Sidebar

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by MargieRose

There was a time when banks were giving "no-income-verification" mortgages. If one's credit rating was decent, banks took on the risk. A bank loan is always a RISK to the bank. "Rates," more favorable or less so, are based on credit rating; property value usually plays a lesser roll.

Whatever the basis for a bank's decision to grant a loan, their only concern is that the CONTRACT be honored, i.e. paid in full, even if not on time. Banks renegotiate loans, when necessary, and even if ultimately not paid in full, they don't (and can't) bring a "criminal" case against you for a bad debt. Debtors' prison has long been defunct. What they can do is confiscate the "collateral" (the properties) that the loan was based on. The recovery value of the properties would be at present value, not what its value was determined to be at the time of the loan. Real estate values fluctuate almost on a daily basis. That is it!

In reality, James' claim for bank fraud is none of her business, even if true. A contract was agreed upon, the debt was, apparently, paid, and both parties had no complaints, misrepresentations, if any, or not.

That's not how literally any of this actually works.

Not directly entirely at you but there is a serious lack of understanding on display here on how lenders and the lending process in general works.