Posted on 01/17/2025 6:04:48 AM PST by vespa300
As deadly wildfires continue scorching their way through Los Angeles and the surrounding area for the second straight week, homeowners are worried about the prospect of defaulting on their mortgages in the wake of the unprecedented disaster were offered some reprieve from the nation’s major lenders.
On Monday, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac unveiled mortgage assistance and relief options for customers reeling from the historic Southern California fires.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
If they had mortgages they are required to have insurance. The insurance will pay for what was lost.
“LA residents whose homes burnt down in wildfires will still have to pay off mortgages, property taxes”
Well, if they are Biden’s people, I’m sure he can just sign an EO and make their debts disappear.
Pretty sure they’re going to require these owners sign away their deeds to secure the “assistance.” It’s looking more and more like these fires and Lahaina were deliberate to clear the land of any “encumbrances.” Pay attention to how the land is repurposed. That will tell the real story here.
I thought one had to have insurance if they have a mortgage, and if they cannot find insurance, then they’re already in default on that mortgage.
You nailed it.
follow the money applies.
Ain’t that a bite in the a%#?
Are Californians gonna let Chicago residents show them up on the realization that they have been SO criminally HAD for so long???
Let’s just hope they can find room for at least 5000 low income units and a 1000 Section 8 units to be built in the Palisades now...
No, the banks will be left holding the mortgage and municipal bond bags
If they had mortgages they are required to have insurance. The insurance will pay for what was lost.
If their policy has been cancelled recently and they did not or could not find replacement coverage, they would have a mortgage but no insurance coverage.
Paying their mortgage shouldn’t be a Suprise at all.
The bank still loaned you money, and you still owe it back.
But property taxes...thats going to be a fun one.
Because 1)...Im sure the whole LA municipality very much likes their absurd income through ridiculously priced homes and their associated property taxes.
NOW....those home should be taking at least a 60%-70% haircut in value because basically the only value left is in the land itself.
I dont see LA adjusting to account for this.
I see them keeping the values where they were prior to the fire.
The mortgage company will obtain insurance if you don’t have it and you still pay for it of course. And I think it’s a lot more.
That’s what Fannie and Freddie require and pretty much all of the secondary market investors and insurers like FHA, VA, etc.
More assaults from NewSCUMe! But hey they voted for the idiot!
I would demand a reassessment before I paid CA a dime.
Insurance companies cancelled insurance plans on many homes in this area a few months ago, and the owners could not find any other company that would write a policy OR that they could afford.
The insurance co’s knew the danger of fire was too high for them to risk.
Not saying that was nice but that’s how mismanaged Cali is.
ONE article about this - there are others.
Before the fires burned more than 10,000 structures in Los Angeles County, insurers chose not to renew thousands of home insurance policies in Pacific Palisades, Altadena and other fire-prone areas.
The rising costs and cancellations left many fire victims without adequate means to cover their losses, highlighting a deepening crisis in California’s property insurance market.
Last year, Francis Bischetti said he learned that the annual cost of the homeowners policy he buys from Farmers Insurance for his Pacific Palisades home was going to soar from $4,500 to $18,000 — an amount he could not possibly afford.
Neither could he get onto the California FAIR Plan, which provides fewer benefits, because he said he would have to cut down 10 trees around his roof line to lower the fire risk — something else the 55-year-old personal assistant found too costly to manage.
So he decided he would do what’s called “going bare” — not buying any coverage on his home in the community’s El Medio neighborhood. He figured if Before the fires burned more than 10,000 structures in Los Angeles County, insurers chose not to renew thousands of home insurance policies in Pacific Palisades, Altadena and other fire-prone areas.
The rising costs and cancellations left many fire victims without adequate means to cover their losses, highlighting a deepening crisis in California’s property insurance market.
Last year, Francis Bischetti said he learned that the annual cost of the homeowners policy he buys from Farmers Insurance for his Pacific Palisades home was going to soar from $4,500 to $18,000 — an amount he could not possibly afford.
Neither could he get onto the California FAIR Plan, which provides fewer benefits, because he said he would have to cut down 10 trees around his roof line to lower the fire risk — something else the 55-year-old personal assistant found too costly to manage.
So he decided he would do what’s called “going bare” — not buying any coverage on his home in the community’s El Medio neighborhood. He figured if he watered his property year round, that might be protection enough given its location south of Sunset Boulevard.he watered his property year round, that might be protection enough given its location south of Sunset Boulevard.
Assessments usually separate building values and land values.
That’s right. Just not feeling it here that much....you know the sympathy. Sad lives were lost but property? You asked for it...you got it Toyota. I think Toyota had an ad campaign long time ago that had that ....You ask for it, you got it Toyota. In other words....you voted for all this stuff. And you wanted Kamala too. Just not feeling it.
Time for the homeless to start kicking in. They’ve been freeloading way too long.
“If they had mortgages they are required to have insurance. The insurance will pay for what was lost.”
Not entirely true. Insurance assumes what it costs to replace. It that cost is significantly higher a homeowner could run out of insurance before the house is replaced to the value the home previously held.
Imagine holding a $1 million market value property with a $600K replacement value covered by insurance, but with all the homes being rebuilt and low supplies, that cost is now $1.2 million. Insurance often pays 50% over estimated replacement value, but if insurance pays only $900k, leaving the rebuild short $300k, what is a property owner to do?
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.