Fortunately for you, the buyers are responsible for the septic system after they move in. How are you to know that they haven`t been pouring bleach down the drain. The protection they might have is from the home inspection company they used (if they did) in terms of insurance.

Powered by

14 years ago my husband and i managed a huge subdivision which was bought by one investor. overtime, like our neighbors, we bought the house we were leasing. because i handled the collection of rents, and my husband the repairs, we weren't surprised when a neighbor across the street made the comment, "the reason we can't buy our is because you and your husband own it" little did we know that statement was indeed true. 14 years later, our daughter while in real estate school told us she came across our names as owners of that property. apparently when the deed was filed for our home, in error, a deed was also filed for the property across the street which had the same lot number, but a different block. here's the odd thing, when our own home foreclosed, the other house actually became ours. it was then that we discovered this. 1. for 14 years that mis-labeled house was ours 2. the company that bought all the houses in the sub-division was never able to correct the error 3. they even went as far as a)selling it to themselves - failed b)selling it to two other buyers - failed c)filing a corrective deed - failed d)it has no mortgage because it could not be sold (we were the owners!!!???) as a result of not being able to sell it, the investor has gone on for 14 years paying property taxes on that house in our names. they have also been collecting rents for 14 years. suggestions please...... based on the state record, we were living in the subdivision when all these corrective attempts were being made. remember, we also worked for these people. wonder why they didn't simply ask that we quit claim it back to them?

Since you never did anything to aquire it and you know it is an error you should see if you can quiet claim it back to the builders. Or just call they attorney and ask what they need you to do in order to correct this. The title is clouded because of this, you do not own anything. You should see if you can help the rightful owners clear up the title.

Powered by

When i bought the house, init appraisal did not include it and it came back not worth asking price, the owner request another appraisal and this time it is included because it is said that half of the basement is above the ground so it should be include in gla, which increased the house appraisal value and got the mortgage from bank. now i'm selling my house, the buyer/bank appraiser said the entire basement should not be included in gla, even though half of it is above the ground, which makes the appraisal result again lower than my asking price and the buyer failed to get mortgage. anybody know is that above the ground part should be included in gla at all? if should not, do i have a case against the appraiser who did it when i bought the house?

Sorry but if any part of the basement is below grade then it does not count as GLA. GLA MUST be all above grade. You can not split the basement in 2 section. Yes you do have a case against the first appraiser who included the basement into the GLA. Thats Mtg fraud and once the docs and funds were transferred across state lines then it becomes wire fraud. Federal crime 30 years and a $1,000,000 fine.

Powered by

Last month, i sold my house in florida to a company that rehabs houses. i signed it over, received a sum of cash, and moved to wisconsin. however, the buyer has failed to contact me for the last signature, failed to pay the mortgage company off or close the deal...the mortgage company is still contacting me, and my friends in fl tell me that no work has been done on the house. i am unable to reach the buyer by phone or email. what can i do to get rid of this house and protect my credit? by the way--i received the money...not him. i can believe he paid me money so that he could screw up my credit....

It sounds to me like you signed over the deed and let him buy the house subject to the existing mortgage. That means he has title and you have the mortgage in your name which is not the position you want to be in. You have already gotten rid of the house. Unfortunately, you did not get rid of the debt -- it is still in your name. You need to contact an attorney and have him/her review the paperwork. Your buyer may have screwed up the paperwork which might save your butt. If you are very, very lucky, the buyer will sign the house back over to you and you can go about selling to a real buyer. Or he may start paying on the loan if he gets a letter from an attorney. Maybe not. I live on the west coast of Florida and I am connected to a number of investor groups. If he is local to me, I may be able to see what is going on. Contact me by going to my website www.therealestatebirddog.com. Investors like this give everyone a bad name. I am sorry this happened to you. Barbara www.therealestatebirddog.com

