Author Topic: What would you settle for?  (Read 4911 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

jreed

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 377
Re: What would you settle for?
« Reply #15 on: August 22, 2011 06:38:33 PM »
Folks...I think you're all missing the point of my question...or I'm not phrasing it very well.

I know what I am going to do.  From my perspective I have a winning hand of cards.  I'm curious to see where other people would draw their line in the sand in this type of situation.

Right now, based on what they've generically offered in the past, they are already willing to lose $100k on this property.  If I short-sale and take their $20k that's about what they'd be looking at.  Roughly.  +-$10k 

If they are willing to lose that much money, they should be willing to simply apply that amount to my original principal balance.  (maybe not, but that's my logic).  That would turn my $240 original balance into $140.

And none of that takes into consideration the lawsuit that I have waiting for them.  That was just their generic mass-mailing offer.

So if they are willing to offer up $100k or so generically.  Shouldn't they then be willing to pony up the title to get out of this lawsuit and away from the bad press.  At the end of the day Chase paid pennies on the dollar for this loan from the FDIC.  They didn't really create the initial problem, WAMU did.  Having said that I really doubt Chase can produce the applicable documents to prove they own the mortgage, but who knows.

Why would they want to pay $100k in legal fees over 3 years only to end up paying me all my interest back and then still being stuck with the property.  All while allowing me to live there for 4-6 years absolutely free.  Especially when I could turn around and take triple damages, punative damages, etc.

Having said that, I don't expect they'd be real happy about signing over a fairly large asset.  Nor do I think they will intimidate very easily.

Which is why I ask...put yourself in these shoes.  Assume you either have the financial resources to pay or Chase is willing to provide a new mortgage for the amounts we're talking about.

If Chase offered up (after negotiating) a new loan with good terms for $75k and you keep the house...would you take that deal.  From a pure business perspective it makes sense...you get a $240k house for $75k.  That's a pretty good turn around.

Or.....

Would you really hold out and be aggressive trying to force their hand.  Potentially taking it to court and tying it up for three years knowing there is always a chance you might lose despite having a strong case.

That is my question...what would YOU do if YOU were in this situation?


If you look at my posts and the type of questions I've been asking, you'll quickly come to the conclusion that you shouldn't listen to anything I say.

CleaningUp

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 10749
Re: What would you settle for?
« Reply #16 on: August 22, 2011 07:54:51 PM »
Chase is merely servicing the loan.  Ownership has long been in the hands of investors who bought the tranches.

It is a mistake to think that Chase is taking the loss.  The tranche takes the loss, and Chase could care less. The arrangement between the FDIC and Chase is irrelevant other than Chase has clear title to all of WAMU assets.

Don't spend the check for all the interest they will be returning until you get it.



duckncover

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 386
  • Denial
Re: What would you settle for?
« Reply #17 on: August 31, 2011 07:12:02 AM »
If they are willing to lose that much money, they should be willing to simply apply that amount to my original principal balance.  (maybe not, but that's my logic).  That would turn my $240 original balance into $140.


Unfortunately banks don't think in logic.

If you own $450000 and say your house is upside down and will only sell for $300000 the bank will lose $150000.

Say you can afford a loan of $350000 you would think the bank would give you a principal reducing to the $350000 and save themselves a loss of a additional $50000 if they force a sale, but they won't.

Banks don't care if they lose $250000 on a house as long as you don't have it. They have the Feds to bail them out so there is no risk of going out of business.

It's insane but it's very true.

I am upside down on my house and a big bank is willing to take a $250000 loss to collect $100000 on a delinquent second....doesn't make sense but that's what I was told.

If it were me I would start the negotiations at getting the loan wiped clean, title free and clear and work up from there. Even if you agree to a balance of $100000 or less you win.

If you do end up with a mortgage and can't pay it off or get a loan i would make a new loan part of the settlement agreement. Of course with a low interest rate .
All replies are my opinion and in no way should be considered legal advise. For legal advise you should consult with a licensed attorney.

Fighting Irish

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 1988
Re: What would you settle for?
« Reply #18 on: September 03, 2011 08:42:30 PM »
First of all, I'd need to know the arrangement with the attorney. If she was willing to wait it out and be paid from the settlement of this "very strong case" I'd let her do all the negotiating, with my having veto power over any agreement she brokered for me.

If she's working and I'm paying her hourly wage, with the possibility that I'll collect somewhere in the future from Chase, I'd do as much as possible myself.

That said, you are unlikely to find a lender who will a) write a mortgage for such a small sum as $30K or b) write a mortgage for individuals who have shown themselves willing, in the very recent past, to fight a lender tooth and nail.

My inclination, given the statements of the attorney, are to have a contingency agreement with the attorney, and have as my minimum outcome that the debt and all interest be wiped out, the instrument be declared void, and the TL removed. Not to mention a non-disclosure agreement, with liquidated damages noted, and BIG.
Dang it, Jim! I'm a nurse, not an attorney!

(The rest of you, keep that in mind, too.)

 

credit