Comments on: A break for those facing foreclosure
Add a Comment
- Let me introduce myself, I am the sister, that anothergovgoof is pointing his/her finger at! You might want to get the story straight. What Ms Knox fails to mention is the reason for my leaving. I find it rather funny that she points out my leaving on public tv making me "the one to blame". Just so every one knows there's a story for my leaving but don't feel that should be laid out for people to know about. You my sister are the reason the house is being foreclosed. You my sister had help from very generous parents and yet failed to pick yourself up after they gave you all the help you could get! Stop placing blame on me leaving, because we both know thats not what happend! You are the only one to blame for this and I'm furious you went on national tv to make your family look like such horrible people!
- Reply to this comment
- great!lets blame everything on someone else,what a loser. just another poor me wheres my hand out kind of person, i hope she ends up on the streets.wheres the Independence?
- Reply to this comment
- What am I missing?
1. Story says she bought the house w/her sister. Where's the sister's responsibility here?
2. She DID lose the house. The bank now owns it. And previous comments are right on - when the time is right, the bank will not be a kind landlord.
3. We have so much regulation now to protect the public...any political reaction to this scam? - Reply to this comment
- You can see how dishonest are these lenders. They caused the problem and then later they steal your home making you from homeowner to their renters. Down the road the home values will certainly increase, and they win again ... we we all lose.
- Reply to this comment
- Don't believe a single word that Bank of America says about mortgages. They lie big time all the time about everything. I know because I've been trying to work things out with them for FOUR years. I can't get so much as a straight answer from them - only canned responses from the newest robo mortgage service person au jour. I would have had a heck of a lot more respect for them if they would have just said "no" four years ago. Instead, I've had four years of never-ending stress and sleepless nights.
- Reply to this comment
- Essentially she is now a caretaker for the bank's property. Three years from now the market might be stronger. In the meanwhile the banks are inundated with foreclosed properties sitting vacant, being vandalized, landscaping burned to a crisp and swimming pools molded beyond repair. Now wouldn't one think this is a great program for the banks. Buy the services of the homeowner they spoofed and bring in $700.00 a month in this case. At least it arranges someone is living there, taking care of a home they love and the bank gets enough to pay the taxes and insurance and waits out the market.
- Reply to this comment
- Really the only one benefitting is the bank. After 3 years they can kick you out and sell the house. It's just a matter of them delaying the inevidable for the homeowner/tenant. My take on it is that they're trying to buy themselves some time - not for the benefit of the homeowner, but for the bank. They're betting on the housing market to turn around and having prices stabilize. Once that happens, they'll be slapping for sale signs on these houses as fast as they can.
- Reply to this comment
- During the Great Depression, people were allowed to pay interest only and keep their homes. This is the next best thing for the home owner, but the bank now owns the home and calls the shots. It is better than eviction, but it could be better.
- Reply to this comment
- The Obama administration should have forced the banks to have done this from the very start. The idea has been around for awhile. I'll still vote for him. The Repubs offer no solutions except a free, unregulated market. Yeah, we see what that got us when Clinton and Dems/Repubs deregulated. Dingell was right on that one in 1999.
-------------------
During debate in the House of Representatives, Rep. John Dingell (Democrat of Michigan) argued that the bill would result in banks becoming "too big to fail." Dingell further argued that this would necessarily result in a bailout by the Federal Government.[4]
Wikipedia "Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act" 9/2/2012. - Reply to this comment
- What hypocrisy by Wall Street and the banks. After squeezing every last dime out of people and already with many thousands of homes in foreclosure the banking industry finally rolls out a "Test Program?"
Frankly with all this time to plan more raping and pillaging, I'd be real careful about any great deals the banks now are prepared to offer. - Reply to this comment
