We Must Protect...

Services for Real Estate Pros with The Real Estate Investment Institute 1retiredsage

Politicians and their minions of bureaucrats have long since given up serving the public instead they rule in the name of protection! They are at it again! Attacking home owners in blitz creed described as "mortgage reform!"

In an e-mail today "Short Sale Expediters" reported on the to "protect the first lain holder’s LTV" requiring the first lain holder’s benevolent permission to take out a second mortgage!

Don’t these fools know that the first lain holder’s LTV doesn’t change if indeed they are the first lain holder? Or are they blinded by the smoke they’re hiding behind?

Since this would have no affect on the First Lain holder’s security it can only do two things:

One: This atrocity would limit your ability to take a second mortgages to only what is offered by your first lain holder. That was what it was like in Texas before the late ‘80's, it meant that if a troubled home owner needed to access their equity they were limited to what their current lender offered or didn’t in lue there of they would be forced to sell to get cash! (Texas had a couple of exceptions, this bill doesn’t seem to.)

Two: This atrocity would allow the first lain holder to control you from taking on additional debt. There could be an argument made in favor of that, after all parents (most) try to control what their children take on, does your lender have a parental mentality? If we are to except the idea, what about limiting credit cards to only what your first lain holder approves of or offers? What about car loans? How about insurance? How about changing jobs? We use to require "life insurance" sold by and paid to the bank! What about starting or expanding a family? Laugh! Until the mid seventies mortgage applications ask about the wife’s form of birth control if her income were to be considered! If that idea were extended to today’s society the first lain holder might want to control who and when single home owner’s date.

Absurd? Really? The government would never do anything light that they protect us. Senators Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) And Mark Warner (D-VA.) Aren’t going nearly as far as Janet Reno who protected those Dividen children from a fate worse than death.

What ever happened to The American Dream? What ever happened to government of the people, by the people and for the people? What about our children and theirs?

Posted by


William J Archambault Jr

The Real Estate Investment Institute

wja@reii.org      Cell 832-259-7078,      Houston 832-582-8415,       Las vegas 702-516-1569

     http://www.reii.org  Back Cover One House At A Time http:www//reii.orghttp://www.flippingforfunandprofit.info/ http://www.billarchambault.com   

From my past: GRI 1975, FLI 1974, Catalyst from a client 1974 an agent that makes things happen, REII, The Real Estate Investment Institute 1995.


©William J Archambault Jr   ©The Real Estate Investment Institute   ©REII

Comments (6)

George Souto
George Souto NMLS #65149 FHA, CHFA, VA Mortgages - Middletown, CT
Your Connecticut Mortgage Expert

Bill the government's attitude and position is that we are to STUPID to make our own decisions and must be protected from ourselves.  In reality it is the other way around.

Dec 10, 2013 07:37 AM
William J. Archambault, Jr.
The Real Estate Investment Institute - Houston, TX


"we are to STUPID to make our own decisions and must be protected from ourselves."

Or maybe they think we are so stupid we'll never notice we're being sold out!



Dec 10, 2013 07:46 AM
Fred Griffin Tallahassee Real Estate
Fred Griffin Real Estate - Tallahassee, FL
Licensed Florida Real Estate Broker

My ancestors tried to stop these Federalist Tyrants back in 1861.  They unfortunately did not succeed... now we suffer the consequences.

Dec 10, 2013 12:29 PM
William J. Archambault, Jr.
The Real Estate Investment Institute - Houston, TX


From what I've been told your side attacked first.

On the other hand tyrant well described Lincoln, his cause was noble, but his disregard of the Bill of Rights set a disastrous precedent.


Dec 11, 2013 02:27 AM
Melissa Zavala
Broadpoint Properties - Escondido, CA
Broker, Escondido Real Estate, San Diego County

I hate to say that I don't think it will pass because I have been wrong so many times before. But, all of this legislation that attempts to control the decisions of others does not always work for the best. Take the ruling in New York City with respect to the largest sized cola that can be purchased for example. Now everyone knows that you shouldn't drink 64 ounces of cola, but should the government be permitted to control that decision?

Dec 11, 2013 06:37 AM
Bill Roberts
Brooks and Dunphy Real Estate - Oceanside, CA
"Baby Boomer" Retirement Planner

Hi Bill A, Imagine my surprise when I went to the post office and found a package from you. This is a public thank you, but I will also write to you privately.

As for the first lien holder's security, the argument is that if the borrower has little or no equity then they might walk away from the house. There is plenty of precedent for this position. The "right" to foreclose is not nearly as valuable to the lender as not having to foreclose.

Merry Christmas to you and Brenda.

Bill Roberts

Dec 12, 2013 10:27 PM