cbs13-cw31 1140 The Fan - 100x35

News

Call Kurtis: Should You Walk Away from Your Underwater Mortgage?

Share this
View Comments
kurtis-ming-talent-web-photos

Reporting Kurtis Ming

SACRAMENTO (CBS13) — More than half of homeowners in Sacramento,San Joaquin and Stanislaus counties are upside down on their mortgages, owing more than their homes are worth.   You can bet the conversation whether people should keep making the payments or walk away from a bad investment is happening in every single neighborhood in our area.  

Here are the numbers from Zillow.com regarding homes that are underwater in your county.

“I don’t know what we’re going to do at all.  I don’t have a clue,” Amilia Blackwell said.

Married with a toddler and a baby on the way, she and her husband Jakob are feeling the pressure of living in an underwater home.  They owe $40-thousand more than theirCitrus Heightshome is worth.    The couple faces the moral versus business decision; should they keep making the payments or walk away?

“That’s our main conversation.  What are we going to do?” Jakob said.

Financial expert, TV host and author Suze Orman says everyone should be looking at the value of their homes.

“If you own a home that is 50% underwater, 70% underwater, it will never ever, ever come back to where you purchased it.” Orman said.    

 In her book The Money Class, Orman says if you like your house and are only 10% or 20% underwater, keep making your payments.  But what if it’s worse than that?

“Do the calculations everybody.  How much is it costing you to actually stay in that house?  How many years will it take for you to pay more than that house is worth?  If it’s 3 years, 4 years, 5 years; are you kidding me? That’s a house you really need to say bye bye.  It’s not worth the money.”

Using her theory, say your house is worth $150,000 and your monthly mortgage including property tax and insurance is $2,500.   You will pay $150,000 dollars; the current value of your house; in five years.   In that case, Orman says try to get your bank to modify your loan.

“If the banks will not work with you, then you need to either do a short sale.  If they will not allow a short sale, then do a deed in lieu of foreclosure.  If they won’t do that then walk away.  It’s just how it is.”

When Mary Beth and Bob Stucky say the bank wouldn’t work with them on their Somerset home which was underwater more than $200,000, they walked away becoming renters.

We were there on moving day last year.  Mary Beth was still struggling with the morals of walking away.

“It’s probably from my father that you don’t walk away when you make a commitment,” she said during while choking back tears in December 2009.

One year later? 

“I’m happy.  I feel secure,” she says.

Mary Beth realizes it was a bad investment.   She and Bob are now renting a bigger home with more land and a rental payment a fraction of their old mortgage.   It’s allowed them to build up a healthy savings account.

“We’re doing quite well and at the end of the storm, we’re going to be positioned to get back into the market and make our lives better,” Bob said.

But it could be years before they’ll qualify to buy a home again.   

Rob Sorenson of Folsom walked away from his home a couple years ago.  It’s the only blemish on his credit history and was enough to cause his credit score to plummet.

“Slowly but surely all the credit card issuers said you know we’d rather not have your business anymore because of your credit risk,” Sorenson said.

When his yellow lab Rosco got sick Rob had to ask family for help.    He had no credit card to pay for the $2,000 dollar vet bill.

“That’s what I depended upon for my safety nets before.   Now I don’t have that safety net,”

Sorenson and the Stucky family knew the risks of walking away.   They have to live on cash.  If they don’t have the cash they have to save up to buy whatever they want.

 Beth Mills with the California Bankers Association warns walking way or strategically defaulting as it’s called; has a larger impact bringing down your neighbors’ property values keeping the housing market from recovering.

“When you signed a loan document, you made a commitment you made a promise to pay,” she said.   “We hope people will continue to honor that commitment.”

But Orman says if you failed to get your bank to listen, you shouldn’t feel guilty.

“You have to make the attempt to work with them.  If they won’t work with you, then I think you can stand in your truth and leave that home.”

Orman says the new American dream may mean never owning a home again.

“And if you do rent for the rest of your life, it’s not a big deal.  Who cares?   Just invest that money you would’ve put in your home somewhere else.”

The Blackwell’s realize any decision they make involving their home will hurt somehow.         

With a baby due in September, they’re up against the clock to make the right decision.

“We want to be proactive now and figure out a solution, so that in September with baby #2, we’re not as bad off at that point,” Amilia said.      

Orman says if you’re thinking of walking away or doing a short sale, now is the time to do it.    Sometimes it takes a year or more for a short sale or foreclosure to go through.   A federal tax break for short sales and foreclosures is set to expire at the end of 2012.  That means come January 1, 2013 you may have to pay tax on any home loan you walk away from.   So if you’re $100,000 underwater you’ll have to pay the federal government taxes on the $100,000.

Before making any decision, you should talk with a real estate or tax attorney to see the potential impacts you could face.

Orman says it’s time to erase feelings of hopelessness, rethink your ways and moving toward the new American dream.

“The new American dream really is a dream that allows you to sleep at night where you feel secure, and you know what is yours cannot be taken away again, because of the actions of others.”

Share this
View Comments
  • Dan Doyle

    Have been trying to work with Chase Bank for a year. Seems like they lack common sense. We’d like to keep our home but not when we owe $530,000 and its worth less than half it’s a bad investment. If Chase would knock our loan balance down to something reasonable we’d stay and they’d come out better than a short sale or foreclosure. Problem is you can’t talk to anyone who makes these decisions at Chase Bank.

  • Brandt Myas

    Walking away from homes not only hurts your neighbors by lowering property values, it lowers the property tax that communities collect and need for public safety and education. If everyone refuses to honor their commitment (strategic walk away) this state is in big trouble.

  • Karl M

    CREDIT = SLAVERY!

  • Diana M. Ederra

    GMAC would not work with me but said that if I did a Short Sale on my property that they would give me $3,000.00. My real estate agent worked with them and we did a Short Sale but they said that I did not process any paper work to qualify for the $3,000.00. Now my Tax Advisor says that I will owe the government over $65,000.00 in taxes because my home was sold for more than what I originally purchased it for. The amount that I owed on the mortgage was forgiven but the taxes were not forgiven. Now I have to hire a tax lawyer to see if my taxes can be reduced. There is something wrong with this.

  • Mary Beth

    Thank you..Story well done.. We all need to keep putting one foot forward. The young family will have a future….as will so many other friends and families we know who have gone though the very same. The numbers are not being reported.

