| Posted By |
Message |
| Pages: 1 2 [3] |
headoverheels
s'il vous plaît
Member since 6/07 42079 total posts
Name:
LB
|
Re: Did anyone hear about the LI couple relieved of their mortgage?
Posted by ave1024
Posted by jellybean1420
ETA: Even after this big mortgage blow up and the gov't keeping the mortgage industry "in line" I still think they are predatory and trying to make money any way they can.
The whole term of "predatory lending" is just ridiculous in general.
There is no such thing as predatory lending.
If you can qualify for a regular mortgage with a low interest rate due to good credit, good for you.
However what about the people with crappy credit? Are we all going to say they shouldn't be buying period?
That's where these so-called "predatory lenders" come in. They are willing to take on the extra risk of a crappy unsecure client by basically charging more for the mortgage.
Some people call this predatory lending. I call it getting what they deserve (or at least what they can qualify for). If they can only qualify for a mortgage that carries a 9 or 10% interest, then it is UP TO THE BUYER to make that decision if they feel like paying the premium on the mortgage interest.
There is no such thing as predatory lending. The whole Truth In Lending Agreement laws pretty much squash any sort of "predatory lending" as everyting regarding costs of the loans are drawn up for the buyers to see. If the buyers don't want to bother reading the fine print, well all I can say is too bad for them.
I completely agree with this and have said it from the start. Just because the bank was willing to offer a buyer a mortgage at a ridiculously high rate, or an ARM, doesn't make it the bank's fault if the buyer accepts those terms and then defaults. Obviously no one expected the economy to tank the way it did - but that doesn't mean the banks are at fault. People were greedy and irresponsible and took mortgages they could not afford.
|
Posted 11/30/09 11:11 AM  |
| |
|
Long Island Weddings
Long Island's Largest Bridal Resource |
ave1024
I Took The Wrong Road
Member since 12/07 6153 total posts
Name:
That Led To The Wrong Tendencies
|
Re: Did anyone hear about the LI couple relieved of their mortgage?
Posted by headoverheels
I completely agree with this and have said it from the start. Just because the bank was willing to offer a buyer a mortgage at a ridiculously high rate, or an ARM, doesn't make it the bank's fault if the buyer accepts those terms and then defaults. Obviously no one expected the economy to tank the way it did - but that doesn't mean the banks are at fault. People were greedy and irresponsible and took mortgages they could not afford.
 Thank You.
This is the problem here. There is a huge sense of entitlement with some people when it comes to home buying. Everyone feels they deserve to buy a house, despite what their current financial situation is.
If I was the judge, I would have asked this: When this couple first re-financed because of the medical issues, why couldn't they just sell the house then and move to a cheaper rental for the time being?
They originally bought the house for 200k and had plenty of equity in the house at the time they re-fied. When they tried to re-fi, the only mortgage they could get was a subprime with a crazy high rate.
These homeowners probably felt entitled that they DESERVE to live in their house, regardless of whether or not they could make their payments.
The smart financial move would have been to sell, take your profits, and lower your overal monthly expenses by moving to a rental. But they didn't do this, probably because they knew if they didn't pay their rent, their azzes would have been kicked to the street by a Sheriff's eviction.
|
| Posted 11/30/09 11:17 AM |
| |
|
seaside
LIF Adult
Member since 6/08 3101 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Did anyone hear about the LI couple relieved of their mortgage?
Posted by headoverheels
Posted by ave1024
Posted by jellybean1420
ETA: Even after this big mortgage blow up and the gov't keeping the mortgage industry "in line" I still think they are predatory and trying to make money any way they can.
The whole term of "predatory lending" is just ridiculous in general.
There is no such thing as predatory lending.
If you can qualify for a regular mortgage with a low interest rate due to good credit, good for you.
However what about the people with crappy credit? Are we all going to say they shouldn't be buying period?
That's where these so-called "predatory lenders" come in. They are willing to take on the extra risk of a crappy unsecure client by basically charging more for the mortgage.
Some people call this predatory lending. I call it getting what they deserve (or at least what they can qualify for). If they can only qualify for a mortgage that carries a 9 or 10% interest, then it is UP TO THE BUYER to make that decision if they feel like paying the premium on the mortgage interest.
There is no such thing as predatory lending. The whole Truth In Lending Agreement laws pretty much squash any sort of "predatory lending" as everyting regarding costs of the loans are drawn up for the buyers to see. If the buyers don't want to bother reading the fine print, well all I can say is too bad for them.
I completely agree with this and have said it from the start. Just because the bank was willing to offer a buyer a mortgage at a ridiculously high rate, or an ARM, doesn't make it the bank's fault if the buyer accepts those terms and then defaults. Obviously no one expected the economy to tank the way it did - but that doesn't mean the banks are at fault. People were greedy and irresponsible and took mortgages they could not afford.
