Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
bearishgurl
Participant[quote=SD Realtor]There are strict guidelines for reporting occupancy rules. Once more, this stuff for the most part originates with the underwriting guidelines for the GSE’s.
You don’t like it, complain to the GSE’s which is in essence a branch of your government.
Don’t advocate private entities commit fraud.[/quote]
I agree that a member of a condo assn would have a hard time moving out and renting their unit and then claiming to the tax assessor that they are still occupying the unit. I’m sure an HOA is well aware of which units are owner-occupied and which are tenant-occupied.
And no, I have never mis-reported my occupancy status to the assessor but I have noticed quite often that many others do for the long term, ESP if they have a “trusted” relative occupying the premises.
I’m sure part of the reason for this is that these owners may have a mortgage that requires owner-occupancy, at least for the years that they end up leaving the property early.
It is what it is.
August 29, 2012 at 11:58 AM in reply to: Getting a mortgage for investment property these days #750870Participant[quote=earlyretirement] … Once I’m older and fully retired, I won’t want a big yard. Big lot isn’t something that will be important to me once the kids leave the house. Yeah, it’s nice now for my little ones to play in the yard but I won’t care about that once I’m older and kids out of the nest.[/quote]
ER, I only mentioned 7,000+ sf lots because older fixers priced for rentals in SD’s best ‘hoods are typically WWII boxes or ’50’s “ranchettes” situated on larger-than-average lots. In order to obtain permitting to expand the footprint (at the time of your retirement) in the choicest “ocean view” streets, for example, you may very well be limited in HOW or IF you can actually add a second story, due to adjoining neighbors’ overhead easements and also current (but likely gone before YOU retire) overhead utility easements. The only way to add sf to this (commonly 1100-1500 sf) type of home is to expand the footprint. To do this, you need a lot with the proper setback and at least four feet to spare on either side and in the back. A sub-6000 sf lot is usually not big enough.
I’m with you. I don’t want a large lot to take care of when I retire, either (unless I’m living on the edge of a National forest where someone else is in charge of that, LOL) :=]
Participant[quote=spdrun]… or condo boards should adopt a dont-ask-dont-tell policy on subletting, and assume that all units are owner-occupied unless they’re told otherwise.
If bills and documents are sent electronically, there should be no issue with mailing address of record.[/quote]
spdrun,
In CA, tax billed are *mailed* via snail mail beginning the third week of September for the following fiscal year. They are mailed to the owner of record who is *supposed* to drop the $7K homeowner’s exemption (HOEX) when they move. Obviously, if they buy another principal residence in the same county and want to claim that property for their HOEX, they must take the HOEX off the property they moved out of, as they are only allowed to claim ONE. Many owners continue to claim the HOEX after moving out (improper), and, if they rent that property out, their tenant gets their tax bills in the mail. If their tenant loses it or moves out and has it forwarded, they can easily obtain a duplicate tax bill by showing up at an assessor branch and identifying themselves, claiming they “lost” their tax bill or just pay the amount by credit card online which is shown in the online public records for their parcel(s).
I’m sure a lot of owners do this because it saves them about $70 per year (HOEX is worth 7K) on their tax bills and will almost cover their online credit card fee if they pay by cc twice per year. However widespread this practice is, it is improper. However, I don’t see how one CA assessor can find out if a taxpayer is claiming a HOEX in another CA county. I don’t think they coordinate with each other on this level. And they certainly wouldn’t know if a taxpayer was living in a principal residence they purchased in another state/country if their (local) tenant was willing to intercept their tax bills.
This “ruse” only works if the taxpayer does NOT have an impound account for taxes.
August 29, 2012 at 11:18 AM in reply to: Getting a mortgage for investment property these days #750864Participantearly, the SD County Assessor now has a subscription service to purchase bulk plat maps. I belong to it and it is cheaper than paying $2 for each map.
You can make ONE visit to 1600 Pacific Hwy (north end, 1st ofc on left) to look in the orange binders for an hour-plus to obtain the numbers of the maps of your choice (good lot configurations for parking toys, alley access, facing a certain direction, ocean or whitewater view, etc) and then order them online and they will be mailed to you in bulk. Keep them for future reference and begin to monitor the public records of the properties within them. Keep in mind those which have little to zero owing on them and also those with out-of-county owners.
https://arcc.co.san-diego.ca.us/subscription/login.aspx
Pay no attention to the over-mortgaged, foreclosed and about-to-be-foreclosed as these properties already have a “captive audience” chasing them.
