[bearishgurl]

[quote=ltsdd][quote=HLS][quote=ltsdd]It’s conceivable for someone to buy a house, say in 2002 for $500K with 0% down. House value goes up to $1m in 2007. Refi with 125% cash out. Stash the roughly $700K that they cashed out somewhere. Filed for bankruptcy. Heck, they don’t even have to wait for the bk record to go away. That’s plenty of cash to perhaps scoop up a similar house during the downturn. Now, 7 years later, bk record went away – continue to step two (refi cash out)….[/quote]

Uh-Huh….and how many people do you personally know who did this ?[/quote]

Would you think it would be possible if it’s “the last 7 or 8 or 9 years” instead of “the last 6 years”? Would you care to share why you think such a scenario is not possible?[/quote]

ltsdd, I’ll share with you why I think your scenario wasn’t possible. In the 2001-2002 era, the only “zero down” mortgages available were VA loans. And at that time, the VA had a $359,650 loan limit for 1-4 units. That $700K “mattress money” you’re talking about here was likely borrowed at an exorbitant interest rate, since it was a 125% LTV loan in an era of rampant “fog-a-mirror,” get-a-loan” financing. Do you actually believe a loan for $1.2M taken out in 2007 is still sustainable (irrespective of the borrowers actual monthly incomes)? What would you surmise has happened to this loan by now? Do you actually think these borrowers were ever able to refinance this loan beginning in 2007 (within months of taking it out)? How about in 2009? How about when it invariably got “recast” and its monthly payments “adjusted” in 2012 to capture all that missing principal and interest for 5 years (assuming those borrowers hadn’t lost the property to FC by then)? Assuming arguendo that they did indeed mattress the money instead of blow all or most of it (doubtful) and spent it on lower-cost properties, they would have had to pay all cash for those properties since they were supposedly “bankrupt” and grossly “overmortgaged” as well. So that cash is tied up in these “lesser” propertie(s) and perhaps they held back some of the $700K to keep making payments on their (formerly $1.2M) albatross.

What do you suggest these borrowers tell their BK trustee as to what they did with $700K that they just borrowed when they refied “cash out” at 125% LTV on their home? How are they going to get their BK case discharged if they have the cash to pay their bills? Moreover, how are they going to get a BK judge to let them keep their “automatic stay” from foreclosure on this $1.2M home that they are underwater on that they want to “reaffirm.” If they are keeping up exorbitant payments on this home when it is underwater with all or part of the $700K they took out of it, do you think a BK court will let them keep the luxury home whilst stiffing the rest of their creditors when they own lesser properties to move into? Did it occur to you that as BK Chapter 7 filers, they could be forced to sell one or more of their free and clear properties to pay creditors?

I’ve seen this kind of stuff before, including 4 Chapter 7 filings one after another in 28 years (the 29th year being 2004 where same debtors began borrowing on their house (purch ~1982) for a total of 4 times (until early 2007) instead of filing another Chapter 7. Said borrowers are in their late 60’s today. Why don’t you take a stab at what their current “net worth” is?

My (educated) guess is that your scenario as described was a monopoly game that very quickly went south and these people have absolutely nothing to show for it today, except perhaps 1-2 steady jobs if neither one got sick, got too old or otherwise lost their job in the ensuing years.

[bearishgurl]

I get all my newz from TMZ …

[bearishgurl]

The $64M question is, “Will their lenders (the Big Banks) promptly foreclose on those (defaulted-upon) HELOCS as soon as the law allows?” Any Pigg correct me if I’m wrong that all foreclosure moratoriums have now passed.

In my experience, BK filers tend to be repeat BK filers just 7-8 years after final discharge of their last filing (yes, even 3-5 times in a row). You can’t change someone’s basic character. If the character of someone includes a “sense of entitlement,” then the behavior of that person will continue to reflect that throughout his/her life.

If the answer to the $64M question is yes, then this group is overindebted and will get their comeuppance sooner than later or be forced to sell if they can get out with their heads above water. If the answer is no, then banks have learned nothing this time around but will likely NOT be bailed out by the gubment (ESP HELOC lenders). This will only make it more expensive for highly-qualified homeowners to take out HELOCs in the future.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=spdrun]…

Parent rental applicants with school-age children who have never left the area but have no legitimate rental references (or give friends/relatives names as “fake” references), may have dubious income sources which are unverifiable and have one or more former SS/FC’s on their record which happened YEARS AGO … BIG RED FLAG, folks. SFR owners beware, they’re out there

Why would anyone rent to someone like that? We’re talking about multiple red flags waving atcha.[/quote]

An “owner” who isn’t making their payments or is upside down and sees no way to move for a better job or simply thinks renters will make most of all their mortgage payment for them. This is why they (stupidly) elect to “manage” the property themselves from afar. This is most often an “owner” who has never been a LL before.

