Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
bearishgurl
Participant[quote=UCGal]Bearishgurl…
None of us (to my knowledge) have ATM’d the house. My neighbors across the street have the same stated goal we do – pay it off before retirement. That’s hard to do if you’re pulling cash out rather than paying off the balance. I don’t see a lot of fancy upgrades in the garages indicating HELOC madness on our block.[/quote]UCGal, my post above wasn’t directed to any one poster.
I think if you grew up in UC, the OLDEST properties up there might be circa 1968 or 1971. My block was built in 1949. Thus, the “heirs” on my block are probably a generation older than your one neighbor “heir” who cared for his mom. All of the “heirs” I am speaking of here are living on a small FIXED income. This type of income by itself cannot maintain a house and utilities, much less market property taxes. A person with this type of low income can only obtain a “sucker” equity loan or reverse mortgage, if old enough. These “heirs” are too old NOW to EVER pay off the loans they took out on their free and clear “bequest.” (The banks knew this, obviously, but that’s another story.)
Two of my neighbors as “heirs” even qualified for “lifeline” utility rates. One “heir” actually moved out of his van that he had lived in for seven years into Dad’s house, as soon as he died!
Re: maintainence, I’m not even talking about weeds after a rain. I’m talking about real eyesores such as long-unfinished room additions, never-running vehicles, etc. This was all started or parked after the heir moved in.
UC’s younger demographic is evident in that you and your neighbors purchased your childhood home while your parents were STILL ALIVE and you are still employed and have kids in school. My neighbor “heirs” are retired and/or long-disabled with grown children.
Acc. to your post, your neighbors don’t appear to be trying to run their entire households on $800 – $1500 (fixed income) per month.
Participant[quote=UCGal]Bearishgurl…
None of us (to my knowledge) have ATM’d the house. My neighbors across the street have the same stated goal we do – pay it off before retirement. That’s hard to do if you’re pulling cash out rather than paying off the balance. I don’t see a lot of fancy upgrades in the garages indicating HELOC madness on our block.[/quote]UCGal, my post above wasn’t directed to any one poster.
I think if you grew up in UC, the OLDEST properties up there might be circa 1968 or 1971. My block was built in 1949. Thus, the “heirs” on my block are probably a generation older than your one neighbor “heir” who cared for his mom. All of the “heirs” I am speaking of here are living on a small FIXED income. This type of income by itself cannot maintain a house and utilities, much less market property taxes. A person with this type of low income can only obtain a “sucker” equity loan or reverse mortgage, if old enough. These “heirs” are too old NOW to EVER pay off the loans they took out on their free and clear “bequest.” (The banks knew this, obviously, but that’s another story.)
Two of my neighbors as “heirs” even qualified for “lifeline” utility rates. One “heir” actually moved out of his van that he had lived in for seven years into Dad’s house, as soon as he died!
Re: maintainence, I’m not even talking about weeds after a rain. I’m talking about real eyesores such as long-unfinished room additions, never-running vehicles, etc. This was all started or parked after the heir moved in.
UC’s younger demographic is evident in that you and your neighbors purchased your childhood home while your parents were STILL ALIVE and you are still employed and have kids in school. My neighbor “heirs” are retired and/or long-disabled with grown children.
Acc. to your post, your neighbors don’t appear to be trying to run their entire households on $800 – $1500 (fixed income) per month.
Participant[quote=UCGal]A couple of corrections here.
– Bay Ho and Bay Park are NOT in the LJHS area. Bay Ho can choose between Mission Bay HS and Clairemont HS. Not sure about Bay Park – but since it’s south of Bay Ho – it’s not LJHS. LJHS does extend slightly outside of 92037 – by a few blocks in north PB. (aka Baja La Jolla.)– The 20 kids max in K-3 went out the window this year due to budget cuts. My sons are both in this grade level – both are in classes larger than 20 at Curie Elementary.[/quote]
I didn’t state in my post that IT WAS A FACT that Bay Park/Bay Ho were in the LJ school attendance area, only that Scarlett should check this out. I only have INTIMATE knowledge of South County. I recently called my friends in Bay Park and it turns out they were using “grandma’s” address in LJ for school attendance purposes, for child care reasons. Their children are now out of elem. school and no longer attending LJ schools.
CVESD still has 20 children per classroom in K-3, except for one Charter school that I am aware of.
