I'm not surprised, given that Colorado mortgage lenders were not regulated. (http://www.denverpost.com/ci_4923104)
However, it should be said that these foreclosure statistics are reported differently from one state to another because of different foreclosure entities and timeframes and by the two reporting companies.
For example, in August, one national report showed that the number of foreclosures in the state spiked by 60 percent in one month, while another report showed a slight drop from July.
The differences between RealtyTrac, based in Irvine, Calif., and Boca Raton, Fla.-based Foreclosure.com can be explained by how they count foreclosures.
Foreclosure.com said its data only include properties in foreclosure that have been taken over by lenders, while RealtyTrac's data include homes that are in stages of pre-foreclosures.
RealtyTrac showed 6,079 homes in Colorado are in some stage of foreclosure, more than 150 percent higher than a year ago and about 60 percent higher than July.
Foreclosure.com showed 5,577 active foreclosures in Colorado, almost a 5 percent drop from July and about an 11 percent drop from August 2005.
The cure and redemption rate for Colorado would alter the stats.
No doubt, both reports agree that Colorado has the highest foreclosure rate in the nation, a dubious distinction it has held the entire year.

Here is a link that might be useful: Policing Lenders

The foreclosure rate in central Ohio was a big issue during the last election. Most people interpreted it (with the help of campaign ads) as an indiction of the bad economy and the fault of the presiding administration. Too bad it became campaign fodder. The economy in Ohio isn't great, but, according to the papers, the fault lies squarely on the shoulders of developers and lenders who were aggressively selling overpriced homes to people who could not really afford them, using "creative" financing strategies that the buyers didn't really understand. The state is cracking down on this, but the largest developer is going to escape mostly unscathed.

Now wait a minute here, raee, are you saying that it's the developer's fault people purchased homes they couldn't afford? What about personal responsibility & accountability?

I most certainly agree that some lenders used creative ways of qualifying potential borrowers. But, the bottom line is that we are responsible for our budgets. A lender would say DH & I are "qualified" for a mortgage 6-8 times what we actually have. Who's right? The lender...or us? The answer, of course, is "Us".

People who do not take the time nor make the effort to understand what they're doing when they sign a Promissory Note & accompanying Deed of Trust/Mortgage ought not to be doing it, IMO. Banks are like Old Navy. Old Navy sells jeans. Banks sell money. No difference. If you can resist the temptation of the Old Navy ad to buy more jeans than you can afford...you can resist the temptation to purchase more house than you can afford. Both can sometimes use strong-arm sales tactics.

As for the developers...gosh, I thought that was why they were in business? Build & sell houses?

Also, many people who are now in trouble with their mortgages were speculators. You win some...and you lose some when you speculate. If you want the profit you have to take the risk. A few have been caught...now they blame the developers & lenders for their decisions? Nonsense!

Now, should lenders be allowed to take advantage of people willy-nilly? Of course not. Truth-in-Lending must be adhered to. If lenders are not doing that (and I understand some in CO are guilty) then they should suffer the consequences. The larger issue, though, is personal accountability.

If I signed a three year ARM & purchased a new car in year two...then along comes a rate hike in year three that I can't afford to pay because I now have an SUV payment...how can that posssibly be the lender's fault? And, as a lender...I can tell you we're seeing a lot of that.

Tricia