
15 February 2010 | 1 reply
HUD solicits comment on the proposed clarifications and on the regulations proposed to be codified."

21 February 2010 | 9 replies
Should fire or casualty damage have been caused by Tenant/Buyer’s own action or neglect, they shall not be relieved of the responsibility for payment of rent, and they shall also bear the full responsibility for repair of the damage. 32.CC&R’s: Tenant/Buyer acknowledges receipt of all pertinent rules and regulations and CC&R’s concerning this property. 33.Possession: Landlord/Seller shall endeavor to deliver possession to Tenant/Buyer by the commencement date of this Agreement. 34.Default: The occurrence of the following shall constitute a material default and Breach of Contract by Tenant/Buyer: Any failure by Tenant/Buyer to pay rent on time or perform any provisions of this lease to be performed by Tenant/Buyer where such a failure continues fifteen (15) days after written notice thereof by Landlord/Seller will constitute a material breach of this contract and forfeit the option to purchase.

1 March 2010 | 11 replies
Danny - I suggest you check out your State's SEC regulations regarding advertising to sell a mortgage-backed security.

24 March 2010 | 8 replies
Hi, LOL, the names that people come up with to justify what they do that may not comply with a law or regulation.

22 February 2010 | 5 replies
I am Gene and live in Dallas Texas.

2 April 2010 | 9 replies
BEFORE a notice of demand is sent out, a lender CAN NOT sell a note to just anyone, non-regulated entities.

16 April 2010 | 23 replies
While history is important and some regulation is needed to prevent anarchy, it should be done at a local level accepted and implemented by locals rather than having layer upon layer upon layer of regulation such as is seen from local, to county, to state, to federal.

6 April 2010 | 1 reply
What do you mean by is it doable within the existing regulation?

25 November 2010 | 90 replies
Keep in mind that Fox sued for the right to lie during their news programs...in arguing that they rightly fired reporters for not lying on-air (when the station asked them to lie on-air), Fox lawyers got up in front of a judge and claimed that "the FCC's policy against the intentional falsification of the news -- which the FCC has called its 'news distortion policy' -- does not qualify as the required 'law, rule, or regulation'": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre That *should* be enough to take away an credibility that Fox has...but some people can overlook a lot to see what they want to see...
8 April 2010 | 5 replies
I'm not well versed on HAFA, but if it is some sort of regulation regarding DIL of foreclosure, specifically making it more attractive or forcing banks to allow it, I think you are looking at this the wrong way.