moot.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Veritas]Obama Care, The Next Generation: Time to go, Grampa.
by Pat Buchanan
Beneath this controversy lie conflicting concepts about life. To traditional Christians, God is the author of life and innocent life, be it of the unborn or terminally ill, may not be taken. Heroic means to keep the dying alive are not necessary, but to advance a natural death by assisting a suicide or euthanasia is a violation of the God’s commandment, Thou shalt not kill.

To secularists and atheists who believe life begins and ends here, however, the woman alone decides whether her unborn child lives, and the terminally ill and elderly, and those closest to them, have the final say as to when their lives shall end. As it would be cruel to let one’s cat or dog spend its last months or weeks in terrible pain, they argue, why would one allow one’s parents to endure such agony?

In the early 20th century, with the influence of Social Darwinism, the utilitarian concept that not all life is worth living or preserving prevailed. In Virginia and other states, sterilization laws were upheld by the Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who said famously, “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

In Weimar Germany, two professors published “The Permission to Destroy Life Unworthy of Life,” which advocated assisted suicide for the terminally ill and “empty shells of human beings.” Hitler’s Third Reich, marrying Social Darwinism to Aryan racial supremacy, carried the concepts to their logical if horrible conclusion.

Revulsion to Nazism led to revival of the Christian ideal of the sanctity of all human life and the moral obligation of all to defend it. But the utilitarian idea — of the quality of life trumping the faith-based idea of the sanctity of life — has made a strong comeback.

And the logic remains inexorable. If government intends to “bend the curve” of rising health care costs, and half of those costs are incurred in the last six months of life, and physician-counselors will be sent to the seriously ill to advise them of what costs will no longer be covered, and what their options are — what do you think is going to be Option A?

Let’s hope you make the right decision when it is your time to go….[/quote]

Beautifully written by a racist fear monger. But it has nothing to do with any proposal now in congress. It is without basis. It is devoid of any conclusive truth.

Currently, the insurance companies constantly try to “bend the curve” of rising health care costs. They do this in order to increase profits. So the more important question is not whether you trust the government to make the right decision, but whether you trust an insurance company. Too many times, for too many people, that question has already been answered. With cancellations, with denials of claims, with death by spreadsheet. For the more than 40 million currently uninsured, the question is moot.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Veritas]Obama Care, The Next Generation: Time to go, Grampa.
by Pat Buchanan
Beneath this controversy lie conflicting concepts about life. To traditional Christians, God is the author of life and innocent life, be it of the unborn or terminally ill, may not be taken. Heroic means to keep the dying alive are not necessary, but to advance a natural death by assisting a suicide or euthanasia is a violation of the God’s commandment, Thou shalt not kill.

To secularists and atheists who believe life begins and ends here, however, the woman alone decides whether her unborn child lives, and the terminally ill and elderly, and those closest to them, have the final say as to when their lives shall end. As it would be cruel to let one’s cat or dog spend its last months or weeks in terrible pain, they argue, why would one allow one’s parents to endure such agony?

In the early 20th century, with the influence of Social Darwinism, the utilitarian concept that not all life is worth living or preserving prevailed. In Virginia and other states, sterilization laws were upheld by the Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who said famously, “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

In Weimar Germany, two professors published “The Permission to Destroy Life Unworthy of Life,” which advocated assisted suicide for the terminally ill and “empty shells of human beings.” Hitler’s Third Reich, marrying Social Darwinism to Aryan racial supremacy, carried the concepts to their logical if horrible conclusion.

Revulsion to Nazism led to revival of the Christian ideal of the sanctity of all human life and the moral obligation of all to defend it. But the utilitarian idea — of the quality of life trumping the faith-based idea of the sanctity of life — has made a strong comeback.

And the logic remains inexorable. If government intends to “bend the curve” of rising health care costs, and half of those costs are incurred in the last six months of life, and physician-counselors will be sent to the seriously ill to advise them of what costs will no longer be covered, and what their options are — what do you think is going to be Option A?

Let’s hope you make the right decision when it is your time to go….[/quote]

Beautifully written by a racist fear monger. But it has nothing to do with any proposal now in congress. It is without basis. It is devoid of any conclusive truth.

