Hello Lemuel. If you are selling and buying porting your mortgage is one of your options. Porting is the process of moving your mortgage from one property to another. There are 3 different types of ports that can happen when you sell a home and buy another. Each one different. Your mortgage can be either a straight port, port-increase, or port-decrease. The simplest is the straight port where you are moving your mortgage from one property to another with the same amount of mortgage. The rate, remaining term, and amount stay the same, no penalties involved and the process is straightforward as there is no new money involved. The second option is a port increase where you need extra funds for the new home, (this is usually the case if you are buying a more expensive home and have less down payment) In this case the remaining mortgage term is moved to the new property, the mortgage amount is increased and finally the interest rate is blended with today`s available rates. If the rates available today are lower than your interest rate then your rate will be blended and reduced, if the rates are higher today your rate will be blended and increased. I can do a rough calculation for you if you like, see my contact info at the bottom of the reply. The final port is the port-decrease. In this case you need less mortgage than the remaining mortgage amount you currently have. Your mortgage term, and rate get moved to the new property only the mortgage amount is reduced. There may be a penalty involved in this reduction of mortgage. If you are reducing your mortgage amount by greater than the allowable yearly prepayment options that you have signed for on your mortgage documents you may be charged a penalty for the extra reduction. There is one more option that one can consider, if your bank is not going to offer you a good rate on your port (they already got you so they often don`t) then you can always consider a new mortgage at another lender at full discount. It may save you more than your penalty to break, the calculations often tell the tale if it is worth it. I can do these calculations for you if you like and get you information on the lowest rates available today. I hope this information has helped you Lemuel. I can go into more detail if you like, explain further, and do some rough calculations, no obligation if you like. Please don`t hesitate to contact me:Abraham Niyazi - Mortgage Agent - Lic#M08010640 - Centum One FInancial Corp - Lic 10758. Cell: 416-993-4082 Toll Free: 1-866-728-3708 x 115 http://www.centum.ca/abraham_niyazi/ I deal with 25 lenders and can do mortgages across Canada except Quebec.

Hello Monty, selling your house will mean your mortgage will have be paid off. In that case your mortgage should be ported to another property to avoid penalty. If there is no other property involved and your mortgage will just end up being paid off you could make one of your yearly pre-payment to help reduce your penalty. Most lenders will take into account any unused pre-payment privilege anyways so check with them before you go to your savings or investments to make that pre-payment. I hope this helps, if you would like to discuss anything in detail please do not hesitate to contact me at any time. Abraham Niyazi - Mortgage Agent - Lic#M08010640 - Centum One FInancial Corp - Lic 10758. Cell: 416-993-4082 Toll Free: 1-866-728-3708 x 115 http://www.centum.ca/abraham_niyazi/ I deal with 25 lenders and can do mortgages across Canada except Quebec.

As long as there is not too much time between the sale of your existing home and the purchase of the new home most lenders will allow you to port the mortgage. In other-words you keep your existing mortgage and add the extra funds you need to buy the new house on top. The interest rate is a blend between what you have already and the rate at the time for the extra money you need. Now you have one mortgage amount, a blended rate, one mortgage payment and a new house!! -Abraham Niyazi - Easyrate.ca x 115

Powered by

My landlord is the defendent in a foreclosure case in illinois. the building has already been sold at auction, and the judge signed 1) an order to dispose of the mortgage foreclosure / approve the auction sale and 2) an order for possession. the only variable is that the judge extended the waiting period (in my layman's terms) to 60 days from now. should i being paying rent during that period?

You need to find out WHO you need to pay rent to. You cannot live there for free. If you do not pay, expect whomever is the owner to evict you.

Powered by

Would you 1. pay some of your mortgage down 2. invest in stock market - but in today's economy? 3. get dental work done (not emergency, but you are hitting middle age and need some done before they all fall out and you know down the road you will not have another 10k at your disposal again...) 4. take a family vacation and just put the rest into savings 5. open a retirement account (say you have 5k only in one now... and a small pension coming later in life and a home you will sell later on -- 15-25 years down the road which should net a few hundred k) your longer term goals are be debt free (currently are, well except the mortgage - no cc debt - all paid off and all but one was canceled for emergencies you canceled..no car payment either its paid off now), have a small condo when you retire and car with no car payment.. and enough to pay bills and for some going out to dinner and such - no lavish lifestyle planned...