If you have the “right” maps of the “right” blocks, you won’t find very many, IF any, “distressed” properties. Those areas typically hold their values (and even appreciate, ESP if remodeled) very, very well 🙂
August 29, 2012 at 10:57 AM in reply to: Getting a mortgage for investment property these days #750863Participant[quote=earlyretirement] . . . The only problem seems to be finding great properties in great condition. There is almost no good inventory.[/quote]
Well, time to hit the pavement to research vacants, then, and, if not actually “lender shadow inventory,” contact the owners of record and make them an offer.
You don’t even need an agent for this and it is preferable to represent yourself in this situation. Have your favorite title and escrow companies in mind, however, and list them in your offer to purchase.
Contrary to popular belief, there are plenty out there but you must be willing to look in older neighborhoods.
Most of these older neighborhoods are VERY desirable to potential tenants … ESPECIALLY those who grew up in and around there and have relatives still living in the immediate area.
Don’t for a minute think older areas would bear less rent (relative to purchase price) as newer areas would. Remember, most older areas are far more conveniently-located and also more “coastal.”
Keep in mind your 2+ BR retirement home … preferably on a >7000 sf lot where you could possibly expand it for your needs down the road. Focus on those locations.
By “older,” I mean 35+ years old. Do you have a dog, early? Get in your car and park in one of your “choice” future retirement areas and start walking. Who knows? You might find something you can make a very quiet deal on and fix it minimally to put tenants in who will pay off your 15-year mtg for you 🙂
August 29, 2012 at 10:31 AM in reply to: Getting a mortgage for investment property these days #750857Participant[quote=earlyretirement]. . . Yes, it sounds ridiculous how strict the lenders are on these investment properties. The broker was joking that some deadbeat with a mediocre/decent FICO can get a VA or FHA loan and be fairly overleveraged.
He said one of his clients will have something like $40 left after his down payment and putting a very low downpayment yet those types can often get a mortgage easier than a solid buyer with a high FICO with great income buying investment properties.[/quote]
early, don’t be envious of these poor slugs that your mtg broker is mentioning who are taking out VA/FHA loans with “$40 left” to their name. The vast majority are likely first-time buyers of a principal residence. The up front-fees (PLUS monthly fees on FHA) on both of these programs are very, very high, likely rendering the buyer “underwater” upon COE. That is, unless they purchased well under market, which is not very likely in CA coastal counties, due to the bureaucracy of these programs being well-known to sellers.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FHA_insured_loan#cite_note-post-3. . . On June 11, 2012, the FHA deployed a two-tiered private mortgage insurance schedule. New FHA mortgages and refinances of an existing FHA mortgage which was endorsed by the FHA on, or after, June 1, 2009 are subject to an upfront mortgage insurance premium (UFMIP) of 1.75% and an annual mortgage insurance premium (MIP) of up to 1.50%. Upfront and annual mortgage insurance premiums for FHA loans which replace existing FHA which were endorsed by the FHA prior to June 1, 2009 via the FHA’s streamline refinance program pay just 0.01% and 0.55%, respectively.[9]
FHA-insured homeowners using a 15-year loan term and with more than 22% home equity are exempt from annual mortgage insurance payments.
And: http://www.vanewsblog.com/2011/09/va-loan-funding-fee-changes/
. . . According to a VA circular posted at VA.gov, “For loans closed on or after October 1, 2011, the fee for subsequent use loans with less than 5 percent downpayment and subsequent use regular refinance loans will be 2.8 percent for both active duty Servicemembers, Veterans, and persons qualifying based solely on service in the Reserves or National Guard.”. . .
Due to their no or low-downpayment requirement (of less than 5%), their up-front “mortgage insurance premiums” on a $300K (with the minimum downpayment) loan are $8,400 (VA “funding fee”) and +/- $4,000 (FHA up-front MIP), making their total closing costs approx. $11K-$13K, depending upon the program and lender.
With great credit and 30% down, you could likely borrow $300K in purchase $$ from a conventional lender at zero cost or for under $4400 in closing costs AND possibly be eligible for a rebate at COE!