An “owner” in an area which became decimated in value during the millenium boom (TV and inland empire cities and most of South County San Diego) and hasn’t completely recovered in value due to post year-2000 overbuilding so still cannot get their heads above water.

An “owner” who has had their home vacant more than 60 days between tenants, due to too many nearby SFR’s being offered as rentals or too little rental demand in the area.

This type of deadbeat tenant has the following (apparent) characteristics:

– is well dressed and groomed;

– drives a late model luxury vehicle;

– one of the parent-couple may have a legitimate verifiable employment which may or may not qualify for the rental;

– is willing to deposit a substantial amt of cash for damage and pet deposits (they’ll recoup it very quickly upon squatting);

– furnishes a list of “landlords” to call as references if asked.

What is NOT apparent to the unsuspecting “owner”/novice wanna-be LL:

– prospective tenant has continuous access to a family or friend-owned flatbed truck or moving van;

– prospective tenant has continuous access to friends/relatives to help them move – in the middle of the night, if necessary;

– prospective tenant knows how to properly search county RE records for defaults and NOS’s;

– prospective tenant may be licensee;

– prospective tenant’s list of references is “fake” (friends and relatives);

– prospective tenant had previous SS or FC preventing them from buying their own home and wanna-be LL doesn’t know how to check for this;

– prospective tenant had one or more successive BK filings/discharges that may have already dropped off their credit report but nevertheless reveals their character which doesn’t typically change;

– prospective tenant has an explanation for any adverse items on their credit report and plenty of cash to make it all better today.

Yeah, I could see where a lot of newbie LL’s would accept one of these “professional deadbeat tenant’s” applications, ESPECIALLY if they had no other applications under consideration and needed to get the place rented yesterday.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=spdrun]

Some parents will do absolutely anything to remain in a particular school attendance area after getting foreclosed upon or forced into short-selling their family’s home.

How many of those people would be interested in renting 1/1 condos or apartments? And if they’re living in that level of squalor with children, wouldn’t they be risking an irate neighbor reporting then to Child Welfare Services?[/quote]

They aren’t living in “squalor.” They just simply place piles of laundry and used dishes around the house and fail to clean the kitchen or the cat’s litterbox, and stain the driveway, etc, for a “showing appt.”

spdrun, have you ever seen the ridiculously stupid listing pictures focusing on big messes, yard waste and trash/recycle bins plus cabinets, showers and closets torn out (may not even be of the same property) in online “short sale” listings, instead of focusing on the property’s best attributes? These listings are but one example of what I was discussing (above). These (deliberately ugly) photos are put in there in effort to lessen buyer interest in the property to enable the “owner’s” or agent’s relatives or friends to slip their offer through with no competition. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t. Most of these listings are tenant-occupied where the “owner” was collecting rent for YEARS without paying their mortgage(s).

This type of deadbeat parent/tenant is interested ONLY in renting upscale/luxury homes of 1900 to 3800 sf located in an attendance area of good schools. The 1/1 rental market is a different animal.

[bearishgurl]

Interesting thread. I haven’t been a landlord in 20 years for all the reasons HLS cited here (had a total of 5 rental units in the past – not all at the same time). And I’m too old and tired now to put up with tenant shenanigans.

I would think the “professional deadbeat tenant” would have gone “mainstream” by now.

My last kid who just graduated from HS had MORE than a handful of classmates (numerous?) whose parents fell into that category. A couple of the “deadbeat tenant” parents were actually RE licensees (albeit not working in the biz). Some parents will do absolutely anything to remain in a particular school attendance area after getting foreclosed upon or forced into short-selling their family’s home.

It seems the deadbeat-renter-stunt-of-choice around here was to rent ONLY from “owners” hoping to list or listing their homes as short sales. They paid well under market rent from an “owner” who wasn’t paying the mortgage, with the understanding that the property would be showed with an advance appt … with the message on the pfl, “`Contingent.’ Showing by appt only. Needs TLC …Do Not Disturb Tenant.”