If you haven't set aside at least 7% of your pay for retirement all your life and your pension isn't going to pay at least 50% of your income prior to retirement, the stats say that you are unlikely to have a particularly comfortable retirement...not if you retire before age 70. (The age of maximum SS benefits) Your best return for the money is probably a Roth IRA and an emergency savings fund (if you don't have one). $10k isn't enough to make much of a dent in much else without decades to grow. Unless your house is currently worth more than $100k than you paid for it, the stats also say that it is unlikely to net as much as you think it will. Home ownership has generally been oversold -- average returns over long periods of time are just barely over the rate of inflation. What this means in real terms is that $200k in 25 years will likely only buy as much stuff as $35k will in 2009. Not nearly the nest egg people expect. Tack on to that problem the expectation that the current housing problem may take 5 to 10 years to clean up and you may have decades of returns below the rate of inflation.

Powered by

I have had this credit card for over 15 years and have never been late or over my credit limit. now my story, a year ago we moved out of state and within 3 months of moving found out one of my daughters has epilepsy (she is now under long term hospital care) and my middle daughter has tuberculosis (undergoing treatment). still, we maintained our credit card payments, mortgage payments on 2 homes (the other had not sold when we moved) and auto loan payments. in february we decided to give our credit union the deed in lieu of debt to our other home. they were understanding and said they would only report us as a few months behind, rather than as a foreclosure. they held their end of the bargain. but now, a credit card which i have had a 8.88% rate with for 15 years has decided to raise my rate to 35.50%. this card has a $19,000 balance due to medical expenses. any suggestions on what i can do. does this fall under predatory lending? i would appreciate any and all suggestions.

Write a letter to your congressman and senator, and send a copy to the credit card company. Congress is taking a look at this practice, where credit card companies look at your credit report and use any excuse to raise the rate. Yours sounds like the perfect case study in why such laws are necessary. While this will probably not help you in the short term - and hopefully others will have ideas for you - you may prevent others from finding themselves in the same situation. Good luck.

