Depending on what has happened to interest rates since the original pre-approval. Often banks will "look-back" 90 -120 days from the date of closing and set the rate based on the rate at that time. You wouldn`t have to re-apply. However, the banks do reserve the right to re-check your credit report prior to closing, so hopefully, nothing bad has happened to your credit since the pre-approval. just keep your credit the same and you should be OK. James Shinners. Mortgage managers. 1-877-996-6677. www.mortgagemanagers.ca

Powered by

We just got a commitment for a mortgage to close in a week, and after we, the title company and our realtor all received the loan commitment and scheduled the closing, the lender called back and said the terms were different than they'd said and issued a new commitment letter. is this legal? we live in florida if that matters. we just got a commitment (clc with no stipulations) for a mortgage to close in a week, and after we, the title company and our realtor all received the loan commitment and scheduled the closing, the lender called back and said the terms were different than they'd said and issued a new commitment letter. is this legal? we live in florida if that matters. okay, i obviously need to clarify what happened - we got an original commitment letter prior to appraisal - based only on the appraisal. this was for 100% financing (what we applied for). 3 days later we got a final commitment letter - clear to close, for 100%. 2 hours later they sent another commitment letter, saying the first was a mistake for 95% financing. the appraisal, btw was for 15,000 over purchase price. nothing else could possibly materially have changed in two hours. no new disclosure was given to us - and the lender knew we had to have commitment by sunday as term of our contract. btw - we did not misstate anything, provided every document that was asked for (one at a time 2 days between) promptly. i think we were bamboozled. i just want to know what my recourse is other than walking away and now probably losing the house. we had in fact been approved at 100% by two other lenders, just with stated terms not quite as good.

Yes, a letter is not a loan and they find additional data during the loan process which can effect the loan. Terms can be changed at anytime prior to signing.

Powered by

Found a house i fell in love with early december after already securing financing... or so i thought. the loan officer approved me and gave me a commitment to lend letter from the bank. the only conditions on that commitment were that it pass the appraisal inspection (it's a va home loan) and that any conditions for repairs in my offer be met. we were supposed to close dec 30th, but didn't because the sellers repairs were not acceptable and he hadn't done the repairs the va appraiser wanted. he says he will fix them and does them repairs properly this time. house is inspected again, my private inspector and the va inspector are happy. the house even has $20,000 in positive equity on the appraisal. loan officer tells me the paperwork is essentially done, they just have to say the repairs were done and everything is good. we agree to close the 5th of january. monday the 4th, the loan officer calls me and says there is a problem with my residual income. i need to free up $120 more a month to qualify for the loan. the mortgage on my house will be $300 less per month than i pay in rent right now and i qualified for this apartment! i don't have any debts except a student loan and a car payment. the student loan is only $80 a month so the only way to free up enough income would be to pay my car off in full, which is impossible for me right now since i don't have 11,000 in cash. now he is telling me if i don't find someone to cosign and boost my income then he can't close the loan. i've already given notice on my apartment, paid a lot of money to break my lease, and bought and paid for appliances for this house. i think a complete disaster may be averted since my mother offered on her own accord to cosign on the loan with me yesterday, but he still has me in a really bad situation. shouldn't my income qualification issues have come up a long time ago? why was i given a commitment letter from the bank? had i known it wasn't a sure thing, i would have never put in notice on my apartment and i would never have bought appliances. now i am stuck paying $500 for a va appraisal fee if i back out, i forfeit $2000 in earnest money, and i'll be homeless and forced to pull a couple more grand out of thin air to find another place to live since there are no open apartments and mine is already going to someone on the waiting list. is what the loan officer did legal? even if this loan closes, i still want to know what recourse i have or if there is any way to report him. i don't ever want this to happen to someone else. i wasn't asking if i had a "case," just if they could actually do that. a commitment letter from a bank would mean that not only had i been approved for the loan (they ran my credit, had my w-2's, paystubs, verified income and my employment, everything) but also through underwriting. there is a huge difference between a pre-approval and a commitment to lend.