    Best regards
    Mary Beth

    P.,S> We have had animal emergencies..Our vet..large animal and small animal take payments………Your friends, Toby~san the St.Bernard. Winnie and Binikie( Newfoundland’s) Benjamin, Cassidy( Mini Donkies) Kitties…. Travis and Gracie..the horses….Mathilda the chicken…

    If you can advise your credit expert: Not Ms. Orman but the other gentlemen…

    IF THERE IS A WILL THERE IS A WAY……There will be new houses..and this new group does not fit in his box….he needs to consider that a new credit measurement standard will emerge when the dust settles.. There’s LOTS of us out there:0)…and we have cash:0)

  • Mary B

    Suze Orman is wrong. Our house is underwater, quite a bit underwater. It will eventually, however, be paid off and we will own it whatever it is worth. It isn’t a question of did we end up paying more for it than we can get back. If you have any kind of mortgage interest that is pretty much a given. This is our home. We don’t have to cater to a landlord’s whims or worry about whether or not he’s making the mortgage payment or just pocketing our rent money leaving us to be evicted when he gets foreclosed on. If you own an house, and you can make the mortgage, underwater or not, DO IT! Eventually you will own the house outright, and in the meantime, you have the security of knowing that underwater or not, as long as you make your payments, you make the decisions about your house, not a landlord, not the bank, and not rich financial advisors like Suze Orman.

  • MBStucky

    We tried….Bank wanted us to sign loan mod for 400K House sold November 2010 for 120K… We paid our taxes :0)always paid cash..never credit for anything

  • bigroblee

    I’m confused… could you not make your payments on the loan you took out any longer, or did you just decide you didn’t want to stucky?

  • bigroblee

    I really hope that you are not able to enter the market as you put it and purchase another home in your lifetime. If you had the means to make your payments then you should have continued to do so. You and so many others like you believed that home values would always continue to increase and when they didn’t well then you get a pass… the previous owner got their money from the bank when you took out the loan, you purchased it with your eyes open, and now you play the victim. Sad… your father would say “Daughter, I am disappointed”.

  • bigroblee

    If you thought it was an investment, then you have to accept the risk inherent in an investment. Why do so many people think the bank should decrease the principle balance when property values decrease? If the home had increased do you think the bank should have had the ability to increase the principal balance? No? Then why do you think they should decrease it now?

  • bigroblee

    I agree Karl. All of these “strategic defaulters”? I would love to see how they would have acted if they had paid outright for these homes… I have a suspicion many of them would have been trying to find a way for the bank or the previous owner to give them back some of their money. It’s a sad state of affairs…

  • Ginna

    THANK YOU! When people buy a home with a 30 year loan at a 7.5% APR and the original price of the home at time of purchase was $450k on a house that was realistically worth only $106k (speculation is magical…so are granite counter tops…), if they had no intention of actually sticking in that home for the 30 years they signed up for, they shouldn’t have bothered purchasing in the first place. If you do a 30 year mortgage, yeah, you’re gonna pay out the eyeballs in extra interest, but at the end of it all, it’s YOUR HOME to do with as YOU PLEASE. When you die, you can leave it to your kids. Nobody buys a house to live in anymore. It’s always an investment or business decision because people have a mentality of everything is temporary and disposable. I owe more on my loan than what my vehicle is worth. Does that mean I should trade it in for something worth its’ cost? No. It’s going to be my car when the terms are said and done. Same deal with a house. Buy a house you can see yourself in when you’re old and the kids are gone.

  • alfadur

    bigroblee… so you think it’s OK that the Banksters and Wall Street gamblers steal the World’s wealth but the folks who just wanted a home shouldn’t be able to walk away from the scam?

    For the record we’re the lucky ones… our mortgage is paid off (30 yr note paid off in 18), but we recognize that for most Americans victimized by the lenders this is a nightmare they didn’t buy into. Why shouldn’t the homeowners paying on upside down notes be able to walk away when the banks received the gift (from the government) of not adjusting the value of the properties downward after they crashed the economy? Afterall, it was the lenders who insisted that real estate be valued like commodities (so they could make more money and drive the market upward as the bubble grew). But as soon as the economy crashed the crooks convinced the Feds to lock in the inflated values of homes. Sweet scam! One thing is for sure… the American people will continue to pay the price of this grandest of all rip-offs.

    For those contemplating what to do… I say do all you can to stay in your home (don’t listen to Orman… she lacks even the basic understanding to realize that a home isn’t an investment… it’s a home!). But if you feel it’s time to go, then walk away and don’t feel any regrets. Walking away will get you away from the predatory and recalcitrant lender… and with that freedom you can move on in life.

  • bigroblee

    I don’t necessarily feel these people were victimized. The ones in this article just feel the principal balance on their homes should be reduced because the market values their home for less than when they purchased. That’s wrong, I don’t care how you frame it. The people they purchased the homes from made a good financial decision as to selling, the purchasers didn’t make a good decision. Just as the bank can’t ask for more money if property value increases the home owners shouldn’t ask to pay less when property values decrease. I understand that people want to walk away, who wouldn’t want to. It’s also a sign of severe immaturity and there should be a punishment for it; I don’t believe a “strategic defaulter” should ever be able to purchase a home with a mortgage again; they have made it clear they will only honor their mortgage if the property value increases. Imagine their investments in the stock market… “I need my initial money back because the stock has decreased”, buying a new car “I need the balance on my car loan lowered because my blue book value has decreased”, student loans “I can’t get a high paying job, my loan balance should be lowered”.

  • home

    The pressure to buy from 2000-2006 was so high. It was like the big conspiracy. The people that hurt the most are the young couple, starting a family, putting a lot of their savings to buy their first home during those 5-7 years. There were lots of investors too, big and small, and yes, they got hurt, but it’s different. Many can just get rid of their extra rental houses and take the loss. But for the single family who’s depending on this one house….what can you do? Not everyone were investors. This is more than taking a ricky investment….

  • alfadur

    I agree with your points regarding accountability, but my problem is with the lenders not having accountability. If the buyers can never have another note as you suggest, then why should the lenders be able to lend again? It was their wild gambling that created the mess… the buyers made the mistake of falling for the scam. Instead, the lenders see their assets preserved (by inflating the current value of the property they have on the books) and the consumer is expected to pay the tab for such.

    Clearly, we are coming from different perspectives on this. Your position is about ethics (which is fine, and important), but mine is about correct and lawful business practices… or lack thereof. I simply see no reason for borrowers being held accountable when the gamblers were allowed to skip jail time and continue to profit at the expense of the consumer and taxpayers. They get their bonuses and nice profits while Americans stand by in disbelief.

    Ethics should be present across the board. No reason to hold one party of a contract accountable when the second party clearly acted in bad faith.

  • mode

    I’m suprised there’s not a lot of law suits against lenders, banks, etc. Or I haven’t heard much about it. One case that I’ve heard is that Hudson pilot who sued his lender for fraud or something similar that misrepresented the price of the house. I feel a lot of people are in that situation and should take the lenders to court. I remember clearly on my own house buying experience, the lender kept trying to convice me that I can afford the 500k house although I just don’t see how with my low income of 40K a year and I’m the only one working in my family…..