Currently, the insurance companies constantly try to “bend the curve” of rising health care costs. They do this in order to increase profits. So the more important question is not whether you trust the government to make the right decision, but whether you trust an insurance company. Too many times, for too many people, that question has already been answered. With cancellations, with denials of claims, with death by spreadsheet. For the more than 40 million currently uninsured, the question is moot.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Veritas]Obama Care, The Next Generation: Time to go, Grampa.
by Pat Buchanan
Beneath this controversy lie conflicting concepts about life. To traditional Christians, God is the author of life and innocent life, be it of the unborn or terminally ill, may not be taken. Heroic means to keep the dying alive are not necessary, but to advance a natural death by assisting a suicide or euthanasia is a violation of the God’s commandment, Thou shalt not kill.

To secularists and atheists who believe life begins and ends here, however, the woman alone decides whether her unborn child lives, and the terminally ill and elderly, and those closest to them, have the final say as to when their lives shall end. As it would be cruel to let one’s cat or dog spend its last months or weeks in terrible pain, they argue, why would one allow one’s parents to endure such agony?

In the early 20th century, with the influence of Social Darwinism, the utilitarian concept that not all life is worth living or preserving prevailed. In Virginia and other states, sterilization laws were upheld by the Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who said famously, “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

In Weimar Germany, two professors published “The Permission to Destroy Life Unworthy of Life,” which advocated assisted suicide for the terminally ill and “empty shells of human beings.” Hitler’s Third Reich, marrying Social Darwinism to Aryan racial supremacy, carried the concepts to their logical if horrible conclusion.

Revulsion to Nazism led to revival of the Christian ideal of the sanctity of all human life and the moral obligation of all to defend it. But the utilitarian idea — of the quality of life trumping the faith-based idea of the sanctity of life — has made a strong comeback.

And the logic remains inexorable. If government intends to “bend the curve” of rising health care costs, and half of those costs are incurred in the last six months of life, and physician-counselors will be sent to the seriously ill to advise them of what costs will no longer be covered, and what their options are — what do you think is going to be Option A?

Let’s hope you make the right decision when it is your time to go….[/quote]

Beautifully written by a racist fear monger. But it has nothing to do with any proposal now in congress. It is without basis. It is devoid of any conclusive truth.

Currently, the insurance companies constantly try to “bend the curve” of rising health care costs. They do this in order to increase profits. So the more important question is not whether you trust the government to make the right decision, but whether you trust an insurance company. Too many times, for too many people, that question has already been answered. With cancellations, with denials of claims, with death by spreadsheet. For the more than 40 million currently uninsured, the question is moot.

[SK in CV]

[quote=pepsi]That is not true that there is no recourse after the auction. The 2nd lien holder get wiped out FOR THE BUYER. They can still pursue the seller for the deficiency in the court.

Google “2nd lien holder pursue recourse” and you will see many lenders are doing it. Especially for large amount.

Here is an article specifically talking about the 2nd lien holder with recourse loan:

http://www.trulia.com/blog/hannah_fliegel/2009/05/non-recourse_loans_vs_re%5B/quote%5D

That’s kind of right and wrong. If the foreclosure action is done by a senior lien holder and junior lien holders are wiped out, then the junior lien holder(s) have not exhaused their remedies, they can still turn the debt over to collection and/or litigate. But if it is the junior lien holder that forecloses, then they have no remedy after the auction, they’re finished.

That’s why 2nd lien holders often have some extra weight to throw around during short sale negotiations. Even if they have no equity, they can extort some amount in exchange for walking away. It’s in the best interest of both the borrower and the senior lien holder for them to agree if it avoids a trustee sale. Even if it is paid by a senior lien holder.

[SK in CV]

[quote=pepsi]That is not true that there is no recourse after the auction. The 2nd lien holder get wiped out FOR THE BUYER. They can still pursue the seller for the deficiency in the court.

Google “2nd lien holder pursue recourse” and you will see many lenders are doing it. Especially for large amount.

Here is an article specifically talking about the 2nd lien holder with recourse loan:

http://www.trulia.com/blog/hannah_fliegel/2009/05/non-recourse_loans_vs_re%5B/quote%5D

That’s kind of right and wrong. If the foreclosure action is done by a senior lien holder and junior lien holders are wiped out, then the junior lien holder(s) have not exhaused their remedies, they can still turn the debt over to collection and/or litigate. But if it is the junior lien holder that forecloses, then they have no remedy after the auction, they’re finished.

