Walking away from an FHA loan
According to the Trulia reference on the issue, New York is a recourse state. Recourse means that the lender can go after you for the difference between the foreclosure discharge amount (in New York - the higher of the FMV or the actual sale price) and the debt balance. That includes garnishing your wages, seizing your assets, and any other method of collecting the judgement. The relevant law is in the New York Consolidated Laws - RPA Article 13. The option you're talking about is the option any lender has anywhere - not to sue you for the difference (provision 3 of the paragraph): If  no  motion  for  a deficiency judgment shall be made as herein   prescribed the proceeds of the sale regardless of amount shall be   deemed   to be in full satisfaction of the mortgage debt and no right   to  recover   any deficiency in any action or proceeding shall exist. So if during the foreclosure they didn't sue you for the difference - they cannot change their mind after that. If you're not sure you can repay the loan - you should probably walk away from the deal. Nearly every state in the US is full-recourse. If one doesn't seek bankruptcy protection, creditors can seek judgement, and collect assets. Foreclosures frequently sell for approximately half the market price. Considering unemployment risk, homes can be risky.  A far better way to accumulate wealth is with equities (stocks).  However, the risk converts from insolvency to liquidation since during times of high unemployment, equities are also cheap, causing any liquidation used to fund current expenses to be potentially ruinous. "One additional penalty is you will be put on the CAIVRS (""cavers"") for your default on the FHA mortgage which will preclude you from FHA financing in the future. When purchasing the multifamily unit it is an FHA requirement that you occupy one of the units.   Lastly, I would advise against FHA due to elevated costs.  Conventional options have 95% financing options, and don't have mortgage insurance that lasts forever, like FHA does."
The fact that a lawsuit has been filed is not ipso facto evidence of wrongdoing. BoA has a lot of ugliness yet un-accounted-for, but escrowing insurance and taxes is 100% standard practice, to the point where you cannot get a conventional mortgage that *doesn't* escrow that stuff.   **NO** bank will give or carry a conventional home-loan *without* escrowing taxes and insurance. If you have a conventional mortgage, your insurance and tax payments are made by the mortgager whether or not you pay, because the bank doesn't want the house (their collateral) repo'd or destroyed due to lack of a $100 insurance/tax payment.   To the point, no bank in 2011 wants *more* foreclosed homes on their books. Banks *lose* money in foreclosure. The thesis that BoA conspired to get a bigger portfolio of underwater homes defies sanity.   Just because BoA robbed a liquor store doesn't mean that they also molested children and killed JFK. There might be a colossal paperwork snafu here that BoA has to make right, but that can be unwound. But the narrative that BoA was gaming the paperwork to get a higher ratio of foreclosures on their books doesn't make sense. "This summer I used a loan from my 401(k) to help pay for the down payment of a new house. We planned on selling a Condo a few months later, so we only needed the loan for a short period but wanted to keep monthly payments low since we would be paying two mortgages for a few months. I also felt like the market might take a dip in the future, so I liked the idea of trying to cash out high and buy back low (spoiler alert: this didn't happen). So in July 2017 I withdrew $17,000 from my account (Technically $16,850.00 principal and $150 processing fee) at an effective 4.19% APR (4% rate and then the fee), with 240 scheduled payments of $86.00 (2 per month for 10 years). Over the lifetime of the loan the total finance charge was $3,790, but that money would be paid back into my account. I was happy with the terms, and it helped tide things over until the condo was sold a few months later. But then I decided to change jobs, and ended up having to pay back the loan ~20 weeks after it was issued (using the proceeds from the sale of the condo). During this time the market had done well, so when I paid back the funds the net difference in shares that I now owned (including shares purchased with the interest payments) was $538.25 less than today's value of the original count of shares that were sold to fund the loan. Combined with the $150 fee, the overall ""cost"" of the 20 week loan was about 4.05%. That isn't the interest rate (interest was paid back to my account balance), but the value lost due to the principal having been withdrawn. On paper, my account would be worth that much more if I hadn't withdrawn the money. Now if you extrapolate the current market return into 52 weeks, you can think of that loan having an APR ""cost"" of around 10.5% (Probably not valid for a multi year calculation, but seems accurate for a 12 month projection). Again, that is not interest paid back to the account, but instead the value lost due to the money not being in the account. Sure, the market could take a dip and I may be able to buy the shares back at a reduced cost, but that would require keeping sizable liquid assets around and trying to time the market. It also is not something you can really schedule very well, as the loan took 6 days to fund (not including another week of clarifying questions back/forth before that) and 10 day to repay (from the time I initiated the paperwork to when the check was cashed and shares repurchased). So in my experience, the true cost of the loan greatly depends on how the market does, and if you have the ability to pay back the loan it probably is worth doing so. Especially since you may be forced to do so at any time if you change jobs or your employment is terminated." "I highly recommend you read the ""related"" posted linked to the right.  Once you have the loan a year, in good standing, and have paid the mortgage to 80% LTV, you can request removal of PMI. But the bank can charge you for an appraisal, and if the house dropped even a few percent in value, you might need to put up more money." I have recently been the lender to a couple people. It was substantially less money (~$3k), but I was trusting their good faith to pay me back. As a lender, I will never do it again. Reasons, Overall, not worth it. Maybe you know something I don't, but as far as I'm aware, you can't get rid of it.  **Student loans are with you for life**.  You will be sent to collections, but it doesn't disappear after 7 years.  Settlements are incredibly rare unless your loan is ballooning... in which case, a settlement doesn't change all that much.  You will lose tax benefits, the government will garnish 15% of your wages, and you will be a debt slave until it's paid off.  Defaulting on student loans is much, much more painful than defaulting on private loans.  The *only* exception to this is if you've made 120 months of repayments while employed at a qualifying non-profit or governmental organization.  And even then, it only applies to federal loans and there are exceptions (better not refinance or the clock resets, for example).  Also, if you default, you will no longer be eligible.  Private student loans have no escape hatch and are equally unforgiving.  Thank your elected representatives. If the homeowner knows the situation is hopeless, and the end result will be the loss of the home, jumping to the end result can be helpful. It is quicker, they don't spend as much time fighting a losing battle. Deed in Lieu of foreclosure is not so great for the borrower if the bank goes after them for the rest of the money owed. There can also be tax implications if the debt is forgiven. Though these issues also exist when the drawn out foreclosure option is done. For the bank. The longer the process the more the house deteriorates. The borrower may stop maintenance and may even vandalize the house. Getting their lock on the door quickly is important to them. They protect it, clean it, and prep it for sale right away. They also save on lawyer fees. They know that the moment they start the foreclosure process all money from the borrower stops, this can save thousands in carrying costs.  One issue will be how the accounting losses will be divided among the servicing company, and the investors. If the servicing company will make more money from the longer process they may not push for the quick settlement. If the opposite is true, they will be quickly on board.  For the new buyer, the issue with either foreclosure is that the longer process can result in greater hidden and visible damage. The heat pump may work, but the disgruntled homeowner stopped changing the filters the last six months. They may have also removed and damaged things on the way out. Other than that I don't see a big difference. Because the bank had lower costs involved in the foreclosure they might settle for a lower purchase price, but that might be hard to know. "Interestingly enough, ""strategic default"" seems to be more common than one might think in California and there is actually a lot of information available on it, to include a calculator that breaks down the numbers for you (although affiliated with a law office). Speaking from a purely financial standpoint, walking away only makes sense if it puts you in a better financial position than you were before while you had the mortgage. If you look at the downsides of walking away: The issues with the credit rating are will known but you need to take into account any open lines of credit you currently have as well as any need you might have to open a line of credit in the future. If you currently have credit cards, will the rates go up after the hit? On the housing side of things, you mortgage payment is currently a known quantity that will not change for the duration of the mortgage unless you do something to change it. However, it is fairly rare for rents to not change between years and if you want an apartment or house similar to what you currently have, you might find that the rent will fluctuate quite a bit between years and in the long run the rent might run higher than your current mortgage payment. Likewise, in the shorter term, if the landlord runs a credit check they might adjust what the rent is (or deny you the apartment) on the basis of the black mark on your history for reasons that other have mentioned. Another item to take into account is if you need to get a job in the future. Depending upon what you do for a living this might be a non-issue; however, if you are in a position of trust, walking away from a mortgage payment will reflect negatively upon your character unless you have a very good reason for it. This can lead to a loss of employment opportunities. Next, if you walk away from the mortgage you are walking away from the current value of the home and any future value that the home might have. If you like where you are living and aren't planning on moving to another part of the country, you are gambling that the market will not recover or that you would reach parity with what you owe by the time you need to sell the house. If you do plan on staying where you are and the house is in good repair, then in the long run you might be giving up quite a bit of money by walking away. These are a lot of factors to take into account though so its really hard to say one way or another if a strategic default is a good idea. In the long run you might come out ahead but knowing when that date is can be difficult to calculate. Likewise, in the long run it might adversely affect you and you might come to regret the decision.  If the payments themselves are a bit too high, perhaps you can refinance or negotiate with the bank for a lower payment? If you get a better rate but keep your monthly payments the same then you might reach parity with the mortgage much faster which would also be to your advantage." You could walk away from your mortgage.  When you signed the mortgage you and the bank agreed that if you stopped making payments the bank would get the house.  Give them the house.  Of course this would be a huge hit to your credit score and you would probably not be able to obtain another mortgage at a decent rate for at least 7 years.  You may have trouble obtaining other financing as well (i.e. auto loans).  