I owe more then I can sell for and have to go back east to be with my mum.
I could sell it tomorrow but no way near what I owe.
How can I do this, I want to pay the loan, I'm not trying to get out of the money I owe just the mobile home.
Please advise. I live in Las Vegas, stuck in Las Vegas is more like it. Thank you.
Murphy's Law a sad Murphy.
I owe more then I can sell for
Re: I owe more then I can sell for
Well in your city, I recently read that well over 1/2 of all homeowners are in the same boat. You seem to be well aware that what you paid and what you owe have nothing to do with current market value. Believe me your current lender understands that as well. Folks all over the country in your situation are walking way from their homes, making it even worse for those left behind..Your lender will fully understand the situation and many have programs to help. Often your lender will accept a short sale and absolve you of further responsibility. If you take this route you WILL NOT be liable for any losses as you would be in the event of a foreclosure. Both routes are very negative on your credit score but the short sale less so..Talk to your lender and ask for your alternatives, Make sure what ever they agree to is in writing and spend a little for an experienced real estate attorney's advice. This way you can sell and feel you have done your best in this terrible housing market, go on and be near your mom and start the hard work of rebuilding. Good Luck
-
David Oxhandler
- Posts: 1459
- Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2007 8:37 am
Re: I owe more then I can sell for
You are not alone. Strategic default continues to become a more popular option for Americans across the country. "strategic default is the decision by a borrower to stop making payments (i.e., to default) on a debt despite having the financial ability to make the payments.......it usually occurs after a substantial drop in the house's price such that the debt owed is (considerably) greater than the value of the property — the property has negative equity or is "underwater" — and is expected to remain so for the foreseeable future, such as following the bursting of a real estate bubble." (Wikipedia)
I am not encouraging default, There can be serious consequences. Different states treat default on mortgage debt differently. In some states the foreclosure ends the home owner's obligations in other states lenders can pursue claims against the defaulted debtor for the difference between what they sell the home for and what was owed on the mortgage. It appears that in most cas3es the banks are not attempting "recourse" because of the high cost and time required to go through already overloaded court systems.
Foreclosed borrower's will have devastated their credit. This will make future loans difficult or more expensive. A new mortgage from US government agencies will be denied for 3 (FHA) to 7 years (FNMA)
The difference between the value of the property at the time of foreclosure and the amount due on the mortgage will be considered by the IRS as "debt forgiven" and may be considered "income" subject to federal income tax. The federal government has recognized strategic foreclosure and until the end of December 2012 the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007, says that this balance will not be subject to federal tax if the home was a primary residences.
"...most homeowners choose not to strategically default as a result of two emotional forces: 1) the desire to avoid the shame and guilt of foreclosure; and 2) exaggerated anxiety over foreclosure’s perceived consequences. Moreover, these emotional constraints are actively cultivated by the government and other social control agents in order to encourage homeowners to follow social and moral norms related to the honoring of financial obligations - and to ignore market and legal norms under which strategic default might be both viable and the wisest financial decision. Norms governing homeowner behavior stand in sharp contrast to norms governing lenders, who seek to maximize profits or minimize losses irrespective of concerns of morality or social responsibility. This norm asymmetry leads to distributional inequalities in which individual homeowners shoulder a disproportionate burden from the housing collapse." (Underwater and Not Walking Away: Shame, Fear and the Social Management of the Housing Crisis)
" A mortgage contract, like any other contract, is purely a legal document, not a sacred promise. Think of it this way: when you got your cell phone, you likely signed a contract with the carrier in which you “promised” to make a standard monthly payment—say, $100—for two years. Let’s suppose, though, that two months after you signed, the price of cell-phone service dropped by half—meaning that you could get the same service for $50 a month with another carrier. You realize that it would make financial sense to pay the one-time early-termination fee of $300 and switch to the $50-per-month carrier, rather than to keep paying $100 a month for almost two more years. Would it be immoral for you to break your contractual “promise” with your original carrier? Of course not. That option is part of the contract, as is the consequence of breach—a $300 early-termination fee. There is absolutely nothing immoral about exercising this option, and you’d be financially wise to do so.
Though a mortgage contract is more substantial than a cell-phone contract, it’s no different in principle. Like a cell-phone contract, a mortgage contract explicitly sets out the consequences of breach. In other words, the lender has contemplated in advance that the mortgagor may be unable or unwilling to continue making payments at some point and has decided in advance what fair compensation in that event would be. The lender then wrote that compensation into the contract. Specifically, the lender probably included clauses providing for foreclosing on the property and keeping any payments that have already been made. In most states, the lender may also opt to pursue a deficiency judgment—a court order that the borrower pay the difference between the funds received by the lender from a foreclosure sale and the balance remaining on a debt. By writing these penalties into the contract, the lender has agreed to accept the property, and (if state law so allows) the option to pursue a deficiency judgment, in lieu of payment. Of course, lenders don’t often pursue borrowers for deficiency judgments, even in states where they can do so, because it’s usually not economically worthwhile.