'
ITA. And I love how people living in amazing houses that they can't afford with big screen TV's and vacations, etc. plead poverty and trickery to the rest of us who show discipline and don't have these things and live within our means, and expect to be "bailed out."
Why you? Why should you be rescued from your own greed?
|
| Posted 11/30/09 11:30 AM |
| |
|
LoriH
There's no place like home
Member since 8/07 4110 total posts
Name:
Lori
|
Re: Did anyone hear about the LI couple relieved of their mortgage?
I don't know the whole story but find this ruling to be very interesting. Although I agree that there were many greedy and irresponsible people who contributed to the mortgage mess, the banks do still have some responsibility. There are also many people who were confused by the lending practices of banks. They were ignorant, naive or put their trust were it did not belong and are now paying the price.
Does it get me angry that greedy irresponsible people are getting privileges that I do not because I was responsible when buying my home? Yes it does. However, there is a story behind every foreclosure and not all are that of a irresponsible greedy individual.
Personally I think that completely dissolving the mortgage is a bit extreme. I am sure the judge knows this will be appealed. He wants to send a message and get people talking about it. Whether you agree with something or not talking about an issue this large and getting educated on the subject is never a negative thing.
|
| Posted 11/30/09 11:34 AM |
| |
|
MrsGmomof3
...
Member since 6/08 3290 total posts
Name:
Irrelevant
|
Re: Did anyone hear about the LI couple relieved of their mortgage?
Posted by seaside
Posted by headoverheels
Posted by ave1024
Posted by jellybean1420
ETA: Even after this big mortgage blow up and the gov't keeping the mortgage industry "in line" I still think they are predatory and trying to make money any way they can.
The whole term of "predatory lending" is just ridiculous in general.
There is no such thing as predatory lending.
If you can qualify for a regular mortgage with a low interest rate due to good credit, good for you.
However what about the people with crappy credit? Are we all going to say they shouldn't be buying period?
That's where these so-called "predatory lenders" come in. They are willing to take on the extra risk of a crappy unsecure client by basically charging more for the mortgage.
Some people call this predatory lending. I call it getting what they deserve (or at least what they can qualify for). If they can only qualify for a mortgage that carries a 9 or 10% interest, then it is UP TO THE BUYER to make that decision if they feel like paying the premium on the mortgage interest.
There is no such thing as predatory lending. The whole Truth In Lending Agreement laws pretty much squash any sort of "predatory lending" as everyting regarding costs of the loans are drawn up for the buyers to see. If the buyers don't want to bother reading the fine print, well all I can say is too bad for them.
I completely agree with this and have said it from the start. Just because the bank was willing to offer a buyer a mortgage at a ridiculously high rate, or an ARM, doesn't make it the bank's fault if the buyer accepts those terms and then defaults. Obviously no one expected the economy to tank the way it did - but that doesn't mean the banks are at fault. People were greedy and irresponsible and took mortgages they could not afford.
'
ITA. And I love how people living in amazing houses that they can't afford with big screen TV's and vacations, etc. plead poverty and trickery to the rest of us who show discipline and don't have these things and live within our means, and expect to be "bailed out."
Why you? Why should you be rescued from your own greed?
|
| Posted 11/30/09 2:48 PM |
| |
|
JBmommy
LIF Infant
Member since 8/09 252 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Did anyone hear about the LI couple relieved of their mortgage?
I dont think they should loose their home to foreclosure since they did try in good faith to work something out. HOWEVER why should they get a free house??? That is just wrong, there are tooo many people who have fallen on hard times so should they get free houses too??? I think the judge acted very irresponsible, let them stay in their home and work out a payment plan they can afford and impose a penalty on the bank... dont just give them a free house!!!! Watch that house is gonna be on MLS so fast.... guaranteed!
Message edited 11/30/2009 3:06:07 PM.
|
| Posted 11/30/09 3:05 PM |
| |
|
ave1024
I Took The Wrong Road
Member since 12/07 6153 total posts
Name:
That Led To The Wrong Tendencies
|
Re: Did anyone hear about the LI couple relieved of their mortgage?
Posted by JBmommy
I dont think they should loose their home to foreclosure since they did try in good faith to work something out. HOWEVER why should they get a free house??? That is just wrong, there are tooo many people who have fallen on hard times so should they get free houses too??? I think the judge acted very irresponsible, let them stay in their home and work out a payment plan they can afford and impose a penalty on the bank... dont just give them a free house!!!! Watch that house is gonna be on MLS so fast.... guaranteed!
Or I was thinking they will just re-fi, cash out all the equity, and then let some other sucker bank get screwed.
|
| Posted 11/30/09 3:10 PM |
| |
|
Beth
The Key to your new home....
Member since 2/06 24849 total posts
Name:
Beth
|
Re: Did anyone hear about the LI couple relieved of their mortgage?