I've been told that right around the end of 2009, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the quasi-government companies that basically underwrite the mortgage industry at this time) completely overhauled their guidelines and rules for counting income. The mortgage companies and bank mortgage departments are just puppets on a string that have to live with a continually-changing set of mortgage rules. So yes, it is legal, and yes it certainly does stink! I am in a similar position. I was buying a house late 2009 with an approved mortgage and it did not appraise to the sale price. As we were renegotiating and re-doing the paperwork, the rules changed and now the mortgage banker will only count 70% of my income because I have had my job for less than 2 years. So now my income/loan ratio doesn't meet requirements. I have an 805 credit score btw. The whole thing is ridiculous - how does the government expect to get out of this economic mess and revive the housing market when they make it virtually impossible for a large percentage of people to get a mortgage? All because of the crooks and shysters who caused this problem but came out making millions with government bailouts, honest people with the ability to pay their mortgage and being shut out of the housing market.

Powered by

I already got approved for a morgage loan from a lender. i also have applied to other lenders, and a bank would do appraisal tomorrow and the branch manager has told me that there's high probability to be approved for the loan. however, the first company which already approved the loan recognized that i was trying other lenders, then, the company is pushing me to get my credit card information and is hurrying to issue commitment letter. the company want me to tell the bank stop proceeding. the company also want me to pick up the commitment letter as soon as it is ready and tell the seller's attoney that i get the commitment letter from the company. however, since the loan offer, which means both interest rate and closing costs, is better with the bank. so, i want to wait more until i get approval and commitment letter from the bank. is it ok to get commitment letter from both parties in my hand? any legal obligation? any penalty? anything to be careful? thanks for help!

As an owner of a mortgage company, I can tell you with 100% ccertainty that you are more than welcome to get as many commitment letters and quotes from as many companies as you like without any commitment or legal binding issues on your end. You may lose some money (the cost of the appraisal) if you go with a different company than the one pressuring you, but you are not bound to anything until you sign final loan docs. I would tell the company pressuring you that you will provide them with a GFE from your bank and if they can beat it, they have your business. In this environment, the buyer has ALL the chips. Play hardball....

Powered by

I'm dating this guy who lives in another close by city. we make trips to see each other quite frequently. we just saw each other recently and spent the hoildays together and it was perfect he introduced me to even more of his best friends (he grew up in the city i live in) and his friends even mentioned how he never brings girls out, he doesn't date, hes just a postive, friendly, easy-going guy and they were so surprised to meet me as the girl he's seeing and see him hold my hand, ect.. he really likes me and i really like him. he's different from any guy i have dated. the problem is that we can't be bf and gf because he does live in another town. he loves travelling and plans to do some travelling this coming spring (backpacking through europe his home country). i asked him why he moved so much and can't stay in one place for longer than a year and he told me that he never had a reason to, he doesn't have sucessful relationships, his job is something he can do at any bar in the world. the thing is i'm crazy about him and i haven't even told him i like him, little arguments start because he thinks i don't care and am not as half interested in him as he is in me. he also just shuts down in the arguments, he just likes to drop it and never speak of it again. anyways the truth of the matter is, i have been hurt by guys in the past, i don't fall easy, but when i do, i fall hard. i have held back with this guy so much emotionally and he probably just thinks i'm werid, but its not that at all. i'm just afraid of getting hurt and losing him. i also have the hardest time and freeze up when i want to say something to him, like lying in bed next time trying to fall asleep i will think of something to say and i can't like the words won't physically come out then bam its too late. i have never told him i liked him directly, i figured at this point its obvious but i realized more and more its probably not. i was considering that when he leaves in a few months at that time if i still haven't gotten my feelings out, should i write him a letter and tell him to read it on the plane or something. just tell him how i really feel about him and that i did hold back because of the fear of getting hurt. how he has changed my life so much for the better and that i'm going to miss him more than he imagined. how i do suck at dating and put a wall up, possible commitment issue. basically write down everything i have been to scared to say..i actually can't picture my life without this guy in it. when he tells me hes excited to see him or that he misses me, my heart just melts. i know i can't stop him from going at this point, but would the letter be a good idea?

