sgtmy

I didn't notice his follow on post that said it was a 2006 Corvette. I was replying to the original post. If you noticed, the first thing I asked was if it was a NEW car. Being that it is used, what I said doesn't apply. And I wasn't "passing judgment", I was giving him an alternative that he might not have considered, if it was a NEW car he was buying.

I am trying to figure this out. Is this a new car? Cars depreciate fast, and you are only talking about 6 grand difference between the down payment and the purchase price. You can probably get the same car that is 1 or 2 years old for less than the cash you have on hand.

bestplaces.net is okay. You can search all kind of info based on the zip code. The problem with looking at them by the zip code, is that that crime rates within one zip code can vary by neighborhood. The crime rate for my zip code is pretty high compared to the national average, but there is virtually NO crime in MY neighborhood. So the rating is misleading. At that site, the conclusion I came to, is that if the zip codes crime rating is BELOW the national average, then you can assume that crime is low there. If it is average or above, you can't really know for sure.

Well if you buy a house with the intention to sell it, then yes, you are taking a risk. That is a risk you take with anything you buy that you plan to sell later. It is a given when you buy a car, that this is going to happen. I don't buy cars, so that I can sell them later. I drive them until they are almost ready for the junkyard. I also don't buy homes so that I can sell them later. My home depreciating would be irrelevant. It won't change my payment or the amount I owe on it. When I pay my home off this year and buy my next one, the first house will become a rental. I actually wish the price of homes would decrease dramatically in my locale. It would make purchasing a new house in that locale cheaper. Instead, I plan to buy in a cheaper location. So yes, I agree. If you buy a house with the intention of selling it later, you are taking a risk that you will take a lost.

There is nearly no risk. The number of foreclosures are still extremely low in relation to the total number of mortgages. Example: If the foreclosure rate was 1% and the next year it jumps to 3%, then the foreclosure "rate" has jumped 300%. That would be a historically high foreclosure rate. However, the "non-forclosure rate" would still be a very high 97%. Simplistic example, but actually pretty close to the actuality. If you and your wife bought a house, statistically, there is a greater chance of you and the wife getting divorced than EVER having a home foreclosed on. Couple of things: 1. Putting 20% down or even 50% down would not keep you from not being able to afford your home if you had a sudden drastic reduction in income. The key to being able to afford a home, is to buy how much home you can afford without any regards to how much you "qualify" for. 2. Being "underwater" is irrelevant, if you are buying your home to live in, and not as some part of a get rich quick scheme, where you plan to flip the house in X number of years.

I strongly disagree. I bought my current home in 1995 with ZERO down. VA loan. July of this year it will be paid off. Four months after I pay this house off, I will then buy another house with ZERO down, and turn the first house into a rental. The house I buy will not cost anymore than 1 1/2 years salary. I will then pay this second house off within the next 3 to 4 years. Based on my savings projections I keep in an Excel spreadsheet, I will have approximately 30K available when I buy the second house. I have NO intention of using that money for a down payment. So no, I don't think putting zero down is the reason the housing market is in the shape it is in. I think it is actually because of the following reasons: 1. People buying more home than they could actually afford. This could have been from using creative financing where the payments increase after a few years, and the borrowers didn't realize it, or "assumed" their income would have increased when their payments did. It could have been from "assuming" that because they "qualified" for a certain mortgage payment, that it actually meant they could afford it. When I bought my home, and when I buy my next one, I will NOT "buy as much home as I qualify for". 2. People who can actually afford the homes they are in, but don't like the idea of being "upside-down" in their mortgages. They then walk away from their mortgages. 3. Rapid appreciation way above what it should have been in some areas of the country. Luckily I live in Texas, and have not experienced that. 4. The community reinvestment act passed by congress back in the 70s. This act "encouraged" banks to lend money for homes to people they normally wouldn't qualify. 5. Banks and investors believing that the astronomical appreciation of homes was not going to stop, so they continued to loan money on these overpriced homes.

After researching within the guide from 9 April 2009, it appears the guide contains conflicting information. Reference: Part B, Origination Through Closing Subpart 3, Underwriting Borrowers Chapter 5, Credit Assessment, Credit Reports Page 381 says this: Same section page 388 says this: One page says if it was filed 4 years ago, and is discharged at the time of the loan, then it is good. The other page says 2 years from date of discharge for Chapter 13, NO EXCEPTIONS. Am I interpreting this wrong, or is that conflicting information? After reading the Freddie Mac guide, it appears they have a 24 month after discharge requirement also. So basically, if I had filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, I would have been good to buy a house next year. If I had been in a 36 month plan rather than a 48 month plan, I would have been good to buy my house next year. Oh the irony. LOL. I guess I will just have to go to plan 2, and pay my house off next year, and then I can get another VA loan not long after that.

