Ask Liz Weston

Get smart with your money

Real Estate

Q&A: Here’s why timeshares are a bad investment

By

Dear Liz: About two years ago, I lost my timeshare because of financial hardship. I paid off the mortgage but after my divorce I missed paying the annual fees. Is there any way I can regain it, or can the company just take it like they did? Also, is it worth it to try to get it back? I think so because it is the only thing I own.

Answer: Please consider investing your money in an asset that can gain value over time. Timeshares don’t.

Timeshares give you the right to use a vacation property for one week each year. They aren’t an investment. In most cases, timeshare owners are lucky to get 10 cents on the dollar when they try to sell their interests.

Sites such as Timeshare Users Group and RedWeek are filled with ads from people trying to sell their timeshares for $1, and some will even pay others to take timeshares off their hands, perhaps by prepaying a year or two of maintenance fees. Those fees average about $900 a year but can top $3,000 on high-end properties. Resorts damaged by natural disasters or older properties that are being improved also may charge “special assessments” that can be hundreds or thousands of dollars more.

As you discovered, timeshare resorts can take back your interest if you don’t keep up with those fees. You also could have lost your timeshare if you hadn’t been able to pay the mortgage. (In general, it’s not a good idea to borrow money to pay for vacations or other luxuries, and that includes timeshares. The high interest rates charged by most timeshare resort developers make borrowing an even worse idea.)

In addition to taking your timeshare, the developers may have sold your delinquent account to a collection agency that reports to the credit bureaus. Those collections could damage your credit scores.

You could ask the resort developer if you can get the timeshare back, but you could just face the same problem again down the road. One of the biggest problems with timeshares is that there typically is no easy exit. Those annual fees and special assessments are due as long as you own the timeshare. You may not be able to find a buyer if money is tight or you’re no longer able to use it.

If you really loved vacationing at that particular resort, you probably still can. Owners who can’t use or trade their timeshare weeks often rent them out on the sites mentioned above, sometimes for less than the annual maintenance fee. Renting could be a much better deal than tying yourself to a timeshare that could become unaffordable.

Q&A: When to keep a mortgage into retirement years and reasons you might want to pay it off

By

Dear Liz: My husband and I have no debt other than the mortgage on our home. My husband will retire in three years while I will continue to work. (I will have to pay for healthcare at that time, as I currently receive my benefits through his employer.) My husband insists that we pay our mortgage off before he retires. The mortgage balance is $59,000 now. We are able to do this, however, I am concerned that we will have no tax deduction whatsoever if we do. Who is correct?

Answer: You may have received some tax benefit in the past for your mortgage. After last year’s tax reform, it’s unlikely you’ll get any tax break going forward.

You have to be able to itemize your deductions to write off your mortgage interest. Now that Congress has nearly doubled the standard deduction, few taxpayers will have enough deductions to make itemizing worthwhile.

Even before tax reform, though, many homeowners got little or no tax benefit from their mortgages. They didn’t pay enough mortgage interest to make itemizing worthwhile, or their itemized deductions barely exceeded the standard deduction. The homeowners who got the biggest benefit were the ones with the largest mortgages. Even people with big mortgages tend to pay less interest over time as they pay down their loans.

Keeping a mortgage just for the tax break is kind of shortsighted, in any case, since you’re only getting back a fraction of what you pay out. For example, if you were in the 25% tax bracket, each dollar you paid in interest reduced your taxes by just 25 cents.

The best arguments for keeping a mortgage have to do with liquidity and investment returns. You shouldn’t pay off a mortgage if it means most of your money is tied up in your home, and if you don’t have enough other assets to cover emergencies and to generate future income. Also, some wealthier people opt to keep a mortgage because the loan is cheap, and they can make better returns on their money elsewhere.

Most people are better off without debts in retirement, though, so if you can pay off your home loan without compromising the rest of your financial life, you probably should.

Q&A: Here’s why two siblings who inherited mom’s house should prepare for an ugly family feud

By

Dear Liz: My mother left her house to my brother and me. He wants to use it as a rental property. I have no interest in being a landlord or in ownership. He doesn’t want to buy me out, so I’d like to sell my half interest. What are the tax issues I need to prepare for, and does my brother need to sign any documents?

Answer: You should first prepare for an ugly family feud. If the property hasn’t been distributed yet, you’ll face a probate or trust contest over the house, says Jennifer Sawday, an estate planning attorney in Long Beach. If you’ve already inherited the home, you would need to go to court to file a real estate partition action. Either way, a court action typically forces a sale or arranges for your brother to buy you out before dividing the proceeds — minus all the attorneys’ fees, of course. (This is not a do-it-yourself situation, so you’ll both need to hire lawyers.)

