A couple, friends of mine moved from Northern Virginia down to
Florida, about two months ago. They bought their first house, while
dealing with realtor and the bank over the phone. A family member who
lives in that area took few pictures for them so they knew what the
house looked like and stuff like that. So when they went down there to
sign the deal, in the closing time it was disclosed to them that the
house had previous work done back in 2000 I believe, something about
the house sinking into the ground and how they made a repair on it. My
friends came all the way down to find that out, but they bought the
house anyways. As the husband is a good general contractor he thought
he could fix the uneven celing. But as weeks are passing, they are
realizing how horribly the house is crooked, as if it's sinking again.
Now all the way is to sell it back to the bank, and come back to
Virginia because the house is not even and seems to be sinking despite
their work in 2000, plus all the hurracaines are getting to them.

To me this sounded like they were misled in the first place about the
house. I don't think that house is worth what it was sold as. Not for
a house that is uneven, about three four inches off from one side to
the other. They have a little girl who's learning to walk, and I see
this as hazardeus for her. Their contracts binds them that they can't
sell the house for the next 3 years. Now to me that is so harsh, as
the realtor/bank had to had known this house problem. What can they do
legally? Hire a laywer and sue them for misleading and hazardous
environment? They are also thinking of bancruptcy as a way out of that
huge buying the house mistake.

Any help would be appreciated!!!! Thanks!!!

Jass

In Florida, a Seller is obligated to disclose to a Buyer all
known facts that materially affect the value of the property
being sold and that are not readily observable.

It appears that the sellers *did* disclose the pertinent facts
in this case, before the closing. Unless your friends can
prove that there were other pertinent facts known to the
sellers that they did not disclose, they have no legal grounds
to reverse the sale. It sounds to me like they didn't do
their homework and they're paying the price for it.

I'm curious what kind of contract binds them from selling the
house for three years; that's not typical in the home sale
contracts I've seen. Who, exactly, is prohibiting them from
selling the house?

"Jass" wrote in message
om...
A couple, friends of mine moved from Northern Virginia down to
Florida, about two months ago. They bought their first house, while
dealing with realtor and the bank over the phone. A family member who
lives in that area took few pictures for them so they knew what the
house looked like and stuff like that. So when they went down there to
sign the deal, in the closing time it was disclosed to them that the
house had previous work done back in 2000 I believe, something about
the house sinking into the ground and how they made a repair on it. My
friends came all the way down to find that out, but they bought the
house anyways. As the husband is a good general contractor he thought
he could fix the uneven celing. But as weeks are passing, they are
realizing how horribly the house is crooked, as if it's sinking again.
Now all the way is to sell it back to the bank, and come back to
Virginia because the house is not even and seems to be sinking despite
their work in 2000, plus all the hurracaines are getting to them.

To me this sounded like they were misled in the first place about the
house. I don't think that house is worth what it was sold as. Not for
a house that is uneven, about three four inches off from one side to
the other. They have a little girl who's learning to walk, and I see
this as hazardeus for her. Their contracts binds them that they can't
sell the house for the next 3 years. Now to me that is so harsh, as
the realtor/bank had to had known this house problem. What can they do
legally? Hire a laywer and sue them for misleading and hazardous
environment? They are also thinking of bancruptcy as a way out of that
huge buying the house mistake.

Any help would be appreciated!!!! Thanks!!!

Jass

We had a similiar situation. We were under a huge time constraint when my
husband obtained a job in a different state and we had 2 days to find a
house. Had we known then what we know now, we would have rented a house and
waited to purchase, when we weren't under such pressure.

Our house had many issues, none of them were disclosed to us at the time.
After my husband was laid off and the housing market in the town where we
lived fell drastically, we decided to transfer the lien back to the mortgage
company. This was our only way out, since we couldn't sell the house.

We paid $96,000 for the house, and 18 months later, after my husband and
many others in this small town were laid off, our house appraised for
$73,000.

