Because I probably will never learn the myriad of rules, regulations and ploys about how the banking industry operates, my approach to homeowners rights has been, what does and does not make sense when it comes to homeowners rights.
1. Non judicial foreclosure was on the top of my list of ridiculousness. Allowing private business to take back a home, AND USE LOCAL POLICE TO DO IT, without mediation beforehand seems outrageous to me.
#2 Securitizations that result in the changing of terms from the original mortgage agreement should not be valid. There can be no change in terms from the original agreement without the expressed, written consent of the homeowner.
Nothing can change on a mortgage agreement. Nothing can change in regards to penalties, fees, the ease with which one can speak to a representative, the representatives ability to correct the problem, the amount of time a payment needs to be process, the reinvestor suddenly having rights over the home owner's right to re-finance, none of that can change from when the mortgage deal was first struck.
#3 HAMP, the government cannot lure people into taxpayer funded programs, then actually punish them with a credit rating reduction and acceleration of loss of their home, ALL BEFORE THEY CAN EVEN APPLY FOR THE TAXPAYER FUNDS. This may be a violation of the Federal Hobbs Act, the extortion clause, using a government position to steal property under the color of right, EVEN IF IT IS ANOTHER ENTITY THAT RECEIVES THE STOLEN PROPERTY.
#4 Foreclosing on homes that have built up equity that would have allowed the homeowner a few more years time to ride out their own life situation that may involve unemployment or caretaking for a family member.
Real caretaking for another family member requires being there in person and not by proxy. This usually means staying unemployed by choice so the family member can caretake for another family member.
The government is actually advocating caretakers lose their homes even if the family has built up sufficient equity in their home that would allow them to glide through a caretaking situation.
Being unemployed while caretaking for a family member means no loan of any kind can ever be approved because the caretaker is unemployed, even if their home has decades worth of equity in it that cannot be taken out because of their caretaking / unemployment status.
#5 The down payment should not be lost in a foreclosure, but rather a significant portion should be applied towards continued living in the home, or as a walkaway check if the homeowner agrees to leave. Loss of the down payment creates additional incentive for the banks to foreclose on a homeowner.
None of these points will be brought up by Barack Obama tonight in his state of his mind address. What will brought up are all the ways that Barack Obama glorifies his Munchausen's disease by proxy in which our economy could grow again if only small businesses could be loaned money.
2 comments:
Great post. (Though there may have been something left out of #4.)
Hi G., I think you are right about number 4. I think I explained it a little more clearly now.
Ironically, Barack Obama spoke of his mother's health care issues, and how he sympathized with his mother, BY PHONE!
So does Barack Obama do anything to help homeowners access their own built up equity before a foreclosure, NOPE, not even if it is related to family healthcare, where one family member caretakes for another.
Post a Comment