OK... not *quite* there yet.... Wholesale 30 FRMs are paying a few bips rebate at the 3.0 coupon today at close.
[x-posted at METAR]

The Mortgage BONDS are actually already there... LONG ago there, with an extending spike up today as well;
http://content.screencast.com/users/LeveragePlanner/folders/...

The lender's secondary trading desks, however, have a significant loss backlog from hedging costs on broken locks (due to people locking rates then abandoning the locks to shift to another lender as rates moved down during the process.) Because of this carried sunken costs, the lenders are going to be equally non-competitive amongst each other while trying to let swelling margins recoup the broken lock costs.

I'm going to make a guess that this will take from a week to 4 weeks... and with virtually zero chance of global economic and geo-political optimism breaking out in the coming 2-24 months, I hereby declare 30 FRM mortgages *WILL* be in the mid-to-high 2% range before Christmas.

Dave Donhoff
Leverage Planner

I am still shocked at getting a 30 yr FRM well under 4%. The holy grail I grew up with was the 5% rate my parents bragged about when rates were around 18%. Dad loved to tell anyone who would listen that the bank asked him if he would like to pay off his loan early, which he turned down when they refused to sweeten the pot with a lower payoff than he held. He was quite comfy getting high CD rates at no risk and paying his 5% mortgage.

IP

Dave wrote: "...due to people locking rates then abandoning the locks to shift to another lender as rates moved down during the process..."

What?! Who would do such a thing?!

If only our house was worth something so that we could refinance!!

Kathleen

Have you investigated HARP 2.0 for under water homeowners?

https://www.efanniemae.com/sf/mha/mharefi/pdf/refinancefaqs....

Unfortunately, our current loan origination date was August, 2009. Thanks anyway.

Kathleen

I am still shocked at getting a 30 yr FRM well under 4%

I couldn't believe when I bought my house in February, the rate was just slightly higher to what I had consolidated my grad school Federal student loan to around 2002. And I think it's highway robbery that student loan interest is now higher than 30-year mortgage rates.

And I think it's highway robbery that student loan interest is now higher than 30-year mortgage rates.

Student loans are unsecured, and have the option to extend the term to as long as 30 years at the same rate. Not seeing highway robbery.

AJ

Student loans are unsecured, and have the option to extend the term to as long as 30 years at the same rate. Not seeing highway robbery.

But a mortgage you can bail out of, albeit with a temporary but hard hit to your credit. Student loans are yours for life, and often augmented by insanely high fees that get tacked on when it goes to collection. It's easy to get buried permanently and irrevocably by a student loan, and take your parents with you if they cosign for it. Even their social security check can be garnished to pay their kid's loans back.

Yeah, just like the mortgages there have been abuses, but just as often the failure to pay student loans back is a problem that has to do with circumstances outside the borrower's control, like this impossible economy.

IP,
saving since the kids' birth for college and paying every dime of their costs

But a mortgage you can bail out of, albeit with a temporary but hard hit to your credit.

Depends on which state you live in http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405311190406060457657...


AJ

And I think it's highway robbery that student loan interest is now higher than 30-year mortgage rates.

Congrats on participating in a pyramid scheme.

I'm sure the students in those states would appreciate the same options, or at least the low low rates that mortgages command.

Frankly, it should be a lot harder to get a student loan. The cost of a college education would be lower if financing were not so ridiculously easy to obtain. Years ago, I read an interview of the president of an Ivy League college, who in reply to the question of why college costs continued rising so high replied because with all the student loans and grants available they could get away with doing so. In essence, the aid given to students simply made it cost more. Student loan defaults are one of the next mortgage crisis type financial crisis situation we will face, perhaps only second to health care costs.

They say the average student loan debt is "only" about $25,000...of course that would be before the insane fees that get strapped on when it goes into default. Student loan debt has now eclipsed credit card debt.