Our only option was to do a "Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure". It took about 2
months and we had to keep our payments up to date, but it was such a relief
to finally be out from under that money-pit.

We did this back in April of this year and it's not yet on our credit
report, and hopefully it never will.

HTH,
Brigitte

"Jass" wrote in message
om...
To me this sounded like they were misled in the first place about the
house. I don't think that house is worth what it was sold as. Not for
a house that is uneven, about three four inches off from one side to
the other. They have a little girl who's learning to walk, and I see
this as hazardeus for her. Their contracts binds them that they can't
sell the house for the next 3 years. Now to me that is so harsh, as
the realtor/bank had to had known this house problem. What can they do
legally? Hire a laywer and sue them for misleading and hazardous
environment? They are also thinking of bancruptcy as a way out of that
huge buying the house mistake.

Any help would be appreciated!!!! Thanks!!!

They need advice from a lawyer who specializes in real estate law in their
state. Getting advice in Usenet can only go so far. State laws differ so
much on this.

On 8 Sep 2004 01:56:16 -0700, someone wrote:

A couple, friends of mine moved from Northern Virginia down to
Florida, about two months ago. They bought their first house, while
dealing with realtor and the bank over the phone.

That is such an idiotic way to BUY a house, and they got what they
deserved.


... My
friends came all the way down to find that out, but they bought the
house anyways.

Doubling the idiocy.


They have a little girl who's learning to walk, and I see
this as hazardeus for her.

Get real. The real problem they have is bad enough, without having to
fantasize additional problems in a ploy for sympathy (endangering a
child - oh how awful!) Bulldinky.


Their contracts binds them that they can't
sell the house for the next 3 years.

I don't believe you. Post the part of the contract that says they
can't sell.


Sorry, caveat emptor.

-v.

On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 15:17:35 GMT, someone wrote:


We had a similiar situation. We were under a huge time constraint when my
husband obtained a job in a different state and we had 2 days to find a
house.

Well, apparently you know better now. NO WAY were you under a "huge
time constraint" or compulsion to BUY a house in 2 days. Actually, it
can be a poor idea. I find it amazing that corporate relo folks even
manage to be happy buying houses after a couple of weeks of visits.

Ok you had to find a place to LIVE - but even so, you could stay in a
motel for a week while you looked for a decent RENTAL - and then buy
in a year, after you have gotten to know the area, AND after making
sure the job and the community worked out for you. There ae many
things you may not know about a community until you've been there a
while.

I have heard too many stories about people who moved, and then the new
job didn't work out, and/or the family hated the new location, and the
people took a bath bailing out and moving "home". NEVER buy in a
hurry!!!!!

"v" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 15:17:35 GMT, someone wrote:


We had a similiar situation. We were under a huge time constraint when
my
husband obtained a job in a different state and we had 2 days to find a
house.

Well, apparently you know better now. NO WAY were you under a "huge
time constraint" or compulsion to BUY a house in 2 days. Actually, it
can be a poor idea. I find it amazing that corporate relo folks even
manage to be happy buying houses after a couple of weeks of visits.

Ok you had to find a place to LIVE - but even so, you could stay in a
motel for a week while you looked for a decent RENTAL - and then buy
in a year, after you have gotten to know the area, AND after making
sure the job and the community worked out for you. There ae many
things you may not know about a community until you've been there a
while.

I have heard too many stories about people who moved, and then the new
job didn't work out, and/or the family hated the new location, and the
people took a bath bailing out and moving "home". NEVER buy in a
hurry!!!!!

I guess you missed this part of my post:

"Had we known then what we know now, we would have rented a house and
waited to purchase"

Brigitte

V,

I didn't come here to argue with you! I didn't come here to get
simpathy, I came here to see what their options might be. They do have
a little girl, and she is learning to walk, and I'm sure you wouldn't
want to see your child try to walk in a house that is 3 inches off
from one end to the next end! Obviously this house should had never
been approved to be sold!!! It's too late to criticize their decision,
all I wanted is some imput on what they could do. So if you had
nothing useful to say, keep it to yourself.