yeah i would say you should tell him - nothing will ever happen if you don't tell him how you feel

Powered by

Http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/lobb yists-on-agency-boards-and-commissi ons obama pushes lobbyists off federal advisory boards in a little-noticed blog post published on the white house website in september, president obama's special counsel for ethics and government reform norm eisen announced that the administration no longer wanted federally-registered lobbyists appointed to agency advisory boards and commissions. these appointees to boards and commissions, which are made by agencies and not the president, advise the federal government on a variety of policy areas. keeping these advisory boards free of individuals who currently are registered federal lobbyists represents a dramatic change in the way business is done in washington. as has been reported, the president has made a commitment to close the revolving door that has in the past allowed lobbyists and others to move to and from full-time federal government service. in furtherance of this commitment, the president issued executive order 13490, which bars anyone appointed by the president who has been a federally-registered lobbyist within the past two years from working on particular matters or in the specific areas in which they lobbied or from serving in agencies they had lobbied. the aspiration we are announcing today builds on this commitment. while the letter of the president's executive order on ethics does not apply to federally-registered lobbyists appointed by agency or department heads, the spirit does and we have conveyed that to the agencies who are responsible for these appointments. let's hear the howls of indignation. there go our future lucrative jobs!

ARE U KIDDING REPUBLICANS LOVE CORRUPT LOBBIES HA HAH HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAH

Powered by

The honorable eric h. holder, jr. attorney general of the united states united states department of justice 950 pennsylvania avenue, nw washington, d.c. 20530-0001 dear attorney general holder: this letter is respectfully submitted to inform you that i must decline the invitation to participate in the may 4 roundtable meeting the president’s task force on detention policy is convening with current and former prosecutors involved in international terrorism cases. an invitation was extended to me by trial lawyers from the counterterrorism section, who are members of the task force, which you are leading. the invitation email (of april 14) indicates that the meeting is part of an ongoing effort to identify lawful policies on the detention and disposition of alien enemy combatants—or what the department now calls “individuals captured or apprehended in connection with armed conflicts and counterterrorism operations.” i admire the lawyers of the counterterrorism division, and i do not question their good faith. nevertheless, it is quite clear—most recently, from your provocative remarks on wednesday in germany—that the obama administration has already settled on a policy of releasing trained jihadists (including releasing some of them into the united states). whatever the good intentions of the organizers, the meeting will obviously be used by the administration to claim that its policy was arrived at in consultation with current and former government officials experienced in terrorism cases and national security issues. i deeply disagree with this policy, which i believe is a violation of federal law and a betrayal of the president’s first obligation to protect the american people. under the circumstances, i think the better course is to register my dissent, rather than be used as a prop. moreover, in light of public statements by both you and the president, it is dismayingly clear that, under your leadership, the justice department takes the position that a lawyer who in good faith offers legal advice to government policy makers—like the government lawyers who offered good faith advice on interrogation policy—may be subject to investigation and prosecution for the content of that advice, in addition to empty but professionally damaging accusations of ethical misconduct. given that stance, any prudent lawyer would have to hesitate before offering advice to the government. beyond that, as elucidated in my writing (including my proposal for a new national security court, which i understand the task force has perused), i believe alien enemy combatants should be detained at guantanamo bay (or a facility like it) until the conclusion of hostilities. this national defense measure is deeply rooted in the venerable laws of war and was reaffirmed by the supreme court in the 2004 hamdi case. yet, as recently as wednesday, you asserted that, in your considered judgment, such notions violate america’s “commitment to the rule of law.” indeed, you elaborated, “nothing symbolizes our [adminstration’s] new course more than our decision to close the prison at guantanamo bay…. president obama believes, and i strongly agree, that guantanamo has come to represent a time and an approach that we want to put behind us: a disregard for our centuries-long respect for the rule of law[.]” (emphasis added.) given your policy of conducting ruinous criminal and ethics investigations of lawyers over the advice they offer the government, and your specific position that the wartime detention i would endorse is tantamount to a violation of law, it makes little sense for me to attend the task force meeting. after all, my choice would be to remain silent or risk jeopardizing myself. for what it may be worth, i will say this much. for eight years, we have had a robust debate in the united states about how to handle alien terrorists captured during a defensive war authorized by congress after nearly 3000 of our fellow americans were annihilated. essentially, there have been two camps. one calls for prosecution in the civilian criminal justice system, the strategy used throughout the 1990s. the other calls for a military justice approach of combatant detention and war-crimes prosecutions by military commission. because each theory has its downsides, many commentators, myself included, have proposed a third way: a hybrid system, designed for the realities of modern international terrorism—a new system that would address the needs to protect our classified defense secrets and to assure americans, as well as our allies, that we are detaining the right people. there are differences in these various proposals. but their proponents, and adherents to both the military and civilian justice approaches, have all agreed on at least one thing: foreign terrorists trained to execute mass-murder attacks cannot simply be released while the war ensues and americans are still being targeted. we have already release

