Deeds and Title are two separate topics. Deed is the warranty given to you by the seller, and Title is the way you assume the ownership to the property.

Again, contact a knowledgeable real estate attorney who will offer an advice as to the best way for you to assume the Title that will protect you, your spouse if you are married, and your heirs.

After researching various sites, the best form I can find is a QUITCLAIM DEED (Individual to Two Individuals). Our concern is that the information on the Internet implies that this is Taxable under Commonwealth of Virginia laws. I can understand paying a fee for the Clerk to record an ammended Title. However, paying the 25 cents / $100 assessment (house is presently valued over $400k) is unaffordable. Furthmore, the person that I would like to add is on SSI (we checked and “owning” a home is acceptable within SSI regulations), but obviously very limited income.

Any suggestions / recommendations on how to proceed? We’re down in Prince William County (Dumfries region). Thanks!

Increasing LTV to 125% does NOT change the loan amount, only the interest rate – lowering the interest rate by default lowers monthly payment.
Their mortgage amount (principal) stays the same.

It is true that if someone purchased a home at the height of the market, that homeowner still owns a loan on a home that did decrease in market value.
However, it would be unreasonable and irresponsible to expect the federal government/taxpayers to pay for the market downturns/adjustments/economic phases, however you want to call them, or sometimes just outright financial and social irresponsibility on part of certain groups.

Bending the rules to allow the homeowners with 125% LTV to refinance was very generous.

Before many homeowners and investors who wanted to refinance were not able to do so because of the 105% LTV requirement.

UNLESS that option is disclosed at the very beginning of the consultation by the insurer, preferably in writing, as a requirement by LAW, it leaves a huge percentage of a population at a disadvantage and at the mercy of the individual agent.

In my books, it provides an opportunity to discriminate.

All coverage options should be disclosed openly to ALL customers the way prices of all products are disclosed in all retail stores for customers to compare BEFORE they purchase.

Imagine a REALTOR selling a home to a Buyer when there was another house available on the market, in the same neighborhood, for the same price, but with all the upgrades, granite counter tops, finished basement, bigger prime lot, etc. – just because a Buyer did NOT ask about availability of other homes in that neighborhood….. That REALTOR would loose his/her license faster than the ink dries on the DPOR decision.

I am deeply disappointed that you do not see problems and ethical issues with this kind of business approach.

“If the agent chooses not to disclose that for $0.24 (24 cents) more the patron can double the coverage, that patron will never know…”
-Really? They will NEVER know? There is no possible way to find out unless the agent decides to tell you? What about ASKING? I guess that would be really difficult.

“AND if State Farm does have such a policy, why, in the spirit of fairness, not charge more equitable premiums?”
-So in the spirit of fairness, State Farm should charge double what the lower policy cost? At what point do you stop this pattern? If it will cost me 10 dollars more? 100 dollars? 1000? Could you imagine: Agent-”Sir, just so you know, you can get a 100/300/100 policy for only 400 more a year!” Me- “No thank you, I know what I want” Agent- “Oh and just so you know and 250/500/100 would only be 800 more a year!” Me-”I knew what I wanted when I walked in here, thanks.”

“Does it smell of open discrimination in a broad daylight? You bet.”
-Please explain how what you are describing is discrimination. Who does, or could, this discriminate against? Shy people who don’t ask questions?

“Does it provide an opportunity to discriminate? YES again.”
-Perhaps, in a way, maybe, probably not. I have no idea who the discrimination would be against, but unless the agent outright LIES and denies a higher coverage even existing, I don’t see how this qualifies as an opportunity to discriminate. Everyone has the right to ask questions, and if the agent is lying to someone, it would be incredibly easy to figure out.

Perhaps I am missing the actual point of this article. Please enlighten me and explain how you can even imagine a possibility that discrimination could occur in this situation.