LOL, all these “deadbeat tenants” had to do was make sure the house was a disaster and there were odors in it during showings to ensure it would never sell for anything the lender(s) would accept. The best case scenario for some of these lucky deadbeat tenants was to have the house they were renting foreclosed upon and get to squat for awhile (most likely already began squatting during the deadbeat seller’s “ownership”) and then either make a deal with the REO lender for continuing occupancy under the property’s present condition (which these tenants had full control over, lol) OR get thousands from the REO lender or FNMA for “relocation expenses” after only leaving the home “broom swept” and their mountains of trash at the curb. Most Big Banks back then just let these “deadbeat (holdover) tenants” stay for years so as not to have the home unoccupied and thus have the City down their throats for broken windows, 4′ high weeds and green/black pools while they decided which homes on which tracts to market first.

My last kid was only 7-8 yrs old when the millenium boom went into in full swing (2004) and has seen some of their longtime classmates move up to 12 times since third grade (often in the middle of the school year), all the while continually attending the same HS or feeder schools into that HS. Today’s average value of the homes my kid’s classmates’ parents rented over the years (ALL SFRs) is $550K to $900K.

It’s unbelievable but true. When a family who bought during a house during the millenium boom that they could never afford under a normal lending environment ends up losing that property, it is very, very difficult for them to “adjust” their lifestyles downward. Some of these local families still have one or more kids in the pipeline (to finish HS) while the short sale deadbeat “owners” are becoming scarcer to take advantage of. But many (most) certainly had a good run of being able to rent upscale and even luxury homes for a fraction of rental cost and ALSO had their fair share of being able to squat for months at a time without even one single eviction blemish on their record.

Oh YEAH. Parent rental applicants with school-age children who have never left the area but have no legitimate rental references (or give friends/relatives names as “fake” references), may have dubious income sources which are unverifiable and have one or more former SS/FC’s on their record which happened YEARS AGO … BIG RED FLAG, folks. SFR owners beware, they’re out there … I imagine still in droves due to much tighter lending stds … still preferring “upscale” areas with good schools and looking for SUCKER owners … preferably those who are upside down or who plan to leave the county/state and attempt to manage the property themselves. Just a FYI.

[bearishgurl]

Imho, all you worker-bee parents overly concerned about your kid(s)’ public schools should MYOB under your 8-5 pm florescent lights and do what you do best so you can keep supporting your kids (this tactic worked for me just fine over the years, thank you). We need to let the public school teachers and administrators do what they do best so your kid will have all the proper reqs for HS graduation and public university entrance in CA. It’s no picnic getting 9th to 12th graders through all these hoops and our public schools do a fine job of this, especially considering that there is an average of 500 graduates per public HS per year in SD County.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=EconProf]Let’s step back from the minutia this thread has turned into and look at the larger issues this ruling points to. Much of the national and CA media have pointed out the shakeup this will have on public sector unions.
In essence, the court pointed out what has been obvious to the broader public for a long time: that what teachers’ unions advocate and practice hurts especially the poor and minority population, the very people liberals claim to want to help. The unions protect the adults at the expense of the children. The black and Hispanic parents who see their children trapped in failing schools have been clamoring for change. They cannot afford the private schools the rich liberals opt for, but favor vouchers, home-schooling, charter schools, lotteries to get into union-free schools–anything but their union-dominated local schools.
Now it will be interesting to witness the coming war within the democratic party. How will black and Hispanic politicians react to the rising tide of awareness among their own electorate of the harmful effects of liberalism. Some courageous democrats have already spoken up and broken from the status quo. More will be forced to in the future. This will be interesting to watch.[/quote]

Econprof, I didn’t read the whole ruling but does it even mention “unions” at all?

No student of any race or nationality in this country is ever “trapped” in a low-performing public school. If a particular school falls short of the NCLB standards, all enrolled students’ parents are mailed a letter detailing the procedure on how to apply for a zone transfer to a district school which doesn’t fall short of the NCLB standards. Some of these letters even give the names of better schools in the district which have room in certain grades. In SD, if the family cannot qualify for VEEP, they are welcome to furnish their own transportation to a better public school for their children, just as they would likely do if they chose a private or charter school. These types of zone transfers are very, very common and hundreds of students even ride the city buses to their new assigned schools.

What’s going to be interesting to watch is how this idiot (LA Co) judge’s “ruling” (there are dozens of them in this state, btw) is going to get summarily shot down because it doesn’t comport with state or even Federal law (duh) and then we can get down to discussing something more productive here, such as, why does Gen Y seem to be continually whining about the so-called “poor quality” of public schools for their kids which were evidently good enough for them to attend just 8-15 yrs ago.

