Pay or not pay charged-off accounts for mortgage qualification
"Your post has some assumptions that are not, or may not be true. For one the assumption is that you have to wait 7 years after you settle your debts to buy a home.  That is not the case.  For some people (me included) settling an charged off debt was part of my mortgage application process.  It was a small debt that a doctor's office claimed I owed, but I didn't.  The mortgage company told me, settling the debt was ""the cost of doing business"".  Settling your debts can be looked as favorable. Option 1, in my opinion is akin to stealing.  You borrowed the money and you are seeking to game the system by not paying your debts.  Would you want someone to do that to you?  IIRC the debt can be sold to another company, and the time period is refreshed and can stay on your credit report for beyond the 7 years.  I could be wrong, but I feel like there is a way for potential lenders to see unresolved accounts well beyond specified time periods.  After all, the lenders are the credit reporting agencies customers and they seek to provide the most accurate view of a potential lender.  With 20K of unresolved CC debt they should point that out to their customers. Option 2:  Do you have 20K?  I'd still seek to settle, you do not have to wait 7 years.   Your home may not appreciate in 2 years.  In my own case my home has appricated very little in the 11 years that I have owned it.  Many people have learned the hard way that homes do not necessarily increase in value.   It is very possible that you may have a net loss in equity in two years.  Repairs or improvements can evaporate the small amount of equity that is achieved over two years with a 30 year mortgage.   I would hope that you pause a bit at the fact that you defaulted on 20K in debt.  That is a lot of money.  Although it is a lot, it is a small amount in comparison to the cost and maintenance of a home.  Are you prepared to handle such a responsibility?  What has changed in your personality since the 20K default?  The tone of your posts suggests you are headed for the same sort of calamity. This is far more than a numbers game it is behavioral."
From what I have heard on Clark Howard if you pay your balance off before the statement's closing date it will help your utilization score.  He has had callers confirm this but I don't have first hand knowledge for this to be true.   Also this will take two months to make the difference.  So it will be boarder line if you will get the benefit in time.   Sign up for credit karma if you like.  You can get suggestions on how to help your score. Yes, for a credit card, payments in excess of the minimum will go toward principal. This is not always the case with a mortgage, where prepayments of extra principal need to be explicitly stated. "There are other good answers to the general point that the essence of what you're describing exists already, but I'd like to point out a separate flaw in your logic: Why add more complications so that ""should I call this principal or interest"" actually makes a difference? Why's the point (incentive) for this? The incentive is that using excess payments to credit payments due in the future rather than applying it to outstanding principal is more lucrative for the lender. Since it's more lucrative and there's no law against it most (all) lenders use it as the default setting." I think you are running into multiple problems here: All these together look like a high risk to a bank, especially right now with companies being reluctant to hire full-time employees. Looking at it from their perspective, the last thing they need right now is another potential foreclosure on their books. BTW, if it is a consolation, I had to prove 2 years of continuous employment (used to be a freelancer) before the local credit union would consider giving me a mortgage. We missed out on a couple of good deals because of that, too. "I've heard that the bank may agree to a ""one time adjustment"" to lower the payments on Mortgage #2 because of paying a very large payment. Is this something that really happens? It's to the banks advantage to reduce the payments in that situation.  If they were willing to loan you money previously, they should still be willing.  If they keep the payments the same, then you'll pay off the loan faster.  Just playing with a spreadsheet, paying off a third of the mortgage amount would eliminate the back half of the payments or reduces payments by around two fifths (leaving off any escrow or insurance).   If you can afford the payments, I'd lean towards leaving them at the current level and paying off the loan early.  But you know your circumstances better than we do.   If you are underfunded elsewhere, shore things up.  Fully fund your 401k and IRA.  Fill out your emergency fund.  Buy that new appliance that you don't quite need yet but will soon.  If you are paying PMI, you should reduce the principal down to the point where you no longer have to do so.  That's usually more than 20% equity (or less than an 80% loan).   There is an argument for investing the remainder in securities (stocks and bonds).  If you itemize, you can deduct the interest on your mortgage.  