(v) wrote in message ...
On 8 Sep 2004 01:56:16 -0700, someone wrote:

A couple, friends of mine moved from Northern Virginia down to
Florida, about two months ago. They bought their first house, while
dealing with realtor and the bank over the phone.

That is such an idiotic way to BUY a house, and they got what they
deserved.


... My
friends came all the way down to find that out, but they bought the
house anyways.

Doubling the idiocy.


They have a little girl who's learning to walk, and I see
this as hazardeus for her.

Get real. The real problem they have is bad enough, without having to
fantasize additional problems in a ploy for sympathy (endangering a
child - oh how awful!) Bulldinky.


Their contracts binds them that they can't
sell the house for the next 3 years.

I don't believe you. Post the part of the contract that says they
can't sell.


Sorry, caveat emptor.

-v.

(Jass) writes:
They do have
a little girl, and she is learning to walk, and I'm sure you wouldn't
want to see your child try to walk in a house that is 3 inches off
from one end to the next end!

Sorry, I'm with v. on this one. Having watched my three kids learn to
walk, I can't imagine that a 3-inch rise from one side of our house to
the other would have made a bit of difference in either how fast they
learned or how "hazardous" it was.

Also, the height of the rise is irrelevant to how hard it is for a
young kid to walk it; what is relevant is the angle. So what's the
angle of elevation that you think is so hazardous to this kid?

Obviously this house should had never
been approved to be sold!!!

A homeowner is not obligated to get "approval" to sell.

Obviously, a homeowner can't sell a house that has been condemned
without informing potential buyers of that fact, but you've provided no
evidence to suggest that the house was ever condemned. Indeed, as I
pointed out before, you explicitly stated in your original posting that
the sellers informed your friends about the prior work on the house and
the problems that work was intended to correct. Unless your friends
can prove that the sellers knowingly misled them or withheld
information, they've got no grounds to attempt to reverse the sale.

It's too late to criticize their decision,
all I wanted is some imput on what they could do.

They can retain a lawyer who specializes in Florida real estate law
and ask the lawyer to evaluate the facts and tell them what their
options are. The advice you, or they, get from this newsgroup is
worth what you paid for it.

Your friends behaved ignorantly and foolishly in their purchase, and
you're doing the same thing in your postings here. It seems like
hiring a good lawyer to help with this mess might be the first good
thing you or your friends do with this situation.

Wow what a google group! All I wanted is some info, and you are
calling me names. Ridiculous waste of my time!!!

(Jass) writes:
Wow what a google group!

It isn't "a google group," it's a Usenet newsgroup. Google
didn't invent the Usenet, nor does it own it. It is merely
one interface to it.

All I wanted is some info, and you are
calling me names. Ridiculous waste of my time!!!

I didn't call you names. I applied unappealing adjectives to
your questions and to the actions of your friends. I'm sorry
you find those adjectives unappealing, but they are,
nevertheless, correct. You and your friends will be in a lot
better position if you stop resisting that reality.

You've already been given the only useful advice you're going
to get from this newsgroup -- your friends need to hire a
good lawyer.

"Jass" wrote in message
m...
Wow what a google group! All I wanted is some info, and you are
calling me names. Ridiculous waste of my time!!!

You are right. Responses that call you names contribute nothing and do
nothing to help the problem. But advice to contact an attorney does.

On 8 Sep 2004 18:12:19 -0700, someone wrote:


... It's too late to criticize their decision,
all I wanted is some imput on what they could do. So if you had
nothing useful to say, keep it to yourself.

It could be very useful to the NEXT person. On a public forum, its
not just about your friends.

-v.

On 9 Sep 2004 00:08:22 -0700, someone wrote:

Wow what a google group! All I wanted is some info, and you are
calling me names. Ridiculous waste of my time!!!

Well, that's what you SAID you wanted, but it appears that you really
only want "advice" that AGREES with your hypothesis that your friends
were "misled" and deserve some compensation.