Powered by

If you thought hillary clinton’s government takeover plan for health care was bad, wait ‘til you see what she has in store for the housing sector. as always with the clintons, the market is the problem and big nanny is the solution. unfortunately for taxpayers, hillary has bipartisan company in the bush administration on this issue. their election season prescription? rewarding bad behavior. punishing responsible behavior. doing more harm than good. in case you’ve been living in a cave, there’s a painful credit crunch underway. the culprit is the subprime mortgage — a species of risky home loans to buyers with dubious credit and income. cash-rich lenders doled out the subprimes hoping rising home prices would compensate for any failed bets. but when housing prices started plummeting and interest rates began rising, many borrowers started defaulting. insolvency looms for countless lenders. instead of letting lenders and subprime mortgage-holders suffer the consequences of their actions, politicians and grievance-mongers are riding to the supposed rescue. in a supreme irony, the very same champions of the needy in the democrat party who complain constantly about the lack of “affordable housing” are now fighting tooth and nail to keep housing prices high. to “cure” the housing crisis, hillary wants a 90-day moratorium on foreclosures for homeowners who default on subprimes. in addition, she wants a five-year freeze on the monthly rate for subprime adjustable mortgages. while she demonizes lenders as predatory out of one side of her mouth, the other side of her mouth is floating legislation to protect lenders from lawsuits and let them convert certain mortgages into “stable, affordable loans.” on top of all that federal meddling, she proposes a $5 billion — yes, that’s “billion” with a “b” — fund to “help communities suffering from high rates of foreclosures.” jesse jackson is also stirring the pot. with subprime victim sob stories flooding the news and anecdotes of minority homeowners in trouble, there’s no way the shakedown king could stay away. but the subprime mess isn’t a result of ruthless racial discrimination. if anything, it’s the result of too little discrimination by lenders too willing and eager to sign on people who had no business taking on mortgages. (and you know jesse jackson would be screaming either way. the lenders are damned if they lend and damned if they don’t.) let’s boil this down to fundamentals: why should the rest of us have to shoulder the burden because some buyers made poor choices, overextended themselves, and bought more house than they could afford? why should other business owners bear the costs of lenders’ failed bets? and why are falling home prices such a catastrophe to be “fixed” in the first place? sacramento bee columnist daniel weintraub put it well: “it is great news when the price of energy, food, transportation, health care and consumer electronics drops. but for some reason it is bad news when the price of shelter drops. . . . shouldn’t we be seeing stories filled with anecdotes about formerly priced-out middle-income families finally getting their chance at the american dream?” there’s another side of the housing crunch equation that’s not making it onto the newspaper front pages and presidential campaign websites. “for every house sold because the buyer couldn’t make the payments,” weintraub notes, “there is a buyer on the other end of that transaction who got a good deal. and for every foreclosure, there are probably 10 buyers of nearby homes who benefited from the general easing of house-price pressure.” bingo. fiscal conservatives ought to be balking at hillarycare for housing. but president bush’s treasury secretary, hank paulson, is singing a similar tune. he proposed a new safety net to stem the tide of home foreclosures through a bailout plan for homeowners with bad credit scores. they’d be eligible for relief from paying hundreds of dollars in additional monthly payments when their mortgage rates reset. those who have been responsible enough to maintain good credit, however, will be out of luck. in addition, federal reserve chairman ben bernanke has proposed that government-sponsored mortgage enterprises fannie mae and freddie mac be allowed to raise their loan limits and have their debt explicitly guaranteed by the public dole. lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are colluding to protect the reckless and keep home prices high on the backs of prudent taxpayers. who’ll bail us out from this perversion of the american dream?

Well defaulting on loans helps no one. All those people would be homeless and that will cost the taxpayers billions too. The only thing to do is to freeze the rates and allow the homeowners time to repair their financial woes. I hate the idea as much as the next republican, but in light of what has happened freezing the loans is like closing the gate after most of the cows got out. A little help but should have never opened the gate in the first place.

