I get 2500 a month in spousal support and 900 from SS each month. My x husband cosigned on my current house loan. I would like to refinance my house. I purchased it for $182, 000. I owe $65, 000. The house is worth $150, 000 according to other comps in area. Will I need a co-signer on this loan? Is spousal support counted as true income. I will be getting it until my x retires (he is age 63-should work until he is 70)

when do I pay cpp on earnings if i`m already collecting cpp.

So many young people are worried about "getting stuck in a job they hate". I say, "tackle every job with enthusiasm!". Your first few jobs likely won`t be what you`ll do for a career but they`ll be invaluable in your learning about work, handling employers, the public, fellow employees etc. Keep your chin up. Most people your age don`t worry about what you`re worrying about. You`re years ahead of the pack and you`re success in life will prove it.! All the best to you...

Powered by

Ok i have now been retired for two weeks. during that time i have been going through all my old papers, making sure all my records will be changed. has any one gone through the process of changing military records? does the d.o.d. require a certified letter from the surgeon before they will change the sex marker. if possible i would like my d.d.214 and honorable discharge changed to show my legal name and sex. also my mortgage provider is giving me static saying i would have to refinance and close on my house again for them to change there records even though i have provided a letter of explanation and a copy of the certified court order for name change. what about credit reports? i am not trying to bury my past but i do want all my records to show accurate information. if you plan to tell me to accept myself as i was born and all that crap save your time. wisconsin allowed me to change my drivers lic. and sex marker with a copy of the court order. that was done long ago. bank records and account info was just a matter of showing the court order. social security obviously did the name but not the sex yet. state vital records did the name but cant the sex without the letter from the surgeon. it is the records that i can not just go change in person that seem to be a problem. seems like i should just let the military records collect more dust in a box some where.

To the best of my knowledge you shouldn't have any more legal difficulty than anyone who is updating records to reflect a change of name. In general, you would send a notarised copy of a court notise reflecting your name change. So I don't think that there should be any legal issue about your sex either. The whole point is for their records to be accurately updated and they are covered for that with the notarised letter. I don't know anything about the US military but I can't imagine they would have any issues. After all, people change their name all the time; most often women when they marry but men sometimes change their name too so it's a routine process. I can't imagine they don't do the same with sex as long as they had a letter and documentation. Re your mortgage provider, that is totally bogus and you should call them on it. They are saying that to try to get you to refinance and get service fees. But they have no legitimate business reason to require you to remortgage so I would fight that. Most likely a letter on your lawyer's letterhead will sort them out. I mean really, What are they going to do? Refuse to accept a cheque from you? Best wishes and my sympathies for real. I know it's a production just to contact everybody and get simple stuff done, who needs aggravation from jerks and idiots on top of it? Note: re the mortgage, again, there's no argument. It's your legally recognised name and sex from your house, they can't say anything. I would tell them I'm not even going to argue it. If they make any noise, tell them that you are using your legally recognised identity and they can stuff it.

Powered by

We are stuck with these high interest loans,which are higher than the value of these houses we are paying for.why cant the people we elect to represent us lobby the lenders now,to rewrite the contract without refinance fees,in an effort to help the few hard working people who has to pay tax also,and at the same time , not sure that when they retire,there will be any ,for them, although most of these same people already met their cota several times over , and still paying why????

So you are saying that the government should bail you out after you made a stupid financial decision? How about simply taking responsibility for your actions?

Powered by

I have lived in my home with a mortgage since 1979. i had to refinance to keep a business going. now i am retired and income is not enough to keep up with the payments. it is not a "bad" mortgage like those that the bailout plan will help, but still i am in trouble of losing my home. i think it is unconstitutional for this bailout to help people who made bad decisions about their finances but it is not for anybody who is in trouble because of not enough income after retirement. there is so much "pork" to this bailout that it would make our founding fathers sick. i did not want it to happen but what can i do when congress is not listening to the people? it is impossible to send an e-mail to any congressman because they only answer to constituents.

