which is better: foreclosure or short sale?
Does anyone have any thoughts around whether it is better for a struggling home-owner to arrange a short-sale or just go through foreclosure?
I would think a short-sale would be good if the sale price covered most of the mortgage, since it would leave less of a black mark on your credit. On the other hand, a foreclosure would be best if current market value would leave a HUGE amount of the mortgage unpaid since you would then have a big tax liability (i.e. since the lender would report the forgiven value of the loan as income to the IRS).
But maybe I am looking at this too simplistically. Can a lender pursue your other assets once you walk away from a home? If so, a foreclosure wouldn't help if the bank could still come after your other assets anyway, making a short sale even more attractive.
By the way, I am asking this because a friend of mine is in trouble in Florida and the bank has told them they will accept a short sale.
I would think a short-sale would be good if the sale price covered most of the mortgage, since it would leave less of a black mark on your credit. On the other hand, a foreclosure would be best if current market value would leave a HUGE amount of the mortgage unpaid since you would then have a big tax liability (i.e. since the lender would report the forgiven value of the loan as income to the IRS).
But maybe I am looking at this too simplistically. Can a lender pursue your other assets once you walk away from a home? If so, a foreclosure wouldn't help if the bank could still come after your other assets anyway, making a short sale even more attractive.
By the way, I am asking this because a friend of mine is in trouble in Florida and the bank has told them they will accept a short sale.
Comments
I don't know what she would qualify for. Does bankruptcy factor into making the choice between a short-sale or foreclosure? I understand that declaring bankruptcy is a method to prevent (or forestall) foreclosure, but what if you didn't really want to keep the house that was under-water (maybe you need to move for work, etc)?
Ok, take this scenario: you have a mortgage for $500,000 but the true market value is only $250,000, and you have $500,000 in the bank.
Could you just walk away from the house and keep all your cash in the bank with a foreclosure? In a short sale you would at least have to pay income tax on the $250,000 the lender forgives.
Maybe you are right... I just thought there were laws that prevented lenders from pursuing recompense by any other means than re-possessing the house. If this was the case, then the banks couldn't get anything more than what they could scrounge from selling the house.
These aren't really designed for people who have a lot of options.
If they are in FL, one strategy they could pursue is buying another place - with cash - that has already deflated considerably, then file BK.
My understanding is that FL allows you to keep your primary residence - so they've shielded their savings from the bank (except they are still exposed to more RE downturn)
Sounds bizarre, but might be worth looking into.
I think if she filed chapter 7 bankruptcy, which became a lot harder to do after congress sold it's citizens to the creditors in 2005, she could protect some of her assets.
She should obviously contact a lawyer.
Actually, that might be right. Depends on whether or not it is a non-recourse mortgage.