The answer you are getting is that they were foolish and got what they
got. And then you say to keep that to ourselves. You asked, we
answered.

Why aren't your "friends" posting themselves, why are you in the loop?
If there really are any "friends", then apparently you were hoping to
be a hero bringing them an answer from the internet - but since you
can't get the answer you want, now you call it a waste of time.

If the slope is so bad - and since you say the husband is a CONTRACTOR
- why didn't they notice it when they inspected the house before
closing on it????

Sorry you don't like my advice. But you posted a public Q, so ANYONE
who wants to can comment on it. That's the internet for you.

-v.

Damn, what an arrogant group of people! My friends are not in a
position to use the internet, as they do not have a computer! My
friend did not notice such a big difference in the heights, as much as
he noticed it later. They will seek a lawyer, and see what they can
do.

And I found this GROUP through GOOGLE, and I'm not paying for a USENET
group, as GOOGLE is offering it to me for free. So I'll call it
whatever I want to.

In article ,
Jass wrote:

Damn, what an arrogant group of people! My friends are not in a
position to use the internet, as they do not have a computer! My
friend did not notice such a big difference in the heights, as much as
he noticed it later. They will seek a lawyer, and see what they can
do.

And I found this GROUP through GOOGLE, and I'm not paying for a USENET
group, as GOOGLE is offering it to me for free. So I'll call it
whatever I want to.


We're arrogant?!


Dimitri

In article , Jass says...

Damn, what an arrogant group of people! My friends are not in a
position to use the internet, as they do not have a computer!
====
A contractor without a computer? He really should have one. Seriously.
====
====

Gini wrote in message ...
In article , Jass says...

Damn, what an arrogant group of people! My friends are not in a
position to use the internet, as they do not have a computer!
====
A contractor without a computer? He really should have one. Seriously.
====
====

Some are less fortunate. I was attacked from the first post,
ridiculous!!! Get a life people!!

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

(Jass) wrote in message . com...
Damn, what an arrogant group of people! My friends are not in a
position to use the internet, as they do not have a computer! My
friend did not notice such a big difference in the heights, as much as
he noticed it later. They will seek a lawyer, and see what they can
do.

I'm confused. The height difference is so extreme that they think it
will be a problem for their child, and yet they didn't notice it when
they first looked at the house? How could that be?

And I found this GROUP through GOOGLE, and I'm not paying for a USENET
group, as GOOGLE is offering it to me for free. So I'll call it
whatever I want to.

Then you're not really in a position to complain about what other
posters choose to call things, are you?

But as weeks are passing, they are
realizing how horribly the house is crooked, as if it's sinking again.



Not to worry: we vacation in a sinking, crooked house every year, and
have for over 25 years. Every few years we get one corner of it
'jacked up' with cement blocks. It isn't the end of the world.

On 9 Sep 2004 23:25:41 -0700, someone wrote:

A contractor without a computer? He really should have one. Seriously.

Some are less fortunate. I was attacked from the first post,

If the scenario posted is typical of the decision making ability of
the contractor friend, I can see why he is "less fortunate".

BTW, if the house is that obviously bad as to be hazardous or
dangerous as you claim, how did it get past the banks' appraiser???
They are not expected to be house inspectors or engineers, but you are
talking about a condition that should be apparent to the average
person (unless you are, as we suspect, exaggerating it). OTOH, if the
house was, let's say, 25 feet wide, that's 300 inches, so a 3 inch
tilt would only be 1% and thus not that noticeable - but then also not
very likely to be a hazard to a small child (that's why I question if
you just threw that in there for sympathy).

I still don't think you answered the part about why they can't sell
the house for 3 years. (Please post the contract language.)

-v.

I dont' think a three to four inch difference is easily noticible
unless you spend some time in it. I haven't seen the house, so I can't
give details other than what my friends have told me.

I still don't think you answered the part about why they can't sell
the house for 3 years. (Please post the contract language.)

