Mortgage makers have always been a creative lot. But these days, credit unions seem to have supplanted traditional lenders as the most inventive.

Banks and mortgage companies are pretty much operating with one hand tied behind their back while they wait for regulators to lay down the law under the latest -- and much more restrictive -- legislation. But not credit unions, says Ed Roberts of the trade publication Credit Union Journal.

These not-for-profit institutions, which are owned and controlled by their members, had "much lower deficiency ratios" than banks during the mortgage meltdown, says Roberts. So they are "much more willing to experiment."

One of the most intriguing new products is a five-year, fixed-rate mortgage being offered by the National Institutes of Health Federal Credit Union, which serves biomedical and health-care professionals in Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia and the District of Columbia.

"We call it our 'Goodbye Mortgage' because it's perfect for our baby boomer members who want to get out of debt before they retire," says NIHFCU President Juli Anne Callis.

Say you're nearing the point when you're ready to slow down and enjoy the fruits of your labor, but you have a 10- or 12-year "tail" left on your current home loan. The loan is not throwing off the interest write-offs it used to, but you don't have enough cash lying around to pay it off.

Consider refinancing into a five-year, "see-ya" loan like the one offered by the NIH credit union. At today's record low interest rates, you might be able to cut the remaining term in half while paying no more than you were under your original loan.

Even if the payment is somewhat higher, Callis says, her members are going for it. They are at the stage in their lives when they have the financial wherewithal to pay a little more each month in order to be out of debt sooner rather than later.

"'How can we get out of debt by the time we retire?' is a constant theme we hear from our members," Callis says.

But the Goodbye Mortgage doesn't appeal only to empty nesters. Parents who want to dump their mortgage debt by the time their children reach college age also see the value of refinancing into a five-year loan.

Younger buyers who don't want to load up on debt are giving the loan a hard look, Callis says. And there's interest, too, among folks who want to pay off their loan on their primary residence sooner so they can buy a vacation home.

Shorter-term loans have always been available in the mortgage supermarket. While most people know about 15-year loans, few realize that lenders will sometimes go as short as 10 or even eight years. But five-year loans? They're practically unheard of.

What makes a five-year loan work, of course, is today's rock-bottom rates. Say you are on the back end of a 30-year, fixed-rate loan you took out 20 years ago at 7 percent. If you borrowed $200,000, your payment is $1,330.60, and your current balance is $144,602.

Roll that into a five-year loan at 2.5 percent and your payment would jump $703, to $2,033.88. But now you have a lot more discretionary income than you did 20 years ago, and if you throw that against your mortgage, you'd be debt-free in half the time.

"As long as you are in a position where the higher monthly payment is not going to affect your lifestyle, the Goodbye Mortgage works really well," says Mark Lawson, a NIHFCU loan officer.

Other credit unions are offering five-year adjustable-rate mortgages -- but with a twist. Whereas the typical five-year ARM resets annually after the initial five-year fixed period, the 5-5 adjustables offered by Affinity Federal in New Jersey and Alliance Credit Union in San Jose, Calif., and Wilmington, N.C., are 30-year loans that adjust only after every fifth year.

"For the past four years or so, it's been all about the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage. Adjustables had fallen off the map," says Jim Delyea of Alliance, which serves as a credit union for about 200 companies. "So we thought it was time to reintroduce it. It's almost like a new concept, it's been off the table for so long."

Both institutions are targeting their 5-5 ARM toward buyers who know they won't be staying in their homes for long periods, whose jobs dictate that they be able to move every seven to 10 years. It's more secure than a typical 5-1 ARM, says Delyea.

"You'll enjoy five years of low, locked-in payments, then an adjustment only every five years after that," the Alliance vice president says. "It's the perfect mix."

ARMs don't have a particularly great reputation, largely because rates can fluctuate so widely that borrowers could be hit with unexpectedly higher payments. But with a 5-5 ARM, even borrowers with longer-term horizons can anticipate what is coming and budget for it, says Affinity's Elizabeth McLaughlin.

At Affinity, New Jersey's largest credit union serving more than 2,000 businesses and organizations, the 5-5 ARM comes with a 3 percentage point cap at the first adjustment and a 2-point cap on subsequent resets. Over the life of the loan, the rate can rise by no more than 6 points.

These built-in protections are even better with Alliance's loan, which has 2 percentage point caps on each adjustment and a 5-point maximum over the 30-year term.