  • bigroblee

    My points are not entirely about ethics. I don’t see that the banks inflated the value of the homes; the MARKET inflated the value of the homes. I didn’t buy a home although I could have. Why? Because I felt prices were too high and not sustainable. I was right… Let’s hypothesize, say 2006. A person lists their home for 400,000 and they immediately get three offers, two of which are more than the asking price. This person sells their home to one of the interested parties for, let’s just say 425,000. The bank gives that amount to the seller, the purchaser puts up maybe 25,000 at that time period, and finances the rest through a mortgage. The bank paid out the money to the seller and is going to make a return on the loan via the interest charged. So, seller got their money, buyer got their home, all is well. Fast forward two years… market has decreased, seller wants out or wants to force the bank to take a loss on the principal. Why should they? The bank may have done wrong somewhere at some point along the line to someone but in this basic scenario, which is nothing other than what the people in this article are involved in, they only entity acting in bad faith are the borrowers. They wanted to play a game where the could only win, and could quit out with no harm if they lost. It’s like the seven year old kids I sometimes play games online with, happy as hell when they are winning, rage quit when then are loosing.

  • bigroblee

    If your home was sold for more than you owed on it, it would not have been a short sale situation; I’m a bit confused about your situation.

  • alfadur

    The Market inflated the value of homes through farces like Gramm-Leach-Bliley and allowing homes to be valued like commodities. These alone contributed greatly to the bubble… and made the market a play toy to those who manipulated it (lenders and Wall Street). Problem is, the “play toy” is mostly comprised of people’s homes, not true commodities.

    During the bubble there were plenty of “speculators” (many being small time investors looking to make a quick buck), and I have no sympathy for them. They gambled and lost. But to hold true homeowners to an ethical standard while allowing lenders to falsely inflate the value of a property (remember, it is they who wanted to value homes like commodities) without consequence is simply unfair.

  • john

    No way should there mortgage be reduced. You signed the contract. These people are deadbeats!

  • sparis

    Life isn’t fair alfadur. Get over it. Try saving up 500,000 and loaning out the money to a complete stranger. See what happens when they come back to you and say, “can you make it so I don’t owe that much anymore maybe only 400,000 bacause what I bought with it isn’t worth as much.” Give me break.

  • sparis

    So its the lenders fault. Own up to it. They didn’t make you sign the papers. You knew your own limits. You are whats wrong with this country. To hell with the lawsuits. Why is medicare so high. Lawsuits. Why is insurance so high. Lawsuits. Why is everything so high, becaue people need to save up because some low life is going to try and blame someone else for their mistakes. Own it. You signed the papers. You knoew how much you could afford every month. Own it!!!!!!!

  • Let

    Yeah I agree. My husband and I ourchased our condo in 2006 right before the market really crashed and we paid 200k for it with 2 mortgages one for 160k the other for 40k, two different banks. We were very young t the time, I was 22. but we figured it would be better to own then rent. its only a 1 bedroom condo so not large but it has a perfect location short walk to the mall and grocery stores (15-25 min) I got laid off twice once in 2009 then another 2010! So we worked with our lender chase and got a loan MOD. so now with our HOAs we pay 800/mo. not bad since rent is a little more in our area then 800/mo. I got our 2nd mortgage settled and we’re fine now. I appreciate that we got this MOD but we still owe the whole 160k and our condo is worth around 60k (last I checked) I can’t complain on that and just thankful we even got to keep our home and be able to afford it. It was a favor that we were asking for pretty much and I wouldn’t expect them to lower our princ balance (cant be greedy) and thats 1 reason why I disagree with Orman b/c we’re still more then half underwater but theres no were around this area (perfect for us with in 2 miles of our job) for what we’re now paying on our mortgage and if we walked away we’d pay more on rent I think with out the benfits that come along with being a homeowner. Everyones situation is different

  • alfadur

    The banks didn’t “save up” anything… they get their money cheaply from the FED with up to a 10:1 spread. That would be money you and I are now paying for in the form of bonds (that we nor our children will ever be able to pay-off). A $500,000 amount that a bank “saves-up” goes into their investments, most of which are off shore.

    Curious how so many simply believe there is only one party at fault in this mess. No one seems willing to hold the second party to task… and they’re the party that STOLE everything.

  • http://www.lightfixturesandmore.info/discount-home-lighting/ Discount Home Lighting | LIGHT FIXTURES AND MORE

    [...] for Discount Home [...]

  • Gloria Grey

    Kurtis and Suze Orman are both hypocrites of the highest order. Back in 2008 there was a company named ShortRefiNow.com (I worked there & they shut us down for promoting this exact idea) that was promoting this EXACT scenario and Kurtis did a story on them saying they were ripping people off. Now, 4 years later and they are on the other side of things promoting it themselves. What a joke!

  • Gloria

    Dan, Chase (nor any other bank) is going to write down principal so why are you even frustrating yourself with a process that is not designed to benefit you. The banks have already been paid off (via the bailout) on the expectation that you’re going to walk away so why not take the fact that the government is exempting you from the 1099 Income hit of a short sale/foreclosure and run? Don’t walk, RUN AWAY from the bad investment and get another house (possibly the one next door) in 2 years and 1 day from foreclosure date (under FHA guidelines provided you meet other criteria).

  • Gloria

    Oh, the state is only in big trouble if that happens? You are blind buddy. The banks refused to honor their commitment and took billions from us as taxpayers but you want homeowners to continue to reward that behavior?

  • Gloria

    No, YOU are wrong. If your mortgage is $400k, over a period of 30 years you will pay roughly $1 million. If your house is valued at $200k, you will be lucky if the value ever gets back to $400k and even luckier if it gets there within 30 years. For the sake of argument, say it does get back to $400k, it is never going to be worth MORE than $400k. So let’s look at your suggestion, pay $1 million over the next 30 years for something that, when you finally pay it off (if you’re lucky) will be worth $400k.

    Does that sound like wise financial advice? If so, give me $100 right now and in 30 years, I’ll give you $40. In your example, this is sound reasoning.

    Let’s look at the flip side, walk away from your house and in 2 years, buy the very same house (if you really love it and are not the next owner post foreclosure) for $200k. Over 30 years, you pay $500k for the mortgage. In 30 years, you sell the house and get $400k.

    Same example, give me $100 and in 30 years I give you back $80. Double your money and only have to worry about a 2 year window where you don’t own a home.

    There are more drawbacks to owning than renting in today’s market.

  • WIllie

    Actually Bigrob, you make a great point with regards to auto loan financing as it is the BIGGEST fraud that the government has ever allowed to be perpetrated upon us as consumers. Automakers and Banks have been brainwashing consumers for years by charging exorbitant interest for something that loses value almost by the minute. Where else in our financial lives do we allow ourselves to be swindled like we do in cars? If someone told you when buying a home, “Congratulations bigroblee, you just paid $300k for this house but don;t you worry, bu the time you go to sleep tonight, it will be worth $150k” you would NEVER sign the loan papers. Yet we have been tricked into doing it by the machine. They can make a car that lasts 100 years if they wanted, but then we gluttonous consumers wouldn’t be back in 2.5 years to sink another 20% of our income into an appreciating liability. The only reason people aren’t walking away from their overpriced cars is because unlike the 1099 mortgage exemption, you can;t get away from paying a car loan.