Regarding parents breaking their backs in attempt to buy properties in certain school attendance areas, I still maintain that it is the STUDENT and his or her FAMILY environment and NOT the school that determines the students GPA and thus what college he or she gets accepted to. Students from ALL HS’s are accepted to top colleges. The opportunity is there for ALL students EVERYWHERE to excel in a college-prep curriculum, if they CHOOSE to.
Conversely, I know a child whom most people would have considered to have grown up with many advantages but “flunked out” of Poway High School in the 10th grade. Her dad then placed her in an expensive local private high school, where she was caught vandalizing the school with other students ONE MONTH SHORT OF GRADUATION, so was expelled.
She is now 22, recently earned her GED and is attending Mesa College and working.
Don’t mean to shout – don’t know how to bold!
Participant[quote=UCGal]A couple of corrections here.
– Bay Ho and Bay Park are NOT in the LJHS area. Bay Ho can choose between Mission Bay HS and Clairemont HS. Not sure about Bay Park – but since it’s south of Bay Ho – it’s not LJHS. LJHS does extend slightly outside of 92037 – by a few blocks in north PB. (aka Baja La Jolla.)– The 20 kids max in K-3 went out the window this year due to budget cuts. My sons are both in this grade level – both are in classes larger than 20 at Curie Elementary.[/quote]
I didn’t state in my post that IT WAS A FACT that Bay Park/Bay Ho were in the LJ school attendance area, only that Scarlett should check this out. I only have INTIMATE knowledge of South County. I recently called my friends in Bay Park and it turns out they were using “grandma’s” address in LJ for school attendance purposes, for child care reasons. Their children are now out of elem. school and no longer attending LJ schools.
CVESD still has 20 children per classroom in K-3, except for one Charter school that I am aware of.
Regarding parents breaking their backs in attempt to buy properties in certain school attendance areas, I still maintain that it is the STUDENT and his or her FAMILY environment and NOT the school that determines the students GPA and thus what college he or she gets accepted to. Students from ALL HS’s are accepted to top colleges. The opportunity is there for ALL students EVERYWHERE to excel in a college-prep curriculum, if they CHOOSE to.
Conversely, I know a child whom most people would have considered to have grown up with many advantages but “flunked out” of Poway High School in the 10th grade. Her dad then placed her in an expensive local private high school, where she was caught vandalizing the school with other students ONE MONTH SHORT OF GRADUATION, so was expelled.
She is now 22, recently earned her GED and is attending Mesa College and working.
Don’t mean to shout – don’t know how to bold!
Participant[quote=UCGal]A couple of corrections here.
– Bay Ho and Bay Park are NOT in the LJHS area. Bay Ho can choose between Mission Bay HS and Clairemont HS. Not sure about Bay Park – but since it’s south of Bay Ho – it’s not LJHS. LJHS does extend slightly outside of 92037 – by a few blocks in north PB. (aka Baja La Jolla.)– The 20 kids max in K-3 went out the window this year due to budget cuts. My sons are both in this grade level – both are in classes larger than 20 at Curie Elementary.[/quote]
I didn’t state in my post that IT WAS A FACT that Bay Park/Bay Ho were in the LJ school attendance area, only that Scarlett should check this out. I only have INTIMATE knowledge of South County. I recently called my friends in Bay Park and it turns out they were using “grandma’s” address in LJ for school attendance purposes, for child care reasons. Their children are now out of elem. school and no longer attending LJ schools.
CVESD still has 20 children per classroom in K-3, except for one Charter school that I am aware of.
Regarding parents breaking their backs in attempt to buy properties in certain school attendance areas, I still maintain that it is the STUDENT and his or her FAMILY environment and NOT the school that determines the students GPA and thus what college he or she gets accepted to. Students from ALL HS’s are accepted to top colleges. The opportunity is there for ALL students EVERYWHERE to excel in a college-prep curriculum, if they CHOOSE to.
Conversely, I know a child whom most people would have considered to have grown up with many advantages but “flunked out” of Poway High School in the 10th grade. Her dad then placed her in an expensive local private high school, where she was caught vandalizing the school with other students ONE MONTH SHORT OF GRADUATION, so was expelled.
She is now 22, recently earned her GED and is attending Mesa College and working.
Don’t mean to shout – don’t know how to bold!
Participant[quote=UCGal]A couple of corrections here.