And, of course, if market rates should fall sometime over the life of the 5-5 ARM, there's always the possibility your rate could slide right along with them.

The product "is a good example of the financial industry finding better ways to execute a worthwhile concept rather than simply tossing it out entirely because there were problems associated with it," Alliance says on its website.

"Consumers did have problems with ARMs, but it didn't make sense to lock everyone into fixed-rate mortgages when ARMs could benefit a lot of homebuyers if they were merely structured a little differently to protect against high risks and extremes."

How can you make a billion-dollar mistake and still come out ahead? When you are a federal agency that botches payouts to financially strapped homeowners.

No, this is not a trick question. But it is the trick that the Department of Housing and Urban Development thinks it pulled off when it neglected to adequately supervise its Preforeclosure Sales Program, costing taxpayers millions of dollars.

According to estimates by HUD's own Office of Inspector General (OIG), the department paid out $1.06 billion in claims for 11,693 preforeclosure sales that failed to meet the criteria for participation in the program, which allowed borrowers in default to sell their homes at less than what was owed on them.

But here's the kicker: While HUD deputy assistant secretary Charles Coulter agreed that execution was "inconsistent," HUD maintained in a statement that "absent the short-sale option, many of the loans would have gone into foreclosure, resulting in a far more costly conveyance claim" to the government.

According to Coulter, the claims the OIG says were paid erroneously may have resulted in a net benefit to the government of as much as $170 million.

The inspector general, which is an independent audit and investigative office within HUD that promotes efficiency and roots out fraud and waste, sees it a bit differently.

While it is "reasonable to assume" that some of these loans would have gone into foreclosure, and therefore that the ultimate cost to the government would likely be more than the $1 billion estimate, the OIG says in its report, "It is also reasonable to assume that at least some of these would have resulted in no claim or reduced claims due to alternative loss mitigation procedures."

The OIG arrived at its estimates by examining a small but statistically selected sample of 80 claims made to the program during the 12 months ended Aug. 31, 2011.

During that time, the Federal Housing Administration, the agency within HUD that insures lenders against losses should borrowers default on their mortgages, paid claims on nearly 20,000 preforeclosure sales.

The audit focused on the 16,976 preforeclosure sales claims submitted by the nine largest lenders participating in the program. Of the 80 claims in the sample, 61 -- or 76.3 percent -- did not meet the rules.

Coulter took exception to the quality of the sample, noting that the borrowers had an average credit score of 596 and an average delinquency of 8.7 months.

Given this profile, he said, it is likely that most of the 80 loans would have gone into foreclosure had their borrowers not been allowed to take part in the short-sale program. And since the recovery rate is greater in the preforeclosure program, he added, the claims paid were lower than they might otherwise have been.

Whether you accept Coulter's reasoning or the OIG's, there seems to be no question that HUD failed miserably in enforcing the program requirements. As a direct result, borrowers who otherwise may have been able to sustain their obligations were inappropriately relieved on their debt using FHA insurance fund reserves.

Specifically, the OIG found that claims were paid to borrowers who:

-- Had at least $5,000 in cash assets. In some cases, borrowers had bank balances that could cover up to nine months' worth of house payments. Yet they weren't required to put those funds toward their delinquent balances, even when it would have brought them current.

-- Did not show they had experienced an adverse and unavoidable hardship. In one instance, the borrower claimed his income had been declining, when in actuality it was rising.

-- Did not live in the property. In some instances, the borrowers' tax returns listed the property as a rental for several years. In others, borrowers reported their properties as rentals to their lenders.

The report also noted that lenders failed to verify the borrowers' income or calculate it properly.

HUD paid by far the largest number of claims in instances where the lender did not adequately verify expenses and subtract them from income to determine if borrowers had enough surplus to pay at least part of what they owed under some kind of repayment arrangement.

"In nearly all cases," the OIG found, "expenses claimed by the borrowers exceeded those verified by the lender."

The investigation also found that in some cases, lenders calculated income based on the earnings of only one co-borrower or determined borrower income without actually verifying it.

The OIG recommends that HUD go after the lenders involved in the improper claims. But here's the other kicker: Many of them are going to skate.

Of the 61 bad claims, 55 were submitted by the five major lenders involved in the big national mortgage settlement. In exchange for providing $25 billion in relief for distressed borrowers, the five were pardoned for misconduct in loan servicing in the settlement with state and federal authorities.

"Three bedroom, one badroom."

– Local MLS listing

One misplaced letter in your entry in the local multiple listing service can be comical, as is the one above that Jane Peters of Power Brokers International in Pasadena, Calif., discovered. Or it can be fatal.

For example, if your house is listed on Polar Lane when it is actually on Poplar, your place may never be found, even if it is the cream puff everyone is looking for. The same holds true if the school district is incorrect, the ZIP code is wrong, the number of bedrooms is misstated, or the map coordinates are inaccurate.

"It's not always the price that prevents a sale," says Jim Crawford, an agent with RE/MAX Paramount Properties in Atlanta, who specialized in expired listings in the early 1990s. "Sometimes the listing is so totally flawed -- incorrect data, price, directions -- that no one can find it."

"Open Hose With Cheese and Wine"

Even worse, perhaps, is that buyers often rely on information contained in the listing, and if it's not correct -- perhaps the listing said 30 acres when it was actually 20, or that zoning allowed for an in-law suite when it really didn't -- they go to court.

As counsel to the Pennsylvania Association of Realtors and an attorney representing numerous brokers and agents, James Goldsmith has defended hundreds of lawsuits over inaccuracies in MLS descriptions. Plaintiffs usually don't prevail, Goldsmith says, but both sides spend a lot of time and money litigating who's right and who's wrong.

Some MLS errors are simple typos, such as "bring us your fuzziest buyers," when the agent surely meant "fussiest." But a simple transposed number, such as when an agent enters 2,300 square feet instead of 3,200, can be a huge mistake.

Or when the house is listed with four upstairs bedrooms and one bathroom instead of two. "Nobody in their right mind will show a house with just one bathroom feeding four bedrooms," says Crawford, the Atlanta agent.

Sometimes the gaffe may not be a mistake at all, but rather a purposeful entry by a less-than-honorable agent who is trying to drive traffic to the property. After all, once a would-be buyer shows up, the error can be corrected. No harm, no foul. Right?

That's why it's always a good idea for sellers to review their listings for errors and omissions before they are posted.

If you don't, your castle may not sell, no matter how grand, especially in this day when would-be buyers scour the Internet for properties before hopping in the car for a personal visit. Or you could find yourself as the defendant in an unwanted lawsuit.

"If a buyer gets his first tax bill and it is much higher than what was stated in the listing, the first thing he does is go to a lawyer," says Goldsmith, the Pennsylvania attorney.

"First Peeview Sunday"

It would be wrong to say listings are riddled with miscues. Indeed, many agents are surprised there are so few mistakes, especially considering the huge volume of data that makes its way into local listings every day.

But once an error is made, it is compounded almost instantly, because listings these days are propagated immediately to regional, national and even international aggregators such as Zillow, Realtor.com and dozens of others.

Almost any error can blow up a sale. If the address is incorrect, the house becomes nonexistent. It could be a wrong house number, wrong street, wrong ZIP code or wrong MLS area.

Sometimes the directions are incorrect. Even in this age of GPS, a prospect may not be able to find your place, especially if the map coordinates are wrong or missing, or if a particularly sloppy agent made other mistakes.

The list of possible errors is as detailed as the listing form itself. If the agent lists the wrong school district, or perhaps doesn't list the district at all, a buyer may pass on your place without giving it a second look. Or, worse, he might buy your house thinking it's in the better school system and sue you when he finds out it's not.

Maybe the house is so close to the county line that in an attempt to draw interest, the agent "inadvertently" puts down that it's in what's perceived as the better county. Again, a lawsuit in the making.

Then there are errors of fact. The wrong room dimensions, square footage, acreage and age of the house also can -- and do -- get people in hot water, especially if the buyer relies on the misinformation to be truthful.

"Call for Privates Showing"

On the buyer's side, there's simply no substitute for your own due diligence.

"The smart buyer checks everything that's important to him," advises Goldsmith. He points out that not only are transcription errors "not infrequent," but that information entered into the MLS often is taken directly from inaccurate public records.

He advises buyers who depend on MLS information to add a proviso to the sales contract stating that the decision to purchase the property is based on specific seller representations -- such as acreage or square footage -- which the seller represents and warrants to be accurate. And it wouldn't hurt to add a sentence that states: "This warranty to survive settlement."

Such a clause "shifts the risk of accuracy squarely on to the seller's shoulders," Goldsmith says.