Powered by

Hi ! i really hope that someone can tell me what they think is really going on here as i'm losing the will to live!! a few months ago, we made an offer on a house - we've sold ours to a cash buyer so there's no chain and we have the mortgage approved. it took a week for the vendor to come back and decline the offer. apparently she is in the midst of a divorce and has to run every offer by her ex. we increased the offer and again it took a week to be declined. we made about 7 offers in total and the last - very near the asking price was finally accepted - still after a week of consideration. we were totally fed up at this point but pleased that we could finally get moving as our buyer had been so patient. since then, we have had excuse after excuse as to why things haven't moved at all. she hasn't even appointed solicitors yet and it has now been over 3 weeks since her acceptance. her agents are useless wet blankets who consistently fail to return calls etc. her first excuse was that she needed to wait for a settlement figure so it would all start to happen mid week. mid week came and went and there was 'another' meeting happening the following week - which also came and went with no event. there have been numerous 'things' that are about to happen and it was all meant to be sorted by last friday when she was to put an offer on another house with the same agent. needless to say, it didn't happen! we have queried why she hasn't even appointed soloictiors for the sale of the house yet and were told 'she wants to do it all at the same time..' why ?? if there was another house half as good, we would run a mile and tell them to sort themselves out and get lost - but there is nothing that we like as much. as we being taken for fools or is there anyone out there that thinks that she may actually be genuine and knows what goes on behind the scenes? we are ok at the moment as we have not had to pay out any money but once the survey/mortgage is arranged, if she continues like this, we will probably lose our buyer as well as losing loads of money. we have taken 3 years to sell our house and can't move into rented as i run a business from home which is not very portable. my gut instinct is telling me that this is not right but i really don't want to lose our on the house that my two little ones have really fell in love with - it has woods at the back of the garden where they can play etc and is so much more than a box on a street. it has crossed my mind that she is stalling for time and wants to stay in the house but the agents says not as she put the house on the market etc. can anyone help?

As a former UK Estate Agent we have come across this many times and shrunk when we were instructed by people who are going through a divorce. The problem is usually caused by one of the persons not wanting to sell so they use any delaying tactics they can think off. This sounds like one of them. She is not going to do anything until actually forced to by her ex or the Courts. You need to give in writing 7 days notice for her to instruct a Solicitor or you will back out. You will have to as this could go on for months.

Powered by

I am a real estate agent myself, well now retired. i sold a property that i owned to an individual. the property was not listed by me or through any real estate company. the buyer approached me and over saw the reconditioning of the property from the ground up. the buyer took possession of the property 2 weeks before closing. another real estate broker handled all the paperwork and the closing on the property. i did not act as an agent, i just assumed the role of the seller and property owner. now i am being sued, because a property condition report was not presented to the buyer at the time of closing by the real estate broker i hired and who received a commission for the sale of my property. i am in shock that i could be sued , when i did not do anything wrong, and did not have any idea that the property condition report was not presented to the buyer. the buyer eventually defaulted on the mortgage and moved out after 3 short months. they left the water on and the house was flooded, filed for coverage under an insurance policy, and received 10,000 dollars for the damages. however they never fixed any of the said damages, and then tried to claim the damages were my fault. however the damages occured 7 months after the buyer, had left the house vacant and the utilities on. again i just sold a property through a broker, who the broker failed to give a disclosure agreement to the buyer. we original spent 30,000 dollars in the reconditioning of the property before selling it to the buyer. the buyer did not put one dollar down, and paid no closing cost and the first years insurance was prepaid out of the proceeds of the sale of the property. the buyers attorney asked us for 200,000 dollars in damages, and we are still in shock. we live in southern louisiana and have never been placed in such a rock and a hard place. all the other paper work was done, the termite inspection, building inspection, everything and the house was in excellent condition when the buyer purchased it from us. any ideas? thanks!

.....I am a real estate agent myself, well now retired. I sold a property that I owned to an individual. The property was not listed by me or through any real estate company. -----then you say .. Another Real Estate Broker handled all the paperwork and the closing on the property. -------------u should have added "hired by the buyer to be a buyer's agent.... -------------------the Real Estate Broker I hired ................ ----that is contradictory. Sorry ------------ i will be glad to guide you through this. as Judge Judy would say, someone is "........not being totally accurate." YOU Have almost no problem..............if we can get to the truth. YOUR sentences extrapolated and displayed above, need to be clarified. This is "conditionally easy " to fix.

