http://www.davidpodgursky.com/florida-mortgage-subprime-bailout-preliminary-views-of-the-plan/ Florida | - Boynton Beach, Lake Worth, Delray Beach, Boca Raton Florida Real Estate - Single Family Home, Townhouses, Over 55, Active Adult, First Time Buyer, Fri, 08 Feb 2008 16:49:07 -0700 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 http://www.davidpodgursky.com/florida-mortgage-subprime-bailout-preliminary-views-of-the-plan/comment-page-1/#comment-93 Chris Vlad Sun, 23 Dec 2007 13:55:32 +0000 http://themortgagegotoguy.com/florida-mortgage-subprime-bailout-preliminary-views-of-the-plan/#comment-93 Just a quick note. The sanctity of a binding contract has, once again, been shattered by government interference. This practice has been prevalent in other areas of real estate. The example you analyze is an important one. Another has to do with what may be perceive as “equity theft”. (See the Home Equity Prevention Act http://www.banking.state.ny.us/hetpyrul.pdf ) No question, there are many unscrupulous operators in the real estate world. However, there are times when it is in the best interest of everyone, including the poor homeowner, to quit claim their home to an investor for some “walk away” money. At least they won’t be foreclosed on. Noone wins when that happens. Even without that specific law, in an environment when activist judges rewrite the terms of the transaction (i.e. Florida), it makes no investor sense to even offer to rescue someone. They can come back and claim they were cheated, and the investor ends up in court. It also is dangerous to buy from wholesalers and take on assigned contracts as all the problems won’t be evident until after the closing. There is a blog ( http://homeequitytheft.blogspot.com/ ) which takes a strong, in my opinion indiscriminate stance, against all forms of investor interference with homeowners in trouble. There are examples given when courts have changed the terms of the contracts. The law of unintended consequence is always part of government “good intension” efforts. They may help some homeowners but end up hurting many more, over the long run. Beside all the market risk factors associated with real estate, we now have clear evidence that government interference risks have to be price into transactions. For homeowners at large, the costs just went up. Just a quick note.
The sanctity of a binding contract has, once again, been shattered by government interference. This practice has been prevalent in other areas of real estate.
The example you analyze is an important one.
Another has to do with what may be perceive as “equity theft”. (See the Home Equity Prevention Act http://www.banking.state.ny.us/hetpyrul.pdf )
No question, there are many unscrupulous operators in the real estate world. However, there are times when it is in the best interest of everyone, including the poor homeowner, to quit claim their home to an investor for some “walk away” money. At least they won’t be foreclosed on. Noone wins when that happens.
Even without that specific law, in an environment when activist judges rewrite the terms of the transaction (i.e. Florida), it makes no investor sense to even offer to rescue someone. They can come back and claim they were cheated, and the investor ends up in court. It also is dangerous to buy from wholesalers and take on assigned contracts as all the problems won’t be evident until after the closing.
There is a blog ( http://homeequitytheft.blogspot.com/ ) which takes a strong, in my opinion indiscriminate stance, against all forms of investor interference with homeowners in trouble. There are examples given when courts have changed the terms of the contracts.
The law of unintended consequence is always part of government “good intension” efforts. They may help some homeowners but end up hurting many more, over the long run. Beside all the market risk factors associated with real estate, we now have clear evidence that government interference risks have to be price into transactions. For homeowners at large, the costs just went up.

]]>