  • I Sell Leverage

    Agreed alfa. However, the lender’s assets are not only preserved, they are preserved at least 3 times over. Once in the form of the bailout which lined their pockets, twice when they take the tax benefit from the loss on the investment when the payments aren’t made and the third time when they sell the house to their umbrella corps and make a killing on the back end. People need to open their eyes and quit with this “ethics” BS. You fools who believe that any one of these aholes at these banks has even a single iota of ethics are bigger fools than they think you are. They are playing a rigged game and they are using your moralistic approaches AGAINST you. Your guilt is what they are COUNTING on. Stop the madness fools and WALK AWAY! I have clients who I have been helping for 3 years now and they haven’t made a single payment on their house, are still living in it and have saved tens of thousands of dollars cash to buy a house off the courthouse steps when the time comes to walk away.

  • I Sell Leverage

    sparis are you REALLY so ignorant to think the banks actually have the cash on hand to loan to homeowners? Pick up a book! In actuality banks are “supposed” to have the cash on hand but because of a little known creation called a “Credit Default Swap” (which was created by none other than the analysts at JP Morgan whose namesake was integral in the creation of the FDIC) the banks were able to sell default insurance to companies like AIG (the first of the “too big to fails”) so that they could then go out and SPEND the money they were supposed to keep in case there was ever a default! The reason the economy crashed is because Credit Default Swaps are NON ACCOUNTING transactions and DO NOT NEED TO BE SHOWN on a balance sheet. Do you get it now? If you try reading a book instead of watching the idiot box, you may form an opinion that is based on fact and not supposition.

  • Greed did this

    No one is talking about the people who purchase homes in the 1985 to 1999 just to see there homes go down in value .in 2000 they inflate the value of the property .so the greedy played the game and lost now the greedy is crying .you signed a contract for a inflate price for a home pay it you a-holes

  • Jay

    The moral argument is a tired one, to me. Corporations walk away from their obligations everyday. When it saves the corporation money, Wall Street and the shareholders alike praise the company for increasing the bottom line. Why can’t a family do the same? It’s contract law, plan and simple: Bank will give Borrower $X to purchase a house, and the Borrower will repay the Bank at X% interest. If Borrower does not, Bank takes house. The penalty is cleared agreed upon by both parties. The borrower is opting for the penalty, because it makes the most financial sense. Not immoral, not moral, it’s amoral. This decision has nothing to do with morals, it’s contract law, people.

  • Rick

    We have become a society that no longer values personal responsibility, self reliance and accountability to yourself and others. Why stand when you can sit, and why sit when you can lay. It’s why I don’t vote for the Entitlement Party/Democrat Party.

  • Jay

    I don’t entirely disagree, Richard, but that same phrase applies to big banks and other large financial institutions who were 50% of the mess. Not more, not less. I’m all for personal responsibility, and I lean pretttty far to the right. But I’m tired of the double standard. The banks agreed to lend money for an overinflated asset just as the borrower agreed to take that money and purchase an overinflated asset. For all the morons who say “well the bank didn’t force you to sign the contract” I say “you’re right. And I didn’t force THEM to sign the contract.” You know, the contract that says what happens in the event of default. The banks do this all the time and nobody cares.

    And while I’m at it, the other morons who talk about a car being underwater, so why don’t you just walk away from the car. Simple: it all boils down to contract law. In the event of a vehicle, the bank can repossess the collateral, THEN pursue the borrower for any additional monies to fully satisfy the loan. In most residential mortgages in California, they cannot. An if that isn’t enough, there is a practical answer to that question: because the cost of a replacement asset is different when talking about a home versus a vehicle. Many times you can rent a house for 50% of what the mortgage payment is on that house. Not so for a car.

  • jay

    Which greed are you talking about, a-hole? The greed of the borrowers? The investors? The bankers? The real estate agents? Be a little more specific. It’s a slippery slope, I must say. Do I think that the people who bought in 2004, refi’d 8 times during 2005 and 2006 to buy jet skis and vacations and motorcycles are a little greedy? Sure, I do. But what about the couple next door that bought in 2004 but didn’t refi, or spend their money frivolously? That person is underwater too, and for what? Living within their means. Do I feel bad for them? Not necessarily. Do I blame them if they crunch the numbers and decide it is in their interest to walk. Absolutely not.

  • I Sell Leverage

    Jay, although your point of view seems fairly altruistic, your statement about cars vs homes is a little off base. The only reason there is no penalty for homeowners walking away from a mortgage is because it has been exempted due to the severity and volume of homeowners doing so. (An exemption that will not last which makes it imperative that if you’re gonna walk away, you need to walk NOW.)

    The recession is based in large part to the fact that the lenders in this country KNEW they would be able to run to the fed and receive billions when (not if) their shell game failed.

    As far as not pursuing a homeowner for the monies owed, it is a significant gray area as second mortgages can essentially be converted to unsecured debt and collections proceed.

    The only reason they have not exempted vehicle owners in the same manner is because a larger percentage of vehicle owners are not homeowners and therefore are not in a high enough tax bracket to make it worthwhile. (There are many additional reasons as well.)

    Regardless, the Great Bailout began as the Great Automotive Bailout as the funds were initially earmarked for the automakers who were “too big to fail” and when they started showing up in private jets, the funds were reallocated to the mortgage industry.

    What everyone needs to understand is that the reason we are in this situation is because of CREDIT. I work in the financial sector and I deal directly with consumers and I am constantly hearing people mistakenly make statements about how something will impact their credit but they have NO CLUE how it works and do nothing to learn. The credit system in this country DOES NOT WORK and all one needs to look at to prove that it doesn’t work is the economy.

    Stop buying into the ridiculous notion that “credit” rules the world. Income rules the world. You can have great credit and no income and you will get BUPKUS, but you can have terrible credit and great income and magically get approved for credit. Coincidence?

    For all of you on these boards going back & forth at each other, this is what the “have’s” want from us. They feed off of our willingness to fight & argue with each other when we should be joining together and fighting THEM! Racism is far less of an issue in this world than classism. It is the “Have’s” versus the “Have Not’s” and until we can get it straight, it will be more of the same. remember Mike Milken and Ivan Boesky? Anyone?

  • Jay

    I Sell Leverage: Not here to start a fight with you, someone who I can tell “gets it” from your post. But I do have a couple corrections for you:

    First, re: the “only reason there is no penalty” is not “due to the severity and volume of homeowners doing so”, but rather, its due to the law. In California specifically, this is California Civil Code Procedure 580b. The tax laws are favorable, to a certain extent, and are geared towards walking away before Dec 31, 2012. But for purchase money loans, they are defined as non-recourse loans, and under CA CCP 580b, a lender is barred from collecting a deficiency judgment. It has been this way for many many years (although I’m not an attorney and I don’t know when CCP 580b was signed into law).

