Quote:
Originally Posted by Smittie61984
Hey Einstein did you read this part???
Reduced rate of interest which means a loss of money for the bank. Perhaps if the bank assumed they would give out a loan with a smaller percentage rate they wouldn't have given the loan in the first place. She agreed to a percentage and should have paid it. If she can't then it should be up to the bank (and not some snooty judge) on wether they want to accept less money.
I don't see the "Win-Win" there. If you loaned a buddy $100 and they said they were only going to give you $90 back, then you'd be pissed off as hell.
|
$90 is better than none.
The bank could take a reduced rate for a longer term which would equal the same money, but allow the homeowner to continue to make payments.
If you lost your job(I know, not possible in this booming economy), would you not try to make arragements with the bank to keep your house?
(No, you sound like an internet tough guy, who will turn into Chuck Norris and roundhouse kick money into existence to pay your mortgage)
What about the part where the bank tacked $200,000 onto the loan? What are your comments about that part?