Anyone who has never taught public school (K-12) has absolutely no idea what the job entails on a daily basis – especially in bureaucratic CA.

I can’t tell you how grateful I am to my last kid’s teachers and counselors. Every single one of them had more than 30 years experience and it showed. When push comes to shove and at the 11th hour, these very experienced counselors can talk sense into a 17 year-old who is all over the map (as most 17 yo’s are). Many of these teachers (plus several administrators) actually graduated from the same HS they are working at today (or retired from). This is the case with all of the HS’s in the SUHSD. It is all as it should be (and I’m out several boxes of See’s candy on behalf of my recent HS graduate, lol).

I personally feel that private school (K-12) is s complete waste of money in 90% of the school attendance areas in SD County and will decimate 90% of parents’ retirement plans (all but the 5%-ers). Our excellent public schools are primarily due to all the long-tenured extremely dedicated teachers we have here. A large portion are also in community leadership positions. Of the remaining 10% of attendance areas, perhaps one of the feeder schools (Elem, MS) is worth attending when the high school is not or the high school is worth attending when one or more of the feeder schools is not. If this is the case, the attendance area is still worth living in for a family with school-age kids as they can just get a zone transfer to a better school when their child is the correct age/grade level for enrollment in the subpar school. Zone transfers aren’t that difficult to obtain, especially if the parent(s) are open to their child being placed where there is room as opposed to their personal choice.

CAR is absolutely spot on about the young, crazy, bored, unemployed moms out there (Gen Y?) who believe no teacher or curricula is good enough for their little (ADHD or still not completely potty-trained?) Johnnie or Suzie. It is TRUE than many of them possess a GED or are HS dropouts themselves. I saw a little bit of this when my kids were in elem school but the school was strict with them and made them sit in the cafeteria in the mornings grading papers (rechecked by teacher), cutting out projects for the kids and assembling art supplies for the desks, etc. They could also use the office copier under instruction from the teacher. They could NOT disrupt the classroom in any way, shape or form.

One parent was a CA credentialed teacher but was not working so she was allowed to tutor primary grades in reading and eventually got a PT paying job with the district.

All was as it should have been.

I’ve been a mom of a K-12 student for decades (seems like all my life, lol) and am so grateful for my kids’ great K-12 public educations here in SD County (CVESD and SUHSD). They graduated from CSU (youngest starts in fall 2014) and have been self-supporting since college graduation. What more could a parent ask for?

[bearishgurl]

CA foster kids successfully graduating from HS with all A-G reqs. met and passing their CAHSEE in English and Math can apply to CSU under each campus’ special programs for foster youth:

http://www.calstate.edu/fosteryouth/programs-services/index.shtml

In addition, CA foster kids are eligible for a $5000 Chafee grant to help pay for university or job training:

https://www.chafee.csac.ca.gov/

Not sure about Cal Grants, but they may be eligible for those, also.

[bearishgurl]

Foster kids may also be eligible for “food stamps” (now food aid via EBT card) because foster family homes are not defined as “institutions” in CA. I have no idea how much monthly food aid each foster child is allowed to receive … but every little bit helps.

4. Individuals or groups living together cannot be a food stamps household if they are residents of an institution or residents of a commercial boarding house, or boarders, unless they meet the following exceptions [7 C.F.R. § 273.1(b)(3).]:

Institution Exception [MPP § 63-402.4.]
Certain group living situations are not defined as “institutions.” This includes: federally subsidized housing for the elderly, drug and alcohol residential treatment centers, disabled or blind Title II recipients in group living arrangements, Domestic Violence shelters, foster family homes (but not group homes unless the program is for disabled youth/meet the requirements of 63-402.43), and homeless shelters. (See the subsections of MPP § 63-402.4 for specific rules.)

see: http://foodstampguide.org/households-receive-food-stamps/

[bearishgurl]

[quote=scaredyclassic]Even if I’m not accused the kids could easily be out and about having sex using drugs etc and I’m at risk of felony child endangerment. There’s just no way I can imagine anyone really pondering reality and it’s risks who can do this unless they are truly fearless or driven by spiritual forces.[/quote]

I’m not sure but I think foster parents may be “immune” from prosecution if their “charge” decides they don’t want to go to school anymore. My friend was taking in foster kids BEFORE 9/11 (when the US Port of Entry had “open entry” policies) so, in the past, they could have ostensibly hopped a bus or trolley to TJ instead of going to school that day. She lives only 4 miles north of the int’l border.

