Man loses home over $134.00

cutz

http://hsrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=AtAuxfmuBN_4 ... ZEP_dEY4Q-


Sad> :(

Pjzepp67

Predatory bastards...as you say a sad way for anyone to be treated, let alone a vulnerable old man who has served his country. A shocking sign of the times we live in... :nono:

Hugh Freaking Dillon

that's disgusting!

polaris_x

is this really the kind of country people want to live in?

Hugh Freaking Dillon

polaris_x wrote:

is this really the kind of country people want to live in?

gotta agree with you there.

whether the guy is a veteran or not, NO ONE should be treated this way. (I still never understood the "the guy's a veteran-have some respect" argument-I don't think he's more entitled to his home than a retired accountant, but that's just me).

how could a law be passed that allows someone who OWNS THEIR HOME to have that effectively stolen from them? That's outrageous.

polaris_x

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

gotta agree with you there.

whether the guy is a veteran or not, NO ONE should be treated this way. (I still never understood the "the guy's a veteran-have some respect" argument-I don't think he's more entitled to his home than a retired accountant, but that's just me).

how could a law be passed that allows someone who OWNS THEIR HOME to have that effectively stolen from them? That's outrageous.

well ... the veteran thing is just another myth that needs to be busted ...

MotoDC

Okay, as horrible as evicting old folks from their homes is, it's difficult to determine what part of this objectively bothers you guys -- that not paying your debts has penalties, that the state is selling liens to private parties, or that the system is purported to be taking advantage of the elderly and infirm. My guess is that it's mostly the second and third options, though I would be willing to wager that you don't have a workable alternate solution for the first.

To address the first and second...If you agree there should be property taxes, then you agree there must be ways for the state to collect those taxes. To do so, it must have a lever. Additional fines levied on top of tax liabilities that the citizen already cannot pay, are illogical and counterproductive, much like debtor's prison. Scratch those levers. What's left? Payment of the debt via the net value of the asset against which the original taxes are levied. How does one pay a debt with an illiquid asset like a piece of property? One must borrow against the equity or sell the home. Since these debtors were not able or willing to take those measures, the state (or the state's "delegates", since the volume was more than the state could manage) enforced it via foreclosure.

I personally know more about lender loss mitigation options than I do tax liens, but in general if a foreclosure action is taken and there are any proceeds above and beyond the loan + foreclosure costs, those proceeds are required to go to the borrower. I would be surprised if it were different for tax liens, but again I can't comment from personal experience on that. This brings me to the third point from above...

Clearly there needs to be something in place to protect those who can't protect themselves against wrongful appropriation of property. This could be solved by something as simple as pro-bono legal representation such as what the state provides for criminal cases to people who can't afford their own lawyers. If we can provide a defense attorney to a gang banger accused of murder, surely we could provide a lawyer to the veteran in this article's example.

ajedigecko

...there must be more to this story.

The Corp and VA would not allow this to happen.

polaris_x

MotoDC wrote:

Okay, as horrible as evicting old folks from their homes is, it's difficult to determine what part of this objectively bothers you guys -- that not paying your debts has penalties, that the state is selling liens to private parties, or that the system is purported to be taking advantage of the elderly and infirm. My guess is that it's mostly the second and third options, though I would be willing to wager that you don't have a workable alternate solution for the first.

To address the first and second...If you agree there should be property taxes, then you agree there must be ways for the state to collect those taxes. To do so, it must have a lever. Additional fines levied on top of tax liabilities that the citizen already cannot pay, are illogical and counterproductive, much like debtor's prison. Scratch those levers. What's left? Payment of the debt via the net value of the asset against which the original taxes are levied. How does one pay a debt with an illiquid asset like a piece of property? One must borrow against the equity or sell the home. Since these debtors were not able or willing to take those measures, the state (or the state's "delegates", since the volume was more than the state could manage) enforced it via foreclosure.

I personally know more about lender loss mitigation options than I do tax liens, but in general if a foreclosure action is taken and there are any proceeds above and beyond the loan + foreclosure costs, those proceeds are required to go to the borrower. I would be surprised if it were different for tax liens, but again I can't comment from personal experience on that. This brings me to the third point from above...

Clearly there needs to be something in place to protect those who can't protect themselves against wrongful appropriation of property. This could be solved by something as simple as pro-bono legal representation such as what the state provides for criminal cases to people who can't afford their own lawyers. If we can provide a defense attorney to a gang banger accused of murder, surely we could provide a lawyer to the veteran in this article's example.

it would be a combination of the 3 ... but at the heart of it - it is simply a system that was designed not in the interests of the people but those of these predatory lien buyers ... a system that was designed to ultimately allow some group to exploit the disadvantaged ...

the gap between the haves and the have nots is widening and it's because of policies like this ... these policies shape the kind of society we live in ... and ultimately, i'm not sure what your post is meant to do because it seems you would agree with the sentiment ...

MotoDC

ajedigecko wrote:

...there must be more to this story.

My feeling exactly, though I don't doubt that there are abuses to be exposed and dealt with here.

hedonist

MotoDC wrote:

Okay, as horrible as evicting old folks from their homes is, it's difficult to determine what part of this objectively bothers you guys -- that not paying your debts has penalties, that the state is selling liens to private parties, or that the system is purported to be taking advantage of the elderly and infirm. My guess is that it's mostly the second and third options, though I would be willing to wager that you don't have a workable alternate solution for the first.

To address the first and second...If you agree there should be property taxes, then you agree there must be ways for the state to collect those taxes. To do so, it must have a lever. Additional fines levied on top of tax liabilities that the citizen already cannot pay, are illogical and counterproductive, much like debtor's prison. Scratch those levers. What's left? Payment of the debt via the net value of the asset against which the original taxes are levied. How does one pay a debt with an illiquid asset like a piece of property? One must borrow against the equity or sell the home. Since these debtors were not able or willing to take those measures, the state (or the state's "delegates", since the volume was more than the state could manage) enforced it via foreclosure.

I personally know more about lender loss mitigation options than I do tax liens, but in general if a foreclosure action is taken and there are any proceeds above and beyond the loan + foreclosure costs, those proceeds are required to go to the borrower. I would be surprised if it were different for tax liens, but again I can't comment from personal experience on that. This brings me to the third point from above...

Clearly there needs to be something in place to protect those who can't protect themselves against wrongful appropriation of property. This could be solved by something as simple as pro-bono legal representation such as what the state provides for criminal cases to people who can't afford their own lawyers. If we can provide a defense attorney to a gang banger accused of murder, surely we could provide a lawyer to the veteran in this article's example.

Great post, especially the last paragraph.

Several years ago, I received a notice that we had outstanding property taxes and if not paid by X date, our condo would be put up for auction. Prior notices had been incorrectly sent to an almost identical address a few blocks away. I never understood how we could refinance our mortgage with unpaid backtaxes but somehow the transaction went through. In any event, despite the errors and oversights, we owed the money.

I know the notice - each one, including the final - was within the law and fortunately we got everything taken care of.

That's what I don't get about this. While I agree there's alot of underhandedness, deceit, ballooning of costs and outright general assholeness, how does $134 not get paid? No notifications to the owner, no family or caretakers looking after this man? No other advocates?

chadwick

the people running this system should be ashamed of themselves. you mean to tell me some office property tax collecting whatnot or whoever couldn't make things right? you mean to tell me this guy couldn't be given time to pay a 134 dollar tax bill? so instead they vulture in for his home

that's it... im moving to syria

blueandwhite

MotoDC wrote:

Clearly there needs to be something in place to protect those who can't protect themselves against wrongful appropriation of property. This could be solved by something as simple as pro-bono legal representation such as what the state provides for criminal cases to people who can't afford their own lawyers. If we can provide a defense attorney to a gang banger accused of murder, surely we could provide a lawyer to the veteran in this article's example.

I've never heard of anything like this before. The fact that the agent involved in the sale of this man's home gets to keep all of the proceeds from the sale is absolutely baffling. I could understand if the party handling the foreclosure was allowed to recoup legal costs, listing costs and anything else associated with the sale of the property and recapture of monies owing but I'm absolutely baffled by the fact that a would-be investor is entitled to keep everything. The fact that these investors seem to pray on the elderly, and very possibly people with other mental and physical handicaps makes it even more reprehensible. Having to pay your bills is one thing; losing all of the equity you've built up over a lifetime is something else entirely.

chadwick

blueandwhite wrote:

MotoDC wrote:

Clearly there needs to be something in place to protect those who can't protect themselves against wrongful appropriation of property. This could be solved by something as simple as pro-bono legal representation such as what the state provides for criminal cases to people who can't afford their own lawyers. If we can provide a defense attorney to a gang banger accused of murder, surely we could provide a lawyer to the veteran in this article's example.

I've never heard of anything like this before. The fact that the agent involved in the sale of this man's home gets to keep all of the proceeds from the sale is absolutely baffling. I could understand if the party handling the foreclosure was allowed to recoup legal costs, listing costs and anything else associated with the sale of the property and recapture of monies owing but I'm absolutely baffled by the fact that a would-be investor is entitled to keep everything. The fact that these investors seem to pray on the elderly, and very possibly people with other mental and physical handicaps makes it even more reprehensible. Having to pay your bills is one thing; losing all of the equity you've built up over a lifetime is something else entirely.

those buzzards deserve broken knee caps & it will happen if this is the way they operate their lives

unsung

You never really own a home.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

MotoDC wrote:

Okay, as horrible as evicting old folks from their homes is, it's difficult to determine what part of this objectively bothers you guys -- that not paying your debts has penalties, that the state is selling liens to private parties, or that the system is purported to be taking advantage of the elderly and infirm. My guess is that it's mostly the second and third options, though I would be willing to wager that you don't have a workable alternate solution for the first.

To address the first and second...If you agree there should be property taxes, then you agree there must be ways for the state to collect those taxes. To do so, it must have a lever. Additional fines levied on top of tax liabilities that the citizen already cannot pay, are illogical and counterproductive, much like debtor's prison. Scratch those levers. What's left? Payment of the debt via the net value of the asset against which the original taxes are levied. How does one pay a debt with an illiquid asset like a piece of property? One must borrow against the equity or sell the home. Since these debtors were not able or willing to take those measures, the state (or the state's "delegates", since the volume was more than the state could manage) enforced it via foreclosure.

I personally know more about lender loss mitigation options than I do tax liens, but in general if a foreclosure action is taken and there are any proceeds above and beyond the loan + foreclosure costs, those proceeds are required to go to the borrower. I would be surprised if it were different for tax liens, but again I can't comment from personal experience on that. This brings me to the third point from above...

Clearly there needs to be something in place to protect those who can't protect themselves against wrongful appropriation of property. This could be solved by something as simple as pro-bono legal representation such as what the state provides for criminal cases to people who can't afford their own lawyers. If we can provide a defense attorney to a gang banger accused of murder, surely we could provide a lawyer to the veteran in this article's example.

of course not paying your bills should have consequences, but consequences that make fucking sense. If I paid $25,000 for a car, and forget a $200 insurance payment, all of a sudden the insurance company owns my car? that makes zero sense, and for all intents and purposes, is criminal.

if the guy owns a home, he's got to have some sort of income. garnish his wages/income. oh, wait, that would make sense. now this guy just had $200,000 stolen from him. legally. unbelievable.

hedonist

unsung wrote:

You never really own a home.

Thanks for dashing my dreams.




Hugh, I'm with you on the fucking sense part (and am incensed that anyone should lose well-earned equity due to this bullshit), but I'm curious if the loan documents have provisions in them that allow this...? Your analogy has merit, but there's much more money involved in a home vs. a car.

(thus the vultures)

MotoDC

HFD wrote:

of course not paying your bills should have consequences, but consequences that make fucking sense. If I paid $25,000 for a car, and forget a $200 insurance payment, all of a sudden the insurance company owns my car? that makes zero sense, and for all intents and purposes, is criminal.

Of course. However, the article conveniently doesn't make that clear. I read a good bit of it -- though not every word -- and they never clearly explain the full process. As I noted in a previous post (and also intimated by blueandwhite), if the lien investor gets to keep ALL proceeds from the foreclosure sale, then that is not at all in keeping with how the "normal" (i.e., lender-initiated) foreclosure process works.