ALL REAL ESTATE PEOPLE--Government is trying to kill owner financing! HELP!

By
Mortgage and Lending with Oregon Real Estate Broker

This just sent to my mortgage office. It will harm consumers, mortgage brokers and many real estate broker. We need to STOP THIS GOVERNMENT NONSENSE! Pass this on to every person / organization .

 

Marvin, H.R. 1728 has recently passed the U.S. House of Representatives and has been sent to the Senate for a vote. It says you won't be able to sell residential real estate using owner financing more than once every three years unless you have a government license.

Please take a few moments to read this e-mail and then contact your two U.S. Senators. Sample letters are at the end. If you need your senators' contact information, go here:
http://snipurl.com/senatorscontactinfo

Thank you for helping to stop this horrible bill.

 

Senate Bill Restricts Seller Financing --
Take Action Now To Stop It

Clint Hinman, editor of NoteWorthy Newsletter, has done a great
job of explaining H.R. 1728:

HR 1728 - WHAT IT SAYS AND WHY IT WILL HURT CONSUMERS AND SMALL BUSINESS
The U.S. Senate will soon be considering a bill that will severely
restrict the property rights of millions of Americans and the way
you do business going forward.

WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?

HR 1728 was recently passed by the House of Representatives with
little fanfare and even less press coverage. Not until it was
referred to the Senate did it grow legs and start getting the
attention of everyone it will affect. The full text and status of the bill can
be read here: http://snipurl.com/hr1728

WHAT DOES IT SAY?

The proposed legislation focuses upon the predatory lending practices
of yesteryear and the resulting subprime debacle, imposing stringent
requirements on mortgage brokers, servicers, appraisers, etc.
Unfortunately, owner financing gets caught up in the dragnet, and the
impact could be devastating. The offending text of the bill is in
section 101(3)(e), which defines who is exempt from being a
'licensed mortgage originator':

'(E) does not include, with respect to a residential mortgage loan,
a person, estate, or trust that provides mortgage financing for the
sale of 1 property in any 36-month period, provided that such loan--
(i) is fully amortizing;
(ii) is with respect to a sale for which the seller determines in
good faith and documents that the buyer has a reasonable ability to
repay the loan;
(iii) has a fixed rate or an adjustable rate that is adjustable after
5 or more years, subject to reasonable annual and lifetime
limitations on interest rate increases; and
(iv) meets any other criteria the Federal banking agencies may
prescribe.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?

As long as you provide owner financing on the sale of your property
no more than one time every three years, you will not be in violation
of the statute. Any individual who does sell more than one property
every three years via owner financing will be in violation unless
they are a 'licensed mortgage originator'. State laws vary, but
typically a 'licensed mortgage originator' must have a $25,000 to
$50,000 surety bond, three years mortgage origination experience, a
physical business office in the state in which the property is
located, and continuing education requirements. In other words, very
few, if any, Mom & Pop sellers will ever jump through the hoops to
become a 'licensed mortgage originator'.

WHAT KINDS OF TRANSACTIONS WILL BE COVERED?

Selling your own home using a land contract or owner-held mortgage
with the intent of getting a faster sale, a higher sales price, or
higher rate of interest than is available in other investments will
no longer be an option (unless that sale is limited to once every
three years). Carrying back second mortgages on investment
properties you sell will also be a violation of the law. In fact,
any kind of installment sale on residential properties (including
houses, condos, mobile homes, and residential land lots more than
once every three years will be subject to this legislation.

The original bill presented to the House didn't make any exceptions
to owner financing. The National Association of Realtors argued to
include the exception of one owner financed property every three
years. Without addressing owner financing, many in the House
contended owner financing would become the 'loophole' for
predatory lenders to continue their exploitative ways.

WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?

Owner financed notes are not loans. There is no transfer of money,
no points or closing costs, and no mortgage brokers involved. They
are not created with the intent of selling them off to
government-sponsored entities like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or FHA.
They are INSTALLMENT SALES. The borrower receives no money that must
be repaid, only a property on which periodic (read: installment)
payments must be made.

Just as egregious is the loss of private property rights. The
government should have no power to legislate how property owners
dispense of their properties. If a property owner is willing to
finance the sale of a property to a buyer, whom is the government
trying to protect by making the transaction illegal? States already
have usury laws and servicing requirements that protect the
purchasers.