I'm sorry, but the bailout has nothing to do (unfortunately) with helping people like you out. It's more or less a free lunch ticket for banks which adhered to the philosophy that they were too big to fail, and when irresponsible business practices put them in a bind, the government indeed agreed with their philosophy that they were "too big to fail" and bailed them out. You've had a house for nearly 30 years now, so I am assuming that you are aware of the keys to fiscal responsibility, including saving, living within your means, and putting away for a rainy day. Unfortunately, easy access to housing loans meant that such loans became extremely easy to get, because the banks could issue such easy loans knowing that the government would provide them with a security net should they fail due to taking on unnecessary risk. Well, they did, and hence the 700 billion dollar bailout. Of course, even more worrying is that everyone from the political elite to the average Joes are blaming the market, but the ones who will pay are not going to be the banks that failed (they're getting saved, remember?), but rather, the banks who acted responsibility and are still doing well in these time (Bank of America, BB&T, for example) The reason that you are struggling now in 2008 ihas everything to do with the fact that wages are not keeping up with inflation and the purchasing power of taxpayers are declining dramatically. It's a problem that Republicans typically ignore, while democrats think that minimum wage laws can fix (which, of course, really don't do anything for the middle class families that are struggling). The problem is something that the political class tends to ignore as well, because it strikes at the very source of their power: the Federal Reserve. Because currency is not tied to any specific value, value can be adjusted arbitrarily by the fed. When the federal reserve was created, in 1913, the wage gap between the lowest paid employee and the highest paid one was about 20 times. This had remained constant throughout the 19th century. In 1976, the year that the dollar was removed (by Nixon, a Republican) completely from the gold standard, wage differences stood at about 36 times.In 1991, the gap had ballooned to about 120 times. In 2008, that difference is approximately 380 times. To use an old cliche, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, but not because of traditional left-wing gripes like the market is inherently predatory, but because a system of fiat currency, run by a private bank, is naturally going to favor its rich buddies and not the "little guy". It's not something you'll hear the "experts" talk about because A: the experts are naturally going to like the system that got them rich in the first place and B: Economics is not an exact science, and is very susceptible to gang mentalities. Remember that in the 1920's the Soviet Union had assembled what at that time was the world's finest collection of economic minds, all converging to work together on the brand new communist experiment. And we all know how that ended up. Just because Bush's cronies tell you that the way to save the American economy is to print, print, print, doesn't make it sound economics. I wish I had something to tell you, that this bailout would work like the economic stimulus. But it won't, sadly. The best that I can tell you is to support the actions of the Campaign for Liberty, a grassroots organization that seeks to amend the governmental programs that are causing these economic blues. It is being led by congressman Ron Paul, whose desire to return to sound financial plans has been the cornerstone of his political career. Much maligned by the media for adhering to a political topic that isn't on the top of everyone's minds, his 2008 bid for the Republican nomination for president was far and away much more successful than anyone anticipated, amassing a huge internet phenomenon and bringing in more delegates than Rudolf Guiliani and Fred Thompson, both of whom recieved vastly more media coverage. http://www.campaignforliberty.com/#.

Powered by

I live in sw florida where i owe $335,000 for a house surrounded by homes forecloure specialists are enjoying profits from selling at $125,000 (in much better condition than mine), and at least another thousand brand new unoccupied homes nearby. flood insurance just became mandatory and rates went up. i bought in '06, it was the best i could get then, but in very poor shape compared to the quality of currently available homes. it would take another $20,000 just to make it marketable to sell for $125,000. in '06 i had to have two loans on teacher pay, did not have enough reserves for a down payment, assumed value would continue escalating and would refinance/consolidate both loans, with increased equity in a few years, and live here another ten years, retire and go home and live in texas in a modest, low cost home, for the rest of my life. disaster struck. i modified loan 1 (saxon) under hamp - that one payment is 31% of my gross income - one of my 2 "take home" paychecks a month. i modified loan 2 ($65,000 balance) directly with ocwen, who only gave me a reduced rate (14% to 2%) for 5 years. my entire 2nd paycheck is that payment, utilities, food, clothes, car, gas, credit cards, student loans, and other living expenses. i live hand to mouth and see now that i will never be able to retire/sell this house/move home, etc. i didn't want to get rich, but i didn't expect to pay every dime i make for the rest of my life for basic living because of what i perceive as a national financial disaster - obviously not just a "natural real estate cycle" - evolving from poor economic planning and oversight on the part of the politicians who have been paid by my taxes from my hard work for the last 35 years to assure my (at least basic) quality of life - for life. ethics? it is hard to specify ethical boundaries under such extreme, outlying conditions. i do know one thing about this crisis: ethcial boundaries were crossed at every stage, by many people, over many years. the argument for the end consumer to suffer - in such an exaggerated way - in order to affirm their ethics - seems profoundly hypocritical. on the other hand, i am still here, paying my mortgage, even though every other homeowner who purchased a home in this hoa between '05 and '08 has walked away, so i am demonstrating ethics. my question is, "what would you do?" i wish i could put up a poll and ask every expert what they would do. walk away entirely? what then... ? rent for life...? stop paying 2nd lien? what then...? credit ruined...for how long...? what else....? swallow and pay every dime they earn to live a restricted (since '06: never go out, no travel, no vacations, no gift giving at holidays, drive old cars, buy used clothes, etc.) life for the next ten or fifteen years, fearing job loss or pay cut daily, only to find out at retirement that i have to walk away from it then, can't sell it, perhaps have to file bankruptcy, then, and live in government housing for my retirement...? that seems awfully bleak. i make too much, they say, to file bankruptcy. hmmm...what would you do? thanks for any wisdom you could share. synthia