Hang on there I'm still reading the letter.

Powered by

By email (to the counterterrorism division) and by regular mail: the honorable eric h. holder, jr. attorney general of the united states united states department of justice 950 pennsylvania avenue, nw washington, d.c. 20530-0001 dear attorney general holder: this letter is respectfully submitted to inform you that i must decline the invitation to participate in the may 4 roundtable meeting the president’s task force on detention policy is convening with current and former prosecutors involved in international terrorism cases. an invitation was extended to me by trial lawyers from the counterterrorism section, who are members of the task force, which you are leading. the invitation email (of april 14) indicates that the meeting is part of an ongoing effort to identify lawful policies on the detention and disposition of alien enemy combatants—or what the department now calls “individuals captured or apprehended in connection with armed conflicts and counterterrorism operations.” i admire the lawyers of the counterterrorism division, and i do not question their good faith. nevertheless, it is quite clear—most recently, from your provocative remarks on wednesday in germany—that the obama administration has already settled on a policy of releasing trained jihadists (including releasing some of them into the united states). whatever the good intentions of the organizers, the meeting will obviously be used by the administration to claim that its policy was arrived at in consultation with current and former government officials experienced in terrorism cases and national security issues. i deeply disagree with this policy, which i believe is a violation of federal law and a betrayal of the president’s first obligation to protect the american people. under the circumstances, i think the better course is to register my dissent, rather than be used as a prop. moreover, in light of public statements by both you and the president, it is dismayingly clear that, under your leadership, the justice department takes the position that a lawyer who in good faith offers legal advice to government policy makers—like the government lawyers who offered good faith advice on interrogation policy—may be subject to investigation and prosecution for the content of that advice, in addition to empty but professionally damaging accusations of ethical misconduct. given that stance, any prudent lawyer would have to hesitate before offering advice to the government. beyond that, as elucidated in my writing (including my proposal for a new national security court, which i understand the task force has perused), i believe alien enemy combatants should be detained at guantanamo bay (or a facility like it) until the conclusion of hostilities. this national defense measure is deeply rooted in the venerable laws of war and was reaffirmed by the supreme court in the 2004 hamdi case. yet, as recently as wednesday, you asserted that, in your considered judgment, such notions violate america’s “commitment to the rule of law.” indeed, you elaborated, “nothing symbolizes our [adminstration’s] new course more than our decision to close the prison at guantanamo bay…. president obama believes, and i strongly agree, that guantanamo has come to represent a time and an approach that we want to put behind us: a disregard for our centuries-long respect for the rule of law[.]” (emphasis added.) given your policy of conducting ruinous criminal and ethics investigations of lawyers over the advice they offer the government, and your specific position that the wartime detention i would endorse is tantamount to a violation of law, it makes little sense for me to attend the task force meeting. after all, my choice would be to remain silent or risk jeopardizing myself. for what it may be worth, i will say this much. for eight years, we have had a robust debate in the united states about how to handle alien terrorists captured during a defensive war authorized by congress after nearly 3000 of our fellow americans were annihilated. essentially, there have been two camps. one calls for prosecution in the civilian criminal justice system, the strategy used throughout the 1990s. the other calls for a military justice approach of combatant detention and war-crimes prosecutions by military commission. because each theory has its downsides, many commentators, myself included, have proposed a third way: a hybrid system, designed for the realities of modern international terrorism—a new system that would address the needs to protect our classified defense secrets and to assure americans, as well as our allies, that we are detaining the right people. there are differences in these various proposals. but their proponents, and adherents to both the military and civilian justice approaches, have all agreed on at least one thing: foreign terrorists trained to execute mass-murder attacks cannot simply be released while the war en in brief, this letter points out the hypocracy of the barry administration and the potentially unconstitutionality of many of the policies of this administration. i noticed the letter was slightly cut off so here is the full link to the site: http://nrinstitute.org/mustread.php notice the author. dopray777, first, thank you and your son for your sacrifice. i am truely humbled when those who have sacrificed so much agree with my point of view. as for the rest of your response, i could not agree with you more. barry and his administration are absolutely corrupt and unconstitutional and should all be shot for treason.