If passed by the Senate, this legislation will:

1. Severely limit the number of property owners who can legally
owner finance the sale of their properties.

2. Make violators out of everyday Americans who, unaware they
are breaking the law, are merely trying to sell their properties
and/or offering financing to prospective homeowners who cannot obtain
conventional financing.

3. Require obscene amounts of due diligence on the part of note
investors to make sure all facets of this legislation have been
complied with.

4. Give prospective homeowners even fewer options to realize the
American Dream of homeownership.

5. Cost the U.S. taxpayers over $400 million dollars to enforce.

WHAT CAN I DO?

Contact your senator via phone, fax, e-mail or snail mail. Implore
them to vote NO on the bill as it's currently written. You can get
your senator's contact information here. We have included some
sample letters assembled by Vena Cox-Jones that will assist you in
knowing what to say and how to say it. Additionally, we at
NoteWorthy have written a fourth letter for owner financed note
brokers.

Please keep in mind that our best plan of action is to address how
this legislation will hurt 'the little guy', i.e. buyers and
sellers of properties. Even though we all consider ourselves 'the
little guy', the government has made it clear that anyone
associated with mortgages is 'the bad guy', and has little
interest in how this bill may affect your business, your family, or
your livelihood. Be civil, cordial, and intelligent in your
communications with your senators' offices. Remember you can catch
more flies with honey than with vinegar.

Take action today or suffer the consequences of this legislation
tomorrow. ASK YOUR SENATORS TO VOTE NO ON HR 1728!!!

SAMPLE LETTERS

IF YOU ARE A NOTE BROKER
Dear Senator [name];

My name is Clint Hinman and I have been a resident of Washington
since 1993.

I am writing to encourage you to vote NO on HR 1728, the "Mortgage
Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act".

While many of the provisions of the act are positive steps toward
mortgage reform, the inclusion of private property owners in the Act
(see section 101(3)(e)) will enormously reduce the housing choices of
Washingtonians and the ability of homeowners to sell properties in a
market already languishing from an abundance of unsold properties.

As someone who buys and brokers owner financed notes, I encounter
hundreds of instances every year where home sellers and buyers came
to an agreement for an installment sale on a property that the owner
desperately needed to sell (often to avoid foreclosure) and the buyer
desperately wanted to buy, but could not raise the down payment
needed for conventional financing.

In every situation, these sales were win-win deals for the buyer and
seller: The seller was able to get rid of an unwanted property to a
buyer who loved it, and the buyer was able to get a new home at an
affordable payment and interest rate with none of the usual costs
(points, application fees etc) inherent in conventional mortgage
transactions.

In Washington, these transactions are already regulated by state law.
A low maximum interest rate is already in place, and both the buyer
and seller are protected by other regulations at the state level.

In defense of private property rights, owners should be exempted from
the burdensome and unnecessary rules that this law foists upon them.
In its current form, it would all but shut off the "owner financing"
market, which is often the only option for many sellers to sell and
buyers to buy right now.

PLEASE DO NOT LET THIS RESTRICTION ON PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS PASS THE SENATE. It is unnecessary to stop private buyers and sellers from
transacting business that is beneficial to both of them -- they do
not cause the problems this bill seeks to solve. They do not originate
these notes to sell to government-sponsored entities (Fannie Mae,
Freddie Mac, FHA, etc.), but instead hold them as investments, often
as a source of long-term income. HR 1728 would be extremely harmful
to thousands of your constituents if passed as currently worded.

This legislation will exacerbate the problem OF foreclosure, as fewer
sellers will be able to sell their homes to avoid it, and CAUSED BY
foreclosure, as fewer buyers who have recently experienced
foreclosure will be able to re-start the process of home ownership
inexpensively and easily by negotiating owner financing.

Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully,

Clint Hinman
Proficient Note Buyers LLC
Phone #
email

IF YOU HAVE A REAL ESTATE LICENSE
Dear Senator [name];

My name is Vena Jones-Cox and I am a life-long resident of
Cincinnati.

I am writing you to encourage you to vote NO on HR 1728, the
"Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act".

While many of the provisions of the act are positive steps toward
mortgage reform, the inclusion of private owners in the act (see
section 101(3)(e)) will enormously reduce the housing choice of
Ohioans and the ability of home owners to sell properties in this
already-slow market.

