a l t . m u s i c . d i o

iBeaux · DIO's #1 Lady Bandit

Reverse Mortgage - No inheritance for Sonny-boi

squidhammer · Rising

These types of loans are for senior citizens. Coincidentally I recently talked to someone in depth about these loans - not because I know someone who would take advantage of one but just because he is a loan agent and a friend.

There are a lot of situations where these loans make sense. Old people are always in a trickbag with their house because, if they become extremely ill and need to go in some kind of expensive retirement home, their house can be taken from them. That's why a lot of old folks give their house to their children early - which caused some big problems with my family in Katrina (house got flooded but was not "primary residence" of owners (kids) - therefore none of that bailout money from the Feds) Funnily enough things worked out because the house was not legally in the kid's possession because the dead father (my grandfather-in-law) did not sign the papers.

Reverse mortgages probably would be a problem in this market especially if the appraised value of the house when the mortgage was initiated is more than the current value. The kids either have to pay the mortgage, sell the house and take the loss, or foreclose (I guess. I don't know that for sure.)

iBeaux · DIO's #1 Lady Bandit

Yes, Squid, I realize these types of loans are meant for senior citizens or should I say anyone "62 years of age and older!" Perhaps I didn't make that clear enough. Sorry...

I can see your point but not all older people are sick or get sick and not all have to go into nursing facilities. In those situations, sure it could give them some help. However, I'm not a fan of lending institutions, huge interest rates, and taking advantage of the elderly and their families. Fear tactics can come into play here along with making it more enticing for unnecessary borrowing. After all, they don't lend money for free. They're not really doing anyone a favor! Do they really care what happens to the elderly?

Same as with the proposed tax rebate incentive. The only reason the Gov't is doing it is in hopes people will spend that money now and boost the economy. Yeah, like the mall-wenches are going to go say "well, Im getting a $600.00 rebate later this year, I have a spending limit of $600.00." It's a psychological trick. We're in a materialistic world. They'll spend three times that money before they get the rebate, then end up even further in personal debt. We don't live in a soceity where people generally limit themselves. Not to mention, first the Gov't said the rebate would be twice what they are now saying it will be. What's to stop them from just cancelling the whole rebate or chiseling it down to $5.00? Trickery...Let's propose to boost the economy but encourage people to fall in a debt-hole and have to file personal bankruptcy. It doesn't make any sense. It's like a smoke screen....The economy may look a little better, the rebate Savior rides again, but hey your personal finances will be f*ucked!

Dude, I just don't trust banks, lending institutions or that a Gov't for a country that is as a whole severely in debt can come up with a feasible plan to reverse that. The world is going to hell in a hand basket woven of Usery.

-- Edited by iBeaux at 14:49, 2008-03-30

PippiLongstocking · Princess of Fairytopia

iBeaux wrote:

Yes, Squid, I realize these types of loans are meant for senior citizens or should I say anyone "62 years of age and older!" Perhaps I didn't make that clear enough. Sorry...

I can see your point but not all older people are sick or get sick and not all have to go into nursing facilities. In those situations, sure it could give them some help. However, I'm not a fan of lending institutions, huge interest rates, and taking advantage of the elderly and their families. Fear tactics can come into play here along with making it more enticing for unnecessary borrowing. After all, they don't lend money for free. They're not really doing anyone a favor! Do they really care what happens to the elderly?

Same as with the proposed tax rebate incentive. The only reason the Gov't is doing it is in hopes people will spend that money now and boost the economy. Yeah, like the mall-wenches are going to go say "well, Im getting a $600.00 rebate later this year, I have a spending limit of $600.00." It's a psychological trick. We're in a materialistic world. They'll spend three times that money before they get the rebate, then end up even further in personal debt. We don't live in a soceity where people generally limit themselves. Not to mention, first the Gov't said the rebate would be twice what they are now saying it will be. What's to stop them from just cancelling the whole rebate or chiseling it down to $5.00? Trickery...Let's propose to boost the economy but encourage people to fall in a debt-hole and have to file personal bankruptcy. It doesn't make any sense. It's like a smoke screen....The economy may look a little better, the rebate Savior rides again, but hey your personal finances will be f*ucked!

Dude, I just don't trust banks, lending institutions or that a Gov't for a country that is as a whole severely in debt can come up with a feasible plan to reverse that. The world is going to hell in a hand basket woven of Usery.

-- Edited by iBeaux at 14:49, 2008-03-30

"The world is going to hell in a hand basket woven of Usery."

I have to say,.....I like that quote.

iBeaux · DIO's #1 Lady Bandit

PippiLongstocking wrote:
"The world is going to hell in a hand basket woven of Usery."

I have to say,.....I like that quote.

Thanks Pippi - I didn't mean to get on such a Devon-esque soapbox but I'm very passionate about that subject.