– Bay Ho and Bay Park are NOT in the LJHS area. Bay Ho can choose between Mission Bay HS and Clairemont HS. Not sure about Bay Park – but since it’s south of Bay Ho – it’s not LJHS. LJHS does extend slightly outside of 92037 – by a few blocks in north PB. (aka Baja La Jolla.)– The 20 kids max in K-3 went out the window this year due to budget cuts. My sons are both in this grade level – both are in classes larger than 20 at Curie Elementary.[/quote]
I didn’t state in my post that IT WAS A FACT that Bay Park/Bay Ho were in the LJ school attendance area, only that Scarlett should check this out. I only have INTIMATE knowledge of South County. I recently called my friends in Bay Park and it turns out they were using “grandma’s” address in LJ for school attendance purposes, for child care reasons. Their children are now out of elem. school and no longer attending LJ schools.
CVESD still has 20 children per classroom in K-3, except for one Charter school that I am aware of.
Regarding parents breaking their backs in attempt to buy properties in certain school attendance areas, I still maintain that it is the STUDENT and his or her FAMILY environment and NOT the school that determines the students GPA and thus what college he or she gets accepted to. Students from ALL HS’s are accepted to top colleges. The opportunity is there for ALL students EVERYWHERE to excel in a college-prep curriculum, if they CHOOSE to.
Conversely, I know a child whom most people would have considered to have grown up with many advantages but “flunked out” of Poway High School in the 10th grade. Her dad then placed her in an expensive local private high school, where she was caught vandalizing the school with other students ONE MONTH SHORT OF GRADUATION, so was expelled.
She is now 22, recently earned her GED and is attending Mesa College and working.
Don’t mean to shout – don’t know how to bold!
Participant[quote=UCGal]A couple of corrections here.
– Bay Ho and Bay Park are NOT in the LJHS area. Bay Ho can choose between Mission Bay HS and Clairemont HS. Not sure about Bay Park – but since it’s south of Bay Ho – it’s not LJHS. LJHS does extend slightly outside of 92037 – by a few blocks in north PB. (aka Baja La Jolla.)– The 20 kids max in K-3 went out the window this year due to budget cuts. My sons are both in this grade level – both are in classes larger than 20 at Curie Elementary.[/quote]
I didn’t state in my post that IT WAS A FACT that Bay Park/Bay Ho were in the LJ school attendance area, only that Scarlett should check this out. I only have INTIMATE knowledge of South County. I recently called my friends in Bay Park and it turns out they were using “grandma’s” address in LJ for school attendance purposes, for child care reasons. Their children are now out of elem. school and no longer attending LJ schools.
CVESD still has 20 children per classroom in K-3, except for one Charter school that I am aware of.
Regarding parents breaking their backs in attempt to buy properties in certain school attendance areas, I still maintain that it is the STUDENT and his or her FAMILY environment and NOT the school that determines the students GPA and thus what college he or she gets accepted to. Students from ALL HS’s are accepted to top colleges. The opportunity is there for ALL students EVERYWHERE to excel in a college-prep curriculum, if they CHOOSE to.
Conversely, I know a child whom most people would have considered to have grown up with many advantages but “flunked out” of Poway High School in the 10th grade. Her dad then placed her in an expensive local private high school, where she was caught vandalizing the school with other students ONE MONTH SHORT OF GRADUATION, so was expelled.
She is now 22, recently earned her GED and is attending Mesa College and working.
Don’t mean to shout – don’t know how to bold!
ParticipantI want to take partial issue with Prop 13. I am a lifelong CA resident but my parents divorced and moved to other states (after us kids were gone) where they subsequently retired and died.
I live in an area (central Chula Vista) where the average homeowner age is 77. Not only do most of my neighbors own their homes outright, their PT’s are regulated by Prop. 13. Average taxes on my block are $327 annually. Mine are now $3434, ONLY after a 1-1/2 year-long appeal and stipulated agreement with the (overloaded) assessor just short of a scheduled hearing (I purchased this particular property in 2001).
These post-World-War II homeowners (who keep up their properties themselves or hire it done) eventually die, thereby leaving their propertie(s) to their child(ren). What happens next really incenses me. The decedents’ 50-65 year-old “children” then move into the property (BTW this is also my demographic), PROMPTLY use it as their personal ATM machine, INHERIT THEIR PARENT(S) LOW TAX BASIS and let the property go to waste while they and their families are living in it. In all cases that I know of, these “children” had never owned real property in their lives until “mom and dad” both died.
