If we believe foreclosure is in our clients best interest, should we propose this as an option and recommend they seek legal counsel?
This morning I was thinking about the many clients I have who are underwater 50-70% in negative equity. The more I thought about the reality of those clients getting back to the break-even point, where their home is worth what they paid for it, the more I questioned what my advice to them should be. In Arizona, our foreclosure laws are extremely favored toward homeowners. I'm not going to pretend to be an expert and give you all the scenarios but, often times, the borrower can walk away without any recourse, or deficiency.
This brought me to think about the letters behind my name, CMPS. I am a Certified Mortgage Planning Specialist, and have been since January 2007. What is CMPS you ask? CMPS is a training, certification and ongoing membership program for financial professionals who provide mortgage and real estate equity advice. The CMPS Institute was formed as a joint effort by leaders in the mortgage and financial planning industries to raise professional standards among mortgage professionals and integrate sound financial planning advice into the mortgage process. Note the last sentence, sound financial planning advice. This leads me to my question.
What would your advice be to a borrower owes $220,000 on a home that's worth $70,000? Should they continue to pay their mortgage if they have suffered income loss but still have assets? What if they were advised by legal counsel there is no recourse if they walk away versus do a short sale, where there may be recourse? One could argue that bad economic advice would be to continue paying on an asset that could take more than 20 years to see the original purchase value versus fixing your credit after foreclosure, which could only take 3-5 years. The average appreciation rate for Arizona is 5.73025% for a 30 year period. The 5 and 10 year averages are the same, depending on the years you start and stop.
Lenders have loss-mitigation departments, which are staffed and have legal counsel. Why shouldn't a borrower mitigate their own losses too? Sometimes it's really just a business decision that one faces. Many business contracts have been broken by the politicians, the people who run these banks and the banks themselves. Is it immoral? Is it unethical? Are we outraged to hear about it?? What do you think?



Comments(10)