California Initiative Seeks To Make Homes Foreclosure-Proof
A person that I correspond with, Steve Hoffacker, published this interesting tidbit about my favorite state. If it becomes law, what do you think the chances are of any bank writing new mortgages in CA?
Voters in California are trying to collect enough signatures to get a measure on next year's ballot that would make foreclosures a thing of the past. While the language of the measure doesn't specifically mention foreclosures, it also does not provide any rememdy for a lien holder. Essentially all the rights are vested in the homeowner.
The proposition, if allowed to go forward, states that "It is a fundamental right for every Californian to purchase and own a home and real property. As such, no township, city, country, municipality, corporate entity … shall infringe on this given right."
The measure goes on to say that if a homeowner in good standing for three years is struggling that the bank would have 45 days to offer the homeowner refinancing. It doesn't say would would happen if the homeowner just can't afford the financing or if the bank doesn't offer mutually satisfactory terms.
It sounds as if the 45-day provision is moot anyway since no bank can infringe upon the right of ownership.
After the initial settlement, why would anyone want or need to pay their mortgages if owning a home is a right and it can be taken away?
__________________
Always Looking to Acquire Houses | Always Looking to Amaze Investors
A person that I correspond with, Steve Hoffacker, published this interesting tidbit about my favorite state. If it becomes law, what do you think the chances are of any bank writing new mortgages in CA?
Voters in California are trying to collect enough signatures to get a measure on next year's ballot that would make foreclosures a thing of the past. While the language of the measure doesn't specifically mention foreclosures, it also does not provide any rememdy for a lien holder. Essentially all the rights are vested in the homeowner.
The proposition, if allowed to go forward, states that "It is a fundamental right for every Californian to purchase and own a home and real property. As such, no township, city, country, municipality, corporate entity … shall infringe on this given right."
The measure goes on to say that if a homeowner in good standing for three years is struggling that the bank would have 45 days to offer the homeowner refinancing. It doesn't say would would happen if the homeowner just can't afford the financing or if the bank doesn't offer mutually satisfactory terms.
It sounds as if the 45-day provision is moot anyway since no bank can infringe upon the right of ownership.
After the initial settlement, why would anyone want or need to pay their mortgages if owning a home is a right and it can be taken away?
Always Looking to Acquire Houses | Always Looking to Amaze Investors