If you read the HAFA guidelines, it indicates that when a seller applies and is accepted into HAFA, the documents they are required to sign include language that requires them to do a deed in lieu if they 1) fail to comply with the SSA or 2) after 120 days the home does is not sold and the lender does not offer an extension.
It seems that this is a big disadvantage as compared to a regular short sale and may tip the scales towards just going the regular route as opposed to obligating our client to relinquish their home, potentially in 4 months...especially as the lender "sets the price" and we know how badly they do on a great many valuations.
Does anyone think this may be a smoke-screen to enable the HAFA participants to quickly and more cheaply that foreclosure, get posession of a home? And, is the HAFA process so advantageous to the client that it makes the risk of mandatory deed-in lieu worth it?
I'd like to hear opinions and analysis. Thanks
Tags:
HAFA was not designed by the lending industry so no, I don't think it is a smokescreen. I think lenders would tend to grant an extension anyway.
I am an REO listing agent and not seeing any rush by the lending industry to get houses into inventory. Quite the opposite.
Not that short sales are suddenly become the main thing either. I think the lending industry really doesn't know what is going to work so they are being over cautious and slow on everything.
My opinion, of course.
Aren't you a little concerned, though, about the mandatory Deed-in-lieu language in the SSA?
The 'time will tell' is what I am apprehensive about. Having a client sign up and then be told afetr 120 days "no, the investor chose not to extend"..Is the DIL still required if we market the property, get an offer, then submit the offer with an alternate RASS...then are we no longer bound to all the restrictive terms that go along with the upfront qualifying RASS process.
Steven. What is their alternative? Make payments? Be foreclosed on? The seller just needs to be made aware of their options and then let them decide what they want to do. These are not our decisions to make. The best we can do is counsel our client/customers to do their own research, seek legal advice and then let us know if they want us to sell their property and assist them with the short sale.
We have to be careful that we are doing what we are licensed to do....sell real estate..and not crossing over into practicing law (interpreting a contract (SSA) and advising on it).
Steven Jackson said:The 'time will tell' is what I am apprehensive about. Having a client sign up and then be told afetr 120 days "no, the investor chose not to extend"..Is the DIL still required if we market the property, get an offer, then submit the offer with an alternate RASS...then are we no longer bound to all the restrictive terms that go along with the upfront qualifying RASS process.
Exactly. If we keep pushing the short sale and convince the client to continue to pursue this when a DIL might be a good alternative, how would it look if no sale occurs and a foreclosure comes about? I can imagine how judge would look at our role... Hmmm, agent gets paid for short sale and doesn't for DIL. Can you say "self interest"?
Better to lay out the alternatives or better yet, have an attorney do so. Then let the client decide.
And I still think the bank will grant an extension.
© 2024 Created by Short Sale Superstars LLC. Powered by
Short Sale Superstars, LLC and www.ShortSaleSuperstars.com does not endorse the real estate agents, loan officers, attorneys, real estate brokers and other participants listed on this site. These real estate profiles, blogs, blog entries and forums are provided here as a courtesy to our visitors to help them make an informed decision when buying or selling a short sale. Short Sale Superstars, LLC takes no responsibility for the content on these pages that are written by the members of this community.