http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/1092007_MBA_Proposals.asp...Or, if terms are defined too broadly they could allow prosecution for activities that are not fraudulent at all. S. 1222 is once again cited as faulty for defining "mortgage fraud" to include obtaining money, including fees, under "false" pretensesenCommunityServer 2008 SP2 (Build: 31106.96)http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/1092007_MBA_Proposals.asp#8878Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:00:00 GMT2bb7a989-b681-446d-a7f2-bd5f0562f228:8878RebeccaJean, didn&#39;t you also know you couldn&#39;t afford it? You shouldn&#39;t have signed the loan application or the closing papers. Do you accept any personal responsibility?<div style="clear:both;"></div><img src="http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=8878" width="1" height="1">http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/1092007_MBA_Proposals.asp#8879Wed, 10 Oct 2007 11:00:00 GMT2bb7a989-b681-446d-a7f2-bd5f0562f228:8879Tony RandI agree with the MBA in part. The states themselves do not need any additional mortgage fraud laws on the books. However, the current laws on the federal level are not enough. There are too many problems at present to sort all of this out. Anyone who says they truly understand the housing market problem is a fool. No one has ever seen a market like this one. What we really need right now is a temporary moratorium on foreclosures (from the federal level) until everything can be sorted out.<div style="clear:both;"></div><img src="http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=8879" width="1" height="1">http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/1092007_MBA_Proposals.asp#8877Wed, 10 Oct 2007 11:00:00 GMT2bb7a989-b681-446d-a7f2-bd5f0562f228:8877JeanWe were provided a construction loan in an amount that far exceeded our debt to income capacity. Also the mortgage lender obtained an appraisal that far exceeded the value of the home in order to justify the loan. The lender calculated the loan approval based on us not having an exsiting mortgage (he knew). We put the house for sale, but it never sold and the new house is almost ready and there is no way we can afford it. What can we do? Florida<div style="clear:both;"></div><img src="http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=8877" width="1" height="1">http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/1092007_MBA_Proposals.asp#8876Tue, 09 Oct 2007 11:00:00 GMT2bb7a989-b681-446d-a7f2-bd5f0562f228:8876Don Way to go Professor Sam! Now that is concrete and doeable problem solving. how hard was that? well what about the underwriter because they too have a say as the the guidline question. You still need to educate the buyer or refinancier to know what they want. It does come down to reputation and credibility of the individual and company. The schisters are always ahead of the fall.<div style="clear:both;"></div><img src="http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=8876" width="1" height="1">http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/1092007_MBA_Proposals.asp#8875Tue, 09 Oct 2007 11:00:00 GMT2bb7a989-b681-446d-a7f2-bd5f0562f228:8875Prof. Samuel D. BornsteinIn the present climate in Washington, there is talk of placing extra fiduciary responsibilities on the lender to provide &quot;suitable&quot; mortgages to borrowers. These lenders require a tool that can offer due diligence documentation which can stand-up in court whenever they are questioned as to the appropriateness of the mortgage. I have a suggestion in the form of a program that may accomplish this.<div style="clear:both;"></div><img src="http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=8875" width="1" height="1">