Nevertheless, that’s the agreement. No one forced the lender to sign—or write—that contract, and the lender wouldn’t hesitate to exercise the right to take a defaulter’s house if it was financially advantageous to do so. Concerns of morality or social responsibility wouldn’t be part of the equation. The borrower, for his part, has to be just as willing to accept the consequences—again, foreclosure and usually the risk of a deficiency judgment."( Is Strategic Default a Menace?)
"Strategic walkaways employ laws established to protect them from predatory or avaricious lending practices. They create an efficient, rapid, costefficient mark to market, stripping away inaccurate and illusory pricing practices that lenders cling to. Solving the mortgage crisis is going to take more than nibbling away at the edges of valuation, tweaking monthly loan payments through interest rate adjustments and loan extensions.
The stakes are enormous. The American economy is consumer-driven, and $3.4 trillion has been stalled in the home equity quagmire. The immediate goal has to be to put money back into the pockets of consumers, who will inject it into the economy. They can continue to shovel it into lenders’ maws. . .or they can invest it, spend it, and get on with their lives. Homeowners— taxpayers—didn’t create the housing mess on their own. In cleaning it up, they shouldn’t be stuck with the bill.
The solution is to push ‘reset’ and allow the market to accurately reflect the current fair market value of houses, today. " (Snow Job: Strategic Defaults Appear to Make Sense in an Era of Negative Equity)
I am not encouraging default, There can be serious consequences. Different states treat default on mortgage debt differently. In some states the foreclosure ends the home owner's obligations in other states lenders can pursue claims against the defaulted debtor for the difference between what they sell the home for and what was owed on the mortgage. It appears that in most cas3es the banks are not attempting "recourse" because of the high cost and time required to go through already overloaded court systems.
Foreclosed borrower's will have devastated their credit. This will make future loans difficult or more expensive. A new mortgage from US government agencies will be denied for 3 (FHA) to 7 years (FNMA)
The difference between the value of the property at the time of foreclosure and the amount due on the mortgage will be considered by the IRS as "debt forgiven" and may be considered "income" subject to federal income tax. The federal government has recognized strategic foreclosure and until the end of December 2012 the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007, says that this balance will not be subject to federal tax if the home was a primary residences.
"...most homeowners choose not to strategically default as a result of two emotional forces: 1) the desire to avoid the shame and guilt of foreclosure; and 2) exaggerated anxiety over foreclosure’s perceived consequences. Moreover, these emotional constraints are actively cultivated by the government and other social control agents in order to encourage homeowners to follow social and moral norms related to the honoring of financial obligations - and to ignore market and legal norms under which strategic default might be both viable and the wisest financial decision. Norms governing homeowner behavior stand in sharp contrast to norms governing lenders, who seek to maximize profits or minimize losses irrespective of concerns of morality or social responsibility. This norm asymmetry leads to distributional inequalities in which individual homeowners shoulder a disproportionate burden from the housing collapse." (Underwater and Not Walking Away: Shame, Fear and the Social Management of the Housing Crisis)
" A mortgage contract, like any other contract, is purely a legal document, not a sacred promise. Think of it this way: when you got your cell phone, you likely signed a contract with the carrier in which you “promised” to make a standard monthly payment—say, $100—for two years. Let’s suppose, though, that two months after you signed, the price of cell-phone service dropped by half—meaning that you could get the same service for $50 a month with another carrier. You realize that it would make financial sense to pay the one-time early-termination fee of $300 and switch to the $50-per-month carrier, rather than to keep paying $100 a month for almost two more years. Would it be immoral for you to break your contractual “promise” with your original carrier? Of course not. That option is part of the contract, as is the consequence of breach—a $300 early-termination fee. There is absolutely nothing immoral about exercising this option, and you’d be financially wise to do so.
Though a mortgage contract is more substantial than a cell-phone contract, it’s no different in principle. Like a cell-phone contract, a mortgage contract explicitly sets out the consequences of breach. In other words, the lender has contemplated in advance that the mortgagor may be unable or unwilling to continue making payments at some point and has decided in advance what fair compensation in that event would be. The lender then wrote that compensation into the contract. Specifically, the lender probably included clauses providing for foreclosing on the property and keeping any payments that have already been made. In most states, the lender may also opt to pursue a deficiency judgment—a court order that the borrower pay the difference between the funds received by the lender from a foreclosure sale and the balance remaining on a debt. By writing these penalties into the contract, the lender has agreed to accept the property, and (if state law so allows) the option to pursue a deficiency judgment, in lieu of payment. Of course, lenders don’t often pursue borrowers for deficiency judgments, even in states where they can do so, because it’s usually not economically worthwhile.
Nevertheless, that’s the agreement. No one forced the lender to sign—or write—that contract, and the lender wouldn’t hesitate to exercise the right to take a defaulter’s house if it was financially advantageous to do so. Concerns of morality or social responsibility wouldn’t be part of the equation. The borrower, for his part, has to be just as willing to accept the consequences—again, foreclosure and usually the risk of a deficiency judgment."( Is Strategic Default a Menace?)
