Quote:
Originally Posted by karl_1052
$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.
What about the part where the bank tacked $200,000 onto the loan? What are your comments about that part?
|
Still, if you were expecting $100 (let's say this week and not $110 a year from now) then you'd still be upset. Then on top of that because she couldn't make her payments (wether spending too much money on Starbucks or loosing her job which is not hte banks concern) the bank has to take a hit of anything or wait for the money they were promised?
As for the $200,000, I have no clue what that's for or from.
My main concern is that the judge upholds the terms of the original contract and not rewrite them so he looks good. Not saying what the bank is doing is right, but if it's within the bounds of the contract she signed then they should be able to do it without punishment. If what they are doing violates her contract that they both signed then I want the judge to punish them then.