HLS, ctr70 or other mtg broker, feel free to correct me if you see something amiss here 🙂
Participant[quote=joec]In the end, there is simply no money to go around anywhere from the states/city/local gov anymore so unless you want the schools to all collapse and pretty much be crap, I think cities will have to do something.[/quote]
There would have been more money to go around for CA public school districts had it not been for Prop 13’s pass-thru provisions of assessed value of properties deeded to family members (via Props 58 and 193).
http://assessor.lacounty.gov/extranet/guides/prop58.aspx
This special tax treatment hasn’t and won’t die with the original (April 1978) property owners. The result is that much younger “heir” owners are now enjoying a drastically reduced assessment on their properties (abt $45K to $150K) when the actual assessment should be $250K to $2,500,000. A portion of these “heir” owners currently have children attending public schools.
As I have posted before, I do not support Props 58 and 193 because they amount to unjust enrichment of thousands of dollars per year for a few taxpayers at the expense of many. And many of those whose assessment is “protected” by Props 58/193 have children in school and many more are already heavy users of city and county services.
I support the older homeowners who are still residing in their Prop 13-protected property to live out the remainder of their lives with this special tax treatment. They are the sole reason why Prop 13 was written for and passed. After their deaths, their properties should be reassessed at market value, IMHO.
As it stands, CA school districts will continue to have this problem of not enough property tax coming in (in its older areas) to rehab/rebuild schools unless bond measures are passed to pay for it. Essentially, this was the purpose of Prop C in Poway. The money was used to rehab older schools and build a new HQ. The MR areas within the PUSD already had newer schools, paid for with MR.
[quote=joec]I wouldn’t be surprised if more school districts did this and “kick the can down the road” so to speak.[/quote]
After all the national coverage on this debacle, I highly doubt taxpayers in ANY US school districts would be stupid enough to vote in “pulling a poway.”
[quote=joec]Not having to pay any interest in 20 years is also pretty sweet.[/quote]
Not if property taxes have to be raised “in the triple digits” to pay all that deferred interest down.
********************
There’s no free lunch, joec.
Participant[quote= CA renter]IMHO, people should investigate how/why the construction costs ran so much higher than anticipated, as there is plenty of reason to believe that some “back door” deals were made there. If not, idiots were managing those projects and should be held to account, as well as creating safeguards that prevent it from happening ever again.
After that, they should look into who, specifically, knew the details of this loan and went ahead with it in the first place. The fact that it cannot be prepaid is one of the most egregious aspects of it.[/quote]
[quote=davelj]I’m hoping there’s more to this story that makes it look considerably less moronic.[/quote]
Well, here we go … for starters. We don’t have to look too far here …
SDCTA
The San Diego County Taxpayers Association is not a citizen watchdog group. Far from it. Back in 2008, I blogged about the SDCTA board of directors and their vested interests in Poway School bonds. As it turned out, I missed a few connections. April Boling is currently on the SDCTA executive committee. In the past, she has been president and held other board positions. Boling is hardly nonpartisan. She has served as campaign treasurer for several local Republican candidates and PACs. She was also campaign treasurer for Steve Vaus’ successful Recall Rexford committee. Apparently she was also the “contact person” for the “Friends of Poway Unified School District”, a 527 political organization advocating for school bonds in Poway in 2002 (Prop U) and in Nov 2007 (Prop C)……The Contractor
Echo Pacific Construction did most of the contract work for Prop C. The district used a lease/leaseback agreement to avoid public bidding. New projects that came along, like astroturfing the sports fields were considered amendments to existing contracts. Echo Pacific Construction figures into an ongoing investigation of bidding issues at several other school districts. They know how to play the game to get the contracts. I am not insinuating that anything illegal was done in the PUSD contracts. I am just saying that they are involved in an investigation. And that they have close ties with several influential people in the community.The Politics
There was opposition to Prop C. A few libertarians (from outside of Poway) organized the ballot statement in opposition to Prop C. The issues were pretty much related to the government-is-too-big theme. A local, grassroots group, South Poway Residents Association (SPRA) studied the issue, polled their members and voted against endorsing Prop C. They issued a press release with their reasons for opposing Prop C. I think one of the biggest issues is that they worried that their taxes would double in order to pay for the 2 separate propositions. Unfortunately, SPRA was belittled for their position and they were told that they didn’t care about “the kids”…http://powayblog.blogspot.com/2012/08/pusds-prop-c-naysayers-were-right.html
Poway Unified Parents Added to Foundation Board
Fred Pierce and Christopher Rowe will join eight other members on the foundation’s board of directors.
With the new additions, there are now 10 members on the board of directors, which runs the nonprofit organization that raises funds to support the district’s K-12 programs. “They’re very much welcome with our renewed enthusiasm on fundraising,” PUSD Foundation President Toni Kraft said. “This is a working board, so we chose people who we know are not afraid to roll up their sleeves and work hard.”…
[Pierce’s bio]
Rowe is also the father of a PUSD student. His daughter is a sophomore at Poway High School. His son, who is now in college, also attended PUSD schools.
“My wife and I want to ensure through any means necessary that all the kids who live in Poway continue to have the same incredible educational opportunities the our kids did,” Rowe said. Rowe is the president of Echo Pacific Construction, a commercial construction company founded in 1993.
He said his background will help him as a member of the board.
“Having built a business from the ground up and having navigate it through several economic down turns, I felt I could help a nonprofit operate effectively and at a high level,” he said.
To date, the PUSD Foundation has provided more than $1.7 million to district schools. Pierce and Rowe hope to help increase the amount of funds raised and already have ideas in mind to make that possible.
Rowe said his goal for the foundation is to “triple our ability to provide those less fortunate with all the opportunities that they desire.”…
In the comments section, blog author Clariece Tally said…
Chris – The problem with your argument to lump the recall into this bond mess is a real stretch and really not very intelligent.
First there was intentional misrepresentation by the 2007/2008 school board of which Mangum was the Board President.
The fact that some of the same people who stepped up for the recall are also calling baloney on this bond issue is that when we see unethical and/or illegal behavior we speak out.
I personally did not vote for the bond measure. I’m cheap that way. Those who did support the bond measure were deceived. When a ballot measure states “general obligation bond” and there is no further disclosure about how you intend to finance that bond (and I believe did in fact how they were going to do it) is deceitful.
Trying to point a finger at the SDCTA is also wrong. They were given the same information as the voters. As far as lumping city council in on this – they had no say on the bond issue. Some may have supported it for the same reasons 62% of the voters did and that’s they were kept in the dark.
Mangum, Vandervene and Patapow were all present and accounted for when this mess was created. Under no circumstances should any of them ever hold the public trust again…
See: http://ranchobernardo.patch.com/articles/poway-unified-parents-added-to-foundation-board-2
…The strategy of using CABs came at the recommendation of Irvine-based consulting firm Dolinka Group. Benjamin Dolinka is listed as the president and CEO, and several published sources say he has been advising schools for the past two decades. He did not respond to requests for comments regarding the Poway bonds.
His biography says he “focuses on creating new financial and demographic services.”
Dolinka’s apparently familiar with local school officials up and down the state — his firm is frequently hired to consult with districts on the best way to pay for such things as school construction projects.
On the firm’s website, the firm says it has 250 clients, including a long-standing relationship with the Poway school system.
The firm “is a strategic partner in financial advisory and facilities planning services exclusively for the California education community,” the website says. “And it also advises local community college districts as well as county offices of education.
Besides Poway, the firm lists as clients the San Diego Community College District, San Diego Unified School District, San Marcos Unified School District and San Ysidro School District.
Dolinka is also advising Del Mar school officials on an upcoming bond ballot measure, according to local newspaper reporting, and also has a working relationship with the Escondido school system.
The firm’s website includes a letter of reference from Poway Schools Superintendent John Collins, who wrote in a recommendation letter dated March 21, 2011: “For the past 20 years, Benjamin Dolinka has served as a financial advisor to the Poway Unified School District. During this period, Benjamin was a key player as a member of the District’s financial consulting team.”…
(emphasis mine)
http://poway.patch.com/d/articles/what-poway-s-1b-bond-deal-means-for-the-future-if-school-financing
Everything I read in support of Prop C was that it was voted in “for the kids” and “it’s what the kids want.” I truly believe the kids were completely oblivious to it. They can get the same education in a trailer or temporary buildings, like hundreds of thousands of other CA public (AND private) school students do. It seemed to me like the teacher/administrator-voters who supported (and still support) Prop C are using their students (perceived) desires as an excuse to justify the exorbitantly priced rehabs of schools and the new construction of the District HQ. Many of the PUSD parent-supporters of Prop C are still out in fantasyland in regards to their kid’s (public) education. Their unrealistic “expectations” in this regard are through the roof and their kids opinions really have nothing to do with it.
It seems the usual culprits are to blame here for this morass …. adherence to the “patronage system” in combination with a “comedy of errors” (gross incompetency) all the way around. I’ve seen this combo in play over and over again in my lifetime, lol.
