Allen wrote on July 24, 2009 03:18 PM: @Stupid Nevadans,

The statute of limitations only applies to the length of time the bank has to bring the claim. Once they sue (and they probably will, depending on the value of the home), they will get a judgment for the balance of what you owe. When they have that judgment, they can keep renewing it, and biding their time until you finally have some assets. Not that difficult, and not hard to understand.

Stupid Nevadans wrote on July 24, 2009 10:43 AM: Donna is a typical example of a Nevada educated fool.

No you gd idiot banks can not come after you for 20 years, ever heard of the statue of limitations.


Let me guess, you work for a collection agency?

To all citizens of the United States: If you fall behind on your bills and have collection agencies calling you, do not answer the phone without the conversation being recorded by you. Most likely these jackovs will violate the law and you will have it on tape with full documentation available to sue the life out of the collection agency.

Donna wrote on July 23, 2009 04:16 PM: It sounds easy ... walk away and let the house be foreclosed on .... what they don't tell you ...


when the bank sells the property for less than what it is worth .... YOU have to pay the difference ... whether it is twenty months or twenty years from now. And they will find you and they will garnish your wages. FACT

Green Dragon Regular wrote on July 22, 2009 03:54 PM: @Fear and Bloating Fred-

So sorry I couldn't retort yesterday. I seem to have a job and a life that sometimes get in the way of deflating your bubble world.

First- no I'm not in junior high. Perhaps if you'd paid more attention in junior high history class you'd grock the meaning of my name. Unlike your utopian government, I won't make it easy for you.

As far as the Palin article, first you assail people for listening to and imply they're parroting unfiltered media spew. And then you do exactly the same. I fail to see what Sarah Palin's legal bills and ethics have to do with this discussion. Once again, you prove Wes right and justify "AngryHomeOwner"'s invitation to, um, be quiet, if you want to try to politicize this subject.

'Til next time, fee-fi-fo-Fred, you mental giant, you!

AngryHomeOwner wrote on July 22, 2009 03:23 PM: Rent prices are based on the going rates in the area you want to rent. Not the cost of the home or the existing mortgage payment. Currently, a 4 bedroom, 2.5 bath house in Las Vegas is roughly $1,200 a month.

As more and more houses foreclose, the number of people attempting to rent out the so-called bargain priced homes will drive that number lower.

Never been a better time to be a renter, buying a new car, and looking for a home to buy and live in.

Assuming you still have a decent paying job.

You nut cases that don't even know the definition of socialism, capitalism, fascism and communism need to shut the F--- up! Your incessant and ignorant babbling is creating too much noise for the intelligent people to discuss things.

I still doubt that prices have bottomed. Too many homes still financed by ARM's that will re-adjust in 2010, 2011 and 2012. When they re-adjust, the homeowners will probably want to look really hard at what they owe versus what the house is worth.

Modifications are an illusion in this market, because we are far too deep under water.

It is cheaper for the trusts that have obtained the deeds to these ARM backed securities to simply foreclose using the same old formulas they are used to than to try to do anything unusual like a principle reduction, etc.

Basically, they simply don't care. They have already collected on the credit default swap insurance and if they only get 25 cents on the dollar they are still ahead on the deal.

So reread oldhost's advice. Or become a bagholder. (bagholders are the guys who end up with a virtually worthless stock after all the insiders sell out ala Purchase Pro).

Huh? wrote on July 22, 2009 05:43 AM: re: Let them pay $2,000 a month in RENT a cheap $100,000 home of an investor.


Why would anyone pay $2000/month to rent anything other than a MAJOR luxury home? If they buy a $100,000 home on a 30-year fixed rate of 5.5%, the monthly payment is only $568.

So say the market dips another 20% and the house is worth $80,000 in a few months. If they're paying an extra $1432/month in rent ($2000-$568), that means that in just 14 months they would have paid $20,0480 more to rent that home than if they had just bought it. Plus as first time buyers they get an extra $8,000 coming plus tax deductible mortgage interest.

The Joke is on You wrote on July 21, 2009 11:49 PM: Who do you think is running the banks? Who is giving them reserves to keep them afloat? OBAMA...aka...Mesiah.

This is not capitalism. This is socialism or worse....

If they did not have the money they could not hold these properties on their books. Tom1 is more right than most of your know. Some posters here are deluded as to the bloodbath that is coming due to what Washington (Obama) is dictating to the banks, atificial stabilization of real estate.

Wake up my friends. You have only seen the beginning and are no where the end.

GH wrote on July 21, 2009 06:31 PM: I tried to buy a house last December in the Southern Highlands area and was outbid on 22 properties before I gave up.

The first couple of properties I offered under the asking price asking for closing, the next couple of properties I offered the asking price plus closing, the next couple I offered asking price and no closing costs, the about the last 5 I offered over asking price with no closing costs. I didn't get a single accepted offer and finally said screw it.

The Vegas market makes no sense right now and a middle income individual can't compete with all cash offers from investors.

PS... Why are people talking about Palin and Obama? They have nothing to do with this!

Fair and Balanced Fred wrote on July 21, 2009 02:17 PM: "Green Dragon Regular" (???) Are you, like, in junior high? Green Dragon Mutant Ninja Turtle? I don't want to disappoint you so I have yet another little gem for you and your fellow-traveler Fox / AM psycho-talker fans:

Palin Implicated In Ethics Probe
RACHEL D'ORO | 07/21/09 04:26 PM |

ANCHORAGE, Alaska — An independent investigator has found evidence that Gov. Sarah Palin may have violated ethics laws by accepting private donations to pay her legal debts.

The report obtained by The Associated Press says Palin is securing unwarranted benefits and receiving improper gifts through the Alaska Fund Trust, set up by supporters.

An investigator for the state Personnel Board says in his July 14 report that there is probable cause to believe Palin used or attempted to use her official position for personal gain because she authorized the creation of the trust as the "official" legal defense fund.

The fund aims to help Palin pay off debts stemming from multiple ethics complaints against her, most of which have been dismissed. Palin says she owes more than $500,000 in legal fees.

A call seeking comment from her lawyer was not immediately returned.

oldhost wrote on July 21, 2009 10:58 AM: Rent 2x mortgage.
Good luck with that, no one sane would pay rent based on mortgage. all by sq ft.

Read All Comments