| Author |
Previous Topic | Next Topic |
|
MALIZNA
444 Posts |
 Posted - 10/06/2008 : 3:23:33 PM
|
I am SOOO freaking frustarated with the new guidelines about the 70 LTV on keeper properties. I have 2 files I can't do jack with only because they are at 80 LTV and the full payment is being counted against them.
This is the STUPIDEST of all rules that has been made by FANNIE. If you are FULL DOC, and the rent is claimed on tax returns, and you supply the cancelled checks for many, many months, what is the big deal if the property IS NOT at 70.... I cannot stand this, This makes it impossible for any refi's or any purchases... Mind you, both of these clients had 24 months of reserves and down payments down to 25 percent.... What a joke this rule is |
|
katbunk
2132 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2008 : 3:27:32 PM
|
| it shouldn't apply to rent that's claimed on taxes. This only applies to homebuyers who currently own a home and intend to rent that home out. Existing rentals are exempt from this rule. |
|
|
Captain Mortgage
1721 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2008 : 3:41:06 PM
|
| This rule should only apply to switching a primary to non owner. If it's been a rental property you're fine. They don't have any LTV restrictions on a borrowers rental properties. |
|
|
Cash Doctor
851 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2008 : 4:01:53 PM
|
| I just took one on the Chin with FHA on this. FHA issues a letter on 9/19 saying you need 25% Equity. Killed my purchase that was supposed to close this Thursday. Cleanest FHA file you could imagine and now its dead. Uuugh |
|
|
katbunk
2132 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2008 : 4:02:51 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cash Doctor
I just took one on the Chin with FHA on this. FHA issues a letter on 9/19 saying you need 25% Equity. Killed my purchase that was supposed to close this Thursday. Cleanest FHA file you could imagine and now its dead. Uuugh
But it wasn't an existing rental was it? |
|
|
peter
4546 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2008 : 4:14:08 PM
|
How about getting an FHA purchase loan with additional co-borrowers,
even non-occupant, to increase qualifying incomes enough to pay for both
mortgages (of the new home and the existing home to turn rental), that
the borrower won't need the rental income to help qualify and the 25% FHA
equity rule won't hamper the purchase any more.
Do you think this would work? Please comment. Thank you.
Peter |
|
|
Captain Mortgage
1721 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2008 : 4:29:51 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cash Doctor
I just took one on the Chin with FHA on this. FHA issues a letter on 9/19 saying you need 25% Equity. Killed my purchase that was supposed to close this Thursday. Cleanest FHA file you could imagine and now its dead. Uuugh
Killed mine too. I've got a guy making 120k a year salaried with a 795 mid fico that I can't do anywhere now. |
|
|
smoothlid
411 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2008 : 7:41:44 PM
|
couple things we have done with these so far:
Had 1 couple payoff HELOC to get below 75%, used down payment money for this instead of down pmt, only needed 3% down anyway. Once they sell the rental property, they will streamline refi, if better rate avail, or make lump sum pmt to principal.
Added a couple non occ co-borr's to deals to qualify on all mortgages.
Had one guy take a pension loan to make payment towards reducing LTV...did not need muc, & had soem other $$$ we used instead of down pmt.
There's ways to work with these rules, guys....
|
|
|
khoiey
1573 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2008 : 06:24:59 AM
|
| With market conditions like these, I can immagine more strict guidelines will be tightnen up within months to come. |
|
|
Cash Doctor
851 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2008 : 07:36:44 AM
|
Tried going the non owner occupied route with no luck.
They turned their primary residence (condo) into a rental 2 months ago to look for a larger home. They are now renting and unfortunately look like they may be renting for a while. |
|
|
| |
Previous Topic | Next Topic |
|
Search for: 