I am a believer in consequences, having taken 10 years to get through school while working to pay for most of it, paid of my own loans and refusing to put my kids into the same need to ignore what you want to do, unable to take risks of entrepreneurship because that student loan requires you to go work for the steady paycheck and tying you to industry. But the bottom line is people make mistakes and it should not be made impossible to get out from under those mistakes. The high fees that get piled on when debt is not paid in a timely manner make it impossible to pay them off.

IP

inparadise, I fully agree with you. When I entered college, there was no such thing as a "student loan". Our parents or other interested family members, scholarships, or work study paid for our education. I was lucky. My grandfather paid the first year, including room and board, clothing, sorority dues, everything. But, then I was on my own. Thank God for scholarships, and a great part-time job. Of course, that is the reason, back then, that college as mainly for the higher socio-economic class.

Donna

...But a mortgage you can bail out of, albeit with a temporary but hard hit to your credit.

Depends on which state you live in http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405311190406060457657......



Even in a recourse state a bankruptcy could wipe out an old mortgage but not most student loans.

...When I entered college, there was no such thing as a "student loan". ...

When I was in college it was hard but possible to work your way through a state college by working part time and the summers and by living extremely frugally.

In addition to increasing college prices good part time or summer jobs are very hard to find now. Unless a student could find an unusually high paying job it would be very hard to work your way through college today.

MetroChick wrote: And I think it's highway robbery that student loan interest is now higher than 30-year mortgage rates.

Apples and oranges.

When one applies for a student loan, the applicant has no job, no degree, (presumably) no assets and the debt is uncollateralized.

Why, then, should a student loan rate be less than or equal to a mortgage when the applicant for a mortgage has a job, assets and collateral for the debt?

The interest rate for a student loan should be and in fact is far higher than a mortgage loan for obvious reasons.

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of credit risk. If you were a lender, to which applicant would you rather extend credit?

Congrats on participating in a pyramid scheme.

Technically I didn't. My parents paid cash for my undergraduate degree (therefore they bought what they could afford and cut back in other consumable items while raising my sister and I) and I worked as a TA while in grad school, so after my first semester out-of-state tuition was 100% paid by participating in the TA program. My student loans were basically to pay for living expenses.

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of credit risk. If you were a lender, to which applicant would you rather extend credit?

I think you have a misunderstanding of student loan default. A rate-of-return is usually determined by how much risk someone is assuming - whether taking a loan or buying an investment like stocks versus CDs. If it's just about impossible to discharge a student loan unless one is disabled to work or dies, and wages can be garnished, than risk is fairly low, and the interest rate should be closer to the rate of inflation.

I'm going to make a guess that this will take from a week to 4 weeks... and with virtually zero chance of global economic and geo-political optimism breaking out in the coming 2-24 months, I hereby declare 30 FRM mortgages *WILL* be in the mid-to-high 2% range before Christmas.

Dave,

Can you use your crystal ball and tell me about 15 year fixed, if that scenario with 30 year FRM comes to pass? Will the spread between them remain where it is now (seems to be between .5-.75% most places), or would it tighten up a bit?

On the other hand, while I've been leaning towards a 15 year, at sub 3% that's almost a nominal no-interest loan so maybe 30 year would make sense. It probably already does, I just would prefer to avoid a loan till I'm retired...

MetroChick wrote: If it's just about impossible to discharge a student loan unless one is disabled to work or dies, and wages can be garnished, than risk is fairly low, and the interest rate should be closer to the rate of inflation.

I have a friend who is $150,000 in debt for a law school degree. She could live to be 300 and would never pay off this loan.

I have a friend who is $150,000 in debt for a law school degree. She could live to be 300 and would never pay off this loan.

But she's going to be paying on it for the rest of her working life, and possibly into retirement. Loan originators don't always care about someone "paying off" a loan, they're usually fine getting payments well into the future and don't care if you pay well more in interest than the princple ever was.