As time permits, I’m on a mission to find more instances (of what appears to be) incest. This is not hard to do in a small city such as Poway and within the PUSD, lol …
ParticipantHere’s a more recent interesting article from the (Poway) Patch … written by a PUSD taxpayer and voter??
http://poway.patch.com/articles/poway-unified-school-district-trustees-betrayed-our-trust
…To simplify the events: In 2008, the PUSD needed money to finish numerous facility upgrades that were supposed to have been paid for by Proposition U, which passed in 2002. Why those Prop U upgrades went over budget by tens of million of dollars is a completely different discussion and pales in comparison to this discussion.
In 2007, the school board (President Jeff Mangum and Trustees Linda Vanderveen, Andy Patapow, Todd Gutschow and Penny Ranftle) decided to ask voters for money to finish school repairs and upgrades and to essentially extend the pay-off date for the Proposition U bond. However, by 2007, people were tired of being taxed to death with little to show for it and the country was in the initial stages of an economic free-fall.
So the school board promised that passing the bond would allow them to finish the projects with no tax increase. The length of the taxation would be extended but the tax itself would remain the same. It didn’t seem like such a bad deal at first blush.
However, instead of disclosing to voters the trustees’ intent to use a highly risky financial instrument known as a capital appreciation bond, they simply said on the ballot the funds would be raised with “general obligation bonds.” They certainly knew including the words “capital appreciation bonds” would have been a red flag that the district planned to mortgage our future to the hilt. Capital appreciation bonds are the equivalent of what sub-prime loans were to low-income borrowers and collateralized mortgage bonds were to lenders during the housing bubble of the last decade.
And look where that got us.
So between hiding critical information and repeating the predictable mantra “it’s for the children,” we were intentionally deceived to the tune of a billion dollars. Right, billion with a “B.”
Predictably, Poway has become the laughingstock of the financial world. CNBC intoned this is “the worst loan ever!” The Financial Times said, “At best, this is a case of kicking the can down the road; at worst, a case of the government dancing with loan sharks.” Now, bad financial planning by school districts can be referred to as “pulling a Poway.”…
Sounds like “outraged” is the prevailing PUSD taxpayer sentiment.
http://powayblog.blogspot.com/2012/08/pusds-prop-c-naysayers-were-right.html
I wonder why the school board couldn’t have just told its voters in 2007, “Due to rising labor and material costs, we don’t have enough income from the school construction bonds you passed in 2002 to rehab these schools (or your District HQ, lol) in the manner which you think your children should grow accustomed to. If you won’t vote in another school construction bond, we will not be able to make all the repairs and complete all the construction projects we set out to do.”
See? Was that so hard?
If the voters didn’t wish to vote for another bond measure, then they get what they pay for. That’s the way it’s done in ALL CA public school districts. Why should PUSD be the exception?
No more taxes? Then time to take delivery of trailers, modular units and stucco patch.
Now, no one trusts the board members who voted in this preposterous scheme or even the school board itself. Of course they are all gone now except for one, who is current running for mayor …
[img_assist|nid=16555|title=Yikes!|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=16|height=16]
What did this “paternal role” of “deciding” for their taxpayers where the (Prop C) money would come from and HOW it would become available and then “duping” them into voting for it do for the District? The city??
Spiraling down a black hole into eventual BK is what it will do for them.
It would have been far better to face reality with the taxpayers’ full knowledge than to feed into their fantasies by mortgaging their future away under terms they would never be able to pay back whilst still being able to operate the District’s day-to-day activities.
People who think the PUSD will be able to begin amortizing this humungous sub-prime loan and eventually retire this debt due to increased assessed values are smoking fairy dust.
…Unfortunately we have already learned the loan cannot be pre-paid or refinanced, so we need to start planning for the future payments now. And the very tax increase that the board said they wanted to avoid will undoubtedly come to fruition, either by a voter referendum with the money earmarked for future payments or by the far more drastic step of the County Tax Assessor forcing a tax on property owners to ensure repayment
Either way, we need to begin a process of earmarking dollars now. As a result of their actions Mangum, Vanderveen, Patapow, Ranftle and Gutschow have virtually guaranteed us a triple-digit tax increase to cover their mess. …
(emphasis added)
August 26, 2012 at 12:30 PM in reply to: Poway Unified borrows some money on interesting terms. #750721ParticipantThis topic was already discussed here …
http://piggington.com/poway_school_bonds
http://piggington.com/powaythe_real_debt_bomb
I’m also glad I’m not a PUSD taxpayer, sreeb :=0
ParticipantDo any Piggs know if it is possible for a RE Broker to get away with leaving an (outdated) listing up on the MLS as a SS when it has in fact been foreclosed upon months ago? I’m wondering if this could be the case here …
Are any RE signs in the yard, nla??
