Posted on: 15th Sep, 2009 10:51 am
How do I get out of new mortgage that I got a month ago?
By paying off the balance. or It depend on the facts such as where do you reside? if property is not your home then where it is & your circumstances
no need to answer those two questions, ross. the only way to "get out of" a mortgage is to pay it off.
They could sell it.
"they could sell it. ??? who could sell what? are you proposing that the borrower could sell their mortgage? that's preposterous.
Could they not sell their house and pay off the mortgage with it? Am I missing something?
that's such a simple concept that it begs to be said in the first paragraph of ross' post. however, ross seemed to me to be asking an entirely different question - how to "get out of" a mortgage. i read this to mean "how do i eliminate my responsibility for making payments?"
Hi Ross,
The short and simplest answer is, "pay off the balance."
The long complicated answer may depend on several facts-
1)Location of property or home.
2)conditions of property.
Finding a mortgage requires effort and expense to accomplish. It is the opposite of an impulse purchase. Mortgage process can vary but it is regulated enough to disclose following things-
1)The interest rate paid.
2)Points and other fees.
3)The principal amount.
4)Net monthly payment.
5)Other vital information.
In addition to all of these things it is a legal contract that binds all signatories to its terms and conditions.
As a mortgage is a contract and contracts can be broken under some circumstances. If there is fraud by one of the parties the law will not enforce the contract. If both parties wants o walk away law allows them. The law will not enforce contracts against anyone under the age of 18. The law will not enforce a contract containing illegal terms and conditions . The law will not enforce a contract when the purpose of the contract is frustrated (a builder agrees to erect a house on land that washes away in a landslide before construction begins). Finally, the law may not enforce a contract where one party had no intent, at the time of signing, to live up to the contract .
The facts are significant in all of these cases where a court modifies a contract or tosses it out completely. You don't explain the reasons why you don't want the mortgage after one month, so it is impossible to tell what legal tools, if any, are at your disposal.
Any many cases above seem familiar to your situation, contact an attorney in your state who specializes in contract or property law. Otherwise, sell the property and pay-off the mortgage.
Last thnig you may go for foreclosure. If you had good enough credit to get a mortgage, so it would be unwise to allow a foreclosure, which at this stage would be easy for you to prevent, to destroy your credit score.
The short and simplest answer is, "pay off the balance."
The long complicated answer may depend on several facts-
1)Location of property or home.
2)conditions of property.
Finding a mortgage requires effort and expense to accomplish. It is the opposite of an impulse purchase. Mortgage process can vary but it is regulated enough to disclose following things-
1)The interest rate paid.
2)Points and other fees.
3)The principal amount.
4)Net monthly payment.
5)Other vital information.
In addition to all of these things it is a legal contract that binds all signatories to its terms and conditions.
As a mortgage is a contract and contracts can be broken under some circumstances. If there is fraud by one of the parties the law will not enforce the contract. If both parties wants o walk away law allows them. The law will not enforce contracts against anyone under the age of 18. The law will not enforce a contract containing illegal terms and conditions . The law will not enforce a contract when the purpose of the contract is frustrated (a builder agrees to erect a house on land that washes away in a landslide before construction begins). Finally, the law may not enforce a contract where one party had no intent, at the time of signing, to live up to the contract .
The facts are significant in all of these cases where a court modifies a contract or tosses it out completely. You don't explain the reasons why you don't want the mortgage after one month, so it is impossible to tell what legal tools, if any, are at your disposal.
Any many cases above seem familiar to your situation, contact an attorney in your state who specializes in contract or property law. Otherwise, sell the property and pay-off the mortgage.
Last thnig you may go for foreclosure. If you had good enough credit to get a mortgage, so it would be unwise to allow a foreclosure, which at this stage would be easy for you to prevent, to destroy your credit score.
catharin, one statement you made here really bothers me. to wit: "finally, the law may not enforce a contract where one party had no intent, at the time of signing, to live up to the contract."
honestly, there are plenty of incidences of people fraudulently entering into contracts - where would the protection be if the law wasn't upheld against those people? let's look at a lending situation - a simple one: if a person borrows $1000 on a personal loan with no intent to live up to the terms of that loan contract, i.e. no intent to pay, why should the lender not be able to rely on the law to act on its behalf?
i don't see how that can be plausible.
frankly, i don't believe ross is in the situation described above at all. if you read his posts, you will see that he's a homeowner, not a homeowner, an expert at one time, not at another. as i read yesterday on another post, it looks like he thinks this is a contest.
anyway....catherin...please tell us why you made that statement, where you got that information from, etc. there has to be something wrong there.
honestly, there are plenty of incidences of people fraudulently entering into contracts - where would the protection be if the law wasn't upheld against those people? let's look at a lending situation - a simple one: if a person borrows $1000 on a personal loan with no intent to live up to the terms of that loan contract, i.e. no intent to pay, why should the lender not be able to rely on the law to act on its behalf?
i don't see how that can be plausible.
frankly, i don't believe ross is in the situation described above at all. if you read his posts, you will see that he's a homeowner, not a homeowner, an expert at one time, not at another. as i read yesterday on another post, it looks like he thinks this is a contest.
anyway....catherin...please tell us why you made that statement, where you got that information from, etc. there has to be something wrong there.