I don’t think a Prop. 13 tax basis should be transferable through an interfamily transfer deed or by the filing of a death certificate. I think the law should be rewritten to repeal this loophole. I think real property in CA should be reassessed on a stepped-up basis at the time of death. My experience is that many heirs, it seems, have NO APPRECIATION WHATSOEVER for property that they never had any financial stake in and NO CLUE how to maintain real property. A stepped-up PT at the time of death might weed out the local heirs from moving into the property and living there for free (except for utility payments). Instead these “heirs” might be encouraged to SELL the property to a “qualified” party as opposed to attempting to live in it themselves (on TANF/SSD/OASDI/SSI/Worker’s Comp/UI/VA Disability etc.) and “attempt” to pay annual property taxes they couldn’t otherwise afford.
BTW, this post isn’t just a “sour grapes” rant. Both my parents left me and my siblings real property in other states, neither of which had “Prop. 13” – type legislation in place. We simply sold the properties rather than try to place tenants in them and keep up the taxes and, in one case, HOA dues.
“Heir ATM machines” (all encumbered with sucker loans made to “equity holders” with no other capacity to borrow) were representative of the three foreclosures on the block in recent months/years, which hurt the rest of our property values. “Mom and Dad” must be turning over in their graves by now.
This is NOT a small issue. The state and counties could realize A LOT of teeter funds coming their way via the reassessment of properties through deaths. Pre-1978 original property owners are a large demographic in CA who will pass down their wealth through their depression-era savings mentality.
ParticipantI want to take partial issue with Prop 13. I am a lifelong CA resident but my parents divorced and moved to other states (after us kids were gone) where they subsequently retired and died.
I live in an area (central Chula Vista) where the average homeowner age is 77. Not only do most of my neighbors own their homes outright, their PT’s are regulated by Prop. 13. Average taxes on my block are $327 annually. Mine are now $3434, ONLY after a 1-1/2 year-long appeal and stipulated agreement with the (overloaded) assessor just short of a scheduled hearing (I purchased this particular property in 2001).
These post-World-War II homeowners (who keep up their properties themselves or hire it done) eventually die, thereby leaving their propertie(s) to their child(ren). What happens next really incenses me. The decedents’ 50-65 year-old “children” then move into the property (BTW this is also my demographic), PROMPTLY use it as their personal ATM machine, INHERIT THEIR PARENT(S) LOW TAX BASIS and let the property go to waste while they and their families are living in it. In all cases that I know of, these “children” had never owned real property in their lives until “mom and dad” both died.
I don’t think a Prop. 13 tax basis should be transferable through an interfamily transfer deed or by the filing of a death certificate. I think the law should be rewritten to repeal this loophole. I think real property in CA should be reassessed on a stepped-up basis at the time of death. My experience is that many heirs, it seems, have NO APPRECIATION WHATSOEVER for property that they never had any financial stake in and NO CLUE how to maintain real property. A stepped-up PT at the time of death might weed out the local heirs from moving into the property and living there for free (except for utility payments). Instead these “heirs” might be encouraged to SELL the property to a “qualified” party as opposed to attempting to live in it themselves (on TANF/SSD/OASDI/SSI/Worker’s Comp/UI/VA Disability etc.) and “attempt” to pay annual property taxes they couldn’t otherwise afford.
BTW, this post isn’t just a “sour grapes” rant. Both my parents left me and my siblings real property in other states, neither of which had “Prop. 13” – type legislation in place. We simply sold the properties rather than try to place tenants in them and keep up the taxes and, in one case, HOA dues.
“Heir ATM machines” (all encumbered with sucker loans made to “equity holders” with no other capacity to borrow) were representative of the three foreclosures on the block in recent months/years, which hurt the rest of our property values. “Mom and Dad” must be turning over in their graves by now.
This is NOT a small issue. The state and counties could realize A LOT of teeter funds coming their way via the reassessment of properties through deaths. Pre-1978 original property owners are a large demographic in CA who will pass down their wealth through their depression-era savings mentality.
ParticipantI want to take partial issue with Prop 13. I am a lifelong CA resident but my parents divorced and moved to other states (after us kids were gone) where they subsequently retired and died.
I live in an area (central Chula Vista) where the average homeowner age is 77. Not only do most of my neighbors own their homes outright, their PT’s are regulated by Prop. 13. Average taxes on my block are $327 annually. Mine are now $3434, ONLY after a 1-1/2 year-long appeal and stipulated agreement with the (overloaded) assessor just short of a scheduled hearing (I purchased this particular property in 2001).
