Bad enough to face short sales and foreclosure because of a move that you have no choice about making. Even worse to then face losing the job that necessitated the move because your damaged credit killed your security clearance. When military members are compelled to change their residence for the sake of their jobs, they often leave homes behind them that they simply cannot sell. And when that situation hits a breaking point and necessitates a short sale or foreclosure, these same military members risk the loss of vital security clearance – partially dependent on credit history in many cases – that is critical to their ability to effectively do their jobs[1].
Although there are aid programs for exactly this type of issue, not all service members qualify. 740 airmen at Nevada’s Nellis Air Force Base, for example, are upside down on their current mortgages but do not qualify for aid. They cannot sell their homes and face loss of security clearance if or when they ultimately move for their work or are forced to short sell their homes or turn in their keys to their lenders. At locations like Nellis, servicemen and women have to rent or buy because there is limited or no on-base housing.
To make matters worse, some real estate professionals believe that even lenders who are allegedly “service member friendly” sometimes interfere with contracts to sell property if they fear that the sale will result in a loss. These professionals also allege that lenders are not doing enough to help resolve situations involving mandatory moves and relocations.
How do you think that this situation should be handled? Should the security clearance process be reevaluated? Should lenders be compelled to change the way that they deal with service members in the armed forces?
Thank you for reading REJournalOnline!
Let us know what you think should be done in the space below.
[1] http://www.lvrj.com/news/when-troops-get-orders-to-move-some-risk-losing-houses-122412193.html
May 24th, 2011 at 8:29 AM
Yes, if lenders were more military savvy and friendly it would eliminate the entire struggle that military members face on moves. That is why during my twenty plus years in the Navy, I chose to rent, albeit a house or an apartment, so I didn’t have those distinct problems, because it was detrimental to my security clearance. It can also be a personal decision, but the moves aren’t, they come with needs of the service not individual desire. However, having said that, not all people are military friendly no matter at what level of authority they are in!
May 24th, 2011 at 8:50 AM
Doing this to members of the armed services is an absolute abomination. We expect these brave souls to risk their lives for us, then punish them for circumstances beyond their control. They didn’t cause the problems in the housing market - that was caused by the GREEDY lenders. Yet, they are expected to follow the rules and play fair in a game that had the rules changed, and is not being played fair by the mortgage holders and government regulators. Why anyone would be loyal to a country that treats them this way is beyond comprehension. The government should lean heavily on these institutions to modify any outstanding loans to the service members and make it easier for them to sell, without regard to loss. Let the lenders eat the loss, without any negative consequences to the service members. They had the most to gain. And THEY weren’t asked to risk their lives in order to serve their country.
Jim Myers