As a real estate broker, I have seen several dozen cases in the past
year of home sellers and buyers coming to an agreement for an
installment sale on a property that the owner desperately needed to
sell (often to avoid foreclosure) and the buyer desperately wanted
to buy, but could not raise the downpayment needed for conventional
financing.

In all cases, these sales turned out to be win-win deals for the
buyer and seller; the seller was able to get rid of an unwanted
property to a buyer who loved it, and the buyer was able to get his
new home at an affordable payment and interest rates with none of the
usual costs (points, application fees etc) inherent in more
conventional mortgage transactions.

In Ohio, these transactions are already regulated by state law: a low
maximum interest rate is already in place, and both the buyer and
seller are protected by other regulations at the state level.

In defense of private property rights, owners should be exempted from
the burdensome and unnecessary rules that this law foists upon them.
In its current form, it would all but shut off the "owner financing"
market that is the only way that many sellers can sell and many
buyers can buy right now.

PLEASE DO NOT LET THIS RESTRICTION ON PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS PASS THE SENATE. It is unnecessary to stop private buyers and sellers from
transacting business that is beneficial to both of them--they are not
the problem that the bill seeks to solve. HR 1728 would be extremely
harmful to thousands of your constituents.

It will exacerbate the problem OF foreclosure, as fewer sellers will
be able to sell their homes to avoid it, and CAUSED BY foreclosure,
as fewer buyers who have recently experienced foreclosure will be
able to re-start the process of home ownership inexpensively and
easily by negotiating owner financing.

Thank you for your consideration;

Vena Jones-Cox
Licensed Real Estate Broker license #
Phone #
email

IF YOU SELL HOUSES WITH OWNER FINANCING
Dear Senator [name];

My name is Vena Jones-Cox and I am a life-long resident of
Cincinnati.

I am writing you to encourage you to vote NO on HR 1728, the
"Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act".

While many of the provisions of the act are positive steps toward
mortgage reform, the inclusion of private owners in the act (see
section 101(3)(e)) will enormously reduce the housing choice of
Ohioans and the ability of homeowners to sell properties in this
already-slow market.

As a professional housing provider, I sell several houses each year
to home buyers on installment sale [or, if you have not purchased a
property, add here: "I had planned to sell several houses this year
on installment sale]--a practice that would become impossible under
this law in its current form. I find that in today's slow market, the best way for me to help buyers who desperately want to become homeowners, but who cannot raise the down payment or meet the other terms needed for
conventional financing, is to allow them to make payments directly to
me.

These sales are win-win deals for both the buyer and myself; I am
able to turn over homes that I've bought and rehabbed (often from
foreclosures) to buyers who love and can afford them, and the buyer
can get his new home at an affordable payment and interest rates with
none of the usual costs (points, application fees etc) inherent in
more conventional mortgage transactions.

In Ohio, these transactions are already regulated by state law: a low
maximum interest rate is already in place, and both the buyer and
seller are protected by other regulations at the state level.

Without the ability to sell homes in this way, I will no longer be
able to invest in and renovate any of the tens of thousands of
vacant, ugly houses placed on the market by the foreclosure crisis,
and my small-but-beneficial business will literally be in ruins.
Perhaps more importantly, the homeowner-buyers that I serve will be
forced to rent rather than moving toward the American dream of home
ownership.

In defense of private property rights, owners should be exempted from
the burdensome and unnecessary rules that this law foists upon them.
In its current form, it would all but shut off the "owner financing"
market that is the only way that many sellers can sell and many
buyers can buy right now.

PLEASE DO NOT LET THIS RESTRICTION ON PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS PASS THE SENATE. It is unnecessary to stop private buyers and sellers from
transacting business that is beneficial to both of them--they are not
the problem that the bill seeks to solve. HR 1728 would be extremely
harmful to thousands of your constituents.

It will exacerbate the problem OF foreclosure, as fewer sellers will
be able to sell their homes to avoid it, and CAUSED BY foreclosure,
as fewer buyers who have recently experienced foreclosure will be
able to re-start the process of home ownership inexpensively and
easily by negotiating owner financing.