"Strategic walkaways employ laws established to protect them from predatory or avaricious lending practices. They create an efficient, rapid, costefficient mark to market, stripping away inaccurate and illusory pricing practices that lenders cling to. Solving the mortgage crisis is going to take more than nibbling away at the edges of valuation, tweaking monthly loan payments through interest rate adjustments and loan extensions.
The stakes are enormous. The American economy is consumer-driven, and $3.4 trillion has been stalled in the home equity quagmire. The immediate goal has to be to put money back into the pockets of consumers, who will inject it into the economy. They can continue to shovel it into lenders’ maws. . .or they can invest it, spend it, and get on with their lives. Homeowners— taxpayers—didn’t create the housing mess on their own. In cleaning it up, they shouldn’t be stuck with the bill.
The solution is to push ‘reset’ and allow the market to accurately reflect the current fair market value of houses, today. " (Snow Job: Strategic Defaults Appear to Make Sense in an Era of Negative Equity)
David Oxhandler
[email protected]
[email protected]
Re: I owe more then I can sell for
Thank you so much for all this information, You gave me more then hours of searching.
I have someone that could take over payments, is that a possibility? I'm dealing with "Green tree" and they aren't very helpful. I can't even re mortgage. I've read different things about the company so I'm not sure of what I'm even dealing with, they just say "We are just holding the loan" no help or information from them.
My ex was willing to take over payments but his name is not on the title, we wanted to add it but that's not allowed..
Just walking away...?
We, also, thought of a "Quit Claim" but it's in a park, it's permanent foundation. My head is spinning.
They have me every way I turn and I have to leave. What a mess.
I do appreciate your taking the time to answer me believe me there aren't many willing to help.
Murphy
I have someone that could take over payments, is that a possibility? I'm dealing with "Green tree" and they aren't very helpful. I can't even re mortgage. I've read different things about the company so I'm not sure of what I'm even dealing with, they just say "We are just holding the loan" no help or information from them.
My ex was willing to take over payments but his name is not on the title, we wanted to add it but that's not allowed..
Just walking away...?
We, also, thought of a "Quit Claim" but it's in a park, it's permanent foundation. My head is spinning.
They have me every way I turn and I have to leave. What a mess.
I do appreciate your taking the time to answer me believe me there aren't many willing to help.
Murphy
-
David Oxhandler
- Posts: 1459
- Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2007 8:37 am
Re: I owe more then I can sell for
Green Tree is not a lender. At one time they were. Today the are a loan servicing company. Investors purchased the loans. Green Tree handles the record keeping and payment collections for a small percentage.
As long as the payments are being made I doubt that any lender will care where they come from. Enter a private contract with your ex that says; if he makes the rest of the payments, that you will sign ownership over to him when you get the free and clear title from Green Tree.
That frees you from the payment and permits you to get on with your life. At the same time he enjoys contractual security of full ownership when the home is paid off.
Get a local attorney to draw up the paper work for you.
As long as the payments are being made I doubt that any lender will care where they come from. Enter a private contract with your ex that says; if he makes the rest of the payments, that you will sign ownership over to him when you get the free and clear title from Green Tree.
That frees you from the payment and permits you to get on with your life. At the same time he enjoys contractual security of full ownership when the home is paid off.
Get a local attorney to draw up the paper work for you.
David Oxhandler
[email protected]
[email protected]
Re: I owe more then I can sell for
I didn't get the nick name Murphy just because I'm Irish 
He's afraid he'll pay off the house and then I'llshow up one day and want it back.. It's funny he was the cheater and he doesn't trust me.
Thank you for your suggestion, it is one I looked at but the title and owner of the title come before any other agreement in court from what I've read in NV law.
It's just crazy you would think I had a mansion in Beverly Hills.
Thank you for your reply, It was appreciated.
Murphy
He's afraid he'll pay off the house and then I'llshow up one day and want it back.. It's funny he was the cheater and he doesn't trust me.Thank you for your suggestion, it is one I looked at but the title and owner of the title come before any other agreement in court from what I've read in NV law.
It's just crazy you would think I had a mansion in Beverly Hills.
Thank you for your reply, It was appreciated.
Murphy
Re: I owe more then I can sell for
Your taking the time and effort to read the law only emphasizes your need of professional legal advice..
I doubt you should consult with your divorce attorney but another skilled in chattel ownership laws in your state. Most title states allow transfer by power of attorney and I would be VERY surprised if NV did not..If they did not it would be impossible to trade a car with a loan balance and I know you can in your state..Spend a few dollars on advise.
I doubt you should consult with your divorce attorney but another skilled in chattel ownership laws in your state. Most title states allow transfer by power of attorney and I would be VERY surprised if NV did not..If they did not it would be impossible to trade a car with a loan balance and I know you can in your state..Spend a few dollars on advise.
Re: I owe more then I can sell for
Hi! To add, debt forgiveness is an excellent thing for many people, as it means less than the whole of a debt has been compensated though the debt has been happy. However, it's considered taxable income and the lapse of a debt forgiveness tax break for foreclosures or short sales of homes is set to bite some taxpayers. With a personal loan, you can pay your taxes.
Regards!
Amanda
Regards!
Amanda
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests