LostHead stymied by Fannie Mae's refusal to fund liar loan

[Quixote]

brburnette, who I have come to think of as Barbie Brunette, wants to refinance her home. Her lender of choice is demanding that the income reported on her tax return match the income reported on the loan application. Unfortunately for Barbie, she filed a CTC edumacated returnand it shows $0.00 in AGI.

Barbie's contact at the bank told her the income matching is a requirement because its a Fannie Mae loan. Barbie has gotten it into her head that the income matching is mandated by statute. It's not. Fannie Mae just isn't buying any more liar loans. You would think that a TP would understand Fannie Mae's freedom to contract.

Barbie also thinks her corporation is not a corporation, but that's another story.

[notorial dissent]

Well, gee, and then your fantasy world comes crashing down around your ears, when it meets reality. Who'd a thunk it!!!

[The Observer]

And the advice that brbrunette is getting is priceless:

Explain that the word income is a homonym.

Right, there is nothing that helps the loan approval process more than engaging in sophistry and word games with your loan officer. Especially when you try to convince them that there are two "types" of income, that one of them is "created by federal privilige" and that is why you have zero income reported on your return.

It is amusing to see the Crackheads having to deal with the unintended consequences of Hendrickson's half-baked ideas.

[notorial dissent]

I guess I'm impressed that she at least thinks she has enough "income" how ever you define it, to afford to buy a house, more than most of Hendrickson's Heroes can say, since most of them can't afford the down payment on the refrigerator carton they're living out of. Of course, if she is truly following Peerless Pete, the likelihood that she'll hang on to it once her tax problems start coming home to roost is probably staggeringly small, which they ultimately will, and maybe the loan officer is just getting a foretelling of problems yet to come.

[Famspear]

Explain that the word income is a homonym.

Hey, if "income" wants to come out of the closet, it's "income"'s prerogative.



Huh?

It's just a lifestyle choice, you know.....

[.]

So, this idiot, out of pure self-interest is trying simultaneously to 1) defraud the IRS by lying about income, and 2) be honest with the lender by disclosing income.

Why 2+2 can't equal 4 and zero at the same time will forever remain a total mystery.

If they don't make the loan, the lender (or Fannie/Freddie/whoever would wind up owning it) will luck out. Despite having no clue that this doofus will soon likely be unable to pay after being hit with 5K frivolous filing and other penalties, interest, liens, levies, perhaps court sanctions and maybe imprisonment.

Not to mention a likely future attempt to "pay" the mortgage off with a secret Treasury account or other such nonsense.

Who says that mortgage lending isn't fraught with unanticipated obscure risk?

[grixit]

Of course if she ever does get a mortgage she can just decline to pay it off because, after all, the act of granting the mortgage also created its own repayment.

[Arthur Rubin]

Legal question here:

If A publicly reports that there is no actual obligation in taking out a mortgage loan (whether it has to do with redeeming birth certificates, creating a document voiding the loan repayment, or ...), is that legal grounds for refusing the loan.

[Pottapaug1938]

brburnette, who I have come to think of as Barbie Brunette, wants to refinance her home. Her lender of choice is demanding that the income reported on her tax return match the income reported on the loan application. Unfortunately for Barbie, she filed a CTC edumacated returnand it shows $0.00 in AGI.

Barbie's contact at the bank told her the income matching is a requirement because its a Fannie Mae loan. Barbie has gotten it into her head that the income matching is mandated by statute. It's not. Fannie Mae just isn't buying any more liar loans. You would think that a TP would understand Fannie Mae's freedom to contract.

Barbie also thinks her corporation is not a corporation, but that's another story.

This reminds me of the idjits on Planet Merrill who assert that, if a judge asks you if you "understand" the charges or allegations against you, you must never say "yes" because you are then admitting that you "stand under" the jurisdiction of the court and surrender your freedoms.

[operabuff]

So, this idiot, out of pure self-interest is trying simultaneously to 1) defraud the IRS by lying about income, and 2) be honest with the lender by disclosing income.

Which, of course, is why (1) lenders want to see tax returns and (2) mortgage applications are a fertile ground for IRS agents seeking to establish unreported income.

[notorial dissent]

The whole income thing should have set off all sorts of bells and alarms if the underwriter wasn't totally asleep, and at this point they would be more than covered if they decided to walk a way, which they should. This is a bad loan just waiting to rupture. The last time I checked, the only things you can't discriminate for are the biggies that everyone knows, or at least should by now, and last I heard, stupid and dishonest, even unintentional dishonest, which if you were really really generous or DUMB, could include a CTC'er who really believes the codswallop, aren't covered. It's just a bad loan waiting to happen, and you don't have to make those, at least usually.

What it comes down to, is that if A doesn't match B and add up to C, then it doesn't fit the criteria for the loan. Real simple math.

[.]

There's just no fixing stupid. TPs shouldn't pull stunts like this, but, by golly they're special snowflakes who utter magic words that can make 2+2 equal anything they want.

What could possibly go wrong? Other than everything. Which is good because otherwise there would be a lack of people doing really stupid stuff at which we can poke a huge amount of fun.

[wserra]

The latest piece of advice the hapless poster received, in its brilliant entirety:

See Stone v Tracy

Now, I presume this groyse chochem means Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911). Not that Flint has anything to do with whether "brburnette" should get a mortgage when s/he lies about income - just that I can't imagine what else "shapinc" might have meant.

'Course, if s/he really did intend to refer to a case in which "Stone" was the appellant, s/he probably meant the well-known Stone v. Brain.