|
Grumpwagon posted:If it doesn't work, also look into a flat fee realtor. May or may not be available in your area. Someone I know just did a series of blog posts on alternative brokerages in Seattle, including a couple flat-fee brokerages like WaLaw and $500 Realty. Also worth noting that Redfin only charges a 1.5% commission for listing, offers free pro photography, and gives greater prominence to their listings in their website+apps+emails. </shill>
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 07:32 |
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Seems like the dumb money following the smart money there. The institutional investors were piling in while houses were clearly undervalued. Now they're ballooning but the individuals with more money than sense read the articles and are copying the big guys. A small downturn is going to see them panicking and selling at a loss. I've been watching the "dumb money" cash trend, and with Q1 GDP going negative, I'm wondering if it isn't a bad idea to just suspend our search for a year, keep our powder dry, and see how things develop. At the very least we'd have a much larger down payment.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 11:47
|
|
|
LogisticEarth posted:I've been watching the "dumb money" cash trend, and with Q1 GDP going negative, I'm wondering if it isn't a bad idea to just suspend our search for a year, keep our powder dry, and see how things develop. At the very least we'd have a much larger down payment. This is all region dependent, but I've noticed in my area that prices have gone up a bit, and then supply of homes available for sale has skyrocketed. Which will put downward pressure on the rising prices. I don't think waiting a year will price you out of the market.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 12:06
|
|
|
I'm more frustrated that for buying a home- which I'm not going to do now- is still out of my reach because of the way they calculate my income. I work on a commission basis for about 40% of my income right now, and I haven't been getting it for two years, so its not counted. Even though the mortgage, fees, and taxes would all be less than the rent I'm paying now, they won't let me get one for any substantive amount. Being in this situation, I know how the housing bubble happened-people in my situation were getting houses WAY more than they could really afford, they loosened income requirements back then, and houses got mega over valued. Still its frustrating to know that there is likely an entire class of people out there, just like me, who may want to join in on the home ownership, but due to specific requirements, are prohibited from building any real equity or wealth in real estate.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 14:01
|
|
|
On the other hand, equity and wealth in real estate is...kinda not a thing, for single family homeowners. Buy a house if you want to own a house, don't buy one because it's a good financial investment.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 14:21
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:I'm more frustrated that for buying a home- which I'm not going to do now- is still out of my reach because of the way they calculate my income. I work on a commission basis for about 40% of my income right now, and I haven't been getting it for two years, so its not counted. Even though the mortgage, fees, and taxes would all be less than the rent I'm paying now, they won't let me get one for any substantive amount. The reason they need that history is that you'll be on the hook for the loan for 20-30 years. If your income is potentially highly variable that us a real risk down the line. Sock money away for a down payment in the meantime and rent a smaller place if that is feasible. My wife and I share a small apartment. I've figured that with the "lost" costs (taxes, interest, utilities, repairs) of homeownership for the places we're looking at, we're really only "losing" like $100-200/month in hypothetical equity. We budget like we're paying a mortgage and everything. But the extra just goes into cash savings instead of nebulous, illiquid, and unrealized equity. If you find that you can't save money in your current budget, then homeownership is just going to make that situation worse. A lot of times the problem is one of cost and income rather than available credit. LogisticEarth fucked around with this message at 14:56 on May 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 14:51
|
|
|
LogisticEarth posted:The reason they need that history is that you'll be on the hook for the loan for 20-30 years. If your income is potentially highly variable that us a real risk down the line. Sock money away for a down payment in the meantime and rent a smaller place if that is feasible. Oh I totally get why they do it, its just a frustrating part of the process. I feel like it keeps a lot of people out of home ownership that otherwise would be doing it. Also, in this economy anyone can really lose their job at any time, so I feel like any risk is a risk when it comes to income.  That is the plan though, downsize to a smaller apartment, sock more money away for a downpayment. silvergoose posted:On the other hand, equity and wealth in real estate is...kinda not a thing, for single family homeowners. Buy a house if you want to own a house, don't buy one because it's a good financial investment. It still is, and I don't mean it as a monetary investment. I mean as a method of ownership, of investment into a community. Something to give to your family or provide stability. I'd love to be involved in local politics for example, but I've yet to see any politician in my area that rents an apartment. Good luck having any standing on a school board if you don't directly pay property taxes (if it becomes an issue in an election). Plus, if the costs are close to the same for renting and buying, why wouldn't someone want to at least build ownership somewhere?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 15:09