THey have told me their contract from the bank who has approved them
the loan has made the 3 year contract. If they do sell the house, they
will face a fine of couple of thousands. They are not wealthy, I
assume they had no downpayment on the house, and when they got
approved for this loan they were more than happy. They moved to have a
better life, so for them to exaggerate the house condition is
ridiculous. Now all the way is to give the house back. I didn't want
simpathy, just some advice.

"Jass" wrote in message
om...
I didn't want
simpathy, just some advice.

Oh, it was advice you wanted. Get smarter friends. Don't exaggerate a
minor condition into a child-threatening one. Know something about the
place you are posting to before you post. Don't be a horse's patootie.

Implementing this advice ought to hold you for a while.

Rich

In article ,
Jass wrote:
I dont' think a three to four inch difference is easily noticible
unless you spend some time in it. I haven't seen the house, so I can't
give details other than what my friends have told me.

I still don't think you answered the part about why they can't sell
the house for 3 years. (Please post the contract language.)

THey have told me their contract from the bank who has approved them
the loan has made the 3 year contract. If they do sell the house, they
will face a fine of couple of thousands. They are not wealthy, I
assume they had no downpayment on the house, and when they got
approved for this loan they were more than happy. They moved to have a
better life, so for them to exaggerate the house condition is
ridiculous. Now all the way is to give the house back. I didn't want
simpathy, just some advice.

Sounds more like a contract my friend has. He wants to refinance his
mortgage but he has something with the bank that prohibits him from doing a
refinance within the first x years of the mortgage. I don't think this
prohibited him from selling his house if he wanted to.

Could this be what the friend has?

(Jass) writes:
THey have told me their contract from the bank who has approved them
the loan has made the 3 year contract. If they do sell the house, they
will face a fine of couple of thousands.

In other words, their mortgage has an early prepayment penalty, a
relatively common thing, especially in cases where the buyer makes
little or no down-payment on the house.

In other words, it isn't true, as you asserted in your initial
posting, that they "can't sell the house for the next 3 years." They
would merely have to pay the prepayment penalty if they did so.

Guess what, this may be one of the (numerous) prices they will have to
pay for doing something stupid.

They moved to have a
better life, so for them to exaggerate the house condition is
ridiculous.

What does this mean? It makes no sense.

Now all the way is to give the house back.

They can't "give the house back." They bought a house. There is no
evidence that the seller misrepresented the house or concealed
information, so there is no grounds on which to overturn the sale.

An idea that I don't think anyone has suggested yet in this thread is
that they could simply walk away from the house, stop making their
mortgage payments, and let the bank foreclose on the mortgage, take
possession of the house, and sell it. But this'll screw up their
credit rating pretty thoroughly for quite a few years, during which
they'll have difficulty getting any other credit at reasonable rates,
including a mortgage on a different house.

Whether they should consider this solution, or any other, would be
best discussed with a lawyer, not with a Usenet newsgroup, as you've
already been told several times.

In article , Jass says...

I dont' think a three to four inch difference is easily noticible
unless you spend some time in it. I haven't seen the house, so I can't
give details other than what my friends have told me.

I still don't think you answered the part about why they can't sell
the house for 3 years. (Please post the contract language.)

THey have told me their contract from the bank who has approved them
the loan has made the 3 year contract. If they do sell the house, they
will face a fine of couple of thousands. They are not wealthy, I
assume they had no downpayment on the house, and when they got
approved for this loan they were more than happy. They moved to have a
better life, so for them to exaggerate the house condition is
ridiculous. Now all the way is to give the house back. I didn't want
simpathy, just some advice.
===
Find a good tenant?
===

"Jonathan Kamens" wrote in message
...
(Jass) writes:
THey have told me their contract from the bank who has approved them
the loan has made the 3 year contract. If they do sell the house, they
will face a fine of couple of thousands.

In other words, their mortgage has an early prepayment penalty, a
relatively common thing, especially in cases where the buyer makes
little or no down-payment on the house.

In other words, it isn't true, as you asserted in your initial
posting, that they "can't sell the house for the next 3 years." They
would merely have to pay the prepayment penalty if they did so.

