Posted on 10/18/2013 9:44:36 AM PDT by thetallguy24
Early voting starts Monday the 21st.
This is one of the better guides to the election. Another might be Empower Texans here http://www.empowertexans.com/features/recommendations-texas-constitutional-amendments
Good guide. Thanks for posting it.
Excellent Guide. Thanks for posting!
The author seems to be mistaken. Several online sources indicate that there are only 9 proposed amendments. I looked this up because I was suspicious that some liberal author might have omitted to mention a pro-gun proposition. Evidently not the case.
Very interesting.
Probably not the best place to ask this question, but re prop 5, I have a friend whose grandparents are getting along in age and since none of their children are interested in their house, have decided to reverse mortgage it. The language in this article about passing on debt to beneficiaries is disturbing - how can this sort of thing happen?
I’d rather not see my friend or his parents end up in a debt trap because of the grandparents fiscal folly.
Self ping
Thanks.
A reverse mortgage is still a mortgage. The lender is making payments to the owner which causes the amount owed to increase over time. At the owner's death, the heirs are entitled to any equity in the property, but it's probably in the fine print that the property must be sold to pay off the debt unless the heirs do so.
You know, everything’s bigger in Texas : )
This analysis sounds like nonsense to me.
If the seniors have equity in the home, they should be free to use that equity in any manner they wish.
The analysis makes it sound as if the reverse mortgage will result in negative equity in the home and that the heirs will have to pay off this debt. Somehow, I doubt that this is true.
What is perhaps true, and completely fair to every party involved, is that the debt may have to be paid off from the seniors' estate. This might involve assets beyond the property which has the reverse mortgage on it, but it would still be property belonging to the seniors and they should be able to do with it anything they wish.
There should be no obligation that seniors should have to live an unnecessarily frugal life or continue living in a home which doesn't suit them simply in order to preserve an inheritance for their offspring.
I've helped my kids get a financial start in life but I still intend to get a bumper sticker saying, "I'm spending my kids' inheritance." When the time comes, they can do the same.
Thank you!
Reverse Mortgages - 10 things to know
Frequently Asked Questions about HUD’s Reverse Mortgages
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/housing/sfh/hecm/rmtopten
6. Will we have an estate that we can leave to heirs?
When the home is sold or no longer used as a primary residence, the cash,
interest, and other HECM finance charges must be repaid. All proceeds beyond
the amount owed belong to your spouse or estate. This means any remaining
equity can be transferred to heirs. No debt is passed along to the estate or heirs.
Ah, very good. It’s one thing to spend their inheritance, but would be another thing to squander their future.
After all, that’s what the government is for.
This is not completely accurate. What if the house is underwater and sells for less than what is owed? Who is the reverse mortgage company going to go after if the house burns down and the owners die? The insurance companies? The kids? Someone would have to pay.
After all, they payments on the mortgage aren’t made until they die, so if they live well beyond the expected lifespan the interest payment would be enormous. Possibly greater than the value of the home.
Plus, the estate may be passed on to heirs, but the house would not, as it would have to be sold unless the beneficiaries can pay off the remaining debt with cash. If they are forced to sell the “family home,” there is also the cost of selling, like commissions, fees, etc.
The intrinsic problem is that it forces an individual or group to perform an action based upon the actions of another individual or group. It forces you to divest of something you have received without any consideration of your desire to keep it or not.
Sounds a lot like Obamacare
“If you like your [family home], you can keep it...NOT”
Well, ... If it's really a "family home" then the title should have the family members' names on it. If not, then it's not a "family home", it's the parents' home. There is no way to arrange a mortgage, reverse or otherwise, without the consent of all the parties on the title.
This is a really good reason not to put a lot of "sweat equity" into one's parents' home without having one's name put on the title.
I know next to nothing about the reverse mortgage programs. I thought it was based
upon the equity you had in the home to which a portion could be paid to you/spouse
via the reverse mortgage program. Maybe I’m wrong as I haven’t explored the
details in any degree.
Thank you !!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.