# Writing a reverse mortage



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

I am somewhat familiar with making a conventional mortgage loan. I'm curious if anyone knows about whether an individual can write a reverse mortgage to a non-related person, and what sorts of things happen.

The homeowner is

not quite old enough to collect OAP/GIS and CPP, but owns a home.
not old enough to qualify for a conventional reverse mortage, and they're usurious crap anyway

The idea would be to privately lend 50% of the home value now, basically write a private reverse mortgage, then once the income streams come online for the borrower, convert to a conventional mortgage and collect back as available. If I can afford to leave $150K tied up at an expected yield of 1.5% for 10-15 years, is this a feasible way of helping out a friend in need?


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

gardner said:


> I am somewhat familiar with making a conventional mortgage loan. I'm curious if anyone knows about whether an individual can write a reverse mortgage to a non-related person, and what sorts of things happen.
> 
> The homeowner is
> 
> ...


Isn't there a scheme already for reverse mortgages called Canadian Home Income Plan, (CHIP) where the person owning the house can get up to 55% of the appraised value of the home, a lump sum and not have to pay a penny back on the reverse mortgage until he moves, sells or dies.

What makes you think your scheme is any better.."for a friend in need". ..and why is he a "friend in need" right now that you want to tie up $150K for 10-15 yrs at 1.5% interest per annum? 

Alsio,what happens if that person dies or loses the home? 
or 
Bank forclloses in the meantime (if there is still a mortgage)?


----------



## houska (Feb 6, 2010)

Kudos to being a good friend.

I'll let more experienced people chime in on the legal feasibility, but I expect there's nothing blocking you and your friend from signing a contract which is a loan with defined repayment conditions as you see fit. I'm less sure about what it would take to put your reverse mortgage on title, i.e. to secure it against the property rather than be an unsecured loan. You would at least doubtless need a lawyer's help on this.

I'd advise you to think carefully about the risks you are taking in doing this.
First, what happens in case your friend can't get a "conventional" mortgage at the expected time? Conventional credit standard for mortgages may tighten, rates may rise, real estate values may (finally?) pop. Are you OK if your expected 10-15 year investment becomes a 30-40 year one? Or would you effectively foreclose on your friend to get your money?
Second, independent or together with #1, what if you can't get all your money back? 50% of value sounds safe after decades of a real estate bull market. But 60%+ of 2016 value (after factoring in the interest accumulated) in a not-so-great market, maintenance possibly not up to date etc. 
What if your friend dies, or needs to move for health reasons (and needs capital)? 

Chances are the right yield/rate, given the risks, is considerably higher than 1.5%. Are you comfortable with essentially gifting your friend that difference in value?

I write this since I have -- implicitly -- sorta done this. My parents are immigrants with insufficient retirement funds but fully paid-for house. I support them as needed, first since it is the right thing to do and I am happy to help them, but also since I, as only child, will be their eventual heir. Therefore a 3rd party solution (e.g. conventional reverse mortgage) would cost both them and ultimately me money. A bit unpleasant to think about that way, but them's the facts. This is of course different than your situation, but has forced me to think through these issues at least a little bit

[Editing to add: see carverman made some of the same points; we were typing at the same time]


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

carverman said:


> Isn't there a scheme already for reverse mortgages call Canadian Home Income Plan, (CHIP) where the person owning the house can get up to 55% of the appraised value of the home, a lump sum and not have to pay a penny back on the reverse mortgage until he moves, sells or dies.
> 
> What makes you think your scheme is any better.."for a friend in need". ..and why is he a "friend in need" right now that you want to tie up $150K for 10-15 yrs at 1.5% interest per annum?
> 
> ...


Carver, I think what gardner is saying makes his/her scheme better is that the borrower is not yet of an age to qualify for a reverse mtge. through conventional channels.

Gardner, I would say you can draw up any kind of mortgage you like, although a reverse mortgage in the circumstances you describe is a bit unusual. I take it the property in question is at present clear title. 

You say you would "basically write a private reverse mortgage, then once the income streams come online for the borrower, convert to a conventional mortgage and collect back as available." To what "income streams" do you refer? From you, as reverse mortgagee? From some other source of income anticipated by the borrower downstream? 

