Glitch hurts credit scores
WASHINGTON — Michael Son was weeks away from closing on a three-bedroom ranch house in New Jersey when his lender called with bad news.
Despite the advertising executive's 720 credit score and proven ability to make a 20 percent down payment, he couldn't secure the loan last year. Somewhere in the fine print of his credit history, the short sale of a house in 2010 was misidentified as a foreclosure.
Son withdrew his offer and reluctantly settled into yet another rental with his wife and daughters, ages 4 and 6.
“It was devastating because you have that home in sight and you spend money for appraisal, for inspection, for your lawyers — I spent about two grand during the home-buying process — and then the bank tells you no, we can't give you a commitment,” said Son, 39. “So it's like, what do I do? When can I buy a home?”
Son and millions of other Americans who sold homes for less than they owed during the housing crisis are victims of a computer glitch that causes automated underwriting systems to misread short sales as foreclosures.
The confusion arises because credit bureaus that provide consumers' data to prospective lenders have no specific code for short sales. Instead, they tend to be flagged as pre-foreclosures, charge-offs or “settled for less than full amount” — designations that are just as devastating to credit as the stigma of foreclosure.
As a result, underwater borrowers who managed to get bank approval for short sales suffer the same long-term consequences as those who walked away from their homes after defaulting for years.
The coding error “hangs over me all the time,” said Wendy Bana, 50, a private school principal in Orange County, Calif. Bana short-sold her underwater home three years ago because she had to relocate from Oregon for a job. Last year, she discovered that her short sale was miscoded as a foreclosure, dashing her dream of buying a cabin at Lake Arrowhead, Calif.
Months of calls and letters to her bank and the credit bureaus failed to set the record straight, even though Bana had paperwork proving the short sale.
“It's not at all logical,” she said. “That's how you know the system's broken.”
Lawmakers in Washington are looking for ways to fix the problem.
“Injustice is being perpetrated,” Florida Sen. Bill Nelson said in an interview. The Democratic senator's home state had the second-most short sales in the country last year, after California. But Nelson said inaccurate codes taint people's credit files nationwide. He has asked federal regulators to investigate.
“Folks are having their whole financial well-being affected,” Nelson said. “That's wrong.”
Once rare, short sales became increasingly popular in the years since the housing bust. In 2005, there were only 17,530 short sales in the United States, or less than 1 percent of all sales, according to RealtyTrac.
Last year, 10 percent of all home sales were short sales, totaling almost 455,000.
In order to qualify, short sellers proved a hardship such as job loss or relocation, divorce or disability. Lenders often told borrowers they needed to become delinquent for 90 days or more, even if they never missed a bill and had money to pay. But doing so wasn't required by law and further damaged their credit.
Many short sellers ultimately decided the painful procedure was a more honorable option than foreclosure because it allowed the bank to recoup some of its investment and avoid the costly process of eviction, rehab and resale.
“The bank's still making fair money and it's better for the economy,” Bana said. “And I don't not pay my bills. I had always had perfect credit. To me, that was a far lesser evil than just walking away.”
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Stocks rise on wind of Greece resolution
- Kraft shareholders approve merger with Heinz
- Market pulls back as hopes for Greece resolution fade
- Alpha Natural Resources buys out European partner in Marcellus venture
- Fed interest rate Q&A
- Data transfer in mergers tall task for chief information officer for Peoples Gas
- Big Heart Pet Brands to leave Pittsburgh, affecting 225 jobs