Thank you for your consideration;

Vena Jones-Cox
Perfect Properties, inc.
Phone number
email

IF YOU BUY HOUSES WITH OWNER FINANCING
Dear Senator [name];

My name is Vena Jones-Cox and I am a life-long resident of
Cincinnati.

I am writing you to encourage you to vote NO on HR 1728, the
"Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act".

While many of the provisions of the act are positive steps toward
mortgage reform, the inclusion of private owners in the act (see
section 101(3)(e)) will enormously reduce the housing choice of
Ohioans and the ability of homeowners to sell properties in this
already-slow market.

In the past year, I have purchased and renovated several homes--made
possible only because the sellers of these homes were able to sell to
me using owner financing in an unrestricted way.

For many of these property owners, seller financing was the only way
to unburden themselves of an unwanted property that, in some cases,
was headed toward foreclosure before I purchased it.

Without this ability, I cannot continue to buy and renovate
properties in the neighborhoods that so need my colleagues and me to
invest our time, energy, and money in rehabbing properties. Bank
financing is not an option for these properties because of the
condition; only financing carried by the sellers will suffice.

Section 101(3)(e) would keep my sellers from utilizing this method of
getting rid of unwanted properties in today's market, should they
have more than 1 to sell.

In defense of private property rights, owners should be exempted from
the burdensome and unnecessary rules that this law foists upon them.
In its current form, it would all but shut off the "owner financing"
market that is the only way that many sellers can sell and many
buyers can buy right now.

PLEASE DO NOT LET THIS RESTRICTION ON PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS PASS THE SENATE. It is unnecessary to stop private buyers and sellers from
transacting business that is beneficial to both of them--they are not
the problem that the bill seeks to solve. HR 1728 would be extremely
harmful to thousands of your constituents.

It will exacerbate the problem OF foreclosure, as fewer sellers will
be able to sell their homes to avoid it, and CAUSED BY foreclosure,
as fewer buyers who have recently experienced foreclosure will be
able to re-start the process of home ownership inexpensively and
easily by negotiating owner financing.

Thank you for your consideration;

Vena Jones-Cox
Perfect Properties, inc.
Phone number
email

close

Re-Blogged 11 times:

Re-Blogged By Re-Blogged At
  1. Lenn Harley 06/11/2009 02:51 PM
  2. Missy Caulk 06/11/2009 03:44 PM
  3. Tere Rottink 06/11/2009 03:47 PM
  4. Lisa Glowacki 06/11/2009 03:47 PM
  5. Christianne Gordon 06/11/2009 05:08 PM
  6. Jeanne & Ralph Janisch ABR CRS Brokers 06/11/2009 05:26 PM
  7. Anna Banana Kruchten 06/11/2009 05:58 PM
  8. Gabe Sanders 06/11/2009 06:46 PM
  9. Rebecca Gaujot, Realtor® 06/11/2009 09:00 PM
  10. Roland Woodworth 06/11/2009 11:13 PM
  11. Laura Quick 06/12/2009 01:28 PM
Topic:
Mortgage / Finance
Groups:
Mortgages
Realtors®
Realtors Needing the services of the Lending Powers

Anonymous
Post a Comment
Spam prevention

Accessibility option: listen to a question and answer it!

To submit the form,
drag the foot to the circle on the side.

Type below the answer to what you hear. Numbers or words, lowercase:

Spam prevention

Accessibility option: listen to a question and answer it!

To submit the form,
drag the flag to the circle on the side.

Type below the answer to what you hear. Numbers or words, lowercase:

Show All Comments
Anonymous
Anonymous
Stop the presses!

Better link:  http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-1728

 

 

Jun 12, 2009 12:00 AM #22
Rainer
4,305
Marvin Von Renchler
Oregon Real Estate Broker - Tigard, OR

To 'Stop the Presses'  Well, this link was sent to me this morning from a major note broker and hard money lender and I only got through part of the info. My intensity was also from comments made to me by other insitutional hard money lenders on the phone so I may be  guilty of over reacting if what you say is true, but it still needs further clarification and it still has the ability to harm consumers. Limiting number of transactions---requiring home sellers to play mortgage broker, etc. If rates go up this will hurt even more people who need non traditional financing. If our economy stays where it is, more and more distressed home owners could be harmed.  I know a person with a adjustable option arm w neg am.  The house was rezoned MU which is mixed use commercial residential so it can be sold either way. The problem?? I cant find a single lender to do a resi loan on the MU zone. Downey savings used to but pulled out of Oregon. It will probably have to be sold with owner financing. Now, this is a one time thing so the three year rule wouldnt hurt, but what if he owned two or three homes?

