Given our current push to defend property rights, why can't Texans choose who they do business with when it comes to their mortgages? Why don't Texans get the right to choose who they pay their mortgage to? If most Texans have mortgages on their properties, shouldn't we get to approve who purchases our mortgages? If we object to how the company servicing our mortgage treats us, our only current remedy is spending more money to refinance. In what other industries are we forced to do business with a company without any of our input?

Wells Fargo has purchased every mortgage I've ever had and proceeded to screw me with fees (in violation of my mortgage contract but would cost me legal fees to attempt to fight). I found out that WF doesn't read the mortgage contracts they buy and don't really care about following the terms because they know they have more attorneys and can more easily afford to fight mortgagee lawsuits than the mortgagee can. My current situation trying to sell off some of our acreage has seen WF cost me roughly $60k in lost real estate sales and expenses due to their delays & refusal to do their contractually required job.

Why don't we have the freedom to choose who we do business with instead of being forced into doing business without choice?

Beggars can't be choosers.

I don't have to even read your contract and would confidently wager these fees you constantly screwed over by are in fact not in violation of your contract.

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Becuase if the guy originating your loan wasn't able to sell it to someone else, they wouldn't have anymore capital to originate new loans.

No newly originated loans would tank housing costs and the market.

Selling off your loan to someone else, to service said loan, is good for the economy.

---

Sounds like a Ponzi scheme to me...

There's really a simple solution to the OP's problem of not wanting his home loan sold. Don't have a home loan.

Feel free to spend half a life time saving up $400,000 in cash to purchase a home outright. Now I would imagine if you managed to save up $400,000 you wouldnt want to just give it up, that's not financially smart. So instead you would rather take out a loan, keep the bulk of that $400,000 and invest it, all while still getting your home.

The loan originator is doing this exact same thing. Freeing up capital so they can "invest" in new home originations and make more money.

So just like our healthcare, "if you like your mortgage company, you can keep your mortgage company"?

Why don't you just redline the assignment clause of the agreement and see if they accept your changes? You can also try to get a portfolio loan from a community bank.

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

veritas47 said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Becuase if the guy originating your loan wasn't able to sell it to someone else, they wouldn't have anymore capital to originate new loans.

No newly originated loans would tank housing costs and the market.

Selling off your loan to someone else, to service said loan, is good for the economy.

---

Sounds like a Ponzi scheme to me...

---

Wait till you figure out what your bank does with the money you deposit.

---

It just sits in the vault until I come and withdraw it, right?

Some people just don't recognize what they are complaining against. Do you not like capitalism? This is a business, free to do as he/she sees fit.

I own many rental units. I certainly don't want to have to get my tenants approval before I can sell or rent my units. I have duplexes and I OWN them so I can do what I want to in terms of renting or selling them. If you have a problem with the new lender not abiding with your loan provisions that is a different issue and no different than if your original lender decide not to abide by the loan provisions. Cheers.

Reminds me of banking with BBVA. I refinanced my first house just to get away from them. A year or so later I bought my truck and the loan got sold to BBVA. Ended up paying it off in a few months because I had no interest in doing business with them again.