FlaHawkFan
New member
- Joined:
- May 15, 2010
- Posts:
- 316
- Liked Posts:
- 0
- Location:
- Charlotte, NC
A couple thoughts here. You're confusing a paying customer with one behind in payments and how that translates to bank action / inaction. No bank or lender is going to do anything if you are still making the monthly payments - period. Even if you are paying a little late and paying the late fees the terms will stay the same. And banks will reduce principal, if the property is sold via short-sale to another party. Think about it - if the rules were changed and lenders said they would reduce principal for anyone that needs help what do you think would happen? It would be abused and suddenly everyone would say they have hardship and ask for a reduction in principal. The only way to really prove hardship is missing payments. Rather a better solution would be to allow refinancing under current rates @ 30 year fixed which would lower the monthly payments for many who suddenly find themselves in Tater's position being just a couple hundred bucks short each month. However, given the recent mortgage meltdown and difficulty getting financing, lenders have a tendency to run from this situation and refuse to refinance because the borrower is showing signs that problems may lay ahead. Bottom line - no easy solution and many borrowers like Tater find that the so-called government help programs are really worthless.
Fluff, the system is being abused anyway for God's sake. People who are perfectly capable of making their payments are stopping payments so they can do short sales. Why TF should that be allowed? I'll give you an example. Our neighbor here in Charlotte was and is perfectly capable of making her mortgage payments. She bought her house here five years ago figuring it would be her retirement home. But as she got closer to retirement this year she re-thought her plan and decided to buy a new place in Charleston, SC. She was quite upside down on her mortgage here and her bank wouldn't discuss the possibility of reduced principal or even a short sale so -- even though she's fully capable of making payments on both houses -- she stopped making her payments on her Charlotte house. She doesn't care whether her credit is scorched because she has no future plans for any large purchases (car, house, etc.) so she can totally game the system. She has her loan on her new house and doesn't care if the old one goes to foreclosure. That is gaming the system and lots of people are doing that.
And you know what? As much as some people made bad decisions by buying homes they couldn't afford, the banks who lent money for those purchases made equally bad business decisions by determining that the bubble wouldn't burst, and that the lender could sell for more than the outstanding loan balance in the event of a foreclosure. So why should the borrower bear full responsibility for the bad decisions? That's certainly what you're advocating.
I agree there are no easy solutions. We certainly didn't game the system. We paid our loan in full even though we could have bailed. We simply aren't built that way. But you know what isn't fair? If that had been an "investment" property for us, we could have claimed our loss as a tax write-off. However, because it was our home for several years, we're not allowed to do that.
The whole system is broken and there are no easy solutions. But to say people would game the system if principal reductions were permitted is silly because they're totally gaming the system as it is.
Wow, that was a long and unsatisfying rant. Sorry about that everyone.