If you plan on moving to an apartment and don't need to finance car purchases this may be OK. If you're planning to walk away from the house - don't invest any more money in it. Just be aware of the consequences. It may be worth considering a short sale if both the lenders will agree to erase the debt. If you're going to keep the house, then the fact that you're underwater now is irrelevant, and you should do your best to reduce the burden by paying off the higher rate loan. But, I personally think that accumulating enough cash to make you comfortable in case of a job loss for several months is a higher priority. The only problem that I see is that by not giving the 20% right away, you might need to pay PMI for a few months. In addition, in the case of conventional loans, I heard that banks will not remove the PMI after reaching 80% LTV without doing an appraisal. In order to be removed automatically, you need to reach 78% LTV.  Finally, I think you can get a better interest by giving 20% down, and you can get a conventional loan instead of a FHA loan, which offers the option to avoid the PMI altogether (on FHA, you have two PMIs: one upfront and one monthly, and the monthly one is for the life of the loan if you give less than 10%). Consider that the bank of course makes money on the money in your escrow. It is nothing but a free loan you give the bank, and the official reasons why they want it are mostly BS - they want your free loan, nothing else. As a consequence, to let you out of it, they want the money they now cannot make on your money upfront, in form of a 'fee'. That explains the amount; it is right their expected loss by letting you out. Unfortunately, knowing this doesn't change your options. Either way, you will have to pay that money; either as a one-time fee, or as a continuing loss of interest. As others mentioned, you cannot calculate with 29 years, as chances are the mortgage will end earlier - by refinancing or sale. Then you are back to square one with another mandatory escrow; so paying the fee is probably not a good idea. If you are an interesting borrower for other banks, you might be able to refinance with no escrow; you can always try to negotiate this and make it a part of the contract. If they want your business, they might agree to that. "A day or so later I get an email from the mattress company where the rep informs me that they will need to issue me a paper check for the full amount and that I would have to contact Affirm to stop charging me. To which I rapidly answered ""Please confirm that with Affirm prior to mailing anything out. On my end the loan was cancelled."" To which the rep replied ""confirmed. It has been cancelled."" I think your communication could have been more explicit mentioning that not only was the loan cancelled, you got your initial payments. You have not paid for the mattress. The refund if any should go to Affirm. The Rep has only confirmed that loan has been cancelled. at what point, if any, am i free to use this money? I was planning to just let it sit there until the shoe drops and just returning. But for how long is too long? Sooner or later the error would get realized and you would have to pay this back." "Pre-edit, Pete mentioned that he feels real estate agents would (a) like you to buy as much house as you afford, and (b) would love to show you three houses and have you choose one.  As a real estate agent myself, I believe his warnings were understated. As with any industry, there are good and bad people. Agents are paid to move houses. If the median US home is under $200K, and commissions average say 5%, the $10,000 to be gained is split between the buyer brokerage and selling agent. The $5000 to each is then shared with 'the house.' So, this sale would net me $2500, gross. Move one a week, and the income is great, one per month, not so much. Tire kickers will waste an agent's time for a potential decision to wait another year and continue renting. Their obligation is to tell you the truth, but not to offer financial advice.  Remember the mortgage crisis? It seems the banks and brokers aren't watching out for you either. They will tell you what they'll lend you, but not what you can afford. These numbers are worlds apart.  I strongly recommend a 20% downpayment. The FHA PMI calculator shows that a 90% LTV (i.e. a 10% downpayment) for a $100K house will cost you $1200/yr in PMI. Think about this. For the $10,000 that you didn't put down, you are paying an extra $1200 each year. This is on top of the interest, so even at 5%, that last $10,000 is costing nearly 17%. If you can't raise that $10K (or whatever 10% is on that house) in cheaper funds, you should hold off. Using the 401(k) loan for this purpose is appropriate, yet emotionally charged. As if suck loans are written by the devil himself.  ""Buy the biggest house you can""? No. I have a better idea. Buy the smallest place you can tolerate. I have a living room (in addition to family room) that has been used 3 times in 20 years. A dining room we actually use. Twice per year. When your house is 50% too big, you pay 50% more property tax, more utility bills, and more maintenance. Closing costs, commission, etc, isn't cheap, but the lifetime cost of living in a too-big house is a money pit." It's sad.  My mother lost her job after a brutal divorce.  BOA bought up Countrywide, then when my mother pleaded for assistance BOA said they could not help her unless she was behind/in default of her mortgage.  She tried to do a deed-in-lieu with a lawyer and BOA refused to accept the deed-in-lieu many times.  Then BOA sold her mortgage to Green Tree (?) and they refused her deed-in-lieu as well.   This went on for over 2 years and they foreclosed on the house.  I told my mother to sue because they should have accepted her deed-in-lieu because it was approved by the court in her bankruptcy but she was tired of trying to save her house that she just walked away.  6 months after she left and moved in with my sister Green Tree called her offering a refinance at a lower rate and a mortgage payment that was less than a typical car payment.  Now 5 years later my mom is just going to pay cash for her house and never do a mortgage again. Once you hit 22% equity against the original value of the home, they have to cancel the PMI. No other factors come into play. See this nice overview. Before that, at the 20% equity mark, it's a negotiating situation. If the value of the house goes down, that's a strong point in their favour. But you have excellent history, that's strong in your favour.