    Second, and this is very related to my first correction: there isn’t really a lot of gray area on second loans that are purchase money loans, under 580b. 580b is pretty clear: “No deficiency judgment shall lie in any event after a sale of
    real property or an estate for years therein for failure of the
    purchaser to complete his or her contract of sale, or under a deed of
    trust or mortgage given to the vendor to secure payment of the
    balance of the purchase price of that real property or estate for
    years therein, or under a deed of trust or mortgage on a dwelling for
    not more than four families given to a lender to secure repayment of
    a loan which was in fact used to pay all or part of the purchase
    price of that dwelling occupied, entirely or in part, by the
    purchaser.”

    If the borrower took out a second loan after the purchase of the home, that is a different story. But for the “classic” 80/20 loans that were oh-so-prevalent during 2005, 2006, and 2007 – no deficiency judgments are permitted if the lender pursues the trustee sale method of taking the property back.

  • Nora

    Me, too! I don’t get it, Diana.
    My house is $150, 000 upsidedown, and am preparing now to ask the bank for a short sale. If they don’t agree, then, I’m walking away. While the property dropped, the taxes on it has dropped too. So it makes me wonder if you have not paid your taxes in a while.

  • I Sell Leverage

    Sorry Jay I should’ve clarified, I was speaking mainly of “non purchase” money as that is the larger issue given how many homeowners treated their equity as a never ending ATM.

    Granted, there are a great deal of people who bought near the end of the boom who got stuck, but the people I seem to constantly be speaking with are those who cashed out to pay off all their debt (only to run it back up again inside of 6 months), buy cars/boats/RV’s/ATV’s/vacations and are now appalled that someone expects them to pay it back.

    It never ceases to amaze me when someone, claiming the inability to make their mortgage payment, has assets such as cars, boats, etc… which were paid for using proceeds from a refinance REFUSES to sell the assets because they “own” it.

    There are legitimate arguments for both sides, but since there only legitimate solutions for the lenders, the answer is walk away and let them eat their decision. Fill up the bankruptcy courts and when the BK gets discharged LEARN FROM YOUR MISTAKES and stop living outside your means.

    The issue speaks more to the systemic failures of the built in processes which imply that home ownership is some sort of American Dream for everyone. As in most everything, home ownership should come with a disclaimer that indicates one need first be responsible enough to manage their money and second actually make enough money to make homeownership a viable option.

    Far too many people in this country felt that because they were able to get qualified meant they could “afford” a house. The victimization of American Consumer’s persists because we, as a whole, are a gluttonous and irresponsible bunch who are blind to financial responsibilities as long as someone tells us we are able to get that new house, car or $10k credit limit.

    The fault lies with the Fed for allowing banks to create a system where they would approve loans with stated income. The banks didn’t care about the risk because they knew that when the system fell apart, THEY could treat the FDIC as THEIR own personal ATM and get billions leaving the very same irresponsible American Consumers holding the bag for decades into the future.

    The Fed Reserve is at the top of the biggest Ponzi scheme ever created and there is no way to stop them. JP Morgan was the CREATOR of the FDIC back in the early 1900′s and lo and behold, 100 years later and his bank (Chase) has been the biggest benefactor of the bailouts to date.

  • Carrie

    So, I’m confused…I owe $446k on a house worth $225k with an interest rate of 5.8% over 30 years…should I walk away or not?

  • I Sell Leverage

    That is a dangerously loaded question Carrie. If you believe you will regain the value in your house over the next 30 years and it’s worth the risk, then stay and gamble.

    If you stay, you will pay a total of $942k over 30 years for a house you will be able to sell (if you’re lucky) for what you paid ($446). If you choose to walk, you may be able to save thousands before you leave and then wait 2 years and 1 day (depending on unique variables) from foreclosure and get new financing.

    Consider a house on your same street, in 2 years you buy it for $225k for 30 years at 5.8%. You then pay a total of $475k over 30 years for something you can sell for $446k in 30 years. A savings of $466k over 30 years or $15k per year.

    Should you walk away or not?

    There is a guaranteed exit strategy right now that allows you to “walk away” and risk nothing except a foreclosure on your credit score and a lowered score as a result.

    IMO, if you walk on the house, do so “strategically” by maximizing your benefit before you leave. Also, since a foreclosure has the most damaging impact to your credit, you should also consider stopping payments on any unsecured debt as well as consideration of a BK if you have other “secured” debt.

  • harol wilson

    Please. The banks and real estate industry caused our recesson and diminished market. They are the greedy and in many cases, the illegal cullprits. And there are still people siding with them? The industries that ruined our great country? If you are underwater on the mortgage, make your plans, try a short sale, and then give them the keys. It’s called CAPITOLISM!

  • Jay

    Agreed and well said, Leverage. The biggest issue is (perhaps ironically) our government and it’s lending standards (or lack thereof) at the time. Irresponsible borrowers who used their home as an ATM, as you stated, are also to blame. It’s just a big, big, big mess and there are plenty of guilty and innocent parties involved.

  • WR

    I wrote an article on this as well:

    http://worthwild.net/blog/2010/should-i-stay-or-should-i-go/

    “Should I stay or should I go” is a tough, emotionally wrenching question.

  • http://www.liasophiashop.us/imps-to-do-it-at-oxford-keep-the-faith/ Imps To Do It At Oxford – Keep The Faith | Lia Sophia Jewelry Store|Lia Sophia Jewelry Blog

    [...] Call Kurtis: Walking Away from Your Underwater Home « CBS Sacramento [...]

  • Greed did this

    This is what we have become .We borrow from from banks to buy cars a house school and so on. what happen to the responsibility by the banks investors people to pay it back! what happen to the rules and lending standards. greed is good we do not have to pay it back we have laws and we reward the irresponsible with bailouts and bankruptcy so lets inflate the market and borrow and buy to borrow to buy more because we do not have to pay it back. you would be stupid if you are the responsible one

  • http://davidjurewicz.wordpress.com/2011/05/03/mortgage-troubles-should-you-walk-away-from-your-loan/ Mortgage troubles? Should you walk away from your loan? « What have Coleen and David Jurewicz been up to?
  • Todd

    You only live once. If the house never comes ahead from what you’re upside down with, then YES!!! WALK AWAY!! Consider it a bad investment. Yes, your name will be mud for a while, but you can always repair your credit. You won’t ever see that money again if you continue making payments on your over priced purchase. Rent a home (or purchase another one) while your credit is good. then, mail your keys from your current home along with a letter indicating that home is vacant and that you have walked away from that mortgage. Simple!