That’s why 2nd lien holders often have some extra weight to throw around during short sale negotiations. Even if they have no equity, they can extort some amount in exchange for walking away. It’s in the best interest of both the borrower and the senior lien holder for them to agree if it avoids a trustee sale. Even if it is paid by a senior lien holder.

[SK in CV]

[quote=pepsi]That is not true that there is no recourse after the auction. The 2nd lien holder get wiped out FOR THE BUYER. They can still pursue the seller for the deficiency in the court.

Google “2nd lien holder pursue recourse” and you will see many lenders are doing it. Especially for large amount.

Here is an article specifically talking about the 2nd lien holder with recourse loan:

http://www.trulia.com/blog/hannah_fliegel/2009/05/non-recourse_loans_vs_re%5B/quote%5D

That’s kind of right and wrong. If the foreclosure action is done by a senior lien holder and junior lien holders are wiped out, then the junior lien holder(s) have not exhaused their remedies, they can still turn the debt over to collection and/or litigate. But if it is the junior lien holder that forecloses, then they have no remedy after the auction, they’re finished.

That’s why 2nd lien holders often have some extra weight to throw around during short sale negotiations. Even if they have no equity, they can extort some amount in exchange for walking away. It’s in the best interest of both the borrower and the senior lien holder for them to agree if it avoids a trustee sale. Even if it is paid by a senior lien holder.

[SK in CV]

[quote=pepsi]That is not true that there is no recourse after the auction. The 2nd lien holder get wiped out FOR THE BUYER. They can still pursue the seller for the deficiency in the court.

Google “2nd lien holder pursue recourse” and you will see many lenders are doing it. Especially for large amount.

Here is an article specifically talking about the 2nd lien holder with recourse loan:

http://www.trulia.com/blog/hannah_fliegel/2009/05/non-recourse_loans_vs_re%5B/quote%5D

That’s kind of right and wrong. If the foreclosure action is done by a senior lien holder and junior lien holders are wiped out, then the junior lien holder(s) have not exhaused their remedies, they can still turn the debt over to collection and/or litigate. But if it is the junior lien holder that forecloses, then they have no remedy after the auction, they’re finished.

That’s why 2nd lien holders often have some extra weight to throw around during short sale negotiations. Even if they have no equity, they can extort some amount in exchange for walking away. It’s in the best interest of both the borrower and the senior lien holder for them to agree if it avoids a trustee sale. Even if it is paid by a senior lien holder.

[SK in CV]

[quote=pepsi]That is not true that there is no recourse after the auction. The 2nd lien holder get wiped out FOR THE BUYER. They can still pursue the seller for the deficiency in the court.

Google “2nd lien holder pursue recourse” and you will see many lenders are doing it. Especially for large amount.

Here is an article specifically talking about the 2nd lien holder with recourse loan:

http://www.trulia.com/blog/hannah_fliegel/2009/05/non-recourse_loans_vs_re%5B/quote%5D

That’s kind of right and wrong. If the foreclosure action is done by a senior lien holder and junior lien holders are wiped out, then the junior lien holder(s) have not exhaused their remedies, they can still turn the debt over to collection and/or litigate. But if it is the junior lien holder that forecloses, then they have no remedy after the auction, they’re finished.

That’s why 2nd lien holders often have some extra weight to throw around during short sale negotiations. Even if they have no equity, they can extort some amount in exchange for walking away. It’s in the best interest of both the borrower and the senior lien holder for them to agree if it avoids a trustee sale. Even if it is paid by a senior lien holder.

[SK in CV]

[quote=pepsi][quote=socrattt]
but I recently heard of a situation where the 2nd wanted nothing to do with the short sale because they found the buyer already had another mortgage he was current on. The property ended up going through the foreclosure process and after looking at the numbers the 2nd didn’t make a dime.[/quote]

If you are the 2nd lien holder, would you agree on a short sale that give you 10 cent (or even 1 cent) on a dollar or would you go after the seller for the full amount after the auction ?

[/quote]

I think maybe you misunderstand a lienholders rights with regards to deficiencly judgements. California is a one-shot state. Either the lien holder goes after the property through traditional (non-judicial) foreclosure (NOD through trustee sale) or after the borrower through a judicial foreclosure process. Can’t do both. Once there has been a foreclosure auction, it’s over with. In California, a deficiency judgement may not be obtained when the property is sold through a non-judicial public sale or if the foreclosure is related to a purchase money mortgage.

