Yes, credit unions can fail. Any depository institution can fail. I think it's safe to say, though, that credit unions fail at a rate far lower than banks. If you are worried about your credit union's health, you can contact the NCUA. "But, it stands to reason that credit unions may be following banks and mortgage companies because credit unions are allowed to finance mortgages." Actually, no not really. Yes, credit unions can finance mortgages and other kinds of loans (but they don't necessarily have to). But credit unions are generally exempt from the strictures of the Community Reinvestment Act because they loan only to members. Credit unions were not required to increase their lending portfolios to marginal borrowers as banks were under the 1998 (?) revisions to the CRA. As such, the number of at risk loans in a credit union's portfolio is very like a lot smaller. Ah, the link below explains why credit unions are not bound by the Community Reinvestment Act. Here is a link that might be useful: Credit Unions and the CRA

Your savings are also safe at FDIC insured banks as long as you do not exceed the limits per account. Credit unions appear to be better capitalized, on the whole; however there was a WSJ article in August that indicated that some of the larger CUs are also having losses on their mortgage holdings, although not nearly to the extent of some banks. The article indicated that most experts believe that the losses CUs are experiencing in their mortgages are temporary and will right themselves as the market returns to normal. Best to be certain, whether you bank at a bank or a CU, that you do not exceed the deposit insurance thresholds.

(I have deposited more-than-a-year-old checks and had them clear; I can understand why your DH did this, as well as him not noticing. Also, my next-door neighbors were getting old a senile, and didn't cash pension checks; they got a letter saying "did you get your check? it hasn't been cashed? but it was many months later, and it was several checks still on the DR table, not one check) when they took the money out of your savings account, did they give the "defective" check back to you? Shouldn't they have? Demand it be returned to you. (a lesson to us all--if we are giving a bank money back for a check, we should get the check physically returned to us) Unless they submitted it all over again? Here's what I think happened, if I understand this right. (some queries, though) 1. You give them a check, they give you cash. 2. They send the check to the central clearing house (the Federal Reserve?) to get their money. 3. The central clearing house gives the CU its money, and sends the check on to GM to get the money back from them. 4. GM sends the check--but no money--back to the central clearing house as "defective"'; the central clearing house is still in need of money. 5. The central clearing house sends the check back to the CU as "defective" and wants its money back from them. I would think the CU would have an account of money it would use to cover this; it pays the central clearing house, and the central clearing house is out of it. 6. the CU brings the check back to you, and says they want that money back; they take it out of your account. THEY SHOULD GIVE THE CHECK BACK TO YOU--it is your property, once they have their money back. At the very least, they should have destroyed it, but really they should have given it to you so YOU could destroy it. I'm thinking this is where the CU goofed, and I'd press this point. 7. You get a replacement check, and submit it, and the "you to the CU to the central clearing house to GM" chain works, this time. (can you get the folks at GM to send you a copy of their canceled check, the replacement one that supposedly worked just fine? Might be nice to have) Suddenly the old "defective" check is around. (Sometimes if a check is returned for "insufficient funds," the bank will resubmit it, just in case the money will turn up. They will bill the depositor $15, and then if it's returned twice, they'll bill another $15; the check-writer's account will get billed as well each time; this was unpopular, so some banks don't make a second attempt. I'm wondering if your "defective" check got slipped into the "insufficient funds" category and was REsubmitted? So, let's postulate: 8. The credit union resubmits the check to the central clearing house (Federal Reserve?) to get the money. BUT IF THIS IS THE CASE, then they should have RECREDITED your account when they RESUBMITTED the check. (because if they don't give you any money, then they shouldn't be getting any money from anyone else--it's not their money, it's yours, they're just the "pipe" to move it around) Did they? If you can get them to trace their records of when the check was submitted, can you insist that they DO credit your account w/ the money, on that day? 9. The clearing house (FR?) gives the CU the money, and sends the "defective" check on to GM. 10. GM marks the "defective" check w/ a confusing note that was *intended* to indicate that this check has been replaced w/another check, and sends it, but no money, to the clearing house (FR?) 11. The clearing house sends the check back to the CU, demanding its money back. 12. The CU comes to you demanding the money that it owes to the FR. So, did they "give you money" for that check twice (once in cash, once by crediting your account)? No, you say--but if this is what happened, then they should have. Or else someone put that check in the wrong stack somewhere--and I'd want to SEE that check, and I'd want to try to figure who where the "in lieu of" came from. So they should have given you money twice, and asked to get money back from you twice. Maybe if that's the chain of events, you can make them re-credit your savings account w/t he money they owe you from having resubmitted the check (treating it as though you deposited it all over again), and then they can take it back out again. Good luck!

Thanks, everyone! This is a small town, and the loan officer at the local credit union did seem to think that national banks might be more lenient? Of course, the credit union's fees are much lower than the banks I've tentatively looked at, and I had wanted to work with them because that's who I've gotten loans from in the past, always paid on time. :( Bill: The loan officer's fees were separate from the closing costs, in addition to them, and labeled as loan officer's fees. All the usual fees were also listed. The problem with living in a small town is there is not a lot of competition around, so fees are hiked up for EVERYTHING just because they can be. This county, incidentally, frequently has the highest price of gas in the continental U.S. It's just like that for everything - but it is a gorgeous place, very mild climate, surrounded on one side by the Pacific Ocean and pristine forests on the other, so people get really attached to this place despite the hassle. The credit history thing is really frustrating. I've even paid rent that was higher than the cost of this mortgage at the credit union (if I had qualified by being in business a few months longer). I have a phone appointment w/ Bank of America today - I'll see how that goes...(We don't even have a local loan officer for B of A, apparently)...