  • mikey

    If you own a home that is 70% underwater, get a clue and realize you are not very good with finances. You just lost money on a really bad investment. Get sound advice next time. And by sound advice, I don’t mean some guy with a blog detailing his road back from bankruptcy. I mean your elderly relative with the paid off house and big bank account.

  • Bob

    Mikey, keep your mouth shut. You have no idea what you are talking about.
    Do you think people just bought their homes within a year or two?> Get real..Think before opening your mouth

  • mikey

    Bob, if you have been in your home more than a few years, you shouldn’t have lost 70% of the value. That home value, while you lived there, went up and down, but only on paper. That’s key. It was on paper. My east Sac home was worth $650 but only on paper, unless and until I sold it at that. If, like my neighbors, you bought at the height of the market, that’s a bad investment. There’s no other way to describe it. There, I got real.

  • I Sell Leverage

    Although that may be YOUR reality Mikey, you are in the minority as you fail to understand that although most people are addressing the issue because they are “underwater” more likely their reasoning behind walking away is because the payment is too high. This may have happened for a number of reasons, but most likely it is due to an adjustable rate, recasted loan or loss in income.

    The truth of the matter is that the lenders in this country had an ethical responsibility to provide loan products that were viable products for long term growth and security and what they actually did was provide the opposite for short term profits. They did this because of the creation of products by Wall Street such as Mortgage Backed Securities and the Credit Default Swaps that allowed for such transactions as well as being armed with the knowledge that they could get BILLIONS if it failed.

    The lender’s made bad loans because in most cases they had the loan packaged and sold as part of a secondary market portfolio before the ink was dry and the 3 day rescission was over so they knew there would be profits absent toxicity from the outset.

    They also made bad loans and then hedged against those bad loans actually working by investing in their failure (see Hank Paulson). What this meant was they could go back to the well at least 3 times for profits on the same loan, 1. the original secondary loan sale (which was usually $1.07 to every $1.00), 2. the hedged failure and 3. the bailout.

    You live in East Sac where values have not dipped as far as the outlying areas such as Elk Grove, Natomas or even further like Olivehurst and beyond. However, if your house used to be valued at $650k it is likely that you are closer to 70% in losses than you think. And you can save the emotional response that your house is unlike any other in the country and “really hasn’t dropped that much in value”. Everyone in the industry knows that a homeowner ALWAYS thinks THEIR house is worth more than anyone else knows even with comps and appraisals in hand.

    Last thought: A “home” as an investment is a BAD IDEA unless it is a “house” (read: not owner occupied) . Far too many people bought into THEIR home as their retirement plan and that is costly and irresponsible but for many, because they do not understand money, this is all they felt was within reach. The majority if this city is middle class and like every other middle class before them they ceased on an opportunity to live outside their means and it has come back to bite all of us.

    However, the responsibility is not on the middle class to ensure that the lending institutions are providing viable products. That falls on the Fed and the Regulatory Commissions and their greed has allowed the continued victimization by these lenders. Therefore, the opportunity exists for ALL of us who own homes that are upside down to hit the ‘RESET’ button and GIVE IT BACK! Regardless of the how or why, take advantage of it. If you don’t Mikey, then remember this conversation in a couple decades when your value is still stuck at $500k and you have no way out except a short sale or foreclosure.!

  • http://howtogetrichblog.com/2011/05/when-suze-orman-told-me-to-abandon-my-mortgage/ When Suze Orman Told Me to Abandon My Mortgage « Affiliates « How to get Rich blog

    [...] didn’t exist; they were just rare and spoke more to bad finances and financial planning. Today? Suze Orman thinks it might not be a crazy [...]

  • Christine malcolm

    I Heard if you walk away (even though you have no job etc) that you are still liable to pay what mortgage company did not recoup in auctioning house.they can put lien on salary if you are fortunate to ever get employed again.
    What then? Is this a myth?

    What if you have an inheritance in bank can mortgage company come after that?

    I have a neice who walked twice in three years in sacramento and she and her husband have jobs, gets is at a state school and no one came after them AND they niw own another house within months after waking.
    Everyone I know says they will legally come after you for life.what are the ramifications if walking out of your house? Thanks

  • I Sell Leverage

    In a normal economy Christine, you are still responsible for the debt. However, because of the recession the responsibility has been exempted for the time being (on primary residences only). Having a job NEVER has anything to do with whether or not you are responsible for a debt so I’m not sure why you would make such a statement as wouldn’t people just run up their debt and quit their jobs when they couldn’t afford it?

    And as far as your niece walking away twice in 3 years all I can say is that she likely owned 3 houses, walked from 1 and moved to the other and then walked again and moved to the last. She didn’t walk away, buy a house, walk away again and now qualify to buy another house. Someone is yanking your chain.

  • Mark Moore

    Strategic Default is never an easy decision, but as Suze Orman notes, mortgages that are severely underwater will not recover for a very long time.

    The HomeLiberty (www.home-liberty.com) program was created for families with severe negative equity who have decided strategic default is in their financial best interest, but would like to keep their home.

    The program offers a chance for these families to keep their existing home, immediately re-establish positive equity (90% LTV), and lower their monthly payments.

  • I Sell Leverage

    And here we have our first profiteer to enter the fray. Mark, your attempt to SPAM (& hopefully profit) what has, to this point, been a reasonable discussion about what to do in a difficult situation is the epitome of the problem.

    The program you list is a farce and you KNOW it doesn’t work. That is called a “short refinance” and it doesn’t exist. Companies like the aforementioned “ShortRefiNow.com” attempted to do this very thing 5 years ago when the problem began and the lenders refused then and they are still refusing.

    You can claim it’s a “short sale”, but quite frankly you need to be honest about the law preventing “parking” title long enough to short the sale & then reassign ownership down in the future. It’s absolutely doable, but not via a mass marketed false program such as yours which advertises an illegal solution.

    Again, it is impossible to legally “re establish positive equity” while continuing to be the legal owner of record on title. No matter how you dress it up, there is still a transfer of title involved which means the homeowner is no longer the “owner”. Present REAL solutions and not a profiteers perspective.

  • homeliberty1

    Dear I Sell,

    Respectfully, we are not a short refinance. The HomeLiberty program offers a fixed, 30 year mortgage with no prepayment penalties, and no balloon payments.

    The homeowner is free to refi if/when they find better rates, or to stay in the loan for 30 years if they wish.

    We are a fully licensed, and legal company, and our program has been reviewed for full compliance with all CA and federal regulations.

    We sincerely want to help, and I know of no other program that helps underwater homeowners that are not in financial distress. If you know of any, I hope you post your information. HomeLiberty does not require a hardship declaration.

    I don’t mind you posting an opinion, and I don’t ask you to agree with what we are trying to do. But, I would appreciate it if you would check your facts. I’m happy to discuss any issues or concerns you might have.

    HomeLiberty offers a fair, *honest*, and dignified program for families with severe negative equity giving them a chance to *immediately* re-establish 90% LTV positive equity.

