Three- year Moratorium on Foreclosures- Keep families in their homes

Support a Three-year Moratorium on Foreclosures and Foreclosure-related Evictions and a Principal reduction for Distressed Homeowners

Keep families in their homes
Preserve neighborhoods
Maintain home values and a strong tax base
Stop home abandonment and neighborhood blight

Please support Congressman Hansen Clarke's H.R. 4848, "The Save Our Neighborhoods Act of 2012", by signing the online petiton at http://nationalmoratorium.org/nation...petition.shtml. H.R. 4848 would put an immediate pause in the foreclosure process for distressed homeowners and suspend the foreclosure process for up to three years.

The bill would require the bank to meet with the homeowner in foreclosure to discuss modifying the mortgage. The bill provides an incentive for banks to modify the mortgage: if the modification does not occur, the foreclosure would be stopped for three years and the court would determine a reasonable amount that the homeowner must pay each month. Once this three-year period is over, the court would reduce the principal of any underwater mortgage to its fair market value.

THE DETAILS

• The court must suspend the foreclosure process for a period of 60 days for any homeowner who requests such action.
• The lender must meet with the homeowner within 30 days of the beginning of the 60-day foreclosure suspension to discuss a modification of the mortgage.
• If the homeowner and the lender do not agree to a mortgage modification within 60 days, then the court may stop the foreclosure process for up to three years.
• A homeowner is eligible for a foreclosure suspension of up to three years if:
• The homeowner has a federally related mortgage loan [[as defined by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which includes the vast majority of home mortgages);
• The homeowner has suffered a financial hardship but has the ability to pay some rent for the property
• The property in question is the homeowner’s primary residence.
• During this foreclosure suspension of up to three years, the homeowner must pay an amount determined by the court.
• When the foreclosure suspension of up to three years ends, the court must order an appraisal of the property. If the property is underwater, then the court must lower the mortgage principal to an amount determined by the court, taking into consideration the fair market value of the property. If the fair market value is greater than the principal on the mortgage loan, then the court must order payments set at a reasonable interest rate.

For more information, please visit http://nationalmoratorium.or

I know this is unpopular with many on here, but if the economy is to truly turn around this needs to happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Downriviera

I know this is unpopular with many on here, but if the economy is to truly turn around this needs to happen.

---

I'm a libertarian, and I hate government intervention in the markets. I think this'll be more popular than you think.

But the situation we are in is also the result of government intervention. We're provided support to low-income people to purchase houses they couldn't afford. We're enabled the banks to create a bubble by commoditizing mortgages.

Then we subsidized the banks bad behavior. We should have allowed them to fail -- and let the homeowners have their property without mortage. The bank blew the money. The bank [[and its shareholders) should have taken that hit.

So I'm a libertarian 100% in favor of mortage foreclosure reform.

Just make sure the system has checks and balances. Sure, hit the banks. But the borrower must also take a hit. Both the bank and the borrower created the problem. Let them both share the pain.

Having a moratorium on foreclosures would not help many, and would probably just prolong the problem that has been going on for more years. If someone cannot afford to pay the mortgage on their home now, I find it highly unlikely that things will change by such a huge degree that would make it possible for them to pay the mortgage in the future. Many people have dug themselves into such a deep economic hole that it would take far longer than three years to recover. I know it sounds harsh but I think things would have been better if the people in charge in the government and at the banks had just "ripped off the bandaid" rather than slowly trying to pry it off. If we had gone through this all at once there would have been a lot of trouble, but it would not keep dragging on as long as it has.

I also know that a lot of people were taken advantage of by the banks and they have gone into foreclosure because of this. Honestly my sympathy only can go so far in that situation. I know people don't like to say it, but the blame goes both ways, and greed was the real culprit here. People were buying homes they could not afford, or getting mortgages without reading the fine print or even really understanding what they were getting into. It seems to me that when people were offered a bunch of money they just completely ignored that part about balloon payments and what would happen a few years after the mortgage. Its true that the banks should not have given these people mortgages if they could not afford them, or in many cases could not understand what they were getting into, but the fact of the matter is that they did and both sides are to blame. We need to just get this mess overwith now rather than letting it prolong any further and hampering our economy.

This isn't helping the thousands of people who already were foreclosed on. What about them? I know, it's too late.