Hi maracle,

Can you use your crystal ball and tell me about 15 year fixed, if that scenario with 30 year FRM comes to pass? Will the spread between them remain where it is now (seems to be between .5-.75% most places), or would it tighten up a bit?
It'll probably remain the same as a percentage/ratio between the programs, rather than an absolute rate number.

On the other hand, while I've been leaning towards a 15 year, at sub 3% that's almost a nominal no-interest loan so maybe 30 year would make sense. It probably already does, I just would prefer to avoid a loan till I'm retired...
Assuming you're a fairly responsible saver, rather than a spendthrift, you are far better off, safer, and will eliminate your mortgage liability much faster by using a 30 year rather than a 15 year, and accelerating your accumulation of a side fund (what I call a "Mortgage Freedom Account" or MFA... which can be an actual separate account, or merely a bookkeeping observation of funds among your overall growth account strategies.)

Amortization is stealth wealth assassination.

Dave Donhoff
Leverage Planner

I have a friend who is $150,000 in debt for a law school degree. She could live to be 300 and would never pay off this loan.
Oh, that's not true at all!!!!

When my hedge fund crashed & burned in '97, and I made all my investment partners whole (or as whole as possible at the time,) I was broke, unemployed, market-terrorized, and $70,000 in debt. Shortly thereafter I was attacked in a nuisance lawsuit (completely unrelated to the markets or my prior trading business) that set me back an additional $25,000-ish.

Granted that's a bit less than your friend's law school debts, but although I gained valuable experience, it didn't come with any parchment or institutional endorsement worthy of anyone offering a salary of any kind (which a minted lawyer should definitely be able to stumble upon, somehow/somewhere.)

Fastforward a 'baker's decade' to the present, and not only is my underwaterage long gone... but my controlled positive net worth puts me in a very appreciative position. Further, only a fraction of my turnaround has come from my professional earnings.

So... heck to the yes... your friend *CAN* overcome a $150k law school debt.

Dave

By "loan originators," do you mean investors--you know, the ones who actually lend the money?

Well, yes, I see what you're saying, Dave, but she's a liberal. ;-)

But she's going to be paying on it for the rest of her working life, and possibly into retirement.

And beyond, if she gets SS, which can be debited for student loans. And lets not forget all those fees that get tacked on, high fees with questionable merit, that insure the debt is harder and harder to pay off.

I was talking with my neighbor this morning. Her son tried college for a year, took out loans, and because he put her social security number on the loan doc in addition to his they are telling her she is liable for the loan. She never signed anything. It was all done electronically, which the lenders claim is enough. I've encouraged her to get a lawyer on this, as that does not sound logical. It's not that tough to get a hold of someone's SS#.

Lots of corruption out there, half of which never gets challenged because people either don't know how or they are so cowered by "authority" that they don't dare do so.

IP

By "loan originators," do you mean investors--you know, the ones who actually lend the money?

I mean "loan originators" - with $150,000 in student loans, she's most likely got a mix of Federal and private student loans. Typically we don't call the government/taxpayers "investors" - even though they are "investing" in students/future tax payers. Six figure debt for professional degrees like law or medicine usually isn't considered out of the ordinary, since both take many years of study, and one can earn substaintial income in those fields. It's when people take out loans for fields like that but choose not to go into those fields that it becomes a problem. As is too taking on debt just to go to expensive schools, with no consideration if the professions based on field of study will support the debt taken on to attend those schools.

Her son tried college for a year, took out loans, and because he put her social security number on the loan doc in addition to his they are telling her she is liable for the loan. She never signed anything. It was all done electronically, which the lenders claim is enough. I've encouraged her to get a lawyer on this, as that does not sound logical. It's not that tough to get a hold of someone's SS#.


She should definitely seek the advice of a lawyer. But I wouldn't be surprised if her only way out is to claim either fraud or sometype of identy-theft-of-cosigner of her son's doing, and who knows what long-term consequences that could cause her son.