    If you have a moment to review our FAQ, you will see we apply 100% of the first 13 payments to principal reduction as well. So within a year, with as little as $5,000 down, a family with 150% LTV (or worse) could be in their existing home with a 30 year loan, reduced monthly payments, and enjoying an 80% LTV.

    I don’t mind dissenting opinion, and I respect yours. There have been a number of “profiteers,” so you have every right to be suspicious.

    I only hope you have the time to get a few of the facts before stating so categorically what is just not true.

    Mark Moore, CEO
    HomeLiberty, Inc.
    http://www.home-liberty.com

  • I Sell Leverage

    Mr. Moore, although I applaud your desire to clean up what may be perceived as a negative perception of your company, I also believe that your program is simply another dressed up process of loan modification which the lenders have shown EVEN IN THE FACE OF GOVERNMENT PRESSURE that they will not budge on principal reduction. Your process is simply a short sale using your investor capital coupled with a promise to the “homeowner” that once the laws allow it, you will transfer title back to their name. Your are SPECULATING that the law will someday allow it and based upon previous history and current legislation there is nothing indicating that this is even remotely possible.

    I have read your FAQ’s and just because the average consumer (your target market) will not be able to find fault with your statements doesn’t mean that others won’t.

    The premise of your effort is reliant upon the one major reason this country finds itself where it does and that is the continued ignorance of a majority of the nations homeowners as to how the process works. You are attempting to use a homeowner’s emotion, which is based largely on the fallacy that home ownership IS the American Dream, AGAINST them when you likely know full well that if a homeowner goes through the process of short sale/foreclosure THE DAMAGE HAS BEEN DONE.

    You are simply trying to make a turn key opportunity out of a bad situation which is

    1. Short Sale or let the house Foreclose
    2. Home-Liberty buys the property at auction
    3. Home Liberty then rents back the home to the previous homeowner
    4. Home Liberty then tells the homeowner to “be patient the laws will change” while the homeowner pays “rent” (since they are no longer the owner of record)

    It is a PURELY speculative effort which amounts to a glorified “lease option to buy”.

    If you are a homeowner who is forced out of your home, leave the home and all of the negativity that goes with it behind and start again in a couple of years elsewhere. Do not let the emotion of “not wanting to move” cause you to stay in a bad situation and at all costs do not allow a program such as Home LIberty (which cannot possibly provide nor does it) a guarantee that it will even work.

    My question to you Mr. Moore is, did you or someone else write the next to last statement in your FAQ section? How can you honestly claim that you “sincerely want to help” when stating that a “…severely negative equity homeowner has a moral obligation to negotiate in good faith with their lender to try and find a mutually acceptable solution”?

    The banks/lenders have STOLEN from EVERY homeowner/taxpayer in this country and you claim the homeowner’s have some sort of moral contract to try to pay them DOUBLE for the same house? If the home is delinquent, it was listed as a toxic asset on the lender’s portfolio which means they have ALREADY BEEN PAID in full.

    I applaud your capitalistic nature, but please step away from the advocacy angle you are attempting to claim. You are quite clearly in it for the returns and I can tell you right now (having been down your path 3 times in recent years) it isn’t gonna work and as soon as it seems like it’s about to catch on, the regulators will be at your doorstep with desist and refrains. Good luck.

  • Mark Moore

    Dear I Sell,

    Again, I really don’t mind your distrust of most companies offering services and products to homeowners in the terrible situation that severe negative equity represents. I also thank you for taking the time to respond at such length. It’s clear you care about the negative equity problem. But, I continue to ask you to be clear about what is opinion when you state it as fact.

    First, HomeLiberty does not rent the property back to the homeowner. We sell it back to them at a price that they agree is fair. At a price that is 90% of a written appraisal by a licensed, independent appraiser (assuming the borrower makes their payments on time). We provide a written offer to sell, with written terms, and we even offer seller side financing with locked terms because most homeowners in this situations cannot qualify anywhere else.

    Second, this is not some vague promise for “when the laws change” as you claim. We execute a written, signed, and binding CONTRACT obligating HomeLiberty to transfer title to the buyer (the original homeowner) as soon as we are recorded as the owner. The buyer typically is recorded as owner of record less than a week after foreclosure.

    You continue to assert that our process is not allowed under California law, but you have not been in contact with us to understand our program or contracts (e.g. you missed that we extend a written contract to buy, not a verbal promise to rent/lease to own).

    I don’t know if you practice law in California, but Doss Law, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, and Julia Leah Greenfield, Esq. have all reviewed the HomeLiberty program and found no state or federal laws prohibiting it. If you continue to claim it is not allowed, I hope you can be more specific.

    Respectfully, HomeLiberty won’t “step away from the advocacy,” because we are dedicated to bringing fair, honest, and dignified solutions to the homeowners with severe negative equity.

    I don’t know of any other organization offering programs to help homeowners who can make their payments, but can’t justify the negative equity. I don’t know of any other organization dedicated to creating a real, economic reason for lenders to forgive principal on severely underwater mortgages.

    Mark Moore, CEO
    HomeLiberty, Inc.

  • gloria

    Mr. Moore, no offense intended as I find your exchange with ISL to this point informative, but just because you got a few lawyers to say that they, “have all reviewed the HomeLiberty program and found no state or federal laws prohibiting it” does not mean that it is lawful. What will be more curious to all of us is, as ISL claims may happen, will those same attorney’s be there to stand by your side and defend you in a court of law against the Departments of Real Estate’s in various states if/when it happens? What about the code of ethics violations for those attorney’s when the Bar association says they intentionally participated in a program which, after even a cursory review, violates the spirit of the law. I think you feel confident that you have found a loophole in which to claim that the law doesn’t prohibit your actions. However, a loophole can be found in ANY situation (i.e. this recession) where we are entering a period of the unknown. That has not ever stopped them from claiming you are violating the spirit of the law, if not the letter. As has been stated, it will probably be wise for you to save s much money as possible for your defense because “they” will soon be at your door if you show the ability to talk people into this program. What you have failed to state is your results to this point. The absence of your willingness to do so tells me that you either have yet to be successful, or your success rate is so far below what can be considered effective you are unwilling to present them as fact.

  • Mark Moore

    Gloria,

    Thank you for taking the time to post. And, I especially appreciate the civility of your post even though it is evident you do not approve of the program as you understand it. Thank you.

    We are aware that this is a very contentious area that evokes very strong passions. I appreciate your advice, and we have made plans for mounting a vigorous defense if/when required.

    The first step, of course, is to make sure we comply with the law as written, and as intended. I assure you we have made every effort to be fully compliant. We are definitely not depending on some loophole to help the families we work with. We at HomeLiberty are dedicated to honest, fair, and dignified solutions for our customers.