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Oh I totally get why they do it, its just a frustrating part of the process. I feel like it keeps a lot of people out of home ownership that otherwise would be doing it. Also, in this economy anyone can really lose their job at any time, so I feel like any risk is a risk when it comes to income. Like I said though, it's not the credit/mortgage availability that's the problem, it's the base cost of homes and the low income most people have. Either the price of homes needs to drop or incomes need to rise. The solution isn't to give riskier loans to people. This is a bit more D&D than BFC though. Edit: Also about renting and community: It's entirely possible to be an involved community member and rent. My grandfather rented for his entire adult life until he died at 93. He was also a well respected teacher and coach. When he was in his late 80s they named the football field after him. The regional newspaper ran a full front page obituary when he died. He didn't have any monetary inheritance to pass on (I literally got his pocket change because my aunt thought I could use it at the laundromat) but as long as you're a strong community member nobody really gives a drat if you rent. LogisticEarth fucked around with this message at 15:39 on May 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 15:31
|
|
|
LogisticEarth posted:Like I said though, it's not the credit/mortgage availability that's the problem, it's the base cost of homes and the low income most people have. Either the price of homes needs to drop or incomes need to rise. The solution isn't to give riskier loans to people. This is a bit more D&D than BFC though. I'm glad your grandfather was a good man and a respected member of the community. But....he only had pocket change to give to his family.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 16:01
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:I'm glad your grandfather was a good man and a respected member of the community. But....he only had pocket change to give to his family. Well yes the long term equity issue is why I mentioned it. The real point of the anecdote was that the idea that you can't be a "full" community member unless you own is B.S.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 16:56
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:I'm more frustrated that for buying a home- which I'm not going to do now- is still out of my reach because of the way they calculate my income. I work on a commission basis for about 40% of my income right now, and I haven't been getting it for two years, so its not counted. Even though the mortgage, fees, and taxes would all be less than the rent I'm paying now, they won't let me get one for any substantive amount. Look on the bright side, put even more money away for a down payment and reduce your mortgage by even more 
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:I'm more frustrated that for buying a home- which I'm not going to do now- is still out of my reach because of the way they calculate my income. I work on a commission basis for about 40% of my income right now, and I haven't been getting it for two years, so its not counted. Even though the mortgage, fees, and taxes would all be less than the rent I'm paying now, they won't let me get one for any substantive amount. And pay attention to literally everyone in this thread who mentions that mortgage/fees/taxes is only a part of the total cost of ownership. The fact you need to maintain a property and lose flexibility is WHY it's cheaper than renting.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
Law of one price more or less holds for living costs as well; the real reason that home ownership would emerge as valuable versus renting is that the qualification requirements for home ownership are more strict. Things that bump up relative value to homes: -You can actually get one: Income/Debt/Credit worthy/etc. If you can actually swing it, you basically get a discount on living all things equal due to fitting into the institutional mold that banks like. -You're going to be in one place for a while/cool with inflexibility -The rent is too drat high Things that are negative: -The opposite of all that.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
I never really thought about mortgages until 6 months ago when we began our search, and really need to vent somewhere. 30 year mortgages are loving insane, and it does my head in that it's common for people to use them. like, the average homeowner is paying about as much interest as their loan amount, and doing it over 30 years. that's so goddamn crazy  like, you could almost buy two houses for the price of one if you didn't take out a loan! you're putting in like 400 dollars equity and 1200 dollar just pissing away down the interest drain every month on a mortgage that is 1600/mo. and no one really spells this out or talks about it during the homebuying process - unless you're the one bringing it up.what the gently caress! how are so many people OK with being taken for a ride like this? is it really just like 'ok, yeah, I have to pay interest, but I get what I want right now?' or is it some complex calculus that I haven't yet figured out where people are just ok with paying the interest because they think the interest rates are lower than the return they'd make on a similar investment of $1200/mo - which they are diligently saving away? I had a conversation at a house party with some dude who is like totally '1% of the world has all the wealth, gently caress the man, we are the 99%' etc, which I totally agree with. but then he has a 30 year loan on a house, and I couldn't help but think to myself 'man you're part of the problem' 