There is no way they could refi
1 mortgage late on your credit and good luck trying to refi
|
| Posted 11/30/09 3:15 PM |
| |
|
ave1024
I Took The Wrong Road
Member since 12/07 6153 total posts
Name:
That Led To The Wrong Tendencies
|
Re: Did anyone hear about the LI couple relieved of their mortgage?
Posted by Beth
1 mortgage late on your credit and good luck trying to refi
Perhaps. But also realize if somebody owns their house in full, there will be a bank somewhere out there willing to take this kind of a risk as long as there is plenty loan to value still remaining on the house after the refi.
A 100% cashout refi may not be an option. But maybe a 50% cashout with one of those ridiculous 10% interest rates is possible. This is how these subprime banks stay in business and all it takes is one willing bank to jump in. Worst case scenario the clients don't pay, the bank takes the house with 50% equity.
Well then again that was worst case until this judge decided to change the playing field.
|
| Posted 11/30/09 3:35 PM |
| |
|
Beth
The Key to your new home....
Member since 2/06 24849 total posts
Name:
Beth
|
Re: Did anyone hear about the LI couple relieved of their mortgage?
If they are over 62 then a reserve mortgage would be there best bet
Equity is the only requirement
With them being in foreclosure they would not have a credit score high enough to get a regular loan
Regardless of equity
|
| Posted 11/30/09 3:51 PM |
| |
|
Blu-ize
Plan B is Now Plan A
Member since 7/05 32475 total posts
Name:
Susan
|
Re: Did anyone hear about the LI couple relieved of their mortgage?
Posted by MrsGmomof3
Posted by seaside
Posted by headoverheels
Posted by ave1024
Posted by jellybean1420
ETA: Even after this big mortgage blow up and the gov't keeping the mortgage industry "in line" I still think they are predatory and trying to make money any way they can.
The whole term of "predatory lending" is just ridiculous in general.
There is no such thing as predatory lending.
If you can qualify for a regular mortgage with a low interest rate due to good credit, good for you.
However what about the people with crappy credit? Are we all going to say they shouldn't be buying period?
That's where these so-called "predatory lenders" come in. They are willing to take on the extra risk of a crappy unsecure client by basically charging more for the mortgage.
Some people call this predatory lending. I call it getting what they deserve (or at least what they can qualify for). If they can only qualify for a mortgage that carries a 9 or 10% interest, then it is UP TO THE BUYER to make that decision if they feel like paying the premium on the mortgage interest.
There is no such thing as predatory lending. The whole Truth In Lending Agreement laws pretty much squash any sort of "predatory lending" as everyting regarding costs of the loans are drawn up for the buyers to see. If the buyers don't want to bother reading the fine print, well all I can say is too bad for them.
I completely agree with this and have said it from the start. Just because the bank was willing to offer a buyer a mortgage at a ridiculously high rate, or an ARM, doesn't make it the bank's fault if the buyer accepts those terms and then defaults. Obviously no one expected the economy to tank the way it did - but that doesn't mean the banks are at fault. People were greedy and irresponsible and took mortgages they could not afford.
'
ITA. And I love how people living in amazing houses that they can't afford with big screen TV's and vacations, etc. plead poverty and trickery to the rest of us who show discipline and don't have these things and live within our means, and expect to be "bailed out."
Why you? Why should you be rescued from your own greed?
there's always more to the story. It's not always like that.
|
| Posted 11/30/09 4:06 PM |
| |
|
maybesoon
LIF Adult
Member since 9/09 5981 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Did anyone hear about the LI couple relieved of their mortgage?
Posted by JBmommy
Watch that house is gonna be on MLS so fast.... guaranteed!
I thought the same thing, they'll sell the house and have a nice fat retirement fund
|
| Posted 11/30/09 4:56 PM |
| |
|
|
|
Re: Did anyone hear about the LI couple relieved of their mortgage?
Hmm...very interesting.
I do know this judge, Judge Spinner-he was a judge in Suffolk Family Court before he moved on. He actually was known to be very fair and he was very nice on an occasion I practiced in front of him.
That being said, I do believe that his decision will be appealed and likely reversed, because those people had a valid mortgage and there is actually as far as I know, no requirement that mortgage companies modify your loan. Don't quote me on that, I am not sure. That being said, I do think that if the judge would have just dismissed the fees and not the mortgage, it would have been a different case.
Don't get me wrong, I am not a fan of banks and I think what this bank did was horrible, but on the flipside, predatory lending or not, these people purchased a house with a mortgage. They should be liable for the mortgage.
The precedent this would set would kill those who are still paying their mortgages, because costs would be passed to other consumers.
So, I think that the decision was extreme, but I do think the bank should have been accountable to some extent. So, kill the fees and make them work with these people.
|
| Posted 11/30/09 7:58 PM |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] |