That may be the best of bad options if your brother won’t see reason. Being a landlord involves considerable hassle and liability. You shouldn’t be forced into such a business — or any business — with a family member.

You can use the threat of legal action as a bargaining chip, since you both will net a lot less from your inheritance once the court gets involved. It makes much more sense for your brother to agree to a sale or get a mortgage to buy you out. Let’s hope he comes to that conclusion as soon as possible.

Q&A: Death means capital gains take a holiday for heirs selling a house

By

Dear Liz: I am in my mid-80s and in declining health. I want to advise my beneficiaries about possible taxation on the sale of my home after I expire. I bought the place in 1995 for $152,000. It now has a market value of about $400,000. The issue is whether that gain is taxable upon the sale after my death. I also have a $57,000 long-term capital loss carry-forward in my income taxes, which is being written off at a rate of $3,000 each year.

Answer: The gain in your home’s value won’t be taxable at your death. Instead, the home will get what’s known as a “step up in basis.” That means its new value for tax purposes will be its market value when you die. So if it’s worth $400,000 when you die and your heirs sell it for $400,000, no capital gains taxes will be owed on the sale.

The news isn’t so good for your capital loss, however. Any unused carryover expires at your death and can’t be transferred to your estate.

As you know, capital losses — losses on investments or assets that you sell — can be used to offset capital gains and reduce your tax bill. If your losses exceed your gains, you can offset up to $3,000 of ordinary income each year. Any capital loss remaining after that can be used the next year in the same way: first to offset capital gains, then to offset up to $3,000 of ordinary income.

Often when taxpayers have such a loss, they’re encouraged to sell investments that have increased in value to help use up the loss faster, but you should talk to your tax pro and estate planning attorney to see if that makes sense in your case.

Q&A: How to get results when you complain to your mortgage company

By

Dear Liz: Last year my mortgage was sold to another company. I didn’t know that I had a new loan number, so my automatic payments weren’t posted properly. With the help of my bank, I was able to sort this out but not before the new company reported me as delinquent to the credit bureaus. I have never been late with a payment in 15 years.

I pleaded with the company to remove the delinquency from my credit report, but they declined, saying their records show that they fulfilled their obligation by notifying me that they are my new lender. Do I have any recourse and what are my options in getting this delinquency removed from my credit report?

Answer: You can try disputing the delinquency with the credit bureaus, but that is a highly automated process. The company may check its records and respond to the bureaus as it did to you, refusing to remove the black mark. It’s worth a shot, but far from guaranteed.

You most likely will need to get to the right human being to help you. Sometimes when you run into a brick wall with customer service, you can turn things around by appealing to someone’s expertise. Asking the customer service rep, “If this happened to you, what would you do to fix it?” may get you pointed in the right direction.

Of course, you may have been talking to a call center worker with little training and even less authority. If that’s the case, ask to speak to the manager. You might also write a letter to the company’s chief executive, asking directly for help.

Another option is to involve regulators. Filing a complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau or your state attorney general may get results.

A single missed payment can knock more than 100 points off good credit scores, plunging you into the “average” category and causing you to pay more for such things as credit card interest, insurance and cellphone coverage. It may take considerable effort, but it’s worth fighting back.

Q&A: Reverse mortgages have improved but still require caution

By

Dear Liz: You’ve written about the potential financial flexibility and options for preserving quality of life for seniors by using a reverse mortgage line of credit. I believe there is a great need for much more cautionary advice regarding reverse mortgages.

Someone I know entered into a reverse mortgage and the consequences have been disastrous. She was barely past the minimum age of 62 when she got the loan and took the lump sum option, only to spend it hastily on various purchases and debts.

Having no income other than Social Security, and almost nonexistent savings, she faces many years of figuring out how to pay property taxes and ongoing maintenance costs to avoid foreclosure. So although she has her home, it’s a precarious situation from year to year. She also no longer has an asset that could be used for long-term care or other expenses because the reverse mortgage makes it unlikely the owner will receive any leftover proceeds after paying off the lender.

Answer: You didn’t say when your friend got her reverse mortgage, but the rules for lump-sum payouts have been tightened under the Federal Housing Administration’s Home Equity Conversion Mortgage program.

In the past, borrowers could take 100% of the loan proceeds upfront. Today, only 60% is typically available in the first year. The total amounts that can be borrowed overall have been reduced as well. These changes were meant to shore up the program’s finances, but they also could lead to fewer situations like your friend’s.

That said, people should be extremely careful about encumbering their homes in retirement. Prospective borrowers have to meet with HECM counselors to discuss a reverse mortgage’s financial implications and potential alternatives, but they would be smart to also meet with a fee-only financial planner.