ALso, how does he comply with RESPA? How does he get that training? Where does he learn about qualifying a borrower? Does this cover only sellers or does it cover hard brokers, etc etc etc.

 

In short---ITS A MESS and more regulations that we dont need, IMHO

Jun 12, 2009 12:40 AM #23
Rainmaker
384,453
Mark Brian
Silver Star Real Estate LLC - Anderson, SC
Anderson SC Realtor

This is wrong. But even more important is the investor that called me last night about one of my listings and in the course of our discussion we talked about this very subject. Somehow, somewhere, someone is saying NAR is behind this and some people will sadly believe anything they are told, especially if they are Realtor haters.

Jun 12, 2009 07:31 AM #24
Rainmaker
291,273
Darrell Walters
W. Darrell Walters - Newnan, GA

Our government hard at work. Shouldn't there be term limits for our Congressmen?

Jun 12, 2009 08:24 AM #25
Anonymous
Anonymous
Ed Westerman

Yes there should be term limits.  But first we need to remove all of them and start fresh with citizen legislators and not politicians.  Then the house should be limited to (2) four year terms. Senators to (2) 6 year terms.  They should be provided health benefits and pay (equal to what they left) to serve, no retirement and no extension of benefits after their terms.  Then we might get people that are interested in the best welfare of the country and its citizens instead of the power and money of being a politician forever.  They definitely can no longer be truly called public servants.

Ed Westerman

Country Lifestyle Realty, L.L.C.

Serving the Missouri Ozarks

Jun 12, 2009 08:55 AM #26
Rainmaker
818,391
Lyn Sims
RE/MAX Suburban - Schaumburg IL Real Estate - Northwest Suburbs of Chicago - Schaumburg, IL
Schaumburg Homes

Great example of another government overreach. It's just ridiculous on why they want to do this?

Thanks for the post and giving us all notice.  There should be an IQ Test for being a congressman on top of a term limit!  While we're testing, how about a common sense IQ quotient.

Jun 12, 2009 09:18 AM #27
Rainmaker
221,808
Mark Watterson
Salt Lake City, UT
Utah Real Estate

This is like many other things done in Washington.  It a distraction from the root cause of the mortgage meltdown.  They need to look in the mirror to find the root cause and then focus on the cure and it's not bailout.  Bailout are cancer. 

Jun 12, 2009 09:37 AM #28
Ambassador
424,208
Joe Pryor
The Virtual Real Estate Team - Oklahoma City, OK
REALTOR® - Oklahoma Investment Properties

I work with investors and this was sent to me about 2 weeks ago. Thanks for the links because I am in on the protest.

Jun 12, 2009 10:04 AM #29
Rainmaker
1,262,783
Gene Riemenschneider
Home Point Real Estate - Brentwood, CA
Turning Houses into Homes

Well the government is trying to stop all private industry and take away private property.  This is like complaining about a single murder in the middle of a war.  Go to a TEA Party on July 4th before they take away all our Freedom.

Jun 12, 2009 10:31 AM #30
Anonymous
Anonymous
Anonymous

Haste makes waste. Billions are being wasted as we speak. This is just the latest on the march to Fascism.

Jun 12, 2009 12:20 PM #31
Rainer
42,085
Darin Osenberg
Funky Quail Vintage - Nashville, TN

Ed Westerman- U make GREAT points (in your first comment), and I thank you for them!

Only thing I would say, is that I wonder what percentage of people an issue like this really & truly affects!  1%??  Less??  Im not really sure it is an issue unless we make it an issue!

Additionally, STOP THE PRESSES...if you are going to correct someone on/in a blog in the fasion that you did...I would suggest you politely send MARVIN or whomever, an email...and maybe make a friend here on AR and someone who will appreciate your expertise, rather than being condesending and stating things like,  "become an informed citizen yourself".  