But I wouldn't be surprised if her only way out is to claim either fraud or sometype of identy-theft-of-cosigner of her son's doing, and who knows what long-term consequences that could cause her son.

Definitely her concern. At the same time it should not be possible to be obligated to repay a loan you never actually signed for!

IT IS WAY TOO EASY TO GET A STUDENT LOAN, and way to hard to know what you are getting into. So many private lenders hide behind government sounding names, clearly to give a false sense of security to those taking out the loans.

IP

inparadise:

<<<But I wouldn't be surprised if her only way out is to claim either fraud or sometype of identy-theft-of-cosigner of her son's doing, and who knows what long-term consequences that could cause her son.>>>

"Definitely her concern. At the same time it should not be possible to be obligated to repay a loan you never actually signed for!"

If one is unwilling to file identity theft charges, then I am uncertain why one should believe that she did not authorize it (especially if the loan would have been approved without a guarantor).

Disclaiming personal liability and not filing idenity theft charges is very close to having your cake and eating it, too, IMO. In addition, given that the fraud was committed on the lender, too, I am not certain that the lender needs the consent of the mother to file its own charges if she claims the use was not authorized.

Regards, JAFO

If one is unwilling to file identity theft charges, then I am uncertain why one should believe that she did not authorize it...

Really? You ever have kids? You can't imagine not wanting to send your kid to jail, potentially for doing something he did not understand? I could see her eating this debt for that very reason, but she should not have been put into that position in the first place. A signature is not too much of a requirement to ask for, personal acceptance that you have read and understood the contract you are entering into, before debt can be heaped on you. Sure, she remembers his asking her for her SS#, which frankly happens dozens of times when a kid goes to college. She never said that she would take on this debt, and I doubt that her son had any idea that putting her soc. down would commit her to that. No one should reasonably think such a thing, that they can commit another to indebtedness.

Our SS# is on documents in many places. What would stop someone who has your soc on a document from listing your soc on their loan?

Sorry, but it is NOT TOO MUCH TO ASK SOMEONE TO SIGN THEIR NAME TO CLAIM INDEBTEDNESS!!! These lenders have things stacked so far in their favor that they are taking extra risks, one's I'm STUNNED are even legal, to crank out loan after loan.

IP

Disclaiming personal liability and not filing idenity theft charges is very close to having your cake and eating it, too, IMO.

That's assuming that the kid actually did an electronic signature, representing that the mother had signed it.

I think there are 3 possibilities.
1> he "signed" it as Mom.
2> he mistakenly "signed" it as Mom (didn't read what he was clicking on carefully)
3> he didn't "sign" it as Mom, but the bank is telling Mom that her "signature" is on it (or at least she thinks that they're saying that)


Without seeing what the bank is producing for documents, or what the website looks like, I don't think that we can tell which of those 3 is the case.
(My bet would be on #2, but #3 is a real possibility IMO)

I think this may be a case where an electronic signature is a bit too easy... If a written signature is required on a loan document, it's pretty obvious when you're signing someone else's name. But when it's an electronic signature, I can see someone not understanding that they're really signing as someone else.

It may even be that a parent/guardian signature was required, as the kid wasn't 18 yet - in which case I don't know how that plays out.

it is NOT TOO MUCH TO ASK SOMEONE TO SIGN THEIR NAME TO CLAIM INDEBTEDNESS!!!

What is "signing their name" though?

With paper it's pretty clear.

With electronic signatures, it doesn't have to be.
IIRC, signing 1040 tax forms for the IRS is just typing your name in a box.

I think there are 3 possibilities.
1> he "signed" it as Mom.
2> he mistakenly "signed" it as Mom (didn't read what he was clicking on carefully)
3> he didn't "sign" it as Mom, but the bank is telling Mom that her "signature" is on it (or at least she thinks that they're saying that)


Without seeing what the bank is producing for documents, or what the website looks like, I don't think that we can tell which of those 3 is the case.
(My bet would be on #2, but #3 is a real possibility IMO)

In this case, she had them send the document to her. There is no "signature." But they are telling her that the simple presence of her SS# on the application is enough to commit her.