If foster parents didn’t have some kind of legal immunity … at least with taking in teenagers, then no one would apply for the job. HHSA is already well-aware of potential problems with each placement BEFORE they place them so the first few weeks/months of a placement are likely on a “trial” basis.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Blogstar]I wouldn’t want to take any money for foster care. That would ruin it. Then again it would be expensive. It seems like mostly single mothers who need money do it? Is that right BG? When I was in foster care it was a single black woman and she was doing a good job. Just helping a refugee or two , perhaps orphaned or a kid who needed a stable environment to finish high school that seems doable. But yeah, it’s scary…[/quote]

Well, I suppose a single parent could do it for extra income but the applicant needs to have at least one available bedroom for every two children of the same sex. HHSA DOES inspect foster-parent applicants’ homes and I don’t think they would place foster children in homes where they had to sleep on a futon on the living room floor or where 3-4 kids would have to sleep in a <= 10x12' bdrm. Most single parents can barely afford their rent or mortgage on a home big enough for the kid(s) they already have. I know a retired lady (widow) residing in Otay Mesa who has a license to foster children but she has a 5 bdrm home that is all her own on a big lot and her kids are grown. However, two out of her available four bedrooms with beds and dressers in them have been perpetually empty in recent years because she has been picky about the kids she will foster. She's had too many problems in the past with kids (mostly teenagers) disappearing for days at a time and being truant after she sends them off to school and also getting suspended from school. She was tired of dealing with all that because life can be short. I think she has actually had to send several kids back to DSS (now HHSA) for another placement in her foster-parent "career." I forgot to add that foster kids are also eligible for free bus transportation from their school district if they need it.

[bearishgurl]

Isn’t the expectation of an employee in corporate America that they will eventually be able to apply to one of those “corner office jobs with a view” if they perform well and better themselves through more education in their field while working?

Although teachers don’t typically have such posh working conditions, why should it be any different for them, since they’re not less educated than corporate employees and often better educated? I think teachers deserve to have a clear ladder to better working conditions just like all other employees.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=livinincali] . . . Maybe it’s time that you run a school district like a business rather than based on feeling and emotions. Now I would agree that if you’re gong to go down this path you need to give the teachers a lot more flexibility on getting rid of the disruptive students.[/quote]

Every single student whose parents are sending them to public school is entitled to a “free public education.” If a student is disruptive in the classroom repeatedly, they will get suspended. After getting suspended a certain number of times, they are subject to getting expelled. After getting expelled, they can ask the district if they can attend another school. They are often given ONE chance at another district school and if they are suspended and/or expelled from that school, they will likely be expelled from that district for a certain number of years. Then the parents have to move out of the district, apply for an interdistrict transfer with their child’s school record in hand, send their child to private school or out of county/state to live with relatives and attend school there. There is a District hearing process in every step of this disciplinary process to legally protect both the district and the student.

“Teachers” can’t get rid of a disruptive student. Only the District can.

Even teachers in private school can’t get rid of a disruptive student. They can put their complaints into the school administration who will decide what to do with the offending student.

Let me ask you something, livinincali. Are you, by chance, an “engineer” yourself? What if your employer told you that you would have job protection for life with incremental pay raises (+/-3% every 3-5 yrs) if you took a long-term post (10-20 yrs) working at a worksite which was lined with shopping carts of the homeless just outside the entrance and perhaps surrounded by garish billboards, 2 tattoo parlors and streets patrolled by the city vice squad. Would YOU take your employer up on the offer? And would YOU spend your time and money trying to get a Masters degree or Ph.D in your field whilst working in this environment, in order to “better yourself” to contribute more fully to the problems of your newly-adopted worksite??

What’s good enough for the goose is good enough for the gander.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=scaredyclassic]Further than that I have never and would never be alone at any time with anyone else’s kid ever, under age 16. I once gave a ride alone to my kids 16 year old male friend but only because I knew him many years and absolutely trusted him, his truthfulness and psychological stability. Basically I would assume any kid is a tremendous risk of false allegation unless I know the opposite is true. Unless I’ve known you personally in excess of five years, I will assume I don’t really know you at all.[/quote]

I don’t blame you, scaredy. You, too, have seen a lot in your day.

[Author]

Posts