Powered by

I found this on fact check the federal reserve, which slashed interest rates after the dot-com bubble burst, making credit cheap. home buyers, who took advantage of easy credit to bid up the prices of homes excessively. congress, which continues to support a mortgage tax deduction that gives consumers a tax incentive to buy more expensive houses. real estate agents, most of whom work for the sellers rather than the buyers and who earned higher commissions from selling more expensive homes. the clinton administration, which pushed for less stringent credit and downpayment requirements for working- and middle-class families. mortgage brokers, who offered less-credit-worthy home buyers subprime, adjustable rate loans with low initial payments, but exploding interest rates. former federal reserve chairman alan greenspan, who in 2004, near the peak of the housing bubble, encouraged americans to take out adjustable rate mortgages. wall street firms, who paid too little attention to the quality of the risky loans that they bundled into mortgage backed securities (mbs), and issued bonds using those securities as collateral. the bush administration, which failed to provide needed government oversight of the increasingly dicey mortgage-backed securities market. an obscure accounting rule called mark-to-market, which can have the paradoxical result of making assets be worth less on paper than they are in reality during times of panic. collective delusion, or a belief on the part of all parties that home prices would keep rising forever, no matter how high or how fast they had already gone up. http://www.factcheck.org/elections- 2008/who_caused_the_economic_crisis .html

I think there are even more than that. The Gramm legislation that de-regulated markets and allowed some financial transactions to be done unregulated is a big one that is missing from the list. The securitization of mortgages at unprecedented levels. The historically low capital gains taxes that put more money out there chasing profits. Some on the list I would disagree with too. I think this collective delusion that housing prices would continue to rise forever is silly. Financial experts knew better, there was just no financial incentive to prepare for it. And some of these things may have had more weight than others. Tax deduction on mortgage interest has been deductible as long as I can remember, hard to figure how that suddenly caused the housing boom and bust. I'd take exception to that. The 'mark to market' thing is certainly an issue, but only once things got so bad that there was no longer a functioning market for mortgage backed securities.

Powered by

I made an agreement to mortgage my residential house for 200,000 pesos then later to sell in staggard payment for 1.5m. the mortgagee/buyer assured me that in 3 mons. time they'll (she and her daughter) buy it, but she failed to pay me in full the said amount of mortgage so i decided to withdraw the agreement for fear that she might not be able to pay me the total purchase price of the said property of 1.5million pesos. now she wants me to pay her the full refund of her money which is 123,500, but i could only pay her 70,000. the agreement was just handwritten by me as acknowledgment receipt, to wit: received from ______ the amount of 83,500.00 + 40,000.00 as partial payment of kasunduan ng sangla for a residential house at ______. sgd. nagsangla can the mortgagee force me to pay immediately the balance of 50,000 by threatening to sue me in court? what is my legal stand? or could you refer me a lawyer for legal advice?

Please answer this: Did this person and her daughter live on the property for any amount of time? If so, some of the money owed could be considered "rent" for the time the property was used. ( The proper way would have been to set up payments higher that your mortgage payments, and then if she fell 3 months in arrears, you could evict her, no matter how large her down payment was. And you would owe her nothing. ) If she lived there, she owes for the time that she lived there. Deduct that from the 50,000. She broke her agreement by failing to pay within the time allotted. Agree to pay the balance if any, (after the rent charge) on paper in regular payments. Have it included with the receipt for the 70,000. Such as: Return to Buyer _________ for money paid on the property at ___________. Cash returned: 70,000. Payment for time property was used: _____ The property owner agrees to pay ___ a month for __ months on the balance of____. Full refund to be credited to Property owner: 123,500. Signed: Buyer _________ Signed: Property Owner_________

Powered by

According to factcheck.org the federal reserve, which slashed interest rates after the dot-com bubble burst, making credit cheap. home buyers, who took advantage of easy credit to bid up the prices of homes excessively. congress, which continues to support a mortgage tax deduction that gives consumers a tax incentive to buy more expensive houses. real estate agents, most of whom work for the sellers rather than the buyers and who earned higher commissions from selling more expensive homes. the clinton administration, which pushed for less stringent credit and downpayment requirements for working- and middle-class families. mortgage brokers, who offered less-credit-worthy home buyers subprime, adjustable rate loans with low initial payments, but exploding interest rates. former federal reserve chairman alan greenspan, who in 2004, near the peak of the housing bubble, encouraged americans to take out adjustable rate mortgages. wall street firms, who paid too little attention to the quality of the risky loans that they bundled into mortgage backed securities (mbs), and issued bonds using those securities as collateral. the bush administration, which failed to provide needed government oversight of the increasingly dicey mortgage-backed securities market. an obscure accounting rule called mark-to-market, which can have the paradoxical result of making assets be worth less on paper than they are in reality during times of panic. collective delusion, or a belief on the part of all parties that home prices would keep rising forever, no matter how high or how fast they had already gone up. in short, everyone is to blame. it is from factcheck.org. it was the first thing i put down. i am one of those people who sat on the sidelines. and armed with more knowlege of the bill, i vote no.

