In 1989 we purchased a manufactured home.
about 5 years later we sold the home on what our laywer later described as a rent to own contract to another person, retaining the original loan in our name (yes this was dumb, hindsight being 20/20).
Payments were to be made directly to the mortgage company by the buyer.
Fast forward 14 years and our buyer(MJ) simply quit making payments. When I (or the mortgage company) contacted her, she would tell me she had made the payment and told them she would make the payments. Right on up to thirty days ago.
It's evident at this point she is not planning on paying this note.
Being as we are 18 years into this there really isn't a lot left on the loan (no land involved this a retail sale contract).
It seems I have two choices: pay it off or let it go back and pay the defiency if any.
I'm not opposed to the first option except, I suppose I would still have to go through the process of kicking out MJ and moving the stupid thing to my land and reselling it. More trouble than it's worth?
If I let it go back, MJ is already named in the repossession proceedings that I was served with today. That means, (correct me if I'm wrong) I don't have to deal with the whole eviction process and if the mortgage co reposses I also don't have to deal with moving the home off MJ's property.
Now, since MJ's been chronically late for the last 12 years and I had my own financial problems during that time, my credit is already not particularly good.
So, the real question here is which option might be the least financially taxing and just how badly will a repossession of this type affect my admittly poor credit rating? (while my credit may not be the best I have at long last mastered the art of living without credit cards (paid 'em off, cut them up) and only have debt on one car and my own home, other than the manufactured home)
Thanks in advance for your feedback.
I'm not absolutely sure I have posted this in the best place. Mods feel free to move it.