https://singlefamily.fanniemae.com/media/22261/display
Scroll down to the top of page 2 - “Reporting a reason for delinquency code”.
It will be flagged as delinquent by Fannie, which will find its way into Fannie’s Desktop Underwriter robo-underwriter. If you want to take another conventional mortgage out, you’re SOL.
A survey conducted by the Mortgage Bankers Association among mortgage services found that requests for temporary forbearance has exploded since the first of March. The percentage of total mortgages in forbearance grew from 0.25 percent on March 2 to 2.66 percent by April 1. Loans backed by Ginnie Mae saw the greatest growth, increasing from 0.19 percent to 4.25 percent. Independent mortgage bank (IMB) servicers now have the largest share of loans in forbearance (3.45%), reflecting their focus on Federal Housing Administration (FHA) and Veterans Affairs (VA) home loan programs, and serving low-to moderate income borrowers. The share for bank servicers was 2.75 percent.
Just checked out of curiosity and my servicer (Provident) has a link to request forbearance on their website so no need to call them to apply. Their Q&A seems pretty typical: this option is specifically for people who are unemployed or have reduced hours, if you can make payments you should, yada yada.
By default they expect a full repayment after 6 months but you can call to request options or an extension if you can’t (they don’t list the specific option to add the repayment into your loan). If you modify the original loan they will need signatures, which sounds typical for drawing up new terms.
I believe I’ve read that major banks have online forms to request the forebearance.
I checked and my Wells Fargo has a prominent new option under my loan. Looks like all you have to do is check 3 boxes and hit submit.
Flagstar has a page but I had to hunt a little to find it. Their form makes you just fill in your name/address and answer Yes/No if you have a hardship.
Quicken Loans / Rocket Mortgage is similar. Online and appears pretty easy. I didn’t go into the actual process.
I decided against this. I don’t need the cash flow and don’t want to deal with the headache of requesting they add the 6-12 months onto the end of my loan.
I just got my “stimulus” and my first unemployment supplement. The stimulus + my state max unemployment + the $600/week unemployment supplement puts me around 90% of my full pay. That goes through July 31. I sure hope my old employer takes me back by then or I find something else.
If the economy recovers before July 31, there are going to be a TON of people that are going to put off going back to work since they are getting close to full pay (or even more than full pay) from the government while not working. But that’s a big IF at this point.
Maybe not as many as you’d think. Employers will look to rehire ex-employees ASAP as they’re allowed to do business again. They won’t wait until people are ready to find replacement if the old employees don’t want to start working again when business re-opens.
But potential replacements will be in the same boat.
Tin foil hat conspiracy theory warning… the bonus $600/week from the government is $15/hr for a normal 40-hour workweek. Might this be a their attempt at a de facto $15/hour minimum wage? People wont resume working unless they’re getting paid more than what they’re getting for doing nothing. Republicans called lower paid people getting more in unemployment than the income they lost “a mistake”, but Democrats actively refused to change it to cap that benefit (all good conspiracy theories gotta point a finger at someone). Sounds like it may have been by design, and they quietly slipped it through the back door while everyone was focused on the other non-Covid stuff they openly tried to add to the bill… 
Should I wait in a line at the Food Bank even though my house is stocked with food? 
Yes the flat $600 does not make a lot of sense but it’s setup worse than a minimum hourly wage of $15/hr.
Say you were furloughed while making $20/hr ($800/week). At least in my state, your unemployment benefit would normally be $400/week. But currently with the $600 bonus, you’re collecting $1000/week. Unless you value job benefits at more than $200/week, what’s the incentive for you to get your old job back?
The benefit should have been capped so that you’re at most making as much as you were before. So I’m not sure how well this will play out for small businesses trying to re-open if they’re looking at their labor costs increasing because workers are getting paid more staying on the government’s teat.
There is little incentive to get another job for those that were making less than $1000/week (in your example). Except that if I were in that predicament, I’d get a job now as the previous job might not materialize again. Once the dust settles, we’ll have some serious unemployment. Even with the astronomical funds allocated to help all sorts of businesses, many will be shutdown or down sized. It’s better to have a job in hand than rely on unemployment going forward. Or at least that is the way I’d look at it.
But the problem is how many weeks or months delay and millions to be spent on programming and development costs necessary to implement the change that way. A straight $600 is much more simplistic to implement. I guess alternately the state unemployment office’s could have called J. G. Wentworth to resolve the situation expediantly. These people needed the money now. Most bills are not immediately stopped or deferred and a large portion of the population are paycheck-to- paycheck. Additionally, a separate goal was partly to get people to stay home. If more pushed back from going to work at non essential businesses and instead being fired, then that could actual be a positive side effect.
(Call J.G. Wentworth, and get your money NOW! )
In the filing for unemployment benefits, you need to provide your previous employment information so they can figure out how much you’re entitled to. So what you earned previously is a required piece of information that the unemployment insurance program already has by the time they pay you your weekly benefits. Adding $600 straight to it or adding $600 UP TO your previous weekly income, is a meaningless difference in computational difficulty for any software.
It should not have required much time to write this limitation into the bill. Either (1) they could not fit that small of a change and/or (2) they deliberately decided to throw money at people in an election year. Sure the bill moved faster than they usually do. But considering how much pork they still manage to stuff in the bill, it’s hard for me to give much weight to option 1.
Every state has their own system. Apparently they were asked and at least with some it would have caused a delay. That is the justification I saw that was given, anyways.
You’d think the treasury department would avoid sending stimulus payments to dead people or other obvious wrong transfers, too. But according to the daily campaign propaganda, a full ~1% error rate is now to be considered exceedingly low for billions of dollars of financial transactions and an amazing accomplishment.
EIGHT-SEVEN-SEVEN-CASH-NOW!
Being de-centralized is one thing that may not be optimally efficient but that could still be workable. But when some parts of it cannot properly and timely handle changes as simple as introducing a cap on benefits, that’s just shambolic.
At least one good thing might come out of this crisis. If nothing else, it made it harder to pretend that a lot of our institutions are still functional and do not need an overhaul.
Minimal. States had to revamp their systems as it was. In my state, they still cant process claims under the new rules yet.
After the bill passed, Republicans called out this detail as a grave error, and tried to get it fixed to cap the benefit at one’s previous wage. Democrats refused, claiming it is what it’s supposed to be and there was no mistake.
I only mention political parties because that is who was saying what. But there’s clearly some level of obfuscation in their somewhere (Why refuse? Why wait until after it passed to “notice”? It could be on any or all sides - I dont intend to show any political bias, besides the fact that they all suck).
Mine came up as
Receivership Non-asset