mindphlux fucked around with this message at 00:02 on May 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 23:59
|
|
|
mindphlux posted:I never really thought about mortgages until 6 months ago when we began our search, and really need to vent somewhere. Someone is lending you several times your current annual salary and letting you pay it back over 30 years. You are paying for the risk they're taking on you making 360 on time payments. If you really don't like it but can't save enough for a cash purchase do what I'm doing: spend half of what someone in your income range would normally borrow and make double payments.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
Money now is worth more than money later. Interest rates are incredibly low (or they were when we bought). We could've bought our house in cash, but we took out a 30 yr loan instead because we like to have the cash on hand to invest.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 00:11
|
|
|
Just get the 30 year loan at the low rates of today and make extra payments. Just treat it like a 15 year loan with the benefit that you have flexibility of a 30 year. Also if you can get a $400k loan it doesn't mean you have to. Get a $250k home and you can clear the debt and limit the interest rather easily.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 00:31
|
|
|
I have a 30-year loan, but there's no way I'll be paying it for 30 years. I took a 30-year to have maximum flexibility in my monthly payments, and because rates are so low that going to a 20 or 15 year loan did not save me all that much money compared to the loss of flexibility in payments. Most likely I'll be selling this house in ten to fifteen years, though. Maybe less. Also play around with amortization schedules and down payment sizes. You can radically reduce the total interest cost over the life of a loan by making a larger down payment. You can also do it by making overpayments. Finally, make sure you're taking inflation into account. My mortgage payment is still going to be the same number of dollars ten years from now, but I'll be paying it with cheaper dollars. At 3.75%, my mortgage interest is barely going to let the bank keep up with inflation.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
Because for the same price of what I pay for my 1 BR apartment I could get a 3-4 BR with a decent down payment (including maintenance, taxes, and insurance), and that price is fixed for 30 years unlike my apartments which increase by 5-7% every year, and if I focus a little extra into principal payments to get better than 80% LTV, a significant portion of that monthly price will go into equity. By all means, pay off a 30 year in 15 (or less; whatever, if you want). Or don't, because other loans might be more eminent. I think they throw around a nice psychological method of if you just pay an additional payment equal to next month's principal, the life of the loan drops by half. That additional payment schedule also scales over that time, so it's easy on first time buyers or people who take the 30 year because it's much much easier to qualify for a 30 year loan. It is what it is; in a perfect world when you easily qualify for things and are very financially sound, take a 15% and do whatever you can to get the lowest interest rate possible and such, but that logic only works if the mortgage is going to be the largest interest loan in your debt portfolio. Otherwise, get your minimum in for it and pay down your larger interest rates, and paying a larger down payment and such interferes in that.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 01:26
|
|
|
Shipon posted:You're not prohibited from building wealth in real estate - you can get a regular job that will be stable enough to qualify for you loans. Or, you can save up and buy something outright. Home ownership isn't a right. I never said its a right. I'm only saying that its rough that a whole class of folks who would otherwise put down roots somewhere to build some equity are prohibited from doing so.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 01:28
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:I never said its a right. I'm only saying that its rough that a whole class of folks who would otherwise put down roots somewhere to build some equity are prohibited from doing so. I think it's the word "prohibited" that is bothersome. The reason those people can't get loans is because they're completely hosed if their house loses value. We just went through a nationwide crises that demonstrated that fact very well. People who can only just barely afford a house payment can't actually afford the risk of buying a house. But this is similar to how poor people are "prohibited" from many other luxuries. I get what you're saying, that home ownership "builds community" but I'm not sure what you're proposing should be different. Should houses cost less? Yes, and that can be had through increased development, but there are serious compromises that come from dedicating more land to housing, or increasing housing density. Should they make more money? Yes, I'm absolutely with you there, but without an increase in supply, a much larger middle class trying to buy houses would only drive the prices up rather than increasing affordability. So it's the situation we have that makes homes unaffordable, and not the restrictions placed on loan qualification. Simply making mortgages easier to get for lower-income people is a bad idea. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 01:34 on May 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