There is plenty of responsibility to go around. What is necessary is the integrity to master the correction. Industrial and Technical Economics offer infinite solutions to every financial situation. It is the responsibility of "We The People" to learn how the economy functions to demand effective leadership. "We The People" must step up to the plate. Failure to demand contemporary expertise and knowledge is at the root of government and special interests mismanaging critical resources. The "Factory Model" of public school education must be upgraded. Critical thinking must be developed to enable the next generation to survive in a global economy. Waiting for experts and special interests has demonstrated the flaw in the current educational structure. People are waiting for the smart people to own up to errors and mistakes. Special interests and government officials are attempting to cover up the debacle with more spending. Wow. Value and Integrity must be restored. Stop building houses for which there are no buyers.

Powered by

Filing chapter 7. i work for a defense contractor. will i be able to keep my corp-card? didn't include it in the list of creditors because i am only allowed approved expenses related to work-travel (meals, airfare, etc). did not consider it "my" card. if anyone cares why we're in this boat, details below... 3 years ago we were in our nice little condo. wife finished school & we could finally afford to buy a bigger house. we found the house we wanted (close to my parents & my work) when my dad's health forced him into early retirement. thus, to be able to help my parents that house we wanted became the house we needed, & we bought it before selling the old house. condo appraised $205. we only owed $178k, & that's when houses were selling in days (not weeks or months). cleaned it up, replaced rugs, floors, paint, water-heater, etc. the day it listed the headline read "bubble bursts"...we sat in amazement while it was on the market 6mos. got a new realtor & waited 6 more mos. after a year we broke down & rented it at a lost of $500/mo. renters left the unit early & damaged. more $$$ to fix it up. i made 4 more mortgage-payments then stopped. by then the lender had failed to respond to 2 short-sale offers. told the lender they screwed up at least 2 chances for us to get out from under the condo, & informed lender i'd keep the utils on & keep the unit nice & appealing, but no more mort payments. they're screw-ups will not keep us on the hook for a house we could have sold by now. this condo has cost us about $40k over the 3 years we've been trying to sell it (trying to "do the right thing". we even had all other debts in a mgmt plan that was working well, but when our mortgage-mod requests were refused we had to quit the program. these banks destroyed the economy then took billions in bailouts to pay bonuses to each-other & throw super-bowel parties, but not lend $$$ to home-buyers. plus they flooded the market w/ foreclosures. i have no qualms about the chapter 7. we did more than any reasonable coupe would have done. i can sleep at night. so, if you have good advice i appreciate the help. if you disagree w/ my decision to file it's too-late. if you have a nasty comment to make, walk a mile in my shoes 1st... thanks to all for the quick responses. i get the bill, but the company pays it once i complete the expense rpt.card is not for personal stuff. i can't really get any info re: disclosure w/out "disclosing.". that said, a co-worker w/ whom i have a good relationship is actually the grievance chairman (we have a union of engineers) & he personally told me not to say a word to anyone...said the office that handles that stuff is the biggest bunch of screw-ups he's ever seen. makes the idea of disclosure quite unpalatable. however, you're correct that companies don't like surprises. sigh...i'm sick over this. i wonder why the company doesn't address this topic in a mass-email. we're in a bad economy..i'm sure many employees could use some guidelines.

Who pays the bill for this corp card? If your employer pays, it's not your account. You are probably just an authorized user on the company account. Therefore, it shouldn't be included in your personal bankruptcy. Now it is possible that your company will take the card away from you when you file bankruptcy, depending on company policy and exactly how the credit card account is set up.