My New Blog

I just wanted to recap a couple of key items that occurred this week.  It has certainly been a roller coaster and is only going to get more intense in the weeks and months to come

Condo max loan to value 75%
Write your contracts with at least 45 day minimum to close as we now need to get investor approval after a 921 key is filled out by the HOA

Second Home max loan amount is 80%
There are minimum credit scores for loan to values 80 -

Departure residence - we must count the buyers current mortgage loan plus the new mortgage loan if the house is not going to be sold before closing.  They cannot rent out their current home to offset the debt unless they have at least 30% equity in the home.

Wells Fargo has placed a moratorium on their foreclosures.  They are not proceeding with foreclosures on loans that they own - including Wachovia loans and the Pick a Pays.  There is no set time on how long the moratorium will last

FHA loan limits increasing - FHA has not made any formal announcements on this to date

Economic Stimulus Package - it was passed by Congress and signed by the President.  That is all we know at this point.  No formal instructions on how this will effect new mortgage financing or existing has been announced yet.  We will need to sit tight and wait for the guidelines to be structured.

First time home buyer tax credit has been increased to $8000 or 10% of the value of the home.   It will not have to be paid back if they own the house for 3 years.

I honestly feel we should all be out there promoting this.  It will really encourage people to purchase a home and we all know this is a GREAT time to buy.  We need to incent our prospects alittle and this is a great way.

Have a fun, safe and successful weekend.

Call me if you need me

Stacey

Stacey D. Van Schenck
Mortgage Consultant
Capstone Home Mortgage, LLC
An Affiliate Of Wells Fargo Home Mortgage
MAC M1965-011
3126 Little Road
Trinity,  FL  34655
(727) 842-6275 Tel
(866) 425-6407 Toll Free
(866) 406-7661 Fax

https://www.homeloans.com/wfhm/stacey-vanschenck/index.page

Many working couples dream of the day when they can retire and sail off into the sunset together. The investment and insurance industries have done much to convince the public that this ideal is possible only with the help of certain products and services, and the financial media has endorsed that idea. However, working couples should take a moment to consider whether retiring at the same time is a wise course of action. This article will compare the financial ramifications of joint retirement versus one spouse working longer than the other, and why the latter option may be more advantageous in the long run.

Why Shouldn't Couples Retire Together?

There are both financial and emotional reasons why it may be easier for many working couples to stagger their retirement dates. Financially speaking, the advantages are threefold. When one spouse works longer, the amount of Social Security benefits the couple is entitled to will increase. In addition, the continued income from the working spouse gives the couple a few more years to save for retirement. Finally, a spouse who works an extra three to five years will likely have a shorter period over which to draw on his or her retirement assets, allowing for larger withdrawal amounts each year.

The Financial Impact

The following example clearly shows how much of a difference an extra five years of work can make for a couple:

Example - The Benefits of Working Longer

Larry and Sally Griffen are both 60 years old. They each earned an average of $40,000 per year during their working years. Both of them come from families with longevity, and each expects to live to age 90. Larry and Sally both plan to retire at age 65. At their current rate of saving, the couple will have $200,000 of joint retirement assets plus their Social Security benefits at age 65. Assuming that the Griffens' investments earn an average of 6% per year, they can expect to receive approximately $14,750 per year in retirement in addition to their Social Security, assuming depletion of assets by age 90.

The Griffens can realistically expect their joint retirement income to drop by close to 50% of their pre-retirement income, depending on when they decide to start drawing Social Security. The Social Security benefits online calculator reports that Larry and Sally can each expect an annual benefit of approximately $20,000 if Larry retires at age 65. This would bring their total annual retirement income up to approximately $55,000 ($20,000 + $20,000 + $14,750) per year - an almost 30% drop in income, from their $80,000 pre-retirement income. But then Larry starts to contemplate what would happen if he were to work for another five years. If he did, then he could step up his contributions to accumulate another $30,000 in his retirement plan (15% of $40,000 = $6,000 x 5 years, plus investment growth) and would draw on it for five fewer years.

If the Griffens are able to postpone any retirement plan distributions until Larry retires and Sally begins taking Social Security at age 65, they could reasonably expect to have a total of approximately $437,000 in retirement assets, plus Larry's increased Social Security benefits of close to $28,000 per year. If their investments continue to grow at 6% and they deplete their assets at age 90, their total annual retirement plan distributions would come to about $36,000, plus $48,000 of total Social Security benefits. This effectively replaces the income from their jobs until age 90. Of course, the Griffens would be wise to draw on their plan assets a little more slowly, so they have a cushion in case one or both of them should live past their estimated life expectancy.

This example clearly illustrates the financial impact that just a few more years of work can have on a couple's retirement. The triple power of increased Social Security benefits, increased retirement savings and the reduction of time over which to draw on those savings can mean the difference between a financially secure retirement and one that is marked by financial hardship.

Another major factor to consider is health insurance. If, in the previous example, Larry continues to work for another five years, he can keep his health coverage provided through his employer. This would save the couple from having to pay for five years of higher health insurance premiums at an individual rate.

