Ok, I just read this the other day:
"On July 29th, 2014 Fannie Mae made an unprecedented move to loosen up qualifying guidelines for borrowers that included mortgage debt in a bankruptcy by removing the waiting period for any foreclosure that occurred after the mortgage debt was discharged through a bankruptcy."
I have spoken to a person at Fannie Mae, and confirmed this is real. Just like the FHA Back to Work program, it is contingent on extenuating circumstances, and I am pretty sure you have to be able to put 20% down. However, FHA say only loss of job or reduction in job income counts, not loss of rental income. Two of our foreclosed properties were former homes turned rentals. The fact both homes were unrented, a total of $2100/month in mortgages, caused our bankruptcy.
I guess I just don't get it. The IRS requires me to report rental income and pay taxes on it, like, I don't know, a JOB? If a 20% loss of job income is supposed to be acceptable circumstance for FHA, and you have a 100% loss of rental income for an extended period, that seems to me to be the very definition of extenuating circumstances.
The difference with the Fannie Mae program (which doesn't have a cutesy name yet, but I think I am going to call it the "Yes, America, We Screwed You Over Big Time With Our Shenanigans, Sooo Sorry" program) is that it is up to each individual bank to determine what type of income they allow for extenuating circumstances. Has anyone else heard of this or know any bank to try first?
"On July 29th, 2014 Fannie Mae made an unprecedented move to loosen up qualifying guidelines for borrowers that included mortgage debt in a bankruptcy by removing the waiting period for any foreclosure that occurred after the mortgage debt was discharged through a bankruptcy."
I have spoken to a person at Fannie Mae, and confirmed this is real. Just like the FHA Back to Work program, it is contingent on extenuating circumstances, and I am pretty sure you have to be able to put 20% down. However, FHA say only loss of job or reduction in job income counts, not loss of rental income. Two of our foreclosed properties were former homes turned rentals. The fact both homes were unrented, a total of $2100/month in mortgages, caused our bankruptcy.
I guess I just don't get it. The IRS requires me to report rental income and pay taxes on it, like, I don't know, a JOB? If a 20% loss of job income is supposed to be acceptable circumstance for FHA, and you have a 100% loss of rental income for an extended period, that seems to me to be the very definition of extenuating circumstances.
The difference with the Fannie Mae program (which doesn't have a cutesy name yet, but I think I am going to call it the "Yes, America, We Screwed You Over Big Time With Our Shenanigans, Sooo Sorry" program) is that it is up to each individual bank to determine what type of income they allow for extenuating circumstances. Has anyone else heard of this or know any bank to try first?
Comment