Powered by

The bail outs are not free market capitalism, that's fascism to have the government dictate the market. don't tell me it divides the rich and the poor. 50% of the american gdp is from small businesses - fortune magazine not to mention majority of america is middle class, there are more suburbs then any other form of society in america. middle class to me sounds balanced, there isn't a majority of lower or upper class, only a select few in population. in free market capitalism the consumers dictate what they want to buy, the businesses can't survive unless they satisfy what the consumer wants to purchase. with the bail outs the government chose to do ruined the free market, the consumers dictated they don't want cars from gm, the government intervened and bailed them out. in a free market capitalist system, that company would go out of business, and a more efficient business would move in that territory and do a better job. bailing out gm will come back to haunt us if it fails again, it will mandate another bail out or bankruptcy. the banks them selves aren't truly a free market. they are mandated by the government with so many regulations they lose their freedom to choose what to do. the community reinvestment act which fannie mae in 1992 was invested in crashed later at the end of the bush term in 2008. that's 18 years difference in time. home mortgage loans take time to pay off. if you give loans to people that have bad credit obviously they're a hazard to possibly repay it back. banks where mandated by the government to give out the loans to people that didn't qualify. not discrediting banks being greedy they where, but it was the bureaucracy that enabled banks to have bad practice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/commun ity_reinvestment_act - read the history the regulations banks under went with all the changes and enabling them to give bad loans is the reason we feel this 18 years later. most peoples home loans take longer then 18 years to pay off. giving them to people that didn't qualify makes it even more dangerous, with the housing market devalued the banks got the homes back with a lower value of the origional loan, cooping an even bigger loss since they can't sell it back. it's not free market capitalism to bail out the banks, and it wasn't free market capitalism for the government to regulate banks on how they distribute home loans. the government made the mess, and it's the tax payer that suffers. this isn't free market capitalism. i just want to make sure you realize free market capitalism doesn't involve government regulation/interference. if you mention things like the fda and fcc, those don't dictate what company's can sell their product at or anything, that's for safety purposes, it will effect a company's cost but they will just push it to the consumer, regulating the cost they put to the consumer will damage their ability to independently function in the free market. so don't bash a system you probably know nothing about. it really upsets me people watch michael moore's movie and think that's capitalism. bail outs are not free market capitalism, it's government interference which is fascism. sakata gintoki: wow you're pretty ignorant, the people in other countries wouldn't have jobs in their country if it wasn't for the us providing them. they would be killing each other and be unproductive. in any state where there is no employment, which can be a country like somalia or even the great depression. it was and always will be out of order since there is no production, everyone will just kill each other and constantly be at war. there is no wealth generated. when employment happens, production increases causing wealth to be generated, and it's peaceful. government housing projects have the highest crime rates in america for a reason that is parallel to unemployment. crunch: free market capitalism hasn't existed since fdr, his socialistic ideals make americans dependent on the government. the more dependent on the government one becomes the less independent they become. causing them to demand the government takes care of them. this is why we have health care reform, medicare is costing america too much money each year, obama is going to end medicare and merge it with his new plan. it's going to keep adding to our debt. i'd rather disable all government aid. not allow doctors to be sued by lawyers. then sit back and watch the doctors compete against each other for patients. there would be so much competition doctors would force each other to lower prices. just like fast food when mcdonalds introduced the dollar menu. everyone else had to have a value menu because they where getting killed. the consumer will always win. sakata gintoki: wow you're a whiny little blamer, do you understand everyone has the free will to choose what to do with their lives? you can't blame the employer when the employee willingly works there. you can't blame tobacco companies for people who smoke and get cancer since the individual should of known better. you're discrediting the individuals right to choose what they want to do. you blame others for the individuals fault and sole choice they made on their own. you can't blame someone when the individual chose to do it. no one is forcing anyone to work any where, unless it was a totalitarian state and mandates they must. that isn't the case in free market capitalism. the employees can picket and not work there, if they picket and they get fired and replaced by others, it obviously tells everyone that the work environment must not be that bad if others still want to work there. matthew d: middle class is not defined by how much money you have, since the cost of living per state is different. middle class homes in so cal cost 500k, if you took 500k to alabama you could live in a mansion. the upper class homes here are valued from 900k and up in so cal. you can't live in a big house here. it depends on where you live and what the cost of living is. all suburbs are defined as middle class. government housing projects are lower class, and the upper class are the few rich that live in areas the average person can't afford. most homes in america are affordable for the average american depending on which state you are in. real estate is about location, saying a value determines middle class is stupid, because 500k in so cal isn't worth much compared to alabama. it's about each location and what the norm is. agricult: i know who george orwell is, he is an author of a book 1984 which was a prediction of how totalitarianism would spread. i know what his philosophy is. second i want to say that hitler was a fascist, fascism is two things. 1. the cause of race superiority. 2. the merge of corporations and government i for one see number 2 clearly happening right now in our american society. 61% of gm is owned by the us department of treasury. it's damaging the system america was built upon. the fore fathers wanted a small government, we are constantly stirring away from it, and i don't want to have a government that is parallel to the king of england. if the government today owns many companies and the king of england taxed high percentages, what difference does it make. either way the form of government generates a high revenue through ownership or taxation. i really dislike this, all governments can do is go bankrupt, we see it with the ussr, nazi germany, and with us being 11 trill debt. remmycool: due to lack of comenting space i am allowed i will keep this short. i agree with everything you said, if the world was a free market system america's value would decrease. i don't mind that, i am not about superiority of currency, i am for the innovation free market capitalism has offered the world. i love it and it makes every bureaucrat look like a selfish dictator that wants the wealth through taxation. i agree with your comparison of zimbabwe and them being millionaires. of course not everyone can be a millionaire, it would just be inflation and the value would be even more useless. the problem is people see the rich and think that they're selfish. the belief of that is preposterous since the rich generated that wealth through smart investments. every society there is a rich class, either a dictatorship/government or the people who choose to make innovative ideas in our democratic republic society. i hate the witch hunts people have on successful people. aidan: well for starters i agree with you that the bail outs saved capitalism since it enables banks to give loans to businesses for what ever purpose they need it for. how ever i disagree that you will believe a government report on a government program they allowed. i see a bias there considering if they disagree with their own intended policy it will make them lose credibility, americans will lose trust in them and no one would ever want something like this to happen again. to push this point even further look at the cause and effects of other programs. social security's cause is to allow you to be financially secure by the government past age 65, yet people past 65 still work and aren't retired. welfare sounds nice to help people in poverty, yet those people become dependent on the program and always will be in poverty. there is no incentive to become independent and not depend on the government anymore. i can go on and on, but i hope you get the point, plus i have no more space x x: you do realize oil companies face a major restriction by the government of where they can drill. if oil companies could drill any where and have a massive quantity the price of it would lower. gas would be much cheaper if it was accessable by oil companies to drill any where. the government restricts oil companies to drill any where. so oil companies must buy it from foreign distributors like canada, and the tariff they pay to ship it here adds to the cost of production. due to scarcity and the tariff cost, the oil companies pass these burdens to the consumers. otherwise they would eat a massive loss and go out of business. again that's government regulation ruining the free market ability of oil companies drilling where ever they want. gold is expensive because of the scarcity it holds as a natural resource. same reason why you won't pay money for dirt since it is every where it's so common it doesn't hold a value.