Sorry, but this sounds like nothing I've ever heard of, which is why I suggested she talk to a lawyer to look into the legality and contest it if it doesn't screw her son over.

IP

What is "signing their name" though?

In this case, they are claiming the presence of her SS# is the signature.

IP

MetroChick wrote: I mean "loan originators" - with $150,000 in student loans, she's most likely got a mix of Federal and private student loans. Typically we don't call the government/taxpayers "investors" - even though they are "investing" in students/future tax payers.

The nomenclature of Wall Street...

A "loan originator" is someone (like me and Dwdonhoff) who takes a loan application and works hand-in-hand with the consumer to complete the processing of a loan. A loan originator doesn't lend money.

An "investor" is the entity that lends the money. Here are some sources for student loans.

http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/15/a-new-source-for-s...

But they are telling her that the simple presence of her SS# on the application is enough to commit her.

She'd have to have signed it - but an electronic signature could be as simple as her name (or maybe her SS#) typed into a specific box on the application form on the website.

I suggested she talk to a lawyer to look into the legality and contest it if it doesn't screw her son over.
Good advice - I'd probably delay getting a lawyer until I understood what they were claiming. Are they claiming that I had digitally/elelctronically signed something? If so, what are they basing that on?

inparadise:

<<<If one is unwilling to file identity theft charges, then I am uncertain why one should believe that she did not authorize it...>>>

"Really? You ever have kids? You can't imagine not wanting to send your kid to jail, potentially for doing something he did not understand?"

Yes. Yes. We are not discussing little children. We are discussing HS seniors or older, most commonly age 17 or 18 (a legal adult), with the occasional exception for those students more than 2 years ahead of chronological grade level.

If he/she did not understand, perhaps that says more about the child and the parents than anything else.

If a 16-17-18 year old drinks, drives and gerts arrested for DUI, then there are consequences. Why should there be no consequences for committing financial fraud? Think of the lender as the police officer filing the charges.

"I could see her eating this debt for that very reason, but she should not have been put into that position in the first place. A signature is not too much of a requirement to ask for, personal acceptance that you have read and understood the contract you are entering into, before debt can be heaped on you."

Perhaps it was an electronic signature acknowledged by entering SS number and hittign submit. Are you proposing to ban electronic execution?

Would you take the same stance if the fraud were committed by a third party?

"Sure, she remembers his asking her for her SS#, which frankly happens dozens of times when a kid goes to college."

As I recall, not much beyond the FAFSA, which is once a year.

"She never said that she would take on this debt,"

probably

"and I doubt that her son had any idea that putting her soc. down would commit her to that. No one should reasonably think such a thing, that they can commit another to indebtedness."

Woudl it not depend upon the context, which we do not have?

"Our SS# is on documents in many places. What would stop someone who has your soc on a document from listing your soc on their loan?"

Nothing, but I doubt that you would refuse to press Identity Theft charges, which itself is then evidence that it was not authorized. If one is unwilling to press such charges, then is certainly not evidence of unauthorized use.

"Sorry, but it is NOT TOO MUCH TO ASK SOMEONE TO SIGN THEIR NAME TO CLAIM INDEBTEDNESS!!!"

Consider all the rules about electronic signatures and approvals.

"These lenders have things stacked so far in their favor that they are taking extra risks, one's I'm STUNNED are even legal, to crank out loan after loan."

That is a different issue.

I would like to know more facts about what actually happened before drawing a conclusion. It was your neighbor's son, IIR the thread correctly, so you clearly know him better than I do, but your original post is very sketchy on the details (probably because you do not have them).