So if someone buys a house today on land contract [[seller-financed), and they stop paying, the seller may have to wait three years to get them out while the buyer lives for free? Sounds like a good deal for the buyer, not so much for the seller.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragnarok1981

Having a moratorium on foreclosures would not help many, and would probably just prolong the prob<snip>...
I also know that a lot of people were taken advantage of by the banks and they have gone into foreclosure because of this. Honestly my sympathy only can go so far in that situation. I know people don't like to say it, but the blame goes both ways, and greed was the real culprit here. People were buying homes they could not afford, or getting mortgages without reading the fine print or even really understanding what they were getting into. It seems to me that when people were offered a bunch of money they just completely ignored that part about balloon payments and what would happen a few years after the mortgage. Its true that the banks should not have given these people mortgages if they could not afford them, or in many cases could not understand what they were getting into, but the fact of the matter is that they did and both sides are to blame. We need to just get this mess overwith now rather than letting it prolong any further and hampering our economy.

---

This isn't a forgiving of a loan. Its an adjustment of payments, based on the banks behavior. The buyer will be paying the principal 100%, at a rate determine by negotiation or the court.

The banks manipulated interest rates and home prices by their market mayhem and greed. I've little pity for those who signed up for more than they could afford. But I'd also rather not pay welfare to those who can continue making payments, but maybe at a reduced amount for a few years on the banks 'tab'.

This is a dumb socialist idea. If you can't afford your house - get out.

The banks have not taken advantage of you. You signed a loan agreement - most likely without a lawyer looking over your documents. You agreed to the interest rate. They didn't manipulate anything. You most likely took out more in a mortgage than you could afford. Everyone knows housing values go up and down and if they do down you can owe more than the house is worth.

Why are we asking someone else to subsidize you for 3 years?

Evict them and put them in rentals or a house they can afford. I will buy your house on a short sale from the bank and flip it and the housing market will correct itself through these evictions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by justanotherboy

This is a dumb socialist idea. If you can't afford your house - get out.

The banks have not taken advantage of you. You signed a loan agreement - most likely without a lawyer looking over your documents. You agreed to the interest rate. They didn't manipulate anything. You most likely took out more in a mortgage than you could afford. Everyone knows housing values go up and down and if they do down you can owe more than the house is worth.

Why are we asking someone else to subsidize you for 3 years?

Evict them and put them in rentals or a house they can afford. I will buy your house on a short sale from the bank and flip it and the housing market will correct itself through these evictions.

---

You sound like a real compassionate guy.

Justanotherboy hit the nail on the head.

We should have permited several big banks to fail but we didn't. Almost all have repaid the government, with hefty interest, but that doesn't justify bailing them out in my opinion.

The proposed law would result in an unconstitiutional taking. Further, MI law does not permit a court to modify the clear and unambiguous terms of a contract; the MI Su Ct would shoot the proposed statute down in a second. A 2005 MI Su Ct case - the name and cite escape me - held that even contracts of adhesion are enforceable. The only contracts MI courts may even think about modifying are those that clearly are contrary to public policy; therefore, a lawsuit to enforce a contract for murder for hire would not be enforceable. A lawsuit to enforce an Note and Mortgage according to their terms is not modifyable, notwithstanding the efforts of political hacks like Hansen Clarke.

If banks were smart they would establish programs to permit people to continue living in homes with defaulted mortgages, reserving the right of course to be repaid all principle and interest, albeit over a different time frome. Banks aren't very smart however.

So, you have stupid borrowers and stupid banks. You generally can't cure stupid.

Cinci_Kid, it's easy to be compassionate with somebody else's money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3WC

Justanotherboy hit the nail on the head.

We should have permited several big banks to fail but we didn't. Almost all have repaid the government, with hefty interest, but that doesn't justify bailing them out in my opinion.

The proposed law would result in an unconstitiutional taking. Further, MI law does not permit a court to modify the clear and unambiguous terms of a contract; the MI Su Ct would shoot the proposed statute down in a second. A 2005 MI Su Ct case - the name and cite escape me - held that even contracts of adhesion are enforceable. The only contracts MI courts may even think about modifying are those that clearly are contrary to public policy; therefore, a lawsuit to enforce a contract for murder for hire would not be enforceable. A lawsuit to enforce an Note and Mortgage according to their terms is not modifyable, notwithstanding the efforts of political hacks like Hansen Clarke.

If banks were smart they would establish programs to permit people to continue living in homes with defaulted mortgages, reserving the right of course to be repaid all principle and interest, albeit over a different time frome. Banks aren't very smart however.

So, you have stupid borrowers and stupid banks. You generally can't cure stupid.

Cinci_Kid, it's easy to be compassionate with somebody else's money.

---

Why are so few people happy about how affordable houses are these days. The banking crisis has dramatically increased affordability for struggling, disenfranchised residents.