Gas Prices.... Completely Outrageous!!! How Much Are They Where You Are???

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Actually, it's more like the staggering amount of credit card debt in this country Again, a $50 to $100 increase in a morgage likely will not cause a foreclosure unless other serious problems are there.

Now - are banks loaning money to non-qualified people? Of course they are. But, many of those people are minorities or people who qualify for some program that mandates they be given the money. I am unsure however what percentage that entails. The mtg. lending rules are, however, pretty strict regarding qualification, though they can be played with by a smart buyer.



In that job loss case, it would make no difference what kind of mortgage you had and, quite frankly, the ARM would be better for you if your income dropped because the monthly payment under that ARM likely would not reach the usually much higher fixed rate payment for 7 or so years

you're missing the point in the "job case" what Im saying is, people think their future is going to resemble today only better somehow, and in many cases, that just isnt true!! I know that in the Bay Area, particularly in the Silicon Valley, people are becoming unemployed at an amazing rate! and they USED to hold fantastic jobs and could afford dream homes! but no more

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

you're missing the point in the "job case" what Im saying is, people think their future is going to resemble today only better somehow, and in many cases, that just isnt true!! I know that in the Bay Area, particularly in the Silicon Valley, people are becoming unemployed at an amazing rate! and they USED to hold fantastic jobs and could afford dream homes! but no more

Thus, my point that it would not matter what mtg they took - they likely would lose their house under both, though the they may be able to hold on to it in the pmt was several hundred dollars less a month in an ARM. But, if they have no way to pay either mtg - they would lose their house. So, how is the ARM a bad choice here

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Thus, my point that it would not matter what mtg they took - they likely would lose their house under both, though the they may be able to hold on to it in the pmt was several hundred dollars less a month in an ARM. But, if they have no way to pay either mtg - they would lose their house. So, how is the ARM a bad choice here

my point is, at least in the SF Bay Area, and surrounding comunities, people can only afford homes (because of inflated home prices) WITH 2 incomes and WITH creative financing. The days of a fixed 30yr mortgage (around here) are about gone.

and sadly, when people NEED a home, and they find one they love, they convince themselves that its possible. They find out later (3-5 yrs later) that they were wrong (because in the meantime, Jenny needed braces and Jeff wants to go to a good school, etc)

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

my point is, at least in the SF Bay Area, and surrounding comunities, people can only afford homes (because of inflated home prices) WITH 2 incomes and WITH creative financing. The days of a fixed 30yr mortgage (around here) are about gone.

and sadly, when people NEED a home, and they find one they love, they convince themselves that its possible. They find out later (3-5 yrs later) that they were wrong (because in the meantime, Jenny needed braces and Jeff wants to go to a good school, etc)

I do not think I was talking about that -- you were talking about the evil finance companies. If someone bites off more than they can chew - who the fool

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I do not think I was talking about that -- you were talking about the evil finance companies. If someone bites off more than they can chew - who the fool

yes, granted, but that is the crazy housing market in the Bay Area...people are nutz.

as for your bankruptcy info, Im aware of most of that info, but FHA WAS looking at his credit score and a year after his bankruptcy was discharged there were unexplained bits and pieces that the trustee didnt clean up. And the lending companies and credit companies are treating him as if he had discharged his debt completely, instead of paying 80%. He believes he was given bad legal advice and was not represented in Court (the attorney wouldnt tell him his court dates and then didnt show himself, and my friend got taken to the cleaners as a result.) I overstated the amount the Trustee got, it was 30k not 50k. still a huge sum of $$$

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

. . . a year after his bankruptcy was discharged there were unexplained bits and pieces that the trustee didnt clean up. And the lending companies and credit companies are treating him as if he had discharged his debt completely, instead of paying 80%. He believes he was given bad legal advice and was not represented in Court (the attorney wouldnt tell him his court dates and then didnt show himself, and my friend got taken to the cleaners as a result.) I overstated the amount the Trustee got, it was 30k not 50k. still a huge sum of $$$

Well, he did discharge more than 20% of the debt because he likely saved tens of thousands in interest as interest cannot be charged or accrue in a 13 plan save for some exceptions like student loans, income tax, etc. So, creditors will never look at him as if he did anything other than bankrutpcy under either chapter, though 13 generally is considered slightly better.

As a general rule and with few excpetions, any and all creditors listed as such when he filed will be included in the discharge order. If these creditors are not accordingly reporting the debt on his credit report, they are in violation of the court's order. Mailing a copy of the listing of the creditors as well as the dischrage order as proof of the dispute to the credit reporting company should remedy this. If the creditor refuses, then they could be consrued as being in violation of the court's order, which usually means sanctions. Having said that, any unrelated negative items on his credit report will be up to him to remedy, and that is not that easy of a process, though it has gotten better.

And, yes, given those facts, it sounds like your friend got bad legal advice becuase the amount he paid in five years likely could have paid his debt off in full and left him with some money.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Well, he did discharge more than 20% of the debt because he likely saved tens of thousands in interest as interest cannot be charged or accrue in a 13 plan save for some exceptions like student loans, income tax, etc. So, creditors will never look at him as if he did anything other than bankrutpcy under either chapter, though 13 generally is considered slightly better.

As a general rule and with few excpetions, any and all creditors listed as such when he filed will be included in the discharge order. If these creditors are not accordingly reporting the debt on his credit report, they are in violation of the court's order. Mailing a copy of the listing of the creditors as well as the dischrage order as proof of the dispute to the credit reporting company should remedy this. If the creditor refuses, then they could be consrued as being in violation of the court's order, which usually means sanctions. Having said that, any unrelated negative items on his credit report will be up to him to remedy, and that is not that easy of a process, though it has gotten better.

And, yes, given those facts, it sounds like your friend got bad legal advice becuase the amount he paid in five years likely could have paid his debt off in full and left him with some money.

just so you know, the items on the credit report werent unrelated, they were the exact items that were included, but for some unexplained reason each of them had up to $200 still showing and this was AFTER (a YEAR after mind you) the bankruptcy was discharged.

Any creditor who moans and groans about a lost 20% when they got paid 80% is an ASS.

Yes my friend got bad advice. He regrets this more than you know. He says that considering the way he's being treated in the credit world, he'd have been better off going the ch7 route (he says he qualified). They say no good deed goes unpunished, and I agree.