And then you can deduct other things, like local and state taxes.  If you're getting a higher return from securities than you'd pay on the mortgage, it can be a good investment.  Five or ten years from now, when your interest drops closer to the itemization threshold, you can cash out and pay off more of the mortgage than you could now.   The problem is that this might not be the best time for that.  The Buffett Indicator is currently higher than it was before the 2007-9 market crash.  That suggests that stocks aren't the best place for a medium term investment right now.   I'd pay down the mortgage.  You know the return on that.  No matter what happens with the market, it will save you on interest.  I'd keep the payments where they are now unless they are straining your budget unduly.  Pay off your thirty year mortgage in fifteen years." Certainly there are people who do pay off their homes.  Others do not.  It's a question of risk tolerance and preference.  Some considerations relevant to this question: Taxes - Interest on a mortgage is tax deductible.  Particularly for high earners, this is a significant incentive to maintain a mortgage balance and place extra money in the market instead. Liquidity - If you lose your job, you can sell stocks to pay the mortgage.  But if you have made principle payments on your mortgage but still owe some outstanding balance, you are still required to make monthly payments without any source of income. Rates - In recent years it is been common to get a mortgage for 3.2% to 3.5%.  The difference between those rates and 9% rate of return for the market is substantial.   There are other considerations but the answer in the end is that for many people the risk / reward calculus says the ~5% difference in rate of return is worth the potential risks. Ditto to Victor. The simple rule is: Pay the minimums on all so you don't get any late fees, etc, then pay off the highest interest rate loan first. A couple of special cases do come to mind: If one or more of these are credit cards, then, here in the U.S. at least, credit cards charge you interest on the average daily balance, unless you pay off the balance entirely, in which case you pay zero interest. So for example say you had two credit cards, both with 1% per month interest, with debt of $2000 and $1000. You have $1500 available. Ignoring minimum payments for the moment, if you put that $1500 against the larger balance, you would still pay interest on the full amount for the current month, or $30. But if you paid off the smaller and put the difference against the larger, then your interest for the current month would be only $15. (Either way, your interest for NEXT month would be the same -- 1% of the $1500 remaining balance or $15 -- assuming you couldn't pay off the other card.)  If one or more of the loans are mortgage loans on which you are paying mortgage insurance, then when you get the balance below a certain point -- usually 80% of the original loan amount -- you no longer have to pay mortgage insurance premiums. Thus the amount you are paying on such premiums needs to be factored into the calculation. There may be other special cases. Those are the ones that I've run into. "This is somewhat unbelievable.  I mean if you had a business of collecting debts, wouldn't you want to collect said debts?  Rather than attempting to browbeat people with these delinquent debts into paying, you have someone volunteering to pay.  Would you want to service that client?  This would not happen in just about any other industry, but such is the lunacy of debt collecting. The big question is why do you need this cleared off your credit?  If it is just for a credit score, it probably is not as important as your more recent entries.  I would just wait it out, until 7 years has passed, and you can then write the reporting agencies to remove it from your credit. If you are attempting to buy a home or similarly large purpose and the mortgage company is insisting that you deal with this, then I would do the following: Write the company to address the issue.  This has to be certified/return receipt requested.  If they respond, pay it and insist that it be marked as paid in full on your credit.  I would do this with a money order or cashiers check.  Done. Dispute the charge with the credit reporting agencies, providing the documentation of no response.  This should remove the item from your credit. Provide this documentation to the mortgage broker.  This should remove any hangup they might have. Optional:  Sue the company in small claims court.  This will take a bit of time and money, but it should yield a profit.  There was a post on here a few days ago about how to do this.  Make part of any settlement to have your name cleared of the debt. It is counterproductive to fall into the trap of the pursuit of a perfect credit score.  A person with a 750 often receives the same rate options as a person with 850.  Also your relationship with a particular lender could trump your credit score. Currently I am ""enjoying"" the highest credit score of my life, over 820.  Do you know how I did it?  I got out of debt (including paying off the mortgage) and I have no intentions of ever going into debt for anything.  So why does it matter?  