What I mean is that the while the "terms of the contract" were not
changed (cough cough), the amount of money owed somehow was different
than originally agreed to.


Dave wrote:
You're talking in circles here. One of the most important "terms of the
contract" is the amount the borrower is obligated to pay. That can't be
changed without the borrower's agreement.

When the contract is the size of a Russian novel, much of which is in
legalese, it's hard to say exactly what one has agreed to. That is why
one hires a lawyer in the first place!

About 15 or so of my own circle of friends & closer acquaintances,
with whom I have had several frank & detailed conversations on fiscal
matters, have related that when their mortgages changed hands (either
sold by bank, or bank bought up by another), they found themselves
required to make higher payments. I believe the NC Attorney General
was involved in some similar cases. In any event, the contract may not
be changed but one either pays or hires another lawyer to forstall
losing ones home.

A similar case is the ubiquitous change in terms of credit-card
contracts.

This mortgage switch has never been played on us but I doubt my
friends were lying.

Regards- Doug King

On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 11:35:07 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

What I mean is that the while the "terms of the contract" were not
changed (cough cough), the amount of money owed somehow was different
than originally agreed to.


Dave wrote:
You're talking in circles here. One of the most important "terms of the
contract" is the amount the borrower is obligated to pay. That can't be
changed without the borrower's agreement.

When the contract is the size of a Russian novel, much of which is in
legalese, it's hard to say exactly what one has agreed to. That is why
one hires a lawyer in the first place!

As one who has purchased five houses over a forty year period and sold
houses as a liscenced agent for part of that time, the one thing that
stands out is that the requirement for full disclosure has increased
exponentially. I think you just about have to be retarded to leave a
closing and not know what your obligation is, principle, interest, and
term.

About 15 or so of my own circle of friends & closer acquaintances,
with whom I have had several frank & detailed conversations on fiscal
matters, have related that when their mortgages changed hands (either
sold by bank, or bank bought up by another), they found themselves
required to make higher payments. I believe the NC Attorney General
was involved in some similar cases. In any event, the contract may not
be changed but one either pays or hires another lawyer to forstall
losing ones home.

A similar case is the ubiquitous change in terms of credit-card
contracts.

Certainly not the same, the lender, as part of the terms has the right
to increase rates more or less at will. And you have the right to
change that balance to a more competitive card at will. I believe a
new rate can only be applied to new balances, however, I can't say for
sure, I've never carried a balance. But to compare that to a mortage
contract is ludicrous.

This mortgage switch has never been played on us but I doubt my
friends were lying.

Regards- Doug King

On 15 Oct 2008 16:18:03 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 14:06:07 -0500, Frank Boettcher
said:

I think you just about have to be retarded to leave a
closing and not know what your obligation is, principle, interest, and
term.

On the other hand, it's highly unlikely that you'll remember whether the
mortgagee has the right to require an escrow for taxes and insurance if he
isn't taking those amounts initially. I can see where a new buyer of the
mortgage might insist on rights that the former mortgage holder had under
the contract but never asserted.


True, although I've never seen a case where a first mortgage holder
did not require and execute the right to an escrow payment. Maybe in
some venues those holding that lien would take a certificate of
payment in lieu of collecting escrow, I've just never seen it when the
mortgage holder had the most skin in the game. After all, on most new
mortages if the homeowner lets the insurance or taxes lapse and the
house burns down or is subject to a tax sale, the mortgage holders is
left holding the bag. Disastrous on the insurance, a costly
irritation in the case of the tax lien.

Frank

On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 07:17:23 -0500, Frank Boettcher
wrote:


True, although I've never seen a case where a first mortgage holder
did not require and execute the right to an escrow payment. Maybe in
some venues those holding that lien would take a certificate of
payment in lieu of collecting escrow, I've just never seen it when the
mortgage holder had the most skin in the game. After all, on most new
mortages if the homeowner lets the insurance or taxes lapse and the
house burns down or is subject to a tax sale, the mortgage holders is
left holding the bag. Disastrous on the insurance, a costly
irritation in the case of the tax lien.