"If I had more time, I would write a shorter letter" - Abe Lincoln Higher ups will only read concise briefs. This part says it all: Foreign terrorists trained to execute mass-murder attacks cannot simply be released while the war ensues and Americans are still being targeted. My son is one of many of our brave military fighting with their blood, sweat and tears. Seeing their brothers in arms being killed, all the while knowing that their Commander in Chief is sending in more Taliban Terrorists. WTF? Who does Obama work for, really? Obama and all who support him have blood on their hands and a curse on their heads.

Powered by

Andrew c. mccarthy may 1, 2009 by email (to the counterterrorism division) and by regular mail: the honorable eric h. holder, jr. attorney general of the united states united states department of justice 950 pennsylvania avenue, nw washington, d.c. 20530-0001 dear attorney general holder: this letter is respectfully submitted to inform you that i must decline the invitation to participate in the may 4 roundtable meeting the president’s task force on detention policy is convening with current and former prosecutors involved in international terrorism cases. an invitation was extended to me by trial lawyers from the counterterrorism section, who are members of the task force, which you are leading. the invitation email (of april 14) indicates that the meeting is part of an ongoing effort to identify lawful policies on the detention and disposition of alien enemy combatants—or what the department now calls “individuals captured or apprehended in connection with armed conflicts and counterterrorism operations.” i admire the lawyers of the counterterrorism division, and i do not question their good faith. nevertheless, it is quite clear—most recently, from your provocative remarks on wednesday in germany—that the obama administration has already settled on a policy of releasing trained jihadists (including releasing some of them into the united states). whatever the good intentions of the organizers, the meeting will obviously be used by the administration to claim that its policy was arrived at in consultation with current and former government officials experienced in terrorism cases and national security issues. i deeply disagree with this policy, which i believe is a violation of federal law and a betrayal of the president’s first obligation to protect the american people. under the circumstances, i think the better course is to register my dissent, rather than be used as a prop. moreover, in light of public statements by both you and the president, it is dismayingly clear that, under your leadership, the justice department takes the position that a lawyer who in good faith offers legal advice to government policy makers—like the government lawyers who offered good faith advice on interrogation policy—may be subject to investigation and prosecution for the content of that advice, in addition to empty but professionally damaging accusations of ethical misconduct. given that stance, any prudent lawyer would have to hesitate before offering advice to the government. beyond that, as elucidated in my writing (including my proposal for a new national security court, which i understand the task force has perused), i believe alien enemy combatants should be detained at guantanamo bay (or a facility like it) until the conclusion of hostilities. this national defense measure is deeply rooted in the venerable laws of war and was reaffirmed by the supreme court in the 2004 hamdi case. yet, as recently as wednesday, you asserted that, in your considered judgment, such notions violate america’s “commitment to the rule of law.” indeed, you elaborated, “nothing symbolizes our [adminstration’s] new course more than our decision to close the prison at guantanamo bay…. president obama believes, and i strongly agree, that guantanamo has come to represent a time and an approach that we want to put behind us: a disregard for our centuries-long respect for the rule of law[.]” (emphasis added.) given your policy of conducting ruinous criminal and ethics investigations of lawyers over the advice they offer the government, and your specific position that the wartime detention i would endorse is tantamount to a violation of law, it makes little sense for me to attend the task force meeting. after all, my choice would be to remain silent or risk jeopardizing myself. for what it may be worth, i will say this much. for eight years, we have had a robust debate in the united states about how to handle alien terrorists captured during a defensive war authorized by congress after nearly 3000 of our fellow americans were annihilated. essentially, there have been two camps. one calls for prosecution in the civilian criminal justice system, the strategy used throughout the 1990s. the other calls for a military justice approach of combatant detention and war-crimes prosecutions by military commission. because each theory has its downsides, many commentators, myself included, have proposed a third way: a hybrid system, designed for the realities of modern international terrorism—a new system that would address the needs to protect our classified defense secrets and to assure americans, as well as our allies, that we are detaining the right people. there are differences in these various proposals. but their proponents, and adherents to both the military and civilian justice approaches, ha