I think we lack sufficient detail about your circumstances and those of the intended borrower to make any worthwhile suggestions. But you could also consider other types of mortgage financing, including a demand mortgage.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

Mukhang pera said:


> the borrower is not yet of an age to qualify for a reverse mtge. through conventional channels.


Yes, exactly. I think the conventional reverse mortgage can only be had above age 62.

Borrower would be in late fifties with dwindling income, but clear title and full ownership.
At age 65-67, depending, would be drawing OAS, GIC, CPP totaling something like $1,500/month.
The trick is to bridge the 8 or 10-year gap in income without being forced to sell.

With nearly no income, access to conventional financing is not possible. I am exploring whether I could somehow provide the bridge financing via a reverse and then regular mortgage at favourable, but not completely laughable rates. At the moment it's just a thought exercise.


----------



## 319905 (Mar 7, 2016)

Why not just hold a conventional mortgage of $150K ... you give your buddy $150K, your buddy starts making payment as per whatever rate you come up with e.g 1% for whatever the first term e.g 2 years if that's what it will take for your buddy to start collecting CPP/OAS. And at 2 years, new term, new rate, ... A reverse mortgage implies to me that interest is accumulating but not being paid ... and that is what I really don't like about those things ...


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

houska said:


> Kudos to being a good friend.
> 
> You would at least doubtless need a lawyer's help on this.
> 
> ...


There has to be a registered mortgage, if the lender wants security on the property.otherwise a "promissory note" that the receiver of the funds will pay back so much, after so much time is meaningless, if the receiver defaults. 

The lender must be on a mortgage title with the owner of the property, or have a registered mortage that must be paid off in full, if the owner dies, or unable to pay.

Reverse mortage companies (such as Home Equity Bank..(CHIP) has procedures to secure their reverse mortage investment.
I looked into this a couple years ago but found that their up front costs were significant.

and their interest rate on the money I would borrow for the 55% amount of reverse mortage a bit steep..


> Variable3	4.99%
> closing and admin costs $1495
> 
> APR: 5.22%


 (Borrowing $150k at this rate over 25 years can be as much as $123,807 of interest rate amortization, which
you would have to pay back if you move (sell) or your estate has to pay (if you die).

If you don't have the money to pay back the interest on the reverse mortgage loan..they take your house!

CAVEAT EMPTOR
===========
Although they mention that you never have to pay a penny until you move, sell or die,(estate debt), if you happen to be 62 and live for another say 22 years ( to age 84), the interest growth on $150k will pretty much use up quite a bit of the remaining equity..unless you are living in Toronto or Vancouver where the real estate prices keep escalating.



> B]Where do the Downsides of Reverse Mortgages Come From and How Can I Avoid Them?[/B]
> 
> The downsides to reverse mortgages are usually related to the f*act that that option was not best suited for that particular person and their circumstances or based on some misconceptions about reverse mortgages.* For example:
> 
> ...





> Interest on a reverse mortgage is typically higher because you have the option of never making an interest payment until the selling of your home


Set up costs are as follows:



> Appraisal Fee
> 
> Typically from $175 to $400 as an out-of-pocket cost.
> Actual amount varies by province and for urban and rural properties.
> ...





> Typically $300 to $600 as an out-of-pocket cost.
> Price range assumes no title issues.
> At your request, CHIP can provide a list of legal advisors in your area.
> It is recommended that you discuss fees with the legal advisor before proceeding.
> ...


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

OK. So for a person requiring income (not large capital) a line of credit will usually be more favourable then a reverse mortgage in almost all cases. The only caveat is that a home equity line of credit requires interest payments and there is no guarantee that the debt will get too high and require one to pay it down/sell the house.

That being said, the benefits of a line of credit as opposed to a reverse mortgage, for someone requiring income, is that with a reverse mortgage they actually lend you a lump sum and then buy an annuity to provide the income. You might only need a few hundred dollars a month, but to provide that they will lend you a very large lump sum to provide it. That would not bother me except that the borrower is accruing interest on a large lump sum when in fact they only received small amounts of income. Thought of another way, if the RM lender and the annuity provider were the same company, they go to their vault, give you a large lump sum. You then give back the lump sum and they put it right back into the same vault. They are in no different position after you came in to their office as they were before you came in, but you are now acruing a very large interest spread on this transaction. Doesn't sound like something I would ever do, but I am the type of person who does not like paying for nothing, and can usually figure out where the pebble is in these types of shell games.

The benefit of a HELOC is that if you need $500 next month, you take it from the HELOC and only pay interest on $500. If you don't want to pay interest payments then simply borrow $501.66 next month from the LOC and so you can pay back the $1.66 of interest it would require, if the interest rate was 4%.

Now obviously over time this $500 per month draw, plus the interest will start to add up, but in most cases you will need to live a very long time before it becomes the same level as the reverse mortgage a person would take on their very first day.

Reverse mortgages are only for people who need lump sum capital (not income) and don't mind spending a very large amount of their heir's inheritance to provide a fairly small amount of financial benefit for themselves. Here I am talking about people without children as well as people who have no intention of providing any estate for the children they have.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

OptsyEagle said:


> a line of credit will usually be more favourable then a reverse mortgage in almost all cases


Yes, I agree that this would be a better proposition. The real underlying question should probably have been: what are the options to help out someone in XYZ position, while securing at some level against the real-estate? Can an individual write a HELOC -- or something equivalent -- to an unrelated person, then? As others have said, I suppose you can write a contract for whatever you want, so I guess this would be possible.


----------



## twa2w (Mar 5, 2016)

gardner said:


> Yes, I agree that this would be a better proposition. The real underlying question should probably have been: what are the options to help out someone in XYZ position, while securing at some level against the real-estate? Can an individual write a HELOC -- or something equivalent -- to an unrelated person, then? As others have said, I suppose you can write a contract for whatever you want, so I guess this would be possible.


You could write either a reverse mortgage or HELOC but the issue would be getting the legalese down properly.
There are pros/ cons to each.
Often with a reverse mortgage, the principal from the mortgage is used to buy an annuity to provide the mortgagor with lifetime income. Generally people who should be looking at reverse mortgages are people who are not concerned about leaving an inheritance. The issue for the lender is that with the interest being added to the principal monthly, the balance owing could potentially exceed the value of the property. In theory the owners of the property have no worries about that unless they sell before they pass on and need funds for long termcare which may not be available due to diminishing equity.
This is the reason CHIP and others have age and loan to value threshholds.
The issue with a HELOC is it may be difficult to qualify for with limited income. You also have to ensure payments are made each month and manage the withdrawals.
If the home owner goes through the money and runs into the limit, he will be forced to make payments from other income which depending on interest rate and income could be onerous, possibly forcing the homeowner to sell.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

OptsyEagle said:


> O
> That being said, the benefits of a line of credit as opposed to a reverse mortgage, for someone requiring income, is that with a reverse mortgage they actually lend you a lump sum and then buy an annuity to provide the income. Y That would not bother me except that the borrower is accruing interest on a large lump sum when in fact they only received small amounts of income. Thought of another way, if the RM lender and the annuity provider were the same company, they go to their vault, give you a large lump sum. You then give back the lump sum and they put it right back into the same vault.


The way I understand it and I briefly inquired to see how it works; the RM as CHIP implements it is a lump sum given to the owner of the house at the time the RM is taken out.

It is a ONE TIME LUMP sum and no payments are required..PROVIDED the owner continues paying property taxes and has fire insurance in place...BUT if the owner blows it all on this and that, vacations etc in the last
few years of their lives..
the RM money is GONE, and although the person still doesn't have to pay a cent, the interest at 5.33% per annum on the FULL AMOUNT BORROWED on this REVERSE MORTGAGE keeps accumulating. This can
be very significant, almost as much as was borrowed in the first place..depending on the number of years
the RM is valid. 

Once the owner is too old to live in their home and needs assisted care, as has to sell/move..the MONEY BORROWED INITIALLY PLUS THE INTEREST accumulated over the years is due and payable.

If the senior does not have that kind of money..they take your home!

This scheme is only for those that have no children and would leave their estate to the government in any case. 



> They are in no different position after you came in to their office as they were before you came in, but you are now acruing a very large interest spread on this transaction. Doesn't sound like something I would ever do, but I am the type of person who does not like paying for nothing, and can usually figure out where the pebble is in these types of shell games.


As they explain it in the CHIP brochure..its tax free spending money in the last say.,15 to 20 years of your life using UP TO 55% of the equity in your home..... and assuming you are living in a paid off mortgage free home that has grown consideral value in todays real estate markets. 

