Totally inaccurate comments by the lawyer. There are absolutely no hidden costs in a reverse mortgage. It’s also impossible for the amount owed to go from $80,000 to over $300,000 in 4 years, so this is a classic case of reporting fraud by not including all the relevant facts. Maybe there could be a lawsuit against both the lawyer. and the news station that did this news segment.
This is just like doing a subprime loan that was a 2/28 or 3/27 because the loan officer could not predict the future as the lady was not 62 yet and it not like her husband was this young man. The Lender owe so obligation to this lady because the only reason they are trying to collect is because they knew at the time they originated the loan a person of any age can die, but this was a older man and if he did die before she was 62 and be added to loan what would happen if the husband did die?
Now because you could not have owe much on the property or any money and they needed money they could have simply taken out a loan for 30 years for the $80,000 or less and had a small payment if they wanted. However to not put her on the Reverse Mortgage should be neglect and not safe and sound banking, because how were they after the fact going to put her on the loan once it was closed!
The house should have been taken out of the Trust before they could even process the Reverse Mortgage. How did this happen? Per FHA guidelines, this must be done.
If she walks away, she doesn’t owe WF a dime. She may want to consider upcoming repairs, replacement, property taxes, and maintenance on the home, too. A home that old may need a new roof, HVAC, plumbing, hot water heater, etc. soon.
If she wants to stay, I say refi on a five year ARM at 1% and maybe the market will change in that time. I would get an investor to buy that home, and have them rent it back to me – much safer in these troubled times in a state that is such a mess!!
Star, didn’t they say the house was now worth 90,000? How could she refinance a $300,000 loan?
I have to say that i don’t automatically believe the homeowner. The ONLY way they could originally do this loan was to to do it in just his name, because she was < 62 and they likely gladly did it that way to get the money. And, sorry, WF could NOT just add her name to the mortgage when she turns 62. Show me any paper trail where WF promised that and I'll change my tune.
And her explanation of why she didn't do her own Reverse Mortgage when she turned 62 doesn't fly. "The bank said I couldn't because my husband was dead and wasn't around to sign the papers". That's nonsense. WF had every reason to get her to refinance and take this property out of foreclosure.
Totally inaccurate comments by the lawyer. There are absolutely no hidden costs in a reverse mortgage. It’s also impossible for the amount owed to go from $80,000 to over $300,000 in 4 years, so this is a classic case of reporting fraud by not including all the relevant facts. Maybe there could be a lawsuit against both the lawyer. and the news station that did this news segment.
This is just like doing a subprime loan that was a 2/28 or 3/27 because the loan officer could not predict the future as the lady was not 62 yet and it not like her husband was this young man. The Lender owe so obligation to this lady because the only reason they are trying to collect is because they knew at the time they originated the loan a person of any age can die, but this was a older man and if he did die before she was 62 and be added to loan what would happen if the husband did die?
Now because you could not have owe much on the property or any money and they needed money they could have simply taken out a loan for 30 years for the $80,000 or less and had a small payment if they wanted. However to not put her on the Reverse Mortgage should be neglect and not safe and sound banking, because how were they after the fact going to put her on the loan once it was closed!
The house should have been taken out of the Trust before they could even process the Reverse Mortgage. How did this happen? Per FHA guidelines, this must be done.
If she walks away, she doesn’t owe WF a dime. She may want to consider upcoming repairs, replacement, property taxes, and maintenance on the home, too. A home that old may need a new roof, HVAC, plumbing, hot water heater, etc. soon.
If she wants to stay, I say refi on a five year ARM at 1% and maybe the market will change in that time. I would get an investor to buy that home, and have them rent it back to me – much safer in these troubled times in a state that is such a mess!!
Star, didn’t they say the house was now worth 90,000? How could she refinance a $300,000 loan?
I have to say that i don’t automatically believe the homeowner. The ONLY way they could originally do this loan was to to do it in just his name, because she was < 62 and they likely gladly did it that way to get the money. And, sorry, WF could NOT just add her name to the mortgage when she turns 62. Show me any paper trail where WF promised that and I'll change my tune.
And her explanation of why she didn't do her own Reverse Mortgage when she turned 62 doesn't fly. "The bank said I couldn't because my husband was dead and wasn't around to sign the papers". That's nonsense. WF had every reason to get her to refinance and take this property out of foreclosure.