In Illinois attaining 20% home value equity against the loan principal
erases mortgage insurance and perhaps escrow requirements.
That's my experience and I'm not getting into the weeds of law.
The mortgagee apparently gets tax payment info from the taxing
entity. Taxer is on the original closing documents.
In any case I never heard a peep in 11 years about taxes once I
dropped escrow payments. Of course I've always paid my taxes.
Dropping mortgage insurance and escrow did require me paying for an
appraisal. I'm foggy on whether mortgage insurance and taxes/home
insurance escrow are separable in the equity requirement.
I dropped everything at once.
My current 5-year-old mortgage has already been sold twice.
Home insurance, which I've also always paid on time, was a bit
different.
BOA, who last bought the mortgage, sent me a letter saying they would
soon charge me exorbitant insurance premiums unless I followed some
complex process to prove my home was insured. Part of it had me
personally faxing some info.
BOA knew when my insurance policy expired, and should have known who
my insurer was when they bought the mortgage.
I called my insurer - State Farm - and they told me that BOA should
have notified them they bought the mortgage allowing confirmation of
insurance payment to be sent to them instead of the prior mortgagee.
There is a common process and form mortgagees and insurers use for
these circumstances.
In the end, I raised hell with the insurance department of BOA about
failing in their process, and let them and State Farm work it out.
But whether this was an honest mistake or not on BOA's part is
questionable.
I'm sure some people pay double insurance when this happens, just
as some mortgagors pay mortgage insurance for the life of a mortgage
because they don't pay attention to their rights under law/regulation.
They naively think "somebody" is watching out for them and just pay
the bills sent to them.
My mortgage broker told me he has often encountered older folks
paying mortgage insurance that isn't required, costing them many
thousands of dollars.
And there are thousands of business executives whose sole purpose in
life is to squeeze a nickel from the unsuspecting.
Ethical conduct is not a given in business.

--Vic

On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 08:37:21 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 07:17:23 -0500, Frank Boettcher
wrote:


True, although I've never seen a case where a first mortgage holder
did not require and execute the right to an escrow payment. Maybe in
some venues those holding that lien would take a certificate of
payment in lieu of collecting escrow, I've just never seen it when the
mortgage holder had the most skin in the game. After all, on most new
mortages if the homeowner lets the insurance or taxes lapse and the
house burns down or is subject to a tax sale, the mortgage holders is
left holding the bag. Disastrous on the insurance, a costly
irritation in the case of the tax lien.

In Illinois attaining 20% home value equity against the loan principal
erases mortgage insurance and perhaps escrow requirements.

PMI is not the insurance I was referring to. It is generally required
unless 20% is down or until that point when the mortgage has had 20%
of the principle paid down. Normally, it is automatically eliminated
at that point.

It is not an escrow payment subject to adjustment.

I was referring to Homeowners insurance.


That's my experience and I'm not getting into the weeds of law.
The mortgagee apparently gets tax payment info from the taxing
entity. Taxer is on the original closing documents.
In any case I never heard a peep in 11 years about taxes once I
dropped escrow payments. Of course I've always paid my taxes.
Dropping mortgage insurance and escrow did require me paying for an
appraisal. I'm foggy on whether mortgage insurance and taxes/home
insurance escrow are separable in the equity requirement.
I dropped everything at once.

Unusual, in most cases it is not your choice to drop escrow payments
for tax and homeowners insurance. it is stipulated as a right of the
first mortgage holder to collect and most do. PMI addressed above.

My current 5-year-old mortgage has already been sold twice.
Home insurance, which I've also always paid on time, was a bit
different.
BOA, who last bought the mortgage, sent me a letter saying they would
soon charge me exorbitant insurance premiums unless I followed some
complex process to prove my home was insured. Part of it had me
personally faxing some info.