In Toronto for instance..that $1,000,000 appraised home could fetch you as much as $500k in a RM scheme.
But be sure you are ready to give it up in 15-20 years time, when you are no longer capable of living in it due to health issues..or death as the case may be. The reason they can only give you up to 55% of the current
appraised value is that IF the owner can't repay the RM when it is due and payable, the other 45 to 50% is
used as collateral for their RM and they can use that to sell your home from under you as mortgage default.



> Now obviously over time this $500 per month draw, plus the interest will start to add up, but in most cases you will need to live a very long time before it becomes the same level as the reverse mortgage a person would take on their very first day.


But the difference is that you have to pay back what you borrowed on the HELOC on a regular basis, not so the CHIP RM scheme.



> Reverse mortgages are only for people who need lump sum capital (not income) and don't mind spending a very large amount of their heir's inheritance to provide a fairly small amount of financial benefit for themselves. Here I am talking about people without children as well as people who have no intention of providing any estate for the children they have.


Yes, these RMs are only for those that want to spend their children's inheritances while they are living. The other side bonus, (not sure about this though), is that the estate can be spent down to nothing..reducing or even eliminating the probate taxes.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

$1500 a month isn't going to be enough income to support even a modest lifestyle, taxes, maintenance, utilities, and a mortgage payment.

In any scenario, without selling the home to the OP or someone else, the home owner will not be able to make the mortgage payments.

One option would be for the home owner to sell the home to the OP and rent it using the proceeds from the sale.

The sale proceeds would decline until the retirement benefits begin, when the decline would be slowed or halted.

My sister was in the same situation and her son purchased her home with a mortgage.

She rents the home from him and he has to claim the income, but has the mortgage costs to offset the income.

From what I understand, they have come to some agreement if the home is sold on a fair split of any equity gains in the home.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

carverman said:


> There has to be a registered mortgage, if the lender wants security on the property.otherwise a "promissory note" that the receiver of the funds will pay back so much, after so much time is meaningless, if the receiver defaults.


It looks like YMMV as there are references to promissory notes that require security for the loan by registering a lien or mortgage against the property as part of the note.

There are also notes that loans and promissory notes are active contracts versus the IOU that simply documents the debt.


Of course where someone is "helping a friend" then it opens up the question as to when it would be worth their while to go after the non-paying friend.




carverman said:


> The lender must be on a mortgage title with the owner of the property, or have a registered mortage that must be paid off in full, if the owner dies, or unable to pay.


I can find references to setting up a mortgage as part of the promissory note or the alternatively, recognition of the loan on the property title.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

gardner said:


> ...The real underlying question should probably have been: what are the options to help out someone in XYZ position, while securing at some level against the real-estate?


Why not keep it simple with a loan that is secured against the house?

The legal terms should be relatively simple, the ways of securing it should be relatively simple ... not sure what the legal fees would be.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

carverman said:


> ... But the difference is that you have to pay back what you borrowed on the HELOC on a regular basis, not so the CHIP RM scheme.


I believe it depends on the HELOC ... some will happily chug along with only the interest being paid. 

Different than paying nothing but with what looks like 2.3% higher interest rate for the CHIP versus what has been posted by those posting the HELOC rate for what they obtained, it may be easier.


Regardless, as the friend is in a low income situation - a run of the mill HELOC does not sound like it would be approved by a financial institution.


Cheers



Yes, these RMs are only for those that want to spend their children's inheritances while they are living. The other side bonus, (not sure about this though), is that the estate can be spent down to nothing..reducing or even eliminating the probate taxes.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

sags said:


> $1500 a month isn't going to be enough income to support even a modest lifestyle, taxes, maintenance, utilities, and a mortgage payment.


Not sure where the $1500 a month comes from ... the OP is talking about loaning the home owner $150K at 1.5% ... that should work out to $2250 of interest *for the year*.
Unless I am missing something, the home owner gets to use the OP's $150K where only about interest of about $187.50 to pay a month.

An important question is what is the homeowner's spending rate that the $150K would need to fill the gap for and how quickly it would be used up in the 10 to 15 years. 




sags said:


> One option would be for the home owner to sell the home to the OP and rent it using the proceeds from the sale.
> The sale proceeds would decline until the retirement benefits begin, when the decline would be slowed or halted.