Guess what, this may be one of the (numerous) prices they will have to
pay for doing something stupid.

They moved to have a
better life, so for them to exaggerate the house condition is
ridiculous.

What does this mean? It makes no sense.

Now all the way is to give the house back.

They can't "give the house back."

Actually, they can. It's called a "Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure. We did one
and it's not had any ill effect on our credit rating.

An idea that I don't think anyone has suggested yet in this thread is
that they could simply walk away from the house, stop making their
mortgage payments,

Bad idea. Screws up your credit for years. Giving the house back to the
mortgage company with payments up to date is a much more respectful way of
doing this. And has less, if any effect on their credit rating.

Brigitte

On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 03:15:56 GMT, "Brigitte" wrote:


"Jonathan Kamens" wrote in message
...
(Jass) writes:

Now all the way is to give the house back.

They can't "give the house back."

Actually, they can. It's called a "Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure. We did one
and it's not had any ill effect on our credit rating.

An idea that I don't think anyone has suggested yet in this thread is
that they could simply walk away from the house, stop making their
mortgage payments,

Bad idea. Screws up your credit for years. Giving the house back to the
mortgage company with payments up to date is a much more respectful way of
doing this. And has less, if any effect on their credit rating.

Brigitte


Sorry Brigitte, but your advice is not universal. First, since the
mortgage company never owned the property the buyer is NOT giving it back.
They are offering ownership of the property to the lender and there is
nothing that says the lender has to accept the "Deed in Lieu of
Foreclosure" offer. Lastly, even if your credit remains unimpacted, you
cannot extend that to other circumstances.

As many other posters have pointed out, the only valid advice is to remove
the emotion the OP has injected in the thread and listen to the advice of a
local lawyer proficient in real estate law.

"doubter" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 03:15:56 GMT, "Brigitte" wrote:


"Jonathan Kamens" wrote in message
...
(Jass) writes:

Now all the way is to give the house back.

They can't "give the house back."

Actually, they can. It's called a "Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure. We did
one
and it's not had any ill effect on our credit rating.

An idea that I don't think anyone has suggested yet in this thread is
that they could simply walk away from the house, stop making their
mortgage payments,

Bad idea. Screws up your credit for years. Giving the house back to the
mortgage company with payments up to date is a much more respectful way
of
doing this. And has less, if any effect on their credit rating.

Brigitte


Sorry Brigitte, but your advice is not universal. First, since the
mortgage company never owned the property the buyer is NOT giving it back.
They are offering ownership of the property to the lender and there is
nothing that says the lender has to accept the "Deed in Lieu of
Foreclosure" offer.

If the alternative is foreclosure, why wouldn't the lender accept the "Deed
in Lieu of Foreclosure"? The lender doesn't have to go through the
"foreclosure" process, which can take up to a year in some places, while not
receiving any payments during that time. The lender also incurs greater
legal expenses in the foreclosure process. It seems it would be in the
lender's best interest to take the house back with payments up to date.
Seems also, that the "owner" is more likely to leave the home in better
shape than if they were foreclosed upon.

Lastly, even if your credit remains unimpacted, you
cannot extend that to other circumstances.

What other circumstances?

As many other posters have pointed out, the only valid advice is to remove
the emotion the OP has injected in the thread and listen to the advice of
a
local lawyer proficient in real estate law.

I agree that they should seek the advice of an attorney. I'm not saying
that the "Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure" is the answer to their problem, just
something to be aware of.

Brigitte

In article ,
Brigitte wrote:

If the alternative is foreclosure, why wouldn't the lender accept the "Deed
in Lieu of Foreclosure"? The lender doesn't have to go through the
"foreclosure" process, which can take up to a year in some places, while not
receiving any payments during that time. The lender also incurs greater
legal expenses in the foreclosure process. It seems it would be in the
lender's best interest to take the house back with payments up to date.
Seems also, that the "owner" is more likely to leave the home in better
shape than if they were foreclosed upon.