[SK in CV]

[quote=pepsi][quote=socrattt]
but I recently heard of a situation where the 2nd wanted nothing to do with the short sale because they found the buyer already had another mortgage he was current on. The property ended up going through the foreclosure process and after looking at the numbers the 2nd didn’t make a dime.[/quote]

If you are the 2nd lien holder, would you agree on a short sale that give you 10 cent (or even 1 cent) on a dollar or would you go after the seller for the full amount after the auction ?

[/quote]

I think maybe you misunderstand a lienholders rights with regards to deficiencly judgements. California is a one-shot state. Either the lien holder goes after the property through traditional (non-judicial) foreclosure (NOD through trustee sale) or after the borrower through a judicial foreclosure process. Can’t do both. Once there has been a foreclosure auction, it’s over with. In California, a deficiency judgement may not be obtained when the property is sold through a non-judicial public sale or if the foreclosure is related to a purchase money mortgage.

[SK in CV]

[quote=pepsi][quote=socrattt]
but I recently heard of a situation where the 2nd wanted nothing to do with the short sale because they found the buyer already had another mortgage he was current on. The property ended up going through the foreclosure process and after looking at the numbers the 2nd didn’t make a dime.[/quote]

If you are the 2nd lien holder, would you agree on a short sale that give you 10 cent (or even 1 cent) on a dollar or would you go after the seller for the full amount after the auction ?

[/quote]

I think maybe you misunderstand a lienholders rights with regards to deficiencly judgements. California is a one-shot state. Either the lien holder goes after the property through traditional (non-judicial) foreclosure (NOD through trustee sale) or after the borrower through a judicial foreclosure process. Can’t do both. Once there has been a foreclosure auction, it’s over with. In California, a deficiency judgement may not be obtained when the property is sold through a non-judicial public sale or if the foreclosure is related to a purchase money mortgage.

[SK in CV]

[quote=pepsi][quote=socrattt]
but I recently heard of a situation where the 2nd wanted nothing to do with the short sale because they found the buyer already had another mortgage he was current on. The property ended up going through the foreclosure process and after looking at the numbers the 2nd didn’t make a dime.[/quote]

If you are the 2nd lien holder, would you agree on a short sale that give you 10 cent (or even 1 cent) on a dollar or would you go after the seller for the full amount after the auction ?

[/quote]

I think maybe you misunderstand a lienholders rights with regards to deficiencly judgements. California is a one-shot state. Either the lien holder goes after the property through traditional (non-judicial) foreclosure (NOD through trustee sale) or after the borrower through a judicial foreclosure process. Can’t do both. Once there has been a foreclosure auction, it’s over with. In California, a deficiency judgement may not be obtained when the property is sold through a non-judicial public sale or if the foreclosure is related to a purchase money mortgage.

[SK in CV]

[quote=pepsi][quote=socrattt]
but I recently heard of a situation where the 2nd wanted nothing to do with the short sale because they found the buyer already had another mortgage he was current on. The property ended up going through the foreclosure process and after looking at the numbers the 2nd didn’t make a dime.[/quote]

If you are the 2nd lien holder, would you agree on a short sale that give you 10 cent (or even 1 cent) on a dollar or would you go after the seller for the full amount after the auction ?

[/quote]

I think maybe you misunderstand a lienholders rights with regards to deficiencly judgements. California is a one-shot state. Either the lien holder goes after the property through traditional (non-judicial) foreclosure (NOD through trustee sale) or after the borrower through a judicial foreclosure process. Can’t do both. Once there has been a foreclosure auction, it’s over with. In California, a deficiency judgement may not be obtained when the property is sold through a non-judicial public sale or if the foreclosure is related to a purchase money mortgage.

[SK in CV]

To elaborate on what urbanrealtor said…

[quote=urbanrealtor]If all liens and fees total more than the sale price, then it could be a short.

Sometimes sale price is below FMV (especially for shorts).

If the seller is behind on payments but has equity, then it is a distress sale, not a short sale.

By definition, no lender approval would be required.[/quote]

If any obligation due at sale (including, but not limited to all secured debt, 1st TD, junior TD’s, HELOCs, add on fees and interest related to that debt, delinquent taxes, commissions and fees) has to be compromised in order for the transaction to close, it’s a short sale. If someone doesn’t get all their money due, it’s a short sale.

[Author]

Posts