Another thing that erks me. There's a law firm that advertises "debt relief" via Chapter 7 or Chapter 13. They make it sound like even though you've helped to boost the economy (haha) and spent yourself into debt you can just easily wipe the slate clean. However, when those who make too much money are told to file Chapter 13 (Debt Repayment program) what some people don't read in the lovely fine print is, even if you reaffirm on your Home, or basically decide to pay your mortgage outside the Chapter 13 debt repayment agreement, if you are as little as 24 hours late on your mortgage the lending institution can immediately foreclose on your home. The Federal courts will back them too!

**Note: This never happened to me but I know someone who fell into that one hard!

Perhaps the best form of debt relief is being homeless? LOL The fine print of life can drive you crazy!

-- Edited by iBeaux at 15:11, 2008-03-30

artcinco · Mob Ruler

Like anything else, the buyer, or borrower, needs to beware and know what he or she is agreeing to when signing a loan document. If you don't comprhend legaleese then hire someone who does to explain to you the terms. It is well worth someone's couple hundred dollar fee up front than to find out what exactly you agreed to is not what you thought down the line.

iBeaux · DIO's #1 Lady Bandit

artcinco wrote:

Like anything else, the buyer, or borrower, needs to beware and know what he or she is agreeing to when signing a loan document. If you don't comprhend legaleese then hire someone who does to explain to you the terms. It is well worth someone's couple hundred dollar fee up front than to find out what exactly you agreed to is not what you thought down the line.

I concur -Im beginning to wonder if you guys (Art and Squid) work in mortgage financing wink

artcinco · Mob Ruler

Nah, but you just have to remember in every relationship or financial transaction there is a "dominance and submission" rule to remember.

iBeaux · DIO's #1 Lady Bandit

artcinco wrote:

Nah, but you just have to remember in every relationship or financial transaction there is a "dominance and submission" rule to remember.

Big business and Big money/banking (usery, loans, credit) leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I try to avoid them when possible. You say "dominance and submission" (kinna sexy sounding) which is fine when it applies, I was referring more to the "predator and prey" rule to remember! biggrin

artcinco · Mob Ruler

iBeaux wrote:

artcinco wrote:

Nah, but you just have to remember in every relationship or financial transaction there is a "dominance and submission" rule to remember.

Big business and Big money/banking (usery, loans, credit) leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I try to avoid them when possible. You say "dominance and submission" (kinna sexy sounding) which is fine when it applies, I was referring more to the "predator and prey" rule to remember!

Yes definitely. People lend money to make money. People take out loans to get things before they can save enough to buy them. It can be mutaully beneficial as long as both side play straight with each other.

iBeaux · DIO's #1 Lady Bandit

artcinco wrote:

iBeaux wrote:

Big business and Big money/banking (usery, loans, credit) leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I try to avoid them when possible. You say "dominance and submission" (kinna sexy sounding) which is fine when it applies, I was referring more to the "predator and prey" rule to remember!

Yes definitely. People lend money to make money. People take out loans to get things before they can save enough to buy them. It can be mutaully beneficial as long as both side play straight with each other.

This is where we need Bobby66 to compare and argue the pros and cons of marijuana usage to borrowing money. LOL

It can be mutaully beneficial as long as both sides play straight with each other.

squidhammer · Rising

Hey I,

I knew you knew it was pointed at older folks. My point is that, in some cases, it makes sense.

I am a proponent of regulation of banks and credit companies to combat predatory practices. I would lump insurance companies in that group as well.

iBeaux · DIO's #1 Lady Bandit

squidhammer wrote:

Hey I,

I knew you knew it was pointed at older folks. My point is that, in some cases, it makes sense.

I am a proponent of regulation of banks and credit companies to combat predatory practices. I would lump insurance companies in that group as well.

Paragraph! (snicker snicker)

I suppose you read the news story yesterday about the 52 yr old disabled Walmart employee who is being sued by Walmart (insurance company) to repay the $470,000 in insurance benefits she received now that she has won her lawsuit against the driver that disabled her. Well after paying lawyer fees, etc...she has only $412,000 left of her settlement. The courts ruled in Walmart's insurance company's favor. Some "fine print" policy again. Now that she lost the case, wonder if she'll be in the "red" to them or just have to give them the $412,000 she has left.

It just didn't seem right. Each side has a valid point in the case but like the writer pointed out, what is $470,000 to lose for a company who's earnings were reported over $90 billion last year or quarter or something like that. Jeez! It's everything to a woman who has a brain injury and will never be able to live a normal life.

-- Edited by iBeaux at 19:19, 2008-03-30

squidhammer · Rising

Wow. From past experience I would think that Wal-Mart's insurance company would have gone after the driver and not after the employee.

PippiLongstocking · Princess of Fairytopia

Walmart had a lien on their medical payments. Those state that if the injured party recoups, they have to pay back the lien out of the proceeds.

As such, it really is the woman's lawyer's fault for not making sure she got enough in the settlement to pay back the lien, plus take care of herself.

If I was the woman, I'd sue my own attorney to get at his Errors and Omissions insurance coverage,....then I could get some of that back.

No doubt her trustees will do so.