Assuming the full house is sold, then the full proceeds sounds like it doubles to something like $300K. 




sags said:


> She rents the home from him and he has to claim the income, but has the mortgage costs to offset the income.


Note sure how this would work for the OP ... to maximise the mortgage costs, the OP would have to take out their own mortgage on the house, as the house is currently mortgage free.




sags said:


> From what I understand, they have come to some agreement if the home is sold on a fair split of any equity gains in the home.


While the son can redistribute proceeds as a gift as he sees fit ... he will have to pay the capital gains on the increase in value.


Cheers


----------



## yyz (Aug 11, 2013)

You can get a CHIP reverse mortgage at 55 and it does not have to be a lump sum payment.You can get monthly payments which is a much better way to do it than a lump sum if you are just trying to get some income.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

What about deferring property tax as part of a plan to retain some of the cash you need to free up.

http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/t...-property-tax/pay/defer-taxes/regular-program

I am not sure if this is done across Canada or how many years you can do it.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

yyz said:


> You can get a CHIP reverse mortgage at 55 and it does not have to be a lump sum payment.You can get monthly payments which is a much better way to do it than a lump sum if you are just trying to get some income.


This is one CHIP offering from HomEquity Bank, however, depending on appraisal and your age (especially at age 55),
you may not get the 55% of the appraised value.



> Depending upon you and your spouse’s ages, and the location and type of your home, you can access up to 55%[/B] of your home’s value. This limit is set because CHIP wants to ensure that you still have equity left in your property if you decide to sell. Additionally, the amount to be repaid to CHIP will never exceed the fair market value of your home, so your estate is safe and you won’t need to come up with extra funds to repay your CHIP reverse mortgage.



Single lump-sum: 100% of funds the homeowner
is approved for.
• Initial lump-sum with Subsequent Advances:
homeowner takes less than 100% of approved
funds initially and sets aside the rest.
• The minimum initial advance is $25,000.


----------



## houska (Feb 6, 2010)

As I understand it, OP has said reverse mortgage is unavailable due to age and felt to be too expensive. Seeking ways he(?) can help friend to the tune of a $150k lump sum, to be paid back in x years or earlier.

It is of course possible to just loan the money (with a promissory note). This requires an amount of trust in the friend, an amount of confidence in their financial situation -- and probably some confidence in their eventual executor in the event of their death. That is in effect what I have done (without even the promissory note!) for my parents, since I know them well, help them manage their finances anyway, and am their eventual executor and sole heir.

If this is too loosey-goosey, as I expect it would be between "just friends", it is my (inexpert) understanding -- and implied by some of the responses above -- that it should be possible to make it a private mortgage registered against the title on the property. I found the following by googling: http://www.lsuc.on.ca/with.aspx?id=2147490134 which implies the paperwork is *more* significant than for a financial institution mortgage, but a real estate lawyer should be able to help (for a fee of course).

You could of course also investigate purchasing part ownership of your friend's property for $150k now, which s/he repurchases back from you later. I expect this might have tax implications, since any gains on the property value would not be tax free to you since it is not eligible for the principal residence exemption. But it would be a way to help your friend as a real estate investor rather than as a lender (different risk-return profile). I'm assuming from your description of the situation that both of you are open to a range of solutions that i) do put your capital at some but bounded risk, and i) the terms are structured so as to keep you whole with a small (lower than market but positive) return on your capital.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

_Not sure where the $1500 a month comes from ... the OP is talking about loaning the home owner $150K at 1.5% ... that should work out to $2250 of interest *for the year*.
Unless I am missing something, the home owner gets to use the OP's $150K where only about interest of about $187.50 to pay a month.
_

You are missing the part where the loan converts to a mortgage upon receipt of government benefits of $1500 a month.

Income of $1500 to provide for living and home ownership costs, plus an additional mortgage payment, would be difficult to maintain.


----------



## yyz (Aug 11, 2013)

carverman said:


> This is one CHIP offering from HomEquity Bank, however, depending on appraisal and your age (especially at age 55),
> you may not get the 55% of the appraised value.
> 
> 
> ...