mindphlux posted:venting
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I think it's the word "prohibited" that is bothersome. The reason those people can't get loans is because they're completely hosed if their house loses value. We just went through a nationwide crises that demonstrated that fact very well. People who can only just barely afford a house payment can't actually afford the risk of buying a house. Right, I don't have an answer for it, that is true. And I agree that making loans super cheap and easy to get for everyone only leads to what happened in 2008. As I mentioned before though, I'm less worried about the "gaining value" part, and more "building equity/ownership" part. If people are never, ever allowed to become home owners it creates a generational gap where there are the poor tenants and the increasingly wealthy landlords. It is anti-middle class to have less homes available. My main gripe is that there are plenty of folks like me and probably even better off than me that are excluded from home ownership not because of what their income is but because of how they earn it. I'm pointing at something and saying its not fair and it sucks, but I'm not saying I have a solution  Edit: Part of it is I don't like having a credit rating of 800 and being told that because I earn commissions, I'm' less trustworthy than someone making the same amount of money as my base pay, but with a lower credit rating.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 04:32
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Right, I don't have an answer for it, that is true. And I agree that making loans super cheap and easy to get for everyone only leads to what happened in 2008.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 04:48
|
|
|
You are not excluded though. Bring a bigger down payment or go for a cheaper house. The bank is willing to loan you something based on your verifiable income it sounds like it is just not the amount you want.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 05:12
|
|
|
I think the solution here is to relax underwriting requirements for commissioned borrowers who promise they're a great salesperson with a product that won't lose popularity. What could go wrong?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 06:25
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Right, I don't have an answer for it, that is true. And I agree that making loans super cheap and easy to get for everyone only leads to what happened in 2008. Do you really think it's a value judgement against you? Think about it for a second. You work on commission. Your income is not guaranteed - how can a lender trust that you'll be able to make repayments if commissions dry up? Sure, with wage earners they might be laid off, but it's far less likely that someone will be laid off versus someone on commission finding themselves with lower income being unable to pay their note. Sorry, but commissions are inherently riskier than regular income, and lenders are rightfully wary of that income being consistent. Even with a good payment history and credit score, you are a higher risk. As a side note: You know what else is unfair? The incentives pointed at home owners at the expense of taxpaying renters, and the social stigma against people who rent versus own.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 06:31
|
|
|
Jealous Cow posted:Someone is lending you several times your current annual salary and letting you pay it back over 30 years. You are paying for the risk they're taking on you making 360 on time payments. spwrozek posted:Just get the 30 year loan at the low rates of today and make extra payments. Just treat it like a 15 year loan with the benefit that you have flexibility of a 30 year. Also if you can get a $400k loan it doesn't mean you have to. Get a $250k home and you can clear the debt and limit the interest rather easily. slap me silly posted:As rurutia pointed out, money now and money later are different things and that is why the total amount of interest paid over 30 years is a useless number for decision-making. Learn how to factor in the time value of money and the whole thing will make more sense, perhaps. And of course there are other considerations, too, all of which is to say that many people with 30-year mortgages are not being taken for a ride at all. No, I totally get this. I'm not saying *everyone* who has a 30 year mortgage is being taken for a ride. And I do realize what I can do to prevent getting assraped by interest. My frustration and disbelief is that I get the impression very few people seriously think about the amount of interest they're paying before signing on a loan. it's just the normal thing to do to get a 30 year mortgage, and no one really talks about it, because TalkingAboutMoneyIsWeird or whatever. I technically have a 30 year mortgage via an ARM - but I'm very happy with my loan situation and homebuying decision. my wife and I took out a 7/1 ARM at 3.125%, are roughly doubling the payment, and should pay off a $260k loan on a $340k house in ~10 years with about 50k interest accrued. I'm willing to live with those numbers. almost all my friends/contemporaries though, have traditional 30yr mortgages, aren't making extra equity payments, and don't really seem bothered at the interest they're paying. some of them have much larger mortgages than we will, which just exponentially increases their interest paid. it does my head in.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 07:06
|
|
|