This is all true. I think you are referring to what is also called a 'quit
claim deed'. This is not possible in all circumstances. For instance,
if additional liens are attached to the property.


More to the point, a 'deed in lieu of foreclosure' is indeed reported on
your credit and can be just as damaging as a foreclosure. It's all up to
lenders how they wish to interpret it. Some see a 'deed in lieu' as less
negative, since it is voluntary. Many perceive it just as negatively as
a foreclosure sale. Freddie Mac treats the execution of a deed-in-lieu of
foreclosure exactly the same as a bankruptcy or foreclosure sale in terms
of credit reputation.


Dimitri

"D. Gerasimatos" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Brigitte wrote:

If the alternative is foreclosure, why wouldn't the lender accept the
"Deed
in Lieu of Foreclosure"? The lender doesn't have to go through the
"foreclosure" process, which can take up to a year in some places, while
not
receiving any payments during that time. The lender also incurs greater
legal expenses in the foreclosure process. It seems it would be in the
lender's best interest to take the house back with payments up to date.
Seems also, that the "owner" is more likely to leave the home in better
shape than if they were foreclosed upon.


This is all true. I think you are referring to what is also called a 'quit
claim deed'. This is not possible in all circumstances. For instance,
if additional liens are attached to the property.


More to the point, a 'deed in lieu of foreclosure' is indeed reported on
your credit and can be just as damaging as a foreclosure. It's all up to
lenders how they wish to interpret it. Some see a 'deed in lieu' as less
negative, since it is voluntary. Many perceive it just as negatively as
a foreclosure sale. Freddie Mac treats the execution of a deed-in-lieu of
foreclosure exactly the same as a bankruptcy or foreclosure sale in terms
of credit reputation.

Then we must have been very lucky, since our lender didn't apparently report
our "deed in lieu of foreclosure" to any of the credit reporting agencies.

Brigitte

In article ,
Brigitte wrote:

Then we must have been very lucky, since our lender didn't apparently report
our "deed in lieu of foreclosure" to any of the credit reporting agencies.


Indeed. This is atypical.


Dimitri

Thank you Bridgette!!

I hope that they can do what you did, without it affecting their
credit. It was definetely a bad bad move on their part but it's good
to hear that there is a way out of it. Thank you again, you are
probable the only person who's helped me on here without calling me
names and such.

Thanks,
Jass

On 11 Sep 2004 19:39:07 -0700, someone wrote:

I dont' think a three to four inch difference is easily noticible
unless you spend some time in it. I haven't seen the house, so I can't
give details...

Well, then its not likely a hazard to their child, is it? I don't
doubt that there is a tilt, I *do* doubt the part about the danger to
the child, if you had not thrown that in there you would not have been
criticized for it.

THey have told me their contract from the bank who has approved them
the loan has made the 3 year contract. If they do sell the house, they
will face a fine of couple of thousands.

Something sounds very whacky here. Who did your friends get this loan
from. They cannot be "fined" (wrong term) by a bank. There *is* such
a thing as a prepayment penalty, but I think this is now rare in US
practice, and 3 years is really bizarre. I am now starting to think
that your friends are more than a little bit mixed up, and that you
are being a bit credulous to swallow it whole. Let's see that
contract clause!


They moved to have a
better life, so for them to exaggerate the house condition is
ridiculous.

Well, who moves seeking a worse life? Of course they moved hoping for
better. And no, why they moved has NOTHING to do with it being
ridiculous to exaggerate. They now regret their decision that did not
work out as they hoped, so ALL THE MORE reason to exaggerate if they
think it will help them get out of it.

They haven't asked you for financial help, have they? I think you
should pay a visit to Florida so that you are not trying to sell us on
how bad a house is, that it turns out you've never seen. And BTW,
they don't need to be rich to get on the internet, they can go to the
public library.

Advice: live with it for 3 years. Sorry that anything that doesn't
meet their wishful thinking is dismissed as not helpful.

-v.