Regards, JAFO

IP: "Sorry, but this sounds like nothing I've ever heard of, which is why I suggested she talk to a lawyer to look into the legality and contest it if it doesn't screw her son over."

I do not diagree with the suggest that she seek counsel, and I have no idea whether the lender is correct in its argument, which is why I agree with the advice to seek counsel.

In addition you have since added some facts that were not present in the initial post regarding the loan.

Regards, JAFO

Yes. Yes. We are not discussing little children. We are discussing HS seniors or older, most commonly age 17 or 18 (a legal adult), with the occasional exception for those students more than 2 years ahead of chronological grade level.

JAFO, your concept of children that age is so ludicrous I won't even bother debating you.

IP

inparadise:

<<<Yes. Yes. We are not discussing little children. We are discussing HS seniors or older, most commonly age 17 or 18 (a legal adult), with the occasional exception for those students more than 2 years ahead of chronological grade level.>>>

"JAFO, your concept of children that age is so ludicrous I won't even bother debating you."

Except for consumption of alcohol, in the USA 18 year olds are generally considered adults (age of majority), have aged out of jurisdiction of the juvenile justice system, are old enough to vote (including for President), to sign a contract, to marry, to enlist in the Armed Services, etc.

I suggest that my thinking is more in line with the current legal system than yours appears to be (at least by my inference) because you seemed to be suggesting that 18 year olds still require coddling like they are 2-6 years old.

Short-sighted, I want it now know and who cares about the details thinking is not solely the domain of 18-20 year olds. I woudl suggest that many that LAYM suffer from the same thinking, often until death.

Student loan papers are typically executed in the spring of a HS student's senior year or the summer after graduating from HS and ebfore matriculating at his/her college or university of choice. I do no have the data handy, but I am confident that by the time in question most are at least 18 years old, and that most of the balance are at least 17 years old (subject to the caveat previously noted).

You may certainly choose not discuss or debate with me, but sugggesting that my position is ludicrous is folly of the highest order and even more ludicrous than you suggest my position to be.

If you want to have a debate about the age of majority, feel free, but I see little point in that argument, too, because it would be a severe limitation on, and regression in, rights for 18-20 year olds and one I see little likelihood of changing.

Regards, JAFO

Amortization is stealth wealth assassination.

I like that phrase!

Disclaiming personal liability and not filing idenity theft charges is very close to having your cake and eating it, too, IMO. In addition, given that the fraud was committed on the lender, too, I am not certain that the lender needs the consent of the mother to file its own charges if she claims the use was not authorized.

When I was in college you were required to provide your parents SSNs on the FAFSA, which is required to get a student loan. I doubt it has changed.

It's just as possible that the lender has committed fraud, and identity theft is not in the picture.

Also, even my electronically processed loans still required me to sign a hard copy "master promissory note" at one point with my physical signature (further loans were then just tacked on without more paperwork). So if the lender can't provide anything with her signature then I would be skeptical of their claims...

If the simple presence of a SSN is enough to commit someone to a loan, then every student who has ever applied for a loan has "committed" their parents!

Except for consumption of alcohol, in the USA 18 year olds are generally considered adults (age of majority), have aged out of jurisdiction of the juvenile justice system, are old enough to vote (including for President), to sign a contract, to marry, to enlist in the Armed Services, etc.

We are not talking about decisions in a court here. We are talking about a parent who recognizes that frankly like most adults her 18 year old was not skilled enough in the world of internet finance to understand that by putting her ss# in that spot he was essentially signing her name, that he was not intentionally committing fraud. Heck, I have decades of experience more than he, have done lots of financing and investing and I wouldn't have known it. Just because one is considered an adult by the judicial system does not mean that they over night become mature and experienced in all things. Worse yet, kids that age think they are all grown up, but are in reality far from it. Clearly even the law thinks they have judgement issues or they would be allowed to consume alcohol. Additionally, even though they are supposedly considered adults, a quick googling shows that child support can be mandated up to the age of 21 if the "adult" is a full time student. So even the legal profession is confused as to when a kid is no longer a kid.

