I'm sorry, you must be assuming that I am trying to impress you or something, cause I value your opinion of myself above all and hope that someday you will employ me in your vast real estate empire. Here is another idea. You pay me a retainer and I will go out there and locate the mortgage contracts which put in demand features, upon other shady clauses in their contracts. There are no laws or regulations, not yet at least, on putting demand features (which most commercial mortgages have) on residential mortgage contracts which are not Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, FHA or VA.
Suppose your home is worth $300K. You know this because of appraisals, recent sales prices of comparable homes on the same street, etc. If you owe $5 on your $300K home, are you really a 'homeowner'? If you owe $1K on your $300K home, are you really a 'homeowner'? If you owe $5K on your $300K home, are you really a 'homeowner'? If you owe $10K on your $300K home, are you really a 'homeowner'? If you owe $50K on your $300K home, are you really a 'homeowner'? If you owe $100K on your $300K home, are you really a 'homeowner'? If you owe $200K on your $300K home, are you really a 'homeowner'? If you owe $285K on your $300K home, are you really a 'homeowner'? Where's the dividing line between being a 'homeowner', and not?
Just so that everyone following along here knows what we're talking about, here's what you said in your last post: Now it evidently appears that you are unable to locate a single example of this on a residential mortgage. And so that everyone else is not a victim of your misinformation, here it is again: lenders are not calling residential mortgages based on changing LTV or FMV. As to you Hydroblunt, my suggestion is that you refrain from posting on matters that you know absolutely nothing about. You've managed to make yourself look like a fool. OldTrader
primary control + residual cash flow rights = ownership If the fact that govt, lenders & others will take your property under certain circumstances meant you didn't own it, then you wouldn't own anything.
The correct answer is that you never truly 'own' anything until you are in a position whereby the asset is free of ongoing or recurring financial liabilities to any third parties so that these 3rd parties can never exercise a right to use the legal process to remove your name from the legal title of said asset. Until such time, you are merely a 'renter' or 'user' of such property, with a right of current physical possession, no matter how cheap (or expensive) the rent (i.e. taxes, mortgage payment, etc.), and no matter what is printed on a electronic or paper record at any governmental office, and this is why you will need to have updated title work done prior to selling the asset to another. If you could use the same title work, showing simply that you were the last 'purchaser' in the chain of title, and that you've paid off any debt that was undertaken to purchase the property (whereby a discharge of that debt issued), and a bona fide purchaser would have confidence buying the asset at that point, you'd be a true owner. But you can't. And a bona fide purchaser won't; unless they take tile 'subject to,' in which case they will assume such liabilities you failed to satisfy (in addition to future liabilities). And the person assuming your liabilities on such an asset won't be a true 'owner' of that asset, either. True ownership of real estate is a myth in a society whereby the government can and does assess a recurring financial liability to the 'holder of record' that must be paid in order for that holder of record to remain as such. Unless the property is exempt from such obligations, you are a 'holder of record,' able to convey your same interest to another, assuming you have, at any given time, fully discharged any debt used to take possession of the asset, and satisfied all present liabilities that the state has levied against the asset. You can own a watch. There are is no recurring, mandatory government tribute to be paid in order to remain in physical possession and legal title in regard to a watch. Once the purchase price, sales tax and other obligatory, known, quantifiable, up-front fees are paid, you own that watch. The same is not true of your house or home. It's not a semantical difference; it's economically fundamental. And fundamentally speaking, our society has evolved into a complacent state of acceptance of government so large that everyday people have been tricked into a gigantic myth that they actually 'own' their homes. The majority of people don't even critically dissect the meaning of a word as basic as 'own' anymore.
You "own" your house as long as you can maintain possession against all comers. As soon as a contender comes along with a bigger stick ( the gummint for example) your going to lose your illusion of ownership.That said I think I own my paid up house as long as I pay tribute to the local mafia (gummint) whenever they demand it. My yearly tax due bill really contains an implied threat of pay up or else.Kinda like the old mafia protection racket.
OMG, you are so right, why did not I listen to your infallible wisdom instead of trying to think for myself. I'm not worthy and I just gotta tell you: P.S. I did not know they store copies of everyone's mortgage contracts at your local library. Oh wait, they don't. That's why research companies get paid money to go out, contact principals and attempt to get that info. What is a fact that most of these mortgages are out of scope of the current regulations which prevent demand features, while you claim that no residential mortgage can ever possibly be callable. Can you disprove my statement that only FHA, VA, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae make it illegal to make the loan to be callable due to LTV/FMV like a commercial mortgage? Don't think so. Seriously, how naive do you have to be to think that the slimebags in the mortgage mess did not put in those clauses upon the other crap.
99% of women who are "stacked" have an arse the size (and look) of an elephant do they not? (Unless they are silicon)
"Trying to think for yourself" is one thing Hydroblunt. Making shit up is another. And that's what you've done here Hydroblunt. You've made a claim that you cannot substantiate in any respect whatsoever. I don't know if you're a liar, or if you're just stupid. But whichever it is, it is very misleading to the readers of this thread, and potentially damaging. So once again, post any form of substantiation that you have that would confirm your statement that a mortgage can be called due to changing LTV or FMV. Once again, to the readers of this thread, you may seach out mortgages or deeds of trust on the internet. Read through them. Verify for yourselves. In fact, earlier in this thread I provided a link to FNMA mortgages which contain no such clause. Finally, ask yourselves this. In todays market we have falling LTVs. We have many delinquent mortgages, many of them subprime. Have you heard of ANY foreclosures due to this falling LTV? No. In fact, instead, what you hear of is the government trying to come up with any way possible to keep people in their house through a variety of different plans. No Hydroblunt, the bottomlijne is you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about. OldTrader
Actually I have. And I had friends in the mortgage industry who told me a little something about some of these mortgages back in 2005, although I paid little attention to it. You can search through Yahoo! Answers and find people asking these questions, because their mortgage company is calling and bringing up these issues. But that's besides the point. You're gonna believe only what you want, which that real estate is infallible no matter what. So I revert back to my visual response.