Update on USAA’s Short Sale Policy
It’s all smoke and mirrors with USAA short sales. In the past the Quincy Cove has documented the clash between USAA lien holders and the lender. The USAA short sale processing team is like one of those home buyers/sellers who make a thousand counter offers.
Truth be told no matter what USAA short sale processors tell you about their pay off demands they operate just like every other bank. When interviewed USAA specifically told the Quincy Cove that they base short sale pay off demands on the deficiency of the loan.
This may very well be true to homeowners attempting a short sale that have means to prevent foreclosure. However, for many USAA patrons who are unable to generate enough resources to stop the foreclosure on their home USAA will most likely settle for less than the amount owed.
For those that are able to generate enough resources to stop the foreclosure USAA will likely request that a new note with a lower interest rate be signed. Actually, USAA requests this from all patrons whether they are cash strapped or not.
Truth be told, USAA will most likely settle with any homeowner if they get that 80-100% of FMV (Fair Market Value) from the sale. The thing with USAA is that according to the short sale processor who was interviewed management always asks for the moon and usually will settle with less.
This is not to say that things may change in the future as the economy starts to recover. For the time being it just takes a little bit of pushing and shoving with USAA to get your point across.
In terms of USAA as a second lien holder on a short sale be prepared for them to demand enough that it would put the 1st lien holder at a 80-85% FMV asset recoup threshold. USAA is strict (as a second lien holder) with regards to the 80-85% first lien holder threshold. They conclude (rightly so) that the first lien holder will either come up with the cash or the buyer will.
This does not stop USAA from demanding that 80% of the second lien deficiency be repaid or that a new note be signed. They will in fact strongly demand that the home buyer make this type of reconciliation. They might even send the file to management 2-3 times with offers that would put the 1st lien holder at the 80-85% threshold only for the USAA processor to be denied by management. Although, the Quincy Cove wasn’t able to speak directly with management regarding this policy it is suspicious that management seems to be unified in their approach.
Their sternness begs the question isn’t there better things to do with your time than argue with distressed home owners?
Click here for more information on short sales and quincy homes for sale.
USAA is a vicious and corrupt negotiator in all dealings: corrupt with its subscribers (the true members, who subscribe to the reciprocal interinsurance exchange); dishonest with its other customers (who are not even true members); and especially vicious with its employees. I am an employee (an attorney). And there persists the question as to how the RICO 18 USC § 1962(c) “association in fact” at USAA got its clammy paws on the $14,000,000,000 the operators have pried away from the subscribers to the exchange. A good place for honest lawyers to start is with two federal statutes:
18 U.S.C. § 1346 : US Code – Section 1346: Definition of “scheme or artifice to defraud”
and
18 U.S.C. § 1001 False Statements
The direct path for relief will ultimately be in Federal Court – but it is important to remember that Judge Orlando Garcia (Federal District Court – San Antonio) and Judge Fortunato P. Benavides (5th Circuit Appeals – New Orleans) are very very favorably inclined towards the people who run USAA: something of a mutual admiration society. The body responsible to the members at USAA is the Board of Directors: the 15 or so members who pay themselves $300,000 each to oversee the insurance exchange and the unlawful financial services holding company illegally bolted to the exchange. The correct legal theory to pry the directors away from the immunity granted them by Judges Garcia and Benavides is respondeat superior.
“Jane Philo”,
I seriously doubt you are an employee. In fact, based on your writing style and word choice, I think you are Robert J Koenig. You’ve got a long history of internet postings of legal inaccuracies and multiple legal opinions that don’t support your argument. None of your comment really applies to the article on this page, which, in fact, is not new news. I’ve seen the same image of a letter from USAA and virtually identical article somewhere else…..troubling if true, but not news.