The solution proposed here is simple, but powerful. It is divided into two parts, the first is to limit the amount lenders can loan to borrowers with a single enforcement mechanism, rather, the second is to increase the penalties for borrowers who commit mortgage fraud. What follows is not legal, but it contains the conceptual framework that might be a law on state and or federal. A detailed examination of the following:
Loans for the purchase or refinance residential real estate secured by a mortgage registered in the register is limited by the following parameters on the basis of income of the borrower and documented general debt and the estimated value of the property at the time of sale or refinancing:
- All payments must be calculated on the basis of 30-year fixed-rate conventional amortized loans-mortgages, loans, whatever the program used. Negative amortization are not allowed.
- The total amount of debt to income to pay the mortgage, taxes and insurance may not exceed 28% of gross income of the borrower.
- The total amount of debt to income of all debt obligations can not exceed 36% of gross income of the borrower.
- The combination of ready-to-value ratio of mortgage debt may not exceed 90% of property value or purchase price, so the value is lower, except in government programs especially punished.
The amounts borrowed beyond these parameters must not be repaid by the borrower and do not allow contractual provision which may be interpreted as limiting the right of the borrower to exercise that right because of the mortgage or another agreement to shorten.
This last statement is the most critical. This is how the problem of implementation can be overcome. Regulators are under pressure not to enforce laws when times are good, and his alleged lack of supervision when times are bad. If the function is a potential problem of civilian police themselves borrowers, lenders know exactly what the risks and potential damage. Any lender willing to make a fool out of the parameters need not fear the wrath of regulators, which would have to fear from the administration of claims filed by lenders eager to escape its contractual obligations. If a borrower can obtain the cancellation of debt, just to show your lender that exceeded the guidelines based on the loan documents, the lender fails to do so, and regulatory oversight would be almost useless.
A key to this is that lenders prohibit the introduction of a “poison pill” for the loan documents that allows borrowers to put up the doubt, otherwise it would be willing to pay lenders in the case of a legal challenge to force the borrower to refinance or sell the property. In fact, if the borrower has filed a complaint and won, they would have significant reductions equal to the deviation from the regulations, if a complaint was filed and the loss that would be a penalty. Most of these cases were decided by summary trial on the basis of a review of loan documents and thus minimize the costs of the court.
The result of these restrictions is that all owners have at least 10% of the equity in their property unless they have taken from a government program of the FHA, such as where the combined loan-to-May exceed the limit value. This mattress pad lenders predatory lending and an increase in executions if prices fell. Home equity in the United States has declined since the mid-1980s, and fell, while prices have increased during the Great bubble due to the increase of the extraction of equity. The lack of a cushion of capital exacerbated the problem of exclusion that many homeowners who need more than your mortgage is worth simply stopped making payments and allowed the house to fall into the exclusion .
written by admin
\\ tags: Real Estate Law