Never mind about my previous question. I did a google search and found the answer. "DU" must be desktop underwriter. Selling Guide, Part X, Section 302.10, Prior Bankruptcy or Foreclosure, had the reg you were referring to. Unfortunately, my search also found that according the Fannie Mae guidelines I have to wait 2 years from my discharge. This is what it says in the August 2008 update: For all bankruptcy actions, the elapsed time period to reestablish credit will now be measured from the bankruptcy discharge or dismissal date. For all bankruptcy cases, other than Chapter 13 cases, the time period to reestablish credit remains at 4 years. For Chapter 13 cases, a distinction is being made between Chapter 13 bankruptcies that were discharged and those that were dismissed. The updated policy recognizes the fact that borrowers have reestablished credit through the successful completion of a Chapter 13 plan and subsequent discharge by requiring only a 2-year time period to elapse. A borrower who was unable to complete the Chapter 13 plan and received a dismissal, however, will be held to a 4-year time period for reestablishing credit. Hopefully I am wrong, and there is another section which says what you say about 4 years from the date of filing. Or maybe it is Freddie Mac that I need to check and see what the regs say?

Thanks a lot! When I searched online, all the references I found for getting a conventional mortgage talked about all bankruptcies as if they were the same, without specifying if conventional qualification was different for a chapter 13 or not. One more question. What does "DU" stand for, and what is your source (i.e., the regs you quoted)?

I know this topic is going to seem like many of the others, so I apologize in advance. I have searched throughout this forum and the bankruptcy forum, and haven't found any threads that fit my circumstances. Situation: I completed a four year Chapter 13 plan in May 2009, with no late payments during the plan. My current income is around 140K annually. My only debt is $850 mortgage payment, with 9 years left on it. I owe $45K on my home, and it is worth around $110K. I have one credit card with a $500 limit that I pay off as soon as I make a charge on it. My credit scores are TU=635; EQ=671; EX=663 (plus score). I am guessing the mid score should be at least 680 by August of next year. I want to get a CONVENTIONAL mortgage loan next year in August 2010. The reason I have to get a conventional rather than FHA or VA is because I already have a home in a different location than where I plan on buying my new home. According to my research, FHA won't guarantee you for a home if you already have another one. My current home is VA, and of course they aren't going to guarantee another home for me while the other one still has a mortgage guaranteed by the VA. (I am going to keep the older home and use it as a rental.) By August of next year, I will have about 45 - 55K cash available when I buy. The home I plan on buying will be between 120- 160K, and I plan on putting down 20 - 25%. Questions: Although I will only have had my Chapter 13 discharged for a little over a year, will having 20% or more available for down payment enable me to get a conventional loan? If I can find a lender, what are my chances of finding a lender that will give me a good rate on a 30 year mortgage, rather than a high interest rate for high risk borrowers?

True, however the article the OP posted stated that the man was never notified that his house was being foreclosed. According to section 51.002 of the Texas Property Code: So the delinquent borrower is notified 20 days before procedures begin by certified mail. Then notified again by certified mail 21 days before intent to sell the property. So NO, the same thing that happened to this guy in Maryland, couldn't happen in Texas.

I must remember to add Maryland to my list of states never to move to. More than likely, they are already on the list if they have a state income tax. This could not have happened in Texas.

"I think adoption is much better than abortion. but legally speaking during the first trimester it is not a child. in some states yes there are these manslaughter laws, but IIRC even some of them are very limited until the later in the term." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Actually, I think in MOST states it will be considered a child until the mother decides she wants to have it snuffed. Until then, if someone was to harm the mother and consequently harm the baby, they would be charged for both the mother and the child.

I don't think the homes in Georgia are "cheap", but the homes were you live are overpriced. Then again I live in Texas. I paid 65K for my 1600 square feet house in 1995. It is worth about 90K today. You can buy a brand new house of that size for about 110K. I have friends that have houses of 2500 to 3500 square feet, that they bought about 5 years ago, and they paid about 130K for them. With the median home price in the U.S. being around 225K, when you compare two states, one with a median of 150K, and another one with a median of 500K, which area is more "out of whack."

The only real reason I see for determining net worth, is to determine how much life insurance I need. Even then, I don't care about how many assets I have, just liabilities. I am in a Chapter 13, for which I have about 2 years left, and about 25K. My mortgage balance is 60K. Both of my cars are paid for. So my total debt is 85K. So I need at least 85K of insurance, to make sure I don't leave a burden for my heirs. Since I have about 750K insurance, I think I am fine.