Before Britain and America forced their economic system onto the world, they weren't poor. Asia and Africa and South America were doing OK without us. The problem is that we opened up their markets to our investors and consumers, took everything of value, bought their corporations and governments and turned them into dependents. Wealth is relative. There is no such thing as "absolute wealth." In Zimbabwe, everyone's a millionaire, but their money is worthless. The basic law of inflation dictates that in a capitalistic society there always has to be poor people, and usually a lot of them. What America has done is export the physical labor overseas and keep the management over here. Companies like Nike, which are notorious for manufacturing their goods in third-world countries, nevertheless employ many well-dressed light-skinned American professionals to run things. And the reason America is failing is that the world is realizing that they don't need us to do that for them anymore. India's engineers are better than ours. Japan is the world leader in technology. Germany makes the best cars. All America has is an ego and debt. Unrestrained free market capitalism will eventually and inevitably lead to a better richer future- for the rest of the world. Not America, though. Americans will realize quite quickly that their entire economy (yes, even small businesses and entrepreneurs) can only survive because of the exploitation done by a few big corporations. Look at what happened to Michigan when the auto industry soured. Imagine what will happen to New York when investors start using foreign banks to do their trading. Imagine what will happen to California when Hollywood wilts under the weight of the internet. America's only viable option is to protect itself. End free trade with poor countries. Put limits on outsourcing. Crack down on tax havens. Letting the market decide the future will only guarantee that the future will be Asian.

Powered by

Somebody knocked on your door and asked how long you were staying for? let me explain, i used to live in an amazing penthouse apartment in the middle of the city, i rented it with my boyfriend and we lived there for about a year and a half. we loved it but while we lived there we decided to start a career in property developing. we bought a house and planned to carry on renting while we did up the house and sell it. we only planned to keep the house for 3 months but then the market crashed and we were stuck with the house paying rent and mortgage. we coudlnt afford it and had to move out of the apartment. we both are now so depressed living in the house and really want to move back to the apartment. it was a year and a half ago now and i text the landlord a few weeks ago to ask if the apartment is free. he said he would ask the lad in there and let me know and would love to have us back there. he never got back in touch tho and i don't want to mither him. so i want to know if i should go to the apartment and knock on the door and ask the lad myself. is this too cheeky? i was just going to ask what his long term plans were as were not ready to move for a good while yet anyway. i dont know if i should write him a letter leaving my mobile to get in touch or wether i should just knock and ask in person. i really want to move back in but am worried he is just gonna tell me to get lost. what do you think? 18 minutes ago - 3 days left to answer. additional details 4 minutes ago i relly dont want to put it like that. 'when are you leaving.' i just want to ask he is thinking of staying for a long time or not. he wont be living there forever cos hes only renting it. 0 seconds ago i was also thinking of just going there as an excuse like some mail has been delivered there and while i am picking it up just have a casual chat about his rental. nothing serious just.. do you like it here... how long have u been here.... are you planning on staying.. would that be better?

It sounds like this is really wearing on you. You can simply knock on the door and introduce yourself and tell them you would like to move back into the area and was wondering if they knew of anybody that might be moving out. Tell them you knocked on their door because it was just familiar to you and that the landlord hadn't returned your calls yet. How is the neighborhood? How are the other tenants? Are they noisy? Are there a lot of children there now? Use almost any question to get the conversation going. Be polite and friendly and I'm confident they will treat you in the same fashion. The conversation will take it own direction and course.