I suggest that my thinking is more in line with the current legal system than yours appears to be (at least by my inference) because you seemed to be suggesting that 18 year olds still require coddling like they are 2-6 years old.

Even more ridiculous a statement than before.

Again, this is a mortgage industry type mess in the making, except now instead of selling unquestionable adults mortgages they don't understand the consequences of, a more susceptible segment of the population, the borderline adult, is being targeted. In my neighbor's case, he is lucky because his mom won't throw him under the bus. She recognizes her inattention plays a roll in what happened, and is taking ownership of it so that her son is not ruined. He will instead have to pay her back, without the escalating fees that will keep him from ever getting out from under it.

However, no matter what one's age, one should have to at least sign on the dotted line to become so indebted. Even refinancing through an internet mortgage co, there were docs that had to be physically signed, then scanned and emailed, or closing docs signed in person and certified. Things like IRS returns can be amended, and because of that I can understand the "electronic signature," though there is still plenty of fraudulent returns done that way. No potential for amendment here. There needs to be a bare minimum hurdle of a physical signature before signing up for debt, unless of course the goal is to scam people into signing their life away rather than providing a needed service at a reasonable fee.

Just because the letter of the law lets them do something does not make it right. We should have learned this from the mortgage debacle. Stop hiding behind your law books.

IP

Even more ridiculous a statement than before.

I thought JAFO's statement was quite reasonable.

PSU

I thought JAFO's statement was quite reasonable.

Only if inferred from his ASSumptions rather than taken from my statements.

IP,
who will take this to the appropriate board and not comment further here

The Fool Alert function on this forum is so silly.

inparadise:

<<<Except for consumption of alcohol, in the USA 18 year olds are generally considered adults (age of majority), have aged out of jurisdiction of the juvenile justice system, are old enough to vote (including for President), to sign a contract, to marry, to enlist in the Armed Services, etc.>>>

"We are not talking about decisions in a court here. We are talking about a parent who recognizes that frankly like most adults her 18 year old was not skilled enough in the world of internet finance to understand that by putting her ss# in that spot he was essentially signing her name, that he was not intentionally committing fraud. Heck, I have decades of experience more than he, have done lots of financing and investing and I wouldn't have known it."

I am not so sure about that. You read documents before you sign them. without seeing the screens that the son saw (and the text that was on those screens) I am not so sure how you can conclude that you would not have known.

Just because the letter of the law lets them do something does not make it right. We should have learned this from the mortgage debacle. Stop hiding behind your law books."

I am not hiding behind my law books, or I would not have previously written in this thread:

I do not diagree with the suggest[ion] that she seek counsel, and I have no idea whether the lender is correct in its argument, which is why I agree with the advice to seek counsel.

As another poster noted, there are several possibile explanations, some of which include inadvertent error, but not exclusively, and that without more information, the lender's position is not necessarily pie in the sky (though it may turn out to be so).

Regards, JAFO

I thought JAFO's statement was quite reasonable.

PSU
crackedclaw

I get a kick out of PSU occassionaly weighing in on a thread to voice his judgement on a disagreement between two posters. In a previous decade, when I spent more time on the fool boards, I may have taken the time to create a doppel with the name, HonorablePSU (JudgePSU too easily mistaken for something else). Then I could play Judge Judy on board disagreements.

Not meant as a slight to you PSUEngineer. You've got a good head on your shoulders Kid. (Kid, as I'm in now in playoff baseball mode, and channeling how the Nat's veterans speak to Bryce Harper).

Not meant as a slight to you PSUEngineer. You've got a good head on your shoulders Kid. (Kid, as I'm in now in playoff baseball mode, and channeling how the Nat's veterans speak to Bryce Harper).

It's my birthday this week. Although the candles on the cake indicate I'm not a kid anymore, I can still act like one.