There is really no easy answer. You have done all you can possibly do, but the end of this recession and all that it entails may still not be in sight. It is probably time to walk away from the mortgage. You could list the house for sale with a Realtor's help, at a price at which it is likely to sell. Then have the Realtor help you present any offer to the bank as evidence of a short sale. The problem with that, of course, is that the bank is likely to try to place a lien against you for the deficit. So, your only option may be to walk away. It will hurt your credit for 7 years, but the options are so limited that there may be no other solution. You can stop paying the mortgage and use that money to hire a lawyer to help you sort this thing out. It is such a shame that good people are being financially devastated by the economy's downturn. Frankly, I don't see any other solution. You truly have done all you can possibly do. Ethics are one thing. Poverty is another. Get a lawyer and start packing.

Powered by

I would like to find out about the risks associated with owner financing. the story: my parents own a home in texas which they are currently trying to sell. it is paid in full and has been on the market for a while now (few months) with no results. a few people have looked at it but no one is biting. their plan is to sell the home, take the earnings and retire over seas. basically, this home is their "nest egg". out of sheer desperation they are looking into seller financing. my concern is that this option is way too risky for them since this is the bulk of their retirement funds. also, since they will be living thousands of miles away i would have to be responsible for anything and everything associated with this deal (income taxes, possible foreclosure proceedings if the deal goes south, ect.). to add, i have absolutely no idea how all this works so i'm a bit nervous taking on such a huge responsibility. is this a good option for them considering the circumstances? any feedback would be greatly appreciated. i can provide more detailed info if needed. one more thing. the real estate agent who is trying to convince them to go through with this deal said that they would agree to play the role of lender for three years. once the three years is up the buyer would then refinance through a regular bank. but what if the buyer doesn't qualify for a loan even after the three years have passed? it just sounds like way too much of a risk to take. what i meant by "playing the role of the lender" is exactly what you stated...acting as the bank/lending establishment. problem is in my opinion this deal is way too risky given their current situation. if they were investors with several properties i could see how this would be a good opportunity given the current market conditions but not in their case. i really appreciate the feedback!

Not sure what the real estate agent "playing the role of lender" for 3 years means. If you owner finance a home, you (your parents) are being the bank. You should make sure they still give a good down payment. They will make regular payments to your parents. If they miss payments or default, the house will come back to your parents. Everything should go thru a title company the only difference is, your parents are the bank. If the buyers do not qualify after 3 years, your parents can continue (if they choose) to keep the payments coming to them. Another major thing would be deciding on the interest rate to charge. I would charge something slightly higher than what mortgages are going for currently.

Powered by

The woman is in her 50's, she has a husband in his 50's. they have 1 son (28) who is married w/ 2 kids. those kids were her whole world. this woman cheated on her husband 20 some years ago and got pregnant and then had an abortion. her husband still to this day stands by her no matter what. she has filed bankruptcy 2 times. had numerous vehicles repossessed. she bought several cars without even asking him. she made him sell his classic car to pay her debts. they even lost their home because she cannot control her spending. (she bought it 8 years ago for 74,00 and now owes 117,000 due to refinancing) she does not work. her husband is a trucker and wants to retire, but she wont let him because she needs the money and he will do whatever he can to please her. he is not allowed to make any decisions or she threatens to throw him out. even her dogs come before him. for the last 18 months she has been raising her great nephew, which she gets paid to do. she says she cannot even tell him she loves him, but now wants to adopt. she used to spend all the time in the world with her 2 grand kids, but since having this kid she only wants them on sundays for church. she rarely calls them. her son is upset with her for want to adopt this kid and forgetting the grand kids and she thinks he is selfish and ignorant. they are no longer speaking over this adoption. she refuses to see how much this has hurt him and only considers her own feelings. her husband even said he does want the kid, but he wont tell her no. her son and dil have told her numerous times to call them and she doesn't. what do you all think about this? does this woman need help or is it the son and dil? obviously the husband needs woken up because he cant do anything for himself. the son and dil have stopped speaking and visiting since she started ignoring the kids. also, of course the son and dil are not perfect people either, but they both work, own their home, have good credit, etc. their downfall would be that they don't really associate with much of the family because the family is always bickering, even some relatives suing the grandma, etc, they chose not to be involved. do you think the son is wrong for not speaking to her because she wont pay attention to her own grand kids anymore?

You can't control what other people do. She chooses to be this way. Her husband chooses to stay with her. You can choose to associate with her or not. But don't stress about it. IF it were me, I'd have my children see their grandma once a week. You don't have to like her in order for it to be a positive thing for her to have a relationship with the grandchildren. You won't gain anything by taking a moral stand against her. What will that accomplish?