These post-World-War II homeowners (who keep up their properties themselves or hire it done) eventually die, thereby leaving their propertie(s) to their child(ren). What happens next really incenses me. The decedents’ 50-65 year-old “children” then move into the property (BTW this is also my demographic), PROMPTLY use it as their personal ATM machine, INHERIT THEIR PARENT(S) LOW TAX BASIS and let the property go to waste while they and their families are living in it. In all cases that I know of, these “children” had never owned real property in their lives until “mom and dad” both died.
I don’t think a Prop. 13 tax basis should be transferable through an interfamily transfer deed or by the filing of a death certificate. I think the law should be rewritten to repeal this loophole. I think real property in CA should be reassessed on a stepped-up basis at the time of death. My experience is that many heirs, it seems, have NO APPRECIATION WHATSOEVER for property that they never had any financial stake in and NO CLUE how to maintain real property. A stepped-up PT at the time of death might weed out the local heirs from moving into the property and living there for free (except for utility payments). Instead these “heirs” might be encouraged to SELL the property to a “qualified” party as opposed to attempting to live in it themselves (on TANF/SSD/OASDI/SSI/Worker’s Comp/UI/VA Disability etc.) and “attempt” to pay annual property taxes they couldn’t otherwise afford.
BTW, this post isn’t just a “sour grapes” rant. Both my parents left me and my siblings real property in other states, neither of which had “Prop. 13” – type legislation in place. We simply sold the properties rather than try to place tenants in them and keep up the taxes and, in one case, HOA dues.
“Heir ATM machines” (all encumbered with sucker loans made to “equity holders” with no other capacity to borrow) were representative of the three foreclosures on the block in recent months/years, which hurt the rest of our property values. “Mom and Dad” must be turning over in their graves by now.
This is NOT a small issue. The state and counties could realize A LOT of teeter funds coming their way via the reassessment of properties through deaths. Pre-1978 original property owners are a large demographic in CA who will pass down their wealth through their depression-era savings mentality.
ParticipantI want to take partial issue with Prop 13. I am a lifelong CA resident but my parents divorced and moved to other states (after us kids were gone) where they subsequently retired and died.
I live in an area (central Chula Vista) where the average homeowner age is 77. Not only do most of my neighbors own their homes outright, their PT’s are regulated by Prop. 13. Average taxes on my block are $327 annually. Mine are now $3434, ONLY after a 1-1/2 year-long appeal and stipulated agreement with the (overloaded) assessor just short of a scheduled hearing (I purchased this particular property in 2001).
These post-World-War II homeowners (who keep up their properties themselves or hire it done) eventually die, thereby leaving their propertie(s) to their child(ren). What happens next really incenses me. The decedents’ 50-65 year-old “children” then move into the property (BTW this is also my demographic), PROMPTLY use it as their personal ATM machine, INHERIT THEIR PARENT(S) LOW TAX BASIS and let the property go to waste while they and their families are living in it. In all cases that I know of, these “children” had never owned real property in their lives until “mom and dad” both died.
I don’t think a Prop. 13 tax basis should be transferable through an interfamily transfer deed or by the filing of a death certificate. I think the law should be rewritten to repeal this loophole. I think real property in CA should be reassessed on a stepped-up basis at the time of death. My experience is that many heirs, it seems, have NO APPRECIATION WHATSOEVER for property that they never had any financial stake in and NO CLUE how to maintain real property. A stepped-up PT at the time of death might weed out the local heirs from moving into the property and living there for free (except for utility payments). Instead these “heirs” might be encouraged to SELL the property to a “qualified” party as opposed to attempting to live in it themselves (on TANF/SSD/OASDI/SSI/Worker’s Comp/UI/VA Disability etc.) and “attempt” to pay annual property taxes they couldn’t otherwise afford.
BTW, this post isn’t just a “sour grapes” rant. Both my parents left me and my siblings real property in other states, neither of which had “Prop. 13” – type legislation in place. We simply sold the properties rather than try to place tenants in them and keep up the taxes and, in one case, HOA dues.
“Heir ATM machines” (all encumbered with sucker loans made to “equity holders” with no other capacity to borrow) were representative of the three foreclosures on the block in recent months/years, which hurt the rest of our property values. “Mom and Dad” must be turning over in their graves by now.
