In the extreme example you would have to experience the same adjustments a refugee makes after he flees across the border from a war torn country with only the clothes on his back.

Sometimes the only reasonable thing to do might to be to walk away and try to start over.   I would probably default on my mortgage - let the bank have the house and fight it out with the insurance company  (it seems to me that when we had our mortgage it was on the condition that the house was insured and the bank would be first in line to collect.)

At this stage, I wouldn't have just stopped my mortgage payments.

I would look over my policy carefully and see if sewage is in fact actually covered or if there's wording that omits it because of overland flooding.  From what I've heard the companies that had the latter policy have since backtracked, but getting money takes a while.

I would push to get the money in my policy for evacuation if I was eligible for it (maybe not with the provincial grant?)  I'm assuming everyone got that by now, as people without damaged homes have.

I would talk to my lender, some might allow a tempory freeze on payments.  Just stopping isn't a good idea.

The province will be helping out, so I would wait as well.

If things weren't happening, I would look into getting money anyway possible.  I would look into if the insurance company should have paid out.  I would have looked into what I was told by my mortgage broker and going after that company if possible.

After waiting a while and if it looked like I wasn't going to get reimbursed or enough of a reimbursement/funds to build elsewhere I would seek information on filing for bankrupcy I guess.  That would only be after fighting for anything I was entiltled to though.  Mortgages here do not work like they do in the US.  People are still on the hook for the debt, they can't just walk away.  There are risks to all investments, and unfortunately that also includes one's primary residence if they bought their own home.

Here, my lender only required me to have fire insurance.

Some interesting thougjhts chemgal and seeler.

The people I speak with who live in High River have not recieved payment from their insurance.  They were told that they have coverage but they must do the work and submit the bills.  Quite difficult when there business is also suffering flood damage (no income).

i think there was a charge card issued provincially to cover evacuation - all spent long ago.  Some assistance by Red Cross, Salvation Army and generous individuals.

They have done what they can and are clinging to the hope in the promises from the insurers and government.  Unfortunately expenses continue to rise - and how long can ordinary people live and pay bills on hope and promises?

I truly don't know how I would cope with this situation if it happened to me.

Which shows the importance of an emergency fund.  It's hard though, especially with people looking to rent.  There are the camps set up by the government though.  Kay, have you heard how that's working for people?

I think the government should pay for the flood damage for now and impose mandatory flood insurance for the future. Legislation restricting building in the flood plains should also be imposed.

I think the resident camps are working for those who got in, which sounded like 'single people with definite vulnerability issues'. 

The people I am in contact with doubt they will get into government provided housing.  Lack of reliable information seems to be a problem.  One official seems to be saying 'do not return home until your home has been completely tested for structural and contamination issues'.  Another seems to think that once a 'basement has been pumped out people should move in and live upstairs.'

Arminius - your question hits on another area with lack of reliable information.  Apparently some homes are listed as 'safe from flooding' even though they had several feet of water to pump out!  Many people bought their homes because the town said they were in safe areas.

I was curious so I took a look.  In Alberta, lenders have less recourse than other provinces.

If a mortgage is high ratio (CMHC, Genworth, etc) then the insurer will go after your assests to repay the lender.  In the case of conventional mortgages, there is less recourse, and lenders can't go after your other assests (although I would be super wary if they were held with the same institution).  I guess I change my above answer about going bankrupt, I would look into just walking away much more carefully.  Screwed up credit would probably be better than being on the hook for $500k or whatever mortgage amounts we're talking about.  I don't know the difference in how credit would be affected by walking away vs. going bankrupt, so that would also be something I would look into and factor into my decision.  If someone is young, they can bounce back after 7 years for bankrupcy.  At least they would be reset at zero, many of my peers currently have a negative net worth.

Many people I know have their home insurance and their mortgage with the same institution, so the lender isn't likely to be fighting it out with the insurance company to collect on the loan.

It looks like water has been diverted to save some areas, and the diversion flooded areas that are not prone to flooding. In such cases, the government should definitely compensate to the fullest!

A very good friend of mine works as a flood claims assessor in the valley of the Danube. He and other adjusters are working flat out processing flood damage claims. He thinks the Bavarian State government will make flood insurance mandatory.

error

Kay, do you have any further updates?