Comment

Comment by Kent Dills on December 1, 2009 at 1:00pm

Anna, what is it that you don't like about Fannie being the investor?

Comment by Anna Mackey SDHS on December 1, 2009 at 12:24pm

That sure is convenient! This one was a Fannie, so I did not have my hopes up... but they came thru :-)

Comment by Katerina Gasset on December 1, 2009 at 12:21pm

Anna- Great job! Congrats! We have our own assigning manager at Chase who we send our files direct to so we love our Chase files. They get done in less than 60 days almost always, unless we have an investor on the other end who does not want to play ball- when it is out of Chase's hands.

Comment by Anna Mackey SDHS on December 1, 2009 at 11:09am

Just got an approval on a 1st TD with Chase - our fastest one so far: 5 weeks from submission to approval. Hopefully it is a sign of good things to come - Chase improving their response times!

Comment by David Dee on November 30, 2009 at 4:51pm

Gotcha. They never used the 2nd original heloc for anything else. Never pulled out money so this would qualify as non recourse.

Comment by Catherine Myers on November 30, 2009 at 4:41pm

It should as long as they never used that money for anything. If it all went to the house purchase, my understanding, based on many hours sitting in on client appts with attorneys and networking with attorneys and sitting in on webinars of attorneys.. tells me that as long as it was ORIGINAL purchase money only i.e. if they paid down the heloc and then used it to buy clothes, a boat or to pay off bills, they may have an issue :)

Comment by David Dee on November 30, 2009 at 4:39pm

Catherine, love your disclaimer there. It doesn't get any more explicit than that. :) That's an interesting concept there as far as circumventing the "one action" rule. Since this is an 80/10/10 loan, the 1st is non-recourse but the 2nd lien which they got at the time is a heloc as are most 2nd that were done back then. So, even if it is a 2nd that is a Heloc when both loans were made but NEVER refi, this would then constitute a no recourse status on the 2nd?

Comment by Catherine Myers on November 30, 2009 at 4:32pm

David (remember I'm not an attorney), but no, no recourse is just that.. no recourse. One strategy though (remember I'm not an attorney, nor to I pretend to be one :) .... is say you have a non recourse first loan, and a second recourse loan (i.e. a loan you got later, or a heloc, cash out refi)... some would say... keep paying on that first.. let the second foreclose because NOW they have used their "one action" and the first being non recourse is out of luck. Protects a borrower on both fronts.

But, check with an attorney, but no , if this is in fact, the original purchase money loan.. used to buy the house and never refi'd or cash out, or anything else, it should be considered non recourse.. so the one action rule would not need to apply.

Comment by David Dee on November 30, 2009 at 4:30pm

Catherine, we're talking about Chase. Sorry for the confusion. I was just making reference to Kent's comment below regarding fighting to remove the deficiency. However, from my experience, and you're correct about BofA. They have been a pain to deal with as far removing the deficiency verbage in their approval. They will not do it.

Comment by David Dee on November 30, 2009 at 4:27pm

Catherine, thank you for the clarification. yes, this is a original purchase loan. non recourse primary residence. It was an 80/10/10 loan which the buyer had back in 2006 when they purchased it and never refinanced. As per your assessment below, if the home goes through foreclosure, can't the 2nd lien still go after the deficiency since they hav not exercised their one action rule in the state of CA? This is what I heard regarding the one action rule. Have you heard anything regarding this ruling?

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 151
• 152
• 153
• 154
• 155
• …
• 164
• Next ›
• Page