Powered by

Somebody knocked on your door and asked how long you were staying for? let me explain, i used to live in an amazing penthouse apartment in the middle of the city, i rented it with my boyfriend and we lived there for about a year and a half. we loved it but while we lived there we decided to start a career in property developing. we bought a house and planned to carry on renting while we did up the house and sell it. we only planned to keep the house for 3 months but then the market crashed and we were stuck with the house paying rent and mortgage. we coudlnt afford it and had to move out of the apartment. we both are now so depressed living in the house and really want to move back to the apartment. it was a year and a half ago now and i text the landlord a few weeks ago to ask if the apartment is free. he said he would ask the lad in there and let me know and would love to have us back there. he never got back in touch tho and i don't want to mither him. so i want to know if i should go to the apartment and knock on the door and ask the lad myself. is this too cheeky? i was just going to ask what his long term plans were as were not ready to move for a good while yet anyway. i dont know if i should write him a letter leaving my mobile to get in touch or wether i should just knock and ask in person. i really want to move back in but am worried he is just gonna tell me to get lost. what do you think? i relly dont want to put it like that. 'when are you leaving.' i just want to ask he is thinking of staying for a long time or not. he wont be living there forever cos hes only renting it. i was also thinking of just going there as an excuse like some mail has been delivered there and while i am picking it up just have a casual chat about his rental. nothing serious just.. do you like it here... how long have u been here.... are you planning on staying.. would that be better?

how would you have felt if someone had done that to you whilst you were living there. i certainly wouldn't like it. you should just ask the landlord again. keep it third party.

Powered by

Somebody knocked on your door and asked how long you were staying for? let me explain, i used to live in an amazing penthouse apartment in the middle of the city, i rented it with my boyfriend and we lived there for about a year and a half. we loved it but while we lived there we decided to start a career in property developing. we bought a house and planned to carry on renting while we did up the house and sell it. we only planned to keep the house for 3 months but then the market crashed and we were stuck with the house paying rent and mortgage. we coudlnt afford it and had to move out of the apartment. we both are now so depressed living in the house and really want to move back to the apartment. it was a year and a half ago now and i text the landlord a few weeks ago to ask if the apartment is free. he said he would ask the lad in there and let me know and would love to have us back there. he never got back in touch tho and i don't want to mither him. so i want to know if i should go to the apartment and knock on the door and ask the lad myself. is this too cheeky? i was just going to ask what his long term plans were as were not ready to move for a good while yet anyway. i dont know if i should write him a letter leaving my mobile to get in touch or wether i should just knock and ask in person. i really want to move back in but am worried he is just gonna tell me to get lost. what do you think? 18 minutes ago - 3 days left to answer. additional details 4 minutes ago i relly dont want to put it like that. 'when are you leaving.' i just want to ask he is thinking of staying for a long time or not. he wont be living there forever cos hes only renting it. 0 seconds ago i was also thinking of just going there as an excuse like some mail has been delivered there and while i am picking it up just have a casual chat about his rental. nothing serious just.. do you like it here... how long have u been here.... are you planning on staying.. would that be better?

If your not planning on moving for a while this is all a bit academic. If he says funny you should mention that I'm moving tomorrow but the landlord has already lined someone else up your be in the same situation again. What until you are nearer to moving then perhaps get in contact with the landlord again.

Powered by

I've had great luck with a 1 yr arm's - it's served me very well for the last several years - i'm with a bank that doesn't sell your paper which is also nice - i've refinanced in the middle of the year term twice with no problems - at $250 total closing costs, i make up the money within 2 mos. i only refinance when the rate is a full point or more less...they are now putting me off and "refusing" to allow me to refinance - the only reason given is "they don't want to, and the 1 yr arm's are only for "new" money" this is a load of crap and i know it - nowhere in my contract does it say that i can't refinance either to another 1 yr arm or a 30 yr fixed at no charge - any time i want - they are crossing their arms and holding their breath and refusing. i'm not going to let them get away with it that's for sure - what is the best course of action? my calls and personal visits are obviously not working. is there anything else i can do short of a lawyer?? thanks! you're right enoriver - except, they solicited me to get into a not so good deal (5 yr balloon), when i asked all my options, one of them was another refi of my 1 yr arm - now they don't want to do it because they aren't going to make enough money from it - they would have a hard time dumping me i think - excellent credit, never late - especially now that the focus has been on the scumbags of the mortgage industry - you're probably right - just think they have to provide me a better answer than "i don't wanna." thanks for your answer.

Refinancing is more or less getting a new mortgage to replace your existing one. No bank is REQUIRED to write you a mortgage. The contract you currently have probably specifies whether or not there are pre-payment penalties but I strongly doubt it says you are always guaranteed to get a refinance with that specific bank whenever you want one. The solution for you is simple, then, if your facts are correct: refinance with another bank.