I never said they would get the 55% of appraised value though.And the OP stated the person is late 50's so they should definitely qualify.But I would never recommend a reverse mortgage unless it's a last resort and you won't need the home equity at a later point of life.You'll lose value fast in your house and the piper does have to get paid at some point.Nobody can predict future life and health needs either.If you can't afford a clear mortgage free house now do you really think you will on government benefits?


----------



## Mortgage u/w (Feb 6, 2014)

gardner said:


> I am somewhat familiar with making a conventional mortgage loan. I'm curious if anyone knows about whether an individual can write a reverse mortgage to a non-related person, and what sorts of things happen.
> 
> The homeowner is
> 
> ...


Lots of debate here on reverse mortgages but let me give you a different angle. 
Not sure what exact help your friend needs but I'm assuming its for covering debts? If that is the case, why don't you straight up buy his house and have him pay you rent for as long as he lives there?? The funds from the sale would liberate your friend's debtload and hopefully leave him with sufficient funds to have substantial savings for future use. This does not tie up your personal finances and the rent would cover any incurred expenses. You can choose to get a mortgage for the purchase so no money would come out of your pocket. The day your friend moves on or you mutually agree that you no longer wish to hold the property, you can simply sell it.


----------



## twa2w (Mar 5, 2016)

houska said:


> ......
> 
> You could of course also investigate purchasing part ownership of your friend's property for $150k now, which s/he repurchases back from you later. I expect this might have tax implications, since any gains on the property value would not be tax free to you since it is not eligible for the principal residence exemption. But it would be a way to help your friend as a real estate investor rather than as a lender (different risk-return profile). I'm assuming from your description of the situation that both of you are open to a range of solutions that i) do put your capital at some but bounded risk, and i) the terms are structured so as to keep you whole with a small (lower than market but positive) return on your capital.


Actually, in this case, according to CRA the gain in value would be tax free.( as long as the OP was part owner only and the land amount was under the limit and it is not a rental and the friend continues to live in the property as prin res) This has been discussed before on this forum and links provided.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

houska said:


> You could of course also investigate purchasing part ownership of your friend's property for $150k now, which s/he repurchases back from you later.


Yes, that has crossed my mind too. The amount of supplementary income required is not that great and a 150K or so principle yielding ~4% would not be substantially eaten away and might even make a bit. With pension benefits coming on stream I pictured probably 120-140K coming back and the remaining 20-50K being paid back at a very low rate -- maybe $500/month or something.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

yyz said:


> I never said they would get the 55% of appraised value though.And the OP stated the person is late 50's so they should definitely qualify.But I would never recommend a reverse mortgage unless it's a last resort and you won't need the home equity at a later point of life.You'll lose value fast in your house and the piper does have to get paid at some point.
> 
> *Nobody can predict future life and health needs either*.If you can't afford a clear mortgage free house now do you really think you will on government benefits?


Well said. In my case at age 55, my health was still good, then I got lymphoma cancer and chemo.

Beat the cancer, but the chemo ( and I suspect this, killed my immune system completely and when it came back a year later, my legs developed a weakness..auto immune disease.
No treatment and no cure..I'm stuck with it in a wheelchair until it's time to go.

Last winter I got a quick lesson on what it costs for assisted living if you are disabled locally here in Ottawa.
$950 a week x 4 = $3400 a month. For that *you barely get adequate care to use the toilet* and the *food they serve is cheap and greasy to reduce your lifespan even more*.

I inquired briefly a couple years ago about a RM with CHIP online. On my suggested value of $285k (tops)
They suggested I could receive as much as $90K on my house ( I have no mortgage),
and then with the extra deductions from that, (apprasal fee, mortgage registration etc etc, they take up to $2500 off, that but those fees are included in the $90k that they charge interest on at 5.33% per annum.

I figured that if i had taken up on their offer, and stayed with assisted living in a private run seniors residence,
* I would be out of funds ( at $40, 800 per year) in 2 years!,* then they would
kick me out to go into a gov't run LTC (horrible!!) and then the CHIP loan would be due and payable.
I would have to sell my house at that point and take a substantial financial hit.
Not a good deal for the homeowner, but the ads are appealing.."wouldn't it be nice"..ya sure.

it's a difficult decision to make...if I decided to go with CHIP, there would be no going back after, if I changed my mind.
Better off just to sell outright when the time comes to move and continue living in your own house as long as it is possible with the help of a PSW.


----------

