TinkerBrendie:

I’m of the opinion that there should be a clause in the family’s contract with ABC (don’t even THINK that they don’t have to sign one) that they CANNOT use their free home as collateral for AT LEAST five or ten years after receiving the home, and even then it should only be for a certain percentage of the home’s current market value.

I hadn’t thought about it, but I think I would have been more surprised if a contract had not been involved. Your clause idea sounds like a good one, too. Maybe they could stick an exception in for genuine emergencies, like paying for life-saving medical treatment, if they did that. Most of the time using the house in that way would seem to be a bad idea.

TinkerBrendie:

God Forbid that the loaning agent should bother to MAKE SURE the homeowner has a freaking job good enough to PAY BACK the loan in the first place… sigh.

Weren’t loan agents in the habit of doing just that before the Clintons leaned on them, or was that only for loans in order to buy houses?

Hint, don’t refinace yourself into bankruptcy. I heard the story of a guy who had COMPLETELY paid off his house. Great huh? untill he refinaced his house to get toys. Now he has lots of toys, and no house.

DEE DEE DEE

That would be the neighbor across the street who bought all kinds of toys and now the house sits empty. He is living in a trailer in Mesa.

All I know is what I’ve been told by the EM:HE production people (I’ve worked on three EM houses in the past year as a vendor and as a volunteer) and what I read on the web after the Atlanta EM:HE family’s foreclosure announcement last year. I’m positive that your suggestion of requiring some actual class time would help, but it still seems like these families are being handed a winning lottery ticket, and we’ve all seen how many of those “winners” end up. I’m of the opinion that there should be a clause in the family’s contract with ABC (don’t even THINK that they don’t have to sign one) that they CANNOT use their free home as collateral for AT LEAST five or ten years after receiving the home, and even then it should only be for a certain percentage of the home’s current market value. God Forbid that the loaning agent should bother to MAKE SURE the homeowner has a freaking job good enough to PAY BACK the loan in the first place… sigh.

Many “good people” are “terrible money managers.” Perhaps one thing Extreme Makeover should consider adding to its program is making sure the recipients of the home get a short class in managing their finances.

Actually, they say they DO provide these families with access to financial advice. What they DON’T do is stay there with the families after the klieg lights are shut down and hold their hands to prevent them from succumbing to the desire to “be their own boss” like the equally-shortsighted EM:HE family in Atlanta did.

I think Bachbone has a great idea, if Extreme Makeover: Home Edition wants to listen.

And if we must have government-run schools, perhaps some personal budgeting courses would not be out of place there, either. (I was actually made to write an approximation of a grown-up budget in the eighth grade as a class project, and I think it was good for me.)

And kudos to those who have taken what they got from the show and made better lives for themselves. They made more than three episodes, I believe, so I’m thinking that a lot of the Extreme Makeover people actually did manage to stay on their feet. Yay for them!

On February 20th, 2009 at 1:01 pm, Jeff2161 said:
Might have been Federal taxes since, a gift of a home CAN be considered income to the recipient. Remember Oprah’s car give-away

Wow, taxes kill equity…Film at 11.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/12/world/middleeast/12dubai.html

3000 cars abandoned at airport to avoid Debtors prison. Hmmm… Not sure we want to go there.

Once they have fear of hard time in jail, these deadbeats will sell their bling bling to pay their debts.

It is too easy in USA to spend borrowed money, get bankrupt and borrow again and repeat the cycle.