I think Mr. McCarthy is smart enough to know he was involved in a criminal conspiracy and is desperate to cover his own ass. Just because you only contribute one component to a conspiracy doesn't mean you didn't do anything wrong. He knew the reason he was being asked to use his official position to write that opinion was because others were going to be breaking the law and Bushco wanted to set up their defense in advance. Any court in this land would recognize that as premeditation. Guilty! We'll warm up your cell for you, Mr. McCarthy.

Powered by

I've been having this relationship with this guy for about two years now, neither one of us has been with anyone else, but he has some definite trust/commitment issues so he wont refer to me as his girlfriend because he's afraid of getting too close cause then he might get hurt and blah blah blah. i love him to death, but i want to get married someday and have kids and i can see this dragging out for the next ten years and never going anywhere. he tells me he loves me and all that crap and is starting to open up more, but everytime he reveals more of himself he freaks out and wont talk to me for awhile. point is, i have been trying to get a hold of him to tell him this either needs to end or become something more. i can't get ahold of him and i am not the best at communicating things anyway, so i have written him this three page letter saying everything i need to say (it isn't anything bad or a complete freak out, it is a very rational letter). would this freak a guy out though? i have known him for years and we were good friends for awhile before we were anything more. i just don't know if people write letters anymore and if he'll think i'm completely nuts for doing so, but i know if i try to tell him any of this in person he will start with the whole "but i love you so much" thing and i'll end up in his arms again and never get my point across about how i need more at this point in my life then my good buddy who loves me and only gets with me but is afraid that if he talks to me more than once a week he will get too close and i'll destroy him. i'm over trying to convince him that i wont cheat on him and that i actually do like him for reasons other than the pleasure i get from hooking up.

i think asking if he will freak out is case-sensitive to the guy... and none of us know him. if this guy is too afraid to refer to you as his girlfriend, then he doesn't deserve you. maybe a good idea would be to show him that you aren't going to wait around forever, and tell him that if he can't commit... then maybe you want to start seeing someone who will. that might be a wakeup call for him, because if he loves you like you love him he'll do anything to keep you. wanting to commit yourself to a guy who doesn't have the balls to admit he wants to be with you isn't any good for you. thats part of being in a relationship- putting yourself out there. you may get hurt, but its better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all, right? If you love this guy so much, then you should be able to talk to him! You shouldnt need to hide behind a letter. If you need just make some bullets on your hand to remind yourself of all the points you want to make.