    On the numbers, I can understand your suspicion, Gloria. But, you are mistaken. We have achieved 100% success so far, but I really hesitate to publish that because I do not want to characterize that as our expected success rate.

    So far, we have had no short-sale purchase offers accepted, and we have purchased all of the properties at foreclosure auction. We currently plan to purchase 1 to 2 homes per month, and we want to build this to 10 a month by the end of the year.

    We are very happy to have achieved 100% success so far, but I do not want anyone to believe they can be guaranteed to save their house *and* lower their principal.

    A home owner with severe negative equity can be guaranteed of one OR the other, but not both. The only guarantee to keep the house is to get current on all payments and late fees and cure the default if possible.

    If eliminating the negative equity is the higher priority, there is some very real risk they will lose the house.

    Anyone that promises both is lying.

    For a very detailed discussion of the worst case success rate, please see this discussion on fatwallet.com.[1]

    If you have not seen our FAQ (www.home-liberty.com/faqs.html)] I think it answers most of the issues you raised. If not, I would sincerely appreciate your suggestions on what information we can add to improve our website.

    Mark Moore, CEO
    HomeLiberty, Inc.
    http://www.home-liberty.com

    [1] http://www.fatwallet.com/forums/finance/1100298/?start=38

  • mary

    Until you go through it don’t judge people. Banks don’t want to help people that lose their jobs by modifying their loan. Also banks are escrowing anyone who tries to modify and gets turned down to find a bill of 2 1/2 years of taxes and bumps their mortgage up another 8 hundred dollars a month for over a year or more. It makes me wonder if these banks want these poor people to foreclose so they can collect their insurance they most likely took out on the home when theses people were in a trial mod and also they collect on the sheriff’s sale as well. This makes me sick!!

  • Karen

    Yes and you also have to realize that 50 years ago houses were 4 to 10 thousand dollars then and people were paying 100 dollars a month for their mortgage. People don’t have to have bad finances to be under water. Mortgages are outranges and mortgage companies have to also take responsibility for this. The economy went bad. I know doctors and lawyer that lose their homes because they get laid off and cant find a job and their bills keep pilling in. Don’t judge people …you may be in this position someday and then you’ll know its not what you think it is. Walk in these people shoes for one day.

  • Sally

    Good job Bod…I agree!!!

  • San

    Mr Moore, I to have read your FAQ and “how to improve your website” is to stop lying to homeowners who are in financial stress b/c of lenders like yourself. You want to help, I begged the difference you don’t want to help. You and your other lending institutions like chase, wells fargo, bank of america are only out to continue to NOT help homeowners. When your banks/lenders needed help, the government step in to help you guys, but when the homeowner’s needed help, You deny their refinance or give us hardworking homeowners the “round around”

  • http://www.loansafe.org/forum/foreclosures/43174-strategically-walking-running-away-calhfa-emeryville-9-1-11-fthb-loans-galore.html#post359972 Strategically Walking (running?) away from CalHFA in Emeryville on 9/1/11 (FTHB loans galore)

    [...] around the web convinced me- and my wife being an Oprah fan, Suze Orman pushed her over the edge with this video feature. Banks are making money hand over fist and are getting bailed out so we have no moral qualms about [...]

  • Mark Moore

    San,

    I apologize for not responding sooner, but I only just saw your comment.

    I am sorry for what it sounds like you have gone through. It is exactly this refusal to help that we saw that caused us to start HomeLiberty. I can understand how you might think we are a bank. We are not. We are a group of individuals that have worked hard to create a fair, honest, and dignified alternative for families with severe negative equity.

    We do in fact help real people save their homes. And we would be happy to have you talk to them.

    Again, I understand your anger and frustration with traditional lenders. But, we work hard to tell the full truth in all of our communications. We are not “lying to homeowners” on our website, and if there is something you believe we should change, PLEASE contact us directly at the info@home-liberty.com address.

    Mark Moore, CEO
    HomeLiberty, Inc.

  • Rupert

    Mr. Moore, it has been 6 months since your discussion and your most recent post makes no mention of any success rate. Since you felt this an appropriate forum which to market your program I wonder if you’d be willing to post your success rates and how effective your program has been to assist in avoiding foreclosure? Thank you

  • Mark Moore

    Rupert, we have captured over 70% of the homes and all of these were at the trustee sale/foreclosure auction. I would never represent any “success rate” to a customer. We are very direct with our customers that if they cannot bear losing their house, they should *not* strategically default.

    It is a very unfair decision, but they need to decide whether saving their home is THE MOST important outcome, or whether eliminating their negative equity is the most important. No one that is being honest can promise both. One *must* be the priority, and the other must be the “nice to have” result. The situation is completely unfair, but it is the situation.

    If the property is the most important, the homeowner *must* get current and then “hope” for a principal reduction from the lender.

    If eliminating the negative equity and restoring their family’s ability to build equity is the most important, they can, but they need to embrace that they could lose their home.

    Mark Moore, CEO
    HomeLiberty, Inc.

  • Mark Moore

    One other item… HomeLiberty does not “assist in avoiding foreclosure.”

    We offer a chance to save the home for families that have decided to pursue strategic default.

    The only way to avoid foreclosure is to cure the default and get current on the loan.

  • Margherita Chapple

    One thing I would like to touch upon is that weightloss program fast may be possible by the right diet and exercise. Someone’s size not merely affects appearance, but also the complete quality of life. Self-esteem, depression, health risks, plus physical skills are influenced in weight gain. It is possible to do everything right and at the same time having a gain. If this happens, a medical problem may be the culprit. While excessive food and never enough body exercise are usually guilty, common health conditions and widely used prescriptions can greatly amplify size. I am grateful for your post in this article. 17 days diet

  • cindy

    Mary,

    I lost my job 2 years ago and can’t seem to catch up!!! I owe my home is worth 175,000 in this market…I owe 165,000 and now I have 65,000 worth of fees!! That leaves me with a balance of 230,000 I cannot recover from……I am i my 50′s!!! I have everyone calling scammers and modification stallers (if you pay them) I don’t know the best thing…..walk away…short sale or save??????

    Anyone know????

    Cindy

  • Roddy

    Rod
    My parents have been trying for two yrs to get a mod since country wide sold to BofA . They put my parents on a temp mod for one year and said if you make your payments on time than it would be permeanete. In the mean time my parents filed bankruptcy and when that was approved the bank said the mod was denied and now there 25,000 dalors behind and still wont give them a mod. The bottom line is the banks say there here to help with the american Dream but actually there doing exactly waht you just wrote.. Very sad for everyone.. My parents hired Hoalm Helping the american Dream and we are approved for a DOJ but still haven’t recieved it,but BofA sent us a forclouser anyways. It’s sad that my parents house could be sold knowing they were aproved. So are the banks really working with the Department of Justice.

blog comments powered by Disqus
Listen Live!

2012 CBS Players Club Card – 7 Rounds For $99!

Follow CBS Sacramento