Participant[quote=nla]The original owner moved out about 5 to 6 months ago and then a couple moved in few months. I thought they bought the property (via short sell), but I was suspicious that wasn’t the case. It could be that the bank is renting it out then. Thanks BG.
PS. Yup the original owners are “business” owners. At least that what they said.[/quote]
nla, I just checked sdlookup for any listings/solds on this property and found that it was listed on 8/15/11 as an “approved short sale” in its “current condition.” Current asking price is $425K.
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-110048960-1401_Old_Janal_Ranch_Rd_Chula_Vista_CA_91915
nla, did you see this listing online at the time you revived this thread two days ago? Since it appears from the listing that the original owner still owns it and you say she doesn’t live there anymore, then she must be renting it out and still claiming the HOEX (this is common). The listing shows it was last purchased on 5/30/03 (new) so appears the original owner still owns it. Can any Pigg shed some light on the status of the (re)filed Notice of Sale dtd 8/23/11, Doc No. 2011-0450789? Is this the correct Notice of Sale for this property?
Without having access to the recorder’s records myself, I have no way of really knowing for sure which property was foreclosed on or exactly how many properties this owner “owns” or has “owned,” since she appears to have been merely a “homedebtor” in recent years. This owner has a very common name but the fact that she (and others) use her name by herself in public filings sets her apart from others who use this same name with co-owner(s). The property in which she rec’d an approved modification on 11/28/11 is not the same property that went back to the lender on 10/27/11.
nla, the reason I asked if she had a biz is because the original owner (ONE owner) of this property appears to have at least 2 unreleased FTB liens against her. In my experience, these are usually filed on “business” owners who collect payroll taxes from employee(s) pay but then do not report (or report quarterly, as required by State law) those earnings and thus do not pay any or all of their FICA, Medicare, and Federal and State taxes deducted from their employee(s) pay. This becomes a HUGE problem when the affected employee applies for unemployment insurance after reporting that “business” as one of their employers in the last 6 quarters. Often, the first time the CA EED hears that such an employee has even been hired is when they check these affected former employees’ employment record (for eligibility for UI benefits). If the employee has checkstubs showing they were employed but the EED cannot find the record that they were hired (or all of their payroll withholdings were not forwarded to them), that is when they forward the info to the FTB for collections purposes.
In addition, the subject filed a UCC financing stmt on 6/19/12 and terminated it on 6/18/12 (five years later).
nla, do you know if she (they) are still in business? Are you interested in making an offer on the property? The listing twice referred to it selling as is, in its “current condition.” To me, that’s a red flag that it has gone thru heavy use/abuse and wear and tear (being a fairly new house).
ParticipantTrustees Deed filed 10/27/11 in favor of Bank of NY Mellon Trust and CWALT Alternative Loan Trust 2006 HY 11. Trustor subsequently had a FTB lien placed against her on 11/3/11.
nla, do you know if the owner who was foreclosed on was a local business owner? And is the place empty now?
Trustor had a loan mod filed in her name on 11/28/11 in favor of BAC Home Loan Servicing LP (servicer for former Countrywide mtgs) and MERS. This tells me she owned another property which she wanted to save from foreclosure. Since she took the trouble of going thru the mod process, it is likely she moved there if the Janal Ranch Rd property is now vacant. If it is currently occupied, perhaps the lender has decided to rent it out until the market settles down a bit more around there. There are still two or more of the same models either currently listed or sitting in “shadow inventory” on the same block around there.
This address appears to be a current REO.
Taxes are current and the tax bill is still in the name of the foreclosed-upon trustor (who took the HOEX). This will change about 9/24/12, when the assessor will begin mailing out new tax bills for FY 12/13.
Edit: I have not actually seen any of the above docs but gleaned this info from online public records.
Participant[quote=no_such_reality] . . . Why bother with SSD? Get big fat ‘slow’ (7800RPM) SATAs and store away. . . [/quote]
That’s what I do. When I “store them away,” they are locked up in a 350-lb file cabinet. And I can easily mount them back in the computer when I go back to work (it has side access to 4 SATA/eSATA HD bays). I also have a USB “enclosure” to store one of them in to attach to the computer externally. Of course, I can take it with me when I travel, if I wish.
When I’m gone, my computers only have operating systems and software in them … nothing else…not even e-mail msgs.
-
AuthorPosts