While I agree that people when they blog, should get their facts STRAIGHT....there is a better way to assist them IF they are incorrect than the way YOU DID IT!!  Believe it or not, I am on YOUR side on that one...I dont like BLOGS anymore than the next guy, that takes a small bit of information, and runs with it....Negativism breeds like RABBITS!   people are always afraid of the unknown, and aprehensive of change!

MARVIN-  You handled yourself VERY WELL! 

Marvin-  I have a suggestion for you on your MUproperty issue....I realize on a option arm, their mortgage is probably not owned by Freddie or Fannie...But have you checked to be sure??  If it is, you CAN do this under the DU REFI PLUS PROGRAM!  Just a suggestion!

Overall, investors in realestate always seem to be screaming the loudest....Difference is that investing in Realstate is similar to investing in mutual funds etc....why their is an expectation to NOT lose money because it is a HOUSE is beyond me.  I have seen landcontracts at 12% interest!  Is that fair?? Well, when I got into the mortgage business 8/8/88, I was selling 16% rates...so I think it is all relative!  PLUS, investors generally(as Ed said), have different "goals" regarding investing.  THey might be in it to pay it off, and have a nestegg to live off of because their retirement plan sucks or is non-existent, OR, they might be in it for the net income right off the bat!  Either way, there is risk. 

In mr. Westerman's example, and I know the ozarks very well...there could be other problems associated with homes as well...could be the TYPE of home...albeit manufactured,modular, etc...could be 2nd home, rental (and is there a rental history) etc..etc...etc...

All in all, I wonder what the percentage is...and if we are all worried about something that MAY NOT HAPPEN in the 1st place...and only affects, a VERY SMALL PERCENTAGE!

D

Jun 12, 2009 12:30 PM #32
Anonymous
Anonymous
Marvin Von Renchler Security Trust Mortgage, Inc.

One Source, I didnt take Stop The Presses post as being rude or condescending, though I did momentarily wonder if it was meant that way. Thanks for the word of backup anyway.

You bring up a point about what percentage of people will be affected but this is deeper than that. Its like gun control. As an NRA member, I didnt believe that many types of guns were meant for anything other than killing as many HUMANS as possible in a short time but I helped defend against any anti gun legislation because our government doesnt want us to be armed, period. Any little crack where they can get a fingerhold will be a dangerous start. They start out playing on the IGNORANCE of most voters, and before you know it one type of gun is banned, then another, than different weapon accessories until you end up like England and Australia where they have ZERO gun ownership and greatly increased crime ever since. Its more government NOT of and for the people.

Lets talk about why they want to do this? Who started it and why? Whats really to gain? Talk about percentages---what percentage of the population has ever been harmed by NOT having this proposed rule?  Then whats next after this passes? Maybe allowing it once in your lifetime? Maybe not at all? Having to go through some institution and pay large fees? Would it stop there or would you have to become a licensed car dealer to sell your own car? What about garage sales? Silly but you see my point. We are already awash in rules and regs that dont make sense. Those of you not in the mortgage business cant totally relate to this but if one tries to read the complete HUD guidelines and all the regulations,  (Z being the one you hear most about) the binder and material is many inches thick but MOST of it isnt rules---its attorney opinions about how to interpret them!  We mortgage brokers have rules that make us break the law. True. Good Faith Estimates including A.P.R. The original intentio0n was that the LENDER is responsible for APR yet many states including Oregon require brokers to do it. Thats fairly easy on a straight 30 year fixed but go exotic at all and we DO NOT have the programming to do it. We are supposed to be accurate with a very small tolerance and the consequences of violating are not a little slap on the wrist.

We do not need more laws to inhibit citizens rights

Jun 12, 2009 01:06 PM #33
Rainer
44,273
John Popp
Charlotte, NC

Is it really that bad.  What is wrong with regulating investors who buy and sell property?  If they are financing homeowners they need to be held accountable just like a broker or a banker would.  If an investor wants to be in business to offer financing...should they not supply the potential client with the proper discosures?  Purchasing a home is probably the biggest decision an individual or couple has to make.