Emotional Reasons for Retiring Separately

Retirement in the modern era can be an emotionally complex proposition. Losing one's sense of identity through work can be a major adjustment for some, while others are able to make this transition with relatively little difficulty. When a working couple retires, they suddenly find themselves at home together all the time, without the separation of work that they may have become so used to. This sudden increase in time spent together can often disrupt established relational boundaries. As such, it may be easier for couples if only one spouse goes through this process at a time, especially if either spouse expects to have difficulty adapting to the new lifestyle.

This gives at least one of the spouses (perhaps the one that is expected to have more difficulty with the process) some time alone to begin creating a new identity. If both spouses retire at the same time, the emotional impact on each partner can serve to create friction in the relationship that could otherwise be avoided. If both spouses struggle to find new paths for themselves, they may end up taking their frustrations out on each other.

Conclusion

Retirement is a complex and expensive phase of life. When couples stagger their retirement dates, they can reap both financial and emotional rewards that will make this vital transition easier. There are many resources available that couples can turn to for help in the decision-making process. For more information visit http://www.ssa.gov/ or consult your financial advisor and retirement counselor. 

Mark P. Cussen has over 13 years of experience in the financial industry, which includes working with investments, insurance, mortgages, taxes and financial planning. He has two years of experience in writing and editing insurance and securities test training manuals, as well as other financial topics. He has also worked in in retail, discount and bank brokerage systems and been involved in a venture capital enterprise in the oil and gas sector. Cussen has a Bachelor of Science in English from the University of Kansas and completed his CFP®; coursework at the Bloch School of Business at the University of Missouri-Kansas City in August of 2001.

We are Champions Club # 1 Sales Team. 

Christian Bennett & Sallie Swinford, REALTORS^®

Fine Home Specialist

Prudential Tropical Realty

Trinity Office

3126 Little Rd

Trinity, Fl 34655

Office (727) 847-4444

Fax (727) 847-1802

Direct/Cell (727)858-4588

http://www.CHAMPIONSCLUBTRINITY.com/

Q: We paid our landlord a security deposit when we moved in four years ago and currently live in our house on a month-to-month lease.

Our landlord is losing the house and is in default with his lender -- it's public information that we accessed online. My wife told our landlord that since we would not be getting our deposit back from him, he should use the deposit as our last month's rent and we would be leaving at the end of the month. We tried to contact the mortgage company about possibly staying in the house until they sold it, but they would not even talk to us.

My landlord came over today and asked us if we were moving out or paying rent for another month. We told him that we had agreed on him keeping the deposit and that should have us covered until we do move at the end of the month.

He said that he was going to file a five-day eviction notice with the courts tomorrow. We are planning on going down to fight it because he is not following what we agreed to with the deposit.

At what point does the landlord lose his right to the house and the right to demand payment from us?

A: As a tenant, you're between a rock and a hard place. Your landlord remains your landlord and is entitled to collect rent from you. He continues to own the property, has all the rights any owner of property would have, and can continue to collect rent until the bank has foreclosed on the property or the bank has filed suit against the owner and the court has given the lender the right to manage the property.

But you're right to be concerned that the landlord will end up losing the property and won't have the money to return your security deposit. That's a legitimate worry.

The landlord also has a legitimate concern in having you pay your rent and return the home to him without damage. As you're planning on moving out of the home by the end of the month (which is only a couple of weeks away), your landlord may give you a five-day notice and can even file to evict you. But if he does file, you'll already be out of the home.

The landlord has rights under the lease and could sue you for the failure to pay rent, but if you leave the home in good shape, the landlord may decide to let it go. After all, he has bigger fish to fry at the moment.

One thought you should consider, if you obtained information about the foreclosure of the home on the Web, you might not have learned everything about the case and your landlord's true financial position.

Your landlord may have failed to pay the loan back in time, but has perhaps been able to refinance the home with another lender. If he is successful in refinancing, he'd continue to expect rent from you. You've made an assumption that your landlord is in financial difficulty on the basis of the filing of the foreclosure case against him.

Given the current economic environment, your assumption that the owner is in trouble might be correct. But in some cities, there are rules a landlord must follow to protect a tenant. For example, in some places, a landlord is required to place the security deposit for a lease in an escrow account. The funds in that escrow account can't be commingled with other money, and the funds must be accounted for and paid back to the tenant within a certain number of days after the tenant moves out of the home.

If you live in a city or state with certain tenant protections, you might have shortchanged your landlord the rent that he was entitled to and your security deposit should have been protected and returned to you after you moved out of the home. On the other hand, if you live in a city or state without those tenant protections, your security deposit might have been at risk, leaving you with the unpleasant and time-intensive task of suing your landlord.

Finally, if your landlord never agreed to apply the security deposit as your last month's rent, you probably had no right under the lease to stop paying your rent. Your landlord is probably entitled to enforce the terms of the lease up until the time that his ownership right in the property is terminated.