mindphlux posted:No, I totally get this. I'm not saying *everyone* who has a 30 year mortgage is being taken for a ride. And I do realize what I can do to prevent getting assraped by interest. My frustration and disbelief is that I get the impression very few people seriously think about the amount of interest they're paying before signing on a loan. it's just the normal thing to do to get a 30 year mortgage, and no one really talks about it, because TalkingAboutMoneyIsWeird or whatever. But, by overpaying on your mortgage and avoiding compound interest, you are missing out on the compound returns you would get by investing the same money. This calculator suggests that I would be better off investing the extra money, provided it gives an annual return of at least 4%.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 13:10
|
|
|
lumbergill posted:But, by overpaying on your mortgage and avoiding compound interest, you are missing out on the compound returns you would get by investing the same money. This calculator suggests that I would be better off investing the extra money, provided it gives an annual return of at least 4%. No one can predict how the market will do in the future. Maybe you will get 4%. Maybe you will get higher. Or maybe you will get a measly 1%. This also is dependent on diligently investing money you would be using to overpay on a mortgage that didn't have a better use elsewhere (i.e. maxing retirement accounts should probably come before overpaying on a mortgage). Whereas, at least for me, overpaying my mortgage is a guaranteed 3.5% savings on interest down the line. If there is an investment vehicle that 100% guarantees a rate of return of better than 3.5%, it would be dumb to not do that instead but I don't believe such a thing currently exists. There has been treasury bonds with 4% in the past (80's) however so if the economy swings that way again, that would be a great time for all of us with great mortgage rates to stop overpaying. In summary, some of us hate debt and love certainties? Not to say it's wrong to believe in that investments can do better, but there is a lot of uncertainty in that.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 13:24
|
|
|
mindphlux posted:I get the impression very few people seriously think about the amount of interest they're paying
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 13:24
|
|
|
ExtrudeAlongCurve posted:No one can predict how the market will do in the future. Maybe you will get 4%. Maybe you will get higher. Or maybe you will get a measly 1%. This also is dependent on diligently investing money you would be using to overpay on a mortgage that didn't have a better use elsewhere (i.e. maxing retirement accounts should probably come before overpaying on a mortgage). Yes, it's about risk tolerance. People absolutely have to think carefully about the decision they're making. But not over paying your 30 year mortgage doesn't mean you're making a fiscally irresponsible or uninformed decision.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 13:29
|
|
|
OneWhoKnows posted:If you don't mind me asking, what percentage of a down payment were you bringing to the table? It was going to to be close to 15% with a VA loan. Shipon posted:You can have an 850 but if you can't make the payments on the note it won't do you a bit of good. No I don't think they are singling me out at all, I'm merely expressing my frustration at the entire process. I get that commissions are riskier than straight wages, I just wish a certain baseline could be accepted as countable income. I just point out that it means for pretty much anyone working in a sales job-jobs that are often required for the economy to operate-are excluded or at the very least have an additional requirement get home loans. The other thing that was tough was the work history part of it too. I worked in insurance for about 5 years, then took a job with the state, then went back to insurance. They considered that a gap of employment in the industry. They said that if I had kept a job in the insurance industry, commission or not, I'd be able to count all of my commission towards my income. That was strange to me as well. If I worked as a marketing person, then moved to sales, they'd still count my commission. Same for my wifes income, so long as she goes to work in the "apparel" industry, she's in. So she can go from corporate sourcing for clothing to a retail worker and they'll count her income too. I get why they want the history in the same industry, but the way they stretch it seems to undermine that requirement. And to your side note: that is what I was getting at. All things being equal, if an individual can realistically afford a home and is earning an income, owning a home is almost always a better deal for them. In taxes, in equity, in social standing, and even security. If my wife and I had owned our home we would have got back a few grand in taxes instead of having to pay in a few hundred last year.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 13:32
|
|
|
silvergoose posted:On the other hand, equity and wealth in real estate is...kinda not a thing, for single family homeowners. Buy a house if you want to own a house, don't buy one because it's a good financial investment. While I agree completely with this it is kinda nice to know the home you just bought is now worth 10% more a week after you bought it. I'm so looking forward to the move if I can just get my wife to calm down about upgrades. She had a perfectly functional bathroom countertop and sink thrown out when we haven't even finished the paint/floors.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 13:41
|
|
|
mindphlux posted:
Do you know the 30 year fixed rate mortgage is such a good deal for the borrower they wouldn't exist if the feds didn't insure them? Where i'm from, the standard mortgage has a floating interest rate (currently 5.99%). The longest it's possible to fix a loan for is 5 years at 7.4%. There is no mortgage interest tax deduction. Your friends have it good.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 14:09
|
|
|
ExtrudeAlongCurve posted:No one can predict how the market will do in the future. Maybe you will get 4%. Maybe you will get higher. Or maybe you will get a measly 1%. This also is dependent on diligently investing money you would be using to overpay on a mortgage that didn't have a better use elsewhere (i.e. maxing retirement accounts should probably come before overpaying on a mortgage). Maybe your house will burn down. Maybe anything. Most likely any home appreciation greater than the inflation rate will be offset long term by an appreciation rate lower than inflation. Most likely you will get a long run gain greater than 4%, especially over 30 years. If you have incredibly low risk tolerance, then sure, go with the house. I think my first concern with your position is that the typical person who claims to have that level of risk tolerance doesn't, and through their behavior undermine that preference in many ways. I'm not saying that's your reality, but most people have a much higher risk tolerance and would probably be fine investing in an index funds. If you're going against a 30 year loan, the S&P is pretty meager risk in the long run versus a 25 year 9% return average. It's not "no" risk, but if you're not afraid of losing your retirement because you can take the bounces for 4-5 years it's a pretty solid alternative. Which is an investment you can hedge with your home as well as a way to diversify your risk. I think overpaying into your principal is a great hedge against bad poo poo happening - gives you equity, and if you can pull off a refinance or a mortgage reset you can probably lower your payment if you need to take a long term reduction in monthly income. But diversify, or at least seriously consider diversification.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 14:11
|
|
|
Hello, Some of you might remember me from before, some might not. But I have an, er, situation. You may remember that my wife’s name was on a house her sister and her sister’s boyfriend lived in. We all knew it would be a problem at some point, but it had been that way for over a decade and nothing seemed to be changing soon. We were able to get approved for a mortgage despite that, and all was well until a couple of months ago. Sister-in-law and boyfriend broke up and he moved out. Sister-in-law found love elsewhere in a girl that lives in California. I’m not going to judge long-distance relationships or anything, and I’m happy for them. A friend moved in with Sister-in-law a month ago to help out with the rent. Now, sister-in-law is very unhappy with her job, is pining for her lover in California, and is planning on abandoning everything and moving out there in August. I’ve tried to convince her how bad of an idea that is, but it’s falling on deaf ears. She wanted to just stop paying on the house, but I think that’s also a bad idea. We don’t want anything to do with the house. She owes about $55k on it and it’s worth about that much. It’s not in very good shape (her and her boyfriend didn’t keep anything up at all while they lived there, and it’s in fairly bad shape, but could be fixed up). So my questions are: - What can I do, if anything, to make sure we’re protected from any fallout? - What are the appropriate laws applicable in Indiana? - How bad of an idea would it be to assume payments, fix it up and try to flip it? I really don’t have that kind of time or money available. - How bad of an idea would it be to just try to sell it as-is? I’m pretty pissed about the whole thing. My wife tried to get her name off of the house several times, but their bank wouldn’t do it without a refinance, and my sister-in-law couldn’t get approved on her own and her boyfriend (who lived there for 12 years) wouldn’t sign on with her. I just really, really don’t want to deal with it. I have my own house, my own family and my own finances to worry about. Everybody agrees that the bank can have the house, but is there a way to do that that doesn’t involve trashing everybody’s credit, or involve the bank possibly coming after people for whatever the difference between the house value and what she owed is?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 14:55
|
|
|
Wonderhangers? No, Mini. I don't remember the details from your thread but aren't you in the situation where (1) you are responsible for the loan and (2) you can't sell the house without your sister-in-law's cooperation? Does she know how screwed you are going to be if she stops paying on the house? I mean, she's essentially shoving the eiffel tower a hundred feet up her sister's rear end. Have you put it to her in those kind of words?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 15:03
|
|
|
What's the typical price of homes in that market? If the house is worth 55k and thay neighborhood caps out at 75 you don't have much room to improve it and you're going to have a nightmare when it comes to sell it because it'll be run down.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 15:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 07:32 |
|
|
which ,According to Zillow, about 50k - 75k. In good condition I would think that house would be on the upper end. It has four bedrooms and a finished basement, which most don't. I'd really rather not deal with the headache of trying to sell it, honestly. If it gets foreclosed on, I know my wife's credit is hit, but what other repercussions could happen in Indiana?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 15:48
|
|