 

Jun 12, 2009 01:21 PM #34
Rainer
7,926
Michael Polk
Polk Properties - Los Angeles, CA
Thanks, I will contact my Senators.
Jun 12, 2009 03:08 PM #35
Rainer
4,086
Ralph Haseltine
Carol Stream, IL

Just my two cents but if you think this got stuffed down our throats without much media coverage, YUP, get used to it. Our "Time for a Change" is the governments time, not our time for a change. When the first stimulus bill was given to the house for the vote consideration, it was over 700 pages long and they had TWO hours to read it and vote. So, yes, get used to having the government stuff things down our throats without our knowledge (and that of many of our representatives as well!!) . Got to love it! We've spent a LOT of money according to the government...do YOU personally know ANYONE who is better off today than last fall? I don't. In fact, I know a LOT more people that are in much worse positions than BEFORE the government spent a trillion dollars to help "us". Guess my question is....."Who IS us?"...again, just my two cents...before they find a way to tax me out of that as well.....have a great weekend folks and hopefully, American Ingenuity will prevail and take our government to task on spending and truly IMPROVE this economy. Lord knows, we certainly need it....by the way, I would have run for president, but I was afraid that I just might WIN it...grins...

Check out this link to see what I am referring to...the opening statement should get your attention;

http://www.marketwatch.com/story//stimulus-fraud-could-hit-50-billion

By Greg Morcroft, MarketWatch

NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- Swindlers, con men, and thieves could siphon off as much as $50 billion of the government's planned stimulus package as the money begins flooding the economy in coming months, according to David Williams, who runs Deloitte Financial Services Advisory and counsels clients on fraud prevention.

Jun 12, 2009 03:32 PM #36
Anonymous
Anonymous
Anonymous

This post is based on wrong information. No such bill exist. Move on sorry you have it wrong. good luck on the rest of your ideas.

Jun 13, 2009 04:17 PM #37
Anonymous
Anonymous
Marvin Von Renchler Security Trust Mortgage, Inc.

No such bill exists? How can you make that statement , not ID yourself, and not leave proof? This is all over the web. Its in many trustworthy sites. Are you saying its a big hoax or that I and everyone else is totally misinterpreting it? Please explain.

Jun 14, 2009 12:49 AM #38
Anonymous
Anonymous
Ed Westerman

To commentor #37

Review the blog.  It has a link to snipurl.com/hr1728 to take you to the congressional web site to review the content of the bill.  A little homework before making comments or at least reading the original post would be considered reasonable.

 

Ed Westerman, Broker

Country Lifestyle Realty, L.L.C.

Serving the Missouri Ozarks since 1976

Jun 14, 2009 03:15 PM #39
Rainer
83,756
Andrew Haslett
Van Warren Home Inspections, NAHI CRI - Fort Knox, KY
Heartland of Kentuckynulls, Best Home Inspector

Marvin, OK so I went to the Library Of Congress' site that keeps up on all these things.

I looked up the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act.

I don't see the doomsday that is suggested by this post.

What I read is that this amends the TILA disclosures, and defines who is, and is not, held to these standards.

What I read is that the seller-financed transactions will not be held to the same level of disclosure as someone who is in the loan business.

A definiition had to be made, so that is where the 1 laon in 36 months figure comes in.

It looks to me like Chicken-Little to claim that this will kill owner / seller financing.

Jun 18, 2009 08:22 PM #40
Anonymous
Anonymous
Marvin Von Renchler

I partially explianed some of this above. Yes, my initial posting wasnt totally accurate, I could have add kill SOME owner financing but all my other questions above are valid. How do they comply? What about more than one in three years and the big one---is this a precursor to more reg that finally disallow it altogether? It BS. Any part of it is BS. If a buyer wants protection when considering seller financing they should see a real estate attorney.  Ive seen other warnings of events called 'chickin little' reactions then people were crying out the other side of their mouths. For a log time there was talk about rebates  being illegal. Everyone laughed. Then ambulance chasers took the new rules and brokers everywhere were being sued. I personally know some who had to shut down their businesses. Of course it was over turned but not before destroying people. Now they are at it again.

Jun 18, 2009 09:18 PM #41
Anonymous
Post a Comment
Spam prevention

Accessibility option: listen to a question and answer it!

To submit the form,
drag the man to the circle on the side.

Type below the answer to what you hear. Numbers or words, lowercase:

Show All Comments
Rainer
4,305

Marvin Von Renchler

Ask me a question
*
*
*
Spam prevention

Accessibility option: listen to a question and answer it!

To submit the form,
drag the computer to the circle on the side.

Type below the answer to what you hear. Numbers or words, lowercase: