Sympathy for this couple???

[peterb]

Who do they think they are, Wall Street rich guys?!!

All the BS executives that got their huge end of year bonus’s in January knew damn well where the company stood.Yet, they said things were great there. Then all of the sudden they’re at deaths door and the stock drops over 90% in 2 days.
The bail-out by their pals at the Fed, made sure they could keep the bonus. What a scam.

Moral hazard is learned from out leaders. If they can do it, why cant I ?!

[Eugene]

Instead, they saw a big payday and couldn’t resist. People with no real experience with money will spend whatever you give them, which they did. I’m guessing the house was previously owned by the mother-in-law, because I can’t see that couple having the discipline to pay off a house on their own. They got her to transfer it to their names and then booted her.

You’re probably right. The house has a curious property tax assessment history:

2004: $420,000
2005: $428,400
2006: $436,968
2007: $64,851

Translation: the house was purchased by its previous owner sometime before 1983. in 2004, there was a property transfer from the owner to one of his/her children. The owner either died or signed off the house on the way to the nursing home.
Children turned out to be deadbeats with no jobs or health insurance. They took out a “liar loan” and then refinanced it several times. In 2007, subprime crisis hit and their next refi fell through. So they just stayed in the house and waited for the bank to come and evict them.
At some point in 2006 or 2007 they must have learned that they could revert their prop 13 tax reassessment because the transaction was exempt, so they took care of that.

Sadly, the trustee sale was so long ago that ForeclosureRadar does not show that house any more. So I don’t see the exact history of the loans. But it would probably fit this description.

[Eugene]

Instead, they saw a big payday and couldn’t resist. People with no real experience with money will spend whatever you give them, which they did. I’m guessing the house was previously owned by the mother-in-law, because I can’t see that couple having the discipline to pay off a house on their own. They got her to transfer it to their names and then booted her.

You’re probably right. The house has a curious property tax assessment history:

2004: $420,000
2005: $428,400
2006: $436,968
2007: $64,851

Translation: the house was purchased by its previous owner sometime before 1983. in 2004, there was a property transfer from the owner to one of his/her children. The owner either died or signed off the house on the way to the nursing home.
Children turned out to be deadbeats with no jobs or health insurance. They took out a “liar loan” and then refinanced it several times. In 2007, subprime crisis hit and their next refi fell through. So they just stayed in the house and waited for the bank to come and evict them.
At some point in 2006 or 2007 they must have learned that they could revert their prop 13 tax reassessment because the transaction was exempt, so they took care of that.

Sadly, the trustee sale was so long ago that ForeclosureRadar does not show that house any more. So I don’t see the exact history of the loans. But it would probably fit this description.

[Eugene]

Instead, they saw a big payday and couldn’t resist. People with no real experience with money will spend whatever you give them, which they did. I’m guessing the house was previously owned by the mother-in-law, because I can’t see that couple having the discipline to pay off a house on their own. They got her to transfer it to their names and then booted her.

You’re probably right. The house has a curious property tax assessment history:

2004: $420,000
2005: $428,400
2006: $436,968
2007: $64,851

Translation: the house was purchased by its previous owner sometime before 1983. in 2004, there was a property transfer from the owner to one of his/her children. The owner either died or signed off the house on the way to the nursing home.
Children turned out to be deadbeats with no jobs or health insurance. They took out a “liar loan” and then refinanced it several times. In 2007, subprime crisis hit and their next refi fell through. So they just stayed in the house and waited for the bank to come and evict them.
At some point in 2006 or 2007 they must have learned that they could revert their prop 13 tax reassessment because the transaction was exempt, so they took care of that.

Sadly, the trustee sale was so long ago that ForeclosureRadar does not show that house any more. So I don’t see the exact history of the loans. But it would probably fit this description.

[Eugene]

Instead, they saw a big payday and couldn’t resist. People with no real experience with money will spend whatever you give them, which they did. I’m guessing the house was previously owned by the mother-in-law, because I can’t see that couple having the discipline to pay off a house on their own. They got her to transfer it to their names and then booted her.

You’re probably right. The house has a curious property tax assessment history:

2004: $420,000
2005: $428,400
2006: $436,968
2007: $64,851

Translation: the house was purchased by its previous owner sometime before 1983. in 2004, there was a property transfer from the owner to one of his/her children. The owner either died or signed off the house on the way to the nursing home.
Children turned out to be deadbeats with no jobs or health insurance. They took out a “liar loan” and then refinanced it several times. In 2007, subprime crisis hit and their next refi fell through. So they just stayed in the house and waited for the bank to come and evict them.
At some point in 2006 or 2007 they must have learned that they could revert their prop 13 tax reassessment because the transaction was exempt, so they took care of that.

Sadly, the trustee sale was so long ago that ForeclosureRadar does not show that house any more. So I don’t see the exact history of the loans. But it would probably fit this description.

[Eugene]

Instead, they saw a big payday and couldn’t resist. People with no real experience with money will spend whatever you give them, which they did. I’m guessing the house was previously owned by the mother-in-law, because I can’t see that couple having the discipline to pay off a house on their own. They got her to transfer it to their names and then booted her.

You’re probably right. The house has a curious property tax assessment history:

2004: $420,000
2005: $428,400
2006: $436,968
2007: $64,851

Translation: the house was purchased by its previous owner sometime before 1983. in 2004, there was a property transfer from the owner to one of his/her children. The owner either died or signed off the house on the way to the nursing home.
Children turned out to be deadbeats with no jobs or health insurance. They took out a “liar loan” and then refinanced it several times. In 2007, subprime crisis hit and their next refi fell through. So they just stayed in the house and waited for the bank to come and evict them.
At some point in 2006 or 2007 they must have learned that they could revert their prop 13 tax reassessment because the transaction was exempt, so they took care of that.

Sadly, the trustee sale was so long ago that ForeclosureRadar does not show that house any more. So I don’t see the exact history of the loans. But it would probably fit this description.

[Anonymous]

Wow. Cynics you lot!

Am I the only one who heard that they owned the house outright before using it as an ATM to pay for (supposedly necessary) medical bills?

If the “supposed” IS in fact true, that speaks more to our vulnerability under our current health care system, should we, or our family members, get really sick, than to the stupidity/greed of borrowers, or the corruption of lenders.

If this hard luck story is the truth, it has crap to do with the property bubble—-other than the amount of dollars the homeowners were allowed to borrow. Lax lending standards and liar loans may have increased this credit amount beyond all logic, but that’s 100% the lender’s fault for agreeing to it. Both parties were gamblers, but only one of them had an altruistic motive.

It really does gall me, though, that either due to a young age or hubris, those here can’t imagine a scenario where despite their best efforts, they might fall victim to the vagaries of life. Shit happens. Life isn’t fair. It just is. A serious ongoing illness, in America, insurance or no insurance, could wipe you out in a heartbeat.

[Anonymous]

Wow. Cynics you lot!

Am I the only one who heard that they owned the house outright before using it as an ATM to pay for (supposedly necessary) medical bills?

If the “supposed” IS in fact true, that speaks more to our vulnerability under our current health care system, should we, or our family members, get really sick, than to the stupidity/greed of borrowers, or the corruption of lenders.

If this hard luck story is the truth, it has crap to do with the property bubble—-other than the amount of dollars the homeowners were allowed to borrow. Lax lending standards and liar loans may have increased this credit amount beyond all logic, but that’s 100% the lender’s fault for agreeing to it. Both parties were gamblers, but only one of them had an altruistic motive.

It really does gall me, though, that either due to a young age or hubris, those here can’t imagine a scenario where despite their best efforts, they might fall victim to the vagaries of life. Shit happens. Life isn’t fair. It just is. A serious ongoing illness, in America, insurance or no insurance, could wipe you out in a heartbeat.

[Anonymous]

Wow. Cynics you lot!

Am I the only one who heard that they owned the house outright before using it as an ATM to pay for (supposedly necessary) medical bills?

If the “supposed” IS in fact true, that speaks more to our vulnerability under our current health care system, should we, or our family members, get really sick, than to the stupidity/greed of borrowers, or the corruption of lenders.

If this hard luck story is the truth, it has crap to do with the property bubble—-other than the amount of dollars the homeowners were allowed to borrow. Lax lending standards and liar loans may have increased this credit amount beyond all logic, but that’s 100% the lender’s fault for agreeing to it. Both parties were gamblers, but only one of them had an altruistic motive.

It really does gall me, though, that either due to a young age or hubris, those here can’t imagine a scenario where despite their best efforts, they might fall victim to the vagaries of life. Shit happens. Life isn’t fair. It just is. A serious ongoing illness, in America, insurance or no insurance, could wipe you out in a heartbeat.

[Anonymous]

Wow. Cynics you lot!

Am I the only one who heard that they owned the house outright before using it as an ATM to pay for (supposedly necessary) medical bills?

If the “supposed” IS in fact true, that speaks more to our vulnerability under our current health care system, should we, or our family members, get really sick, than to the stupidity/greed of borrowers, or the corruption of lenders.

If this hard luck story is the truth, it has crap to do with the property bubble—-other than the amount of dollars the homeowners were allowed to borrow. Lax lending standards and liar loans may have increased this credit amount beyond all logic, but that’s 100% the lender’s fault for agreeing to it. Both parties were gamblers, but only one of them had an altruistic motive.

It really does gall me, though, that either due to a young age or hubris, those here can’t imagine a scenario where despite their best efforts, they might fall victim to the vagaries of life. Shit happens. Life isn’t fair. It just is. A serious ongoing illness, in America, insurance or no insurance, could wipe you out in a heartbeat.

[Anonymous]

Wow. Cynics you lot!

Am I the only one who heard that they owned the house outright before using it as an ATM to pay for (supposedly necessary) medical bills?

If the “supposed” IS in fact true, that speaks more to our vulnerability under our current health care system, should we, or our family members, get really sick, than to the stupidity/greed of borrowers, or the corruption of lenders.

If this hard luck story is the truth, it has crap to do with the property bubble—-other than the amount of dollars the homeowners were allowed to borrow. Lax lending standards and liar loans may have increased this credit amount beyond all logic, but that’s 100% the lender’s fault for agreeing to it. Both parties were gamblers, but only one of them had an altruistic motive.

It really does gall me, though, that either due to a young age or hubris, those here can’t imagine a scenario where despite their best efforts, they might fall victim to the vagaries of life. Shit happens. Life isn’t fair. It just is. A serious ongoing illness, in America, insurance or no insurance, could wipe you out in a heartbeat.

[TuVu]

I know this is KUSI, but one of the serious issues I have with the UT is that they give a neighborhood name that I am not familiar with, even though I’ve lived in S.D. most of my life. Had to ask a friend where Oak Park was. He said it was south of 54th and University. Did anyone else notice that almost all of the other houses they showed in that neighborhood have cement front lawns?

I do feel some sympathy. Good nursing homes aren’t cheap.

[TuVu]

I know this is KUSI, but one of the serious issues I have with the UT is that they give a neighborhood name that I am not familiar with, even though I’ve lived in S.D. most of my life. Had to ask a friend where Oak Park was. He said it was south of 54th and University. Did anyone else notice that almost all of the other houses they showed in that neighborhood have cement front lawns?

I do feel some sympathy. Good nursing homes aren’t cheap.

[TuVu]

I know this is KUSI, but one of the serious issues I have with the UT is that they give a neighborhood name that I am not familiar with, even though I’ve lived in S.D. most of my life. Had to ask a friend where Oak Park was. He said it was south of 54th and University. Did anyone else notice that almost all of the other houses they showed in that neighborhood have cement front lawns?

I do feel some sympathy. Good nursing homes aren’t cheap.

[TuVu]

I know this is KUSI, but one of the serious issues I have with the UT is that they give a neighborhood name that I am not familiar with, even though I’ve lived in S.D. most of my life. Had to ask a friend where Oak Park was. He said it was south of 54th and University. Did anyone else notice that almost all of the other houses they showed in that neighborhood have cement front lawns?

I do feel some sympathy. Good nursing homes aren’t cheap.

[Author]

Posts