Don't know what you are talking about. A lienholder, that is not
exercising their right to escrow collection, can only require a
"Certificate of Insurance" and it is a simple matter to call your
insurer and ask that one be sent. It will be, at no charge to you.

BOA knew when my insurance policy expired, and should have known who
my insurer was when they bought the mortgage.
I called my insurer - State Farm - and they told me that BOA should
have notified them they bought the mortgage allowing confirmation of
insurance payment to be sent to them instead of the prior mortgagee.
There is a common process and form mortgagees and insurers use for
these circumstances.
In the end, I raised hell with the insurance department of BOA about
failing in their process, and let them and State Farm work it out.
But whether this was an honest mistake or not on BOA's part is
questionable.
I'm sure some people pay double insurance when this happens,

I doubt it. You are advised by the mortgage holder that the insurance
and taxes have been paid for the term on the escrow statement. You
also get a notice from the insurance company, both a copy of the
billing and notification of payment. The mortgage company does not
have the right to make you change your policy, only the right to make
sure you have the stipulated coverage in place by a qualified insurer.
They don't pick the company you are insured with, you do. If you want
to change, you can, you just cannot go without.


as some mortgagors pay mortgage insurance for the life of a mortgage
because they don't pay attention to their rights under law/regulation.

As said it is automatically eliminated at principle balance reaching
the 80% mark. I believe that is currently federal law, but could be
wrong, I've been out of the business for a while.

They naively think "somebody" is watching out for them and just pay
the bills sent to them.
My mortgage broker told me he has often encountered older folks
paying mortgage insurance that isn't required, costing them many
thousands of dollars.
And there are thousands of business executives whose sole purpose in
life is to squeeze a nickel from the unsuspecting.

Unusual comment, most are just trying to make and sell a better
product than their competitors so that they can remain profitable and
stay in business at the will of their owners, the stockholders, which
could be you. That was my position and the position of most in that
category with whom I was familiar.

Ethical conduct is not a given in business.

nor is unethical conduct, but that is why there is oversight and
regualtion.

--Vic

On 15 Oct 2008 16:18:02 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 11:35:07 -0700 (PDT), said:

A similar case is the ubiquitous change in terms of credit-card
contracts.

I don't believe credit card contracts are ever written at a permanently
fixed interest rate. At least not these days.


In many places, credit card companies have been known to change the
interest rate retroactively on outstanding balances. Lack of proper
regulation!

That is raising the amount you owe without your consent.

On 15 Oct 2008 18:48:03 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:31:20 -0400, said:

In many places, credit card companies have been known to change the
interest rate retroactively on outstanding balances. Lack of proper
regulation!

That is raising the amount you owe without your consent.

I presume you mean that they change the interest rate on your outstanding
balance after you incurred the debt. Nothing wrong with that. If the terms
and conditions say when you sign up that they can do it, then you have
consented. If you don't like the new rate, pay off the balance.

Funny, many see something very wrong with that practice, and are
working to outlaw it.

I don't pay any interest on my credit cards, so it's not a problem for
me personally. I still think it needs fixing.

wrote in message
...
On 16 Oct 2008 12:35:01 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 12:20:49 -0400, said:

What you're suggesting is that banks be required to guaranty a fixed
rate
without being compensated for the risk of immediate payment when the
short
term rates the bank is paying on borrowed funds go up. That's doable,
but at
a cost to the borrower--even higher rates of credit card debt. Or we
could
simply see credit card lending dry up when the risk isn't justified by
the
return.

Credit card companies, like all banks, have never seemed to have any
problem raising rates and charging all sorts of absurd fees to
excessively pad their bottom line.

You and Larry make a good pair. Why not add all the other bogeymen of the
left--Big Oil, Big Pharma, "The Corporations," etc., etc. ad infinitum ad
nauseam. Politics loves a villain. Without villains you can't have
victims.

You are a fine one to talk! Your entire universe centers around the
"evil left wing conspiracy".


Bzzzt. It's the gotcha left wing media... like Rush I suppose.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com