It is a bit ridiculous." You would need to check the original mortgage papers you signed with the originators.  Chances are you agreed to allow the mortgage to be sold and serviced by other parties. Refinancing would also put you in the same boat unless you got them to take that clause out of the mortgage/refinance papers. Also, chances are most small banks and originators simply can not keep mortgages on their books. There are also third parties that service loans too that do not actually own the mortgages as well. This is another party that could be involved out of many in your mortgage.  I would also not worry about 127/139 complaints out of 1,100,000 loans. Most probably were underwater on their mortgage but I am sure a few are legitimate complaints.  Banks make mistakes (I know right!).  Anyway, good luck and let me know if you find out anything different. "We payed off our Mortgage early...at first in small extra payments to principal, and finally a lump sum.  Each extra payment to principal reduced the balance, and reduced every payment going forward.  I have, somewhere, an excel spreadsheet where I tracked this...  - =CUMIPMT((interestRate/12),term,pymtNumber,balance,balance,0) computed the interest payment due  - =currentPrincipal + CUMIPRINTresultAbove computed the monthly principal payment Occasionally I would update the month-ending Principal balance against what the mortgage company told me.  It was usually off by a little.   My mortgage company required me to specifically contact them for a payoff amount before I wrote the final check.   I've never heard of a mortgage where prepayment of all expected interest following the original schedule is required.  I would guess it is against federal (US) law.  Lets think about that for a moment...  out of ""interest"", I recently computed that for our 30 year loan at 6-5/8% on about 145, we payed a total of 106000 in interest.  That include a refi to 4-7/8 10-years in to a 15-year loan, and paying it off 20 years after the original loan was granted. As far as not paying all the theoretical interest due...  - If they get a fixed dollar amount of service interest back, there's no incentive to me to pay on-time.  I owe the same amount if I pay it today or if I pay it 6 months late, after I gambled the mortgage money and finally won.  (yea, I know they could write the mortgage to penalize me for paying late, but I'm ignoring that)  - if you were requried to pay off all the interest that might accrue, how could you ever sell your home, or refinance, for that matter?  When I refi'd, the new holder payed the old holder 98,000.  If the original holder had required prepayment of all the interest that would be accrued to the original schedule, the new mortgage would've been 200k.  It would just never be a good deal to buy a home if mortgages worked under that term. I have had a car loan that worked differently -- they pre-computed the total interest due and then divided it over the term of the loan equally.  I could pay off early and they stopped collecting interest." It will not hurt your score to pay off your debt.  It will allow your score to start healing as you plug the holes in your report. What is CRUCIAL is how you pay off the debt.  Make sure you get, in writing, that paying $X amount will fully satisfy the debt and will close the matter as in Pay-To-Delete.  If you try to do a settlement, this is very important. Also, the moral brigade will not like my answer, but if you are close to seven years out on your debts, you might as well not pay them since they will fall off of your report after 7 years.  If you pay any part of the debt however, it will often reset the clock on those 7 years, so tread carefully. Your son is completely free to pay off your mortgage if he wants. However in most jurisdictions it counts as a gift to you, and will be subject to gift tax, or its equivalent. This is why the bank doesn't want to receive payments directly from your son, so that they are not caught up in the reporting of this. If you are in the US, this is a good page about Gift Tax. NO, you pay off the Highest interest charging accounts first. The zero interest loan should be the Last one you pay off. Basically payoff your student loan and put the extra money to the car loan "When I left the UK four years ago, free banking is still an option and I'm pretty sure it still is.  Therefore, you have chosen to have a bank account with a 5.00/month charge.   In return for this charge, you will be eligible to receive certain benefits.  For example; reduced borrowing costs, discounted mortgage rates, free overdraft on small amounts, ""rewards"" for paying household bills by direct debit, and things of this sort.   Amongst these benefits may be preferential savings rates.  However, from HMRC's point of view it will be the extra perks you are paying for with your monthly charge.  You have chosen to pay for the account and HMRC is not interested in how you choose to spend your money, only in the money you earn. While I agree with you that it does have an element of unfairness, the problem is how would you divide the cost amongst the various benefits." Pay the the smallest balance first. The sooner you pay that off, the sooner you can pay more on the mortgage.