This is NOT a small issue. The state and counties could realize A LOT of teeter funds coming their way via the reassessment of properties through deaths. Pre-1978 original property owners are a large demographic in CA who will pass down their wealth through their depression-era savings mentality.
ParticipantI want to take partial issue with Prop 13. I am a lifelong CA resident but my parents divorced and moved to other states (after us kids were gone) where they subsequently retired and died.
I live in an area (central Chula Vista) where the average homeowner age is 77. Not only do most of my neighbors own their homes outright, their PT’s are regulated by Prop. 13. Average taxes on my block are $327 annually. Mine are now $3434, ONLY after a 1-1/2 year-long appeal and stipulated agreement with the (overloaded) assessor just short of a scheduled hearing (I purchased this particular property in 2001).
These post-World-War II homeowners (who keep up their properties themselves or hire it done) eventually die, thereby leaving their propertie(s) to their child(ren). What happens next really incenses me. The decedents’ 50-65 year-old “children” then move into the property (BTW this is also my demographic), PROMPTLY use it as their personal ATM machine, INHERIT THEIR PARENT(S) LOW TAX BASIS and let the property go to waste while they and their families are living in it. In all cases that I know of, these “children” had never owned real property in their lives until “mom and dad” both died.
I don’t think a Prop. 13 tax basis should be transferable through an interfamily transfer deed or by the filing of a death certificate. I think the law should be rewritten to repeal this loophole. I think real property in CA should be reassessed on a stepped-up basis at the time of death. My experience is that many heirs, it seems, have NO APPRECIATION WHATSOEVER for property that they never had any financial stake in and NO CLUE how to maintain real property. A stepped-up PT at the time of death might weed out the local heirs from moving into the property and living there for free (except for utility payments). Instead these “heirs” might be encouraged to SELL the property to a “qualified” party as opposed to attempting to live in it themselves (on TANF/SSD/OASDI/SSI/Worker’s Comp/UI/VA Disability etc.) and “attempt” to pay annual property taxes they couldn’t otherwise afford.
BTW, this post isn’t just a “sour grapes” rant. Both my parents left me and my siblings real property in other states, neither of which had “Prop. 13” – type legislation in place. We simply sold the properties rather than try to place tenants in them and keep up the taxes and, in one case, HOA dues.
“Heir ATM machines” (all encumbered with sucker loans made to “equity holders” with no other capacity to borrow) were representative of the three foreclosures on the block in recent months/years, which hurt the rest of our property values. “Mom and Dad” must be turning over in their graves by now.
This is NOT a small issue. The state and counties could realize A LOT of teeter funds coming their way via the reassessment of properties through deaths. Pre-1978 original property owners are a large demographic in CA who will pass down their wealth through their depression-era savings mentality.
ParticipantAmen, Russell and Equalizer!
One of my neighbors has purchased seven cars and an RV and boat in the last few years. All but the boat is parked in the street because they only have a one-car garage, which is – you guessed it – full. They inherited their property free and clear under Prop. 13 ($350 yr. taxes) and then – – you got it – mortgaged it to the hilt after taking out 2 seconds, one HELOC and 7 “cash-out” refi’s. Now they’re pushing retirement age saddled with yet another new “cash-out” 30-year mortgage that just closed. They’ve paid more in closing costs than I took out on my first trust deed! Guess I’m the stupid one still driving a 16 year-old vehicle . . . Hail to CONSUMERISM!!!!
I’m sure I’ll be around to see the day their bank rolls in a 34-foot dumpster – LOL! They’re on “disability.”
ParticipantAmen, Russell and Equalizer!
One of my neighbors has purchased seven cars and an RV and boat in the last few years. All but the boat is parked in the street because they only have a one-car garage, which is – you guessed it – full. They inherited their property free and clear under Prop. 13 ($350 yr. taxes) and then – – you got it – mortgaged it to the hilt after taking out 2 seconds, one HELOC and 7 “cash-out” refi’s. Now they’re pushing retirement age saddled with yet another new “cash-out” 30-year mortgage that just closed. They’ve paid more in closing costs than I took out on my first trust deed! Guess I’m the stupid one still driving a 16 year-old vehicle . . . Hail to CONSUMERISM!!!!
I’m sure I’ll be around to see the day their bank rolls in a 34-foot dumpster – LOL! They’re on “disability.”
-
AuthorPosts