Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
bearishgurl
Participant[quote=markmax33]…The difference was the system set up by the Baby Boomers! If they hadn’t allowed their kids to walk all over them, this would have never happened.[/quote]
markmax, the majority of boomers’ kids are of the “Gen Y” or “Millennial” generation (born 1979-1998).
Only a small segment of early boomers who had children young, married young, escaped the draft and/or likely did not go to college right out of HS have “Gen X” children who are US citizens (born 1965 – 1978).
The parents of most Gen X-ers were of the WWII-era “Silent” generation (born 1928 to 1945).
The parents of most early/mid Boomers were of the “Greatest Generation” (born 1901 – 1927) and are currently very elderly, if still alive.
Of course there is overlap between the generations of parents of Boomers and Gen-Xers.
[quote=markmax33]The Baby Boomers shouldn’t have agreed to things like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac back in 1970 before the Gen Xers were born..[/quote]
markmax, the only “boomers” that were voting in 1970 were those born between 1946 and 1952 (18-24 year-olds). A large portion of this six-year demographic were FT college students or stationed in Vietnam (or hitchhiking across the continent, lol) and NOT living in their home jurisdiction and thus NOT available and/or registered to vote!
“Absentee ballot voting” did not exist then as we know it today.
Beginning in 1986, the first “Gen X-ers” were allowed to vote. Therefore, we could assume that beginning in (peacetime) 1986, Gen-Xers began voting for their representatives in Congress and State Legislators who have put in place the policies we have today :=]
Participant[quote=SD Realtor]It is very simple and easy to argue. You have stated you see a crash coming at the end of the year. I have said no crash unless interest rates go up because the govt has complied with Wall Street and will use every last dollar of tax revenue available to prop up the market…[/quote]
SDR, I myself do not profess to know what will happen but am cognizant of the many “squatters” and “rent-collectors” whose NOD(s) are well over a year old (some pushing 2 yrs). I have no doubt that thousands more have had an NOS rescinded (due to workout/mod) only to have a new NOS filed on the same property within weeks/months. Earlier in this thread you stated, in part:
[quote=SD Realtor on January 30, 2012 – 7:56 am.]…What I can say is that the train has left the station and the govt has been and will continue to be complicit with Wall Street in manipulating the real estate market all done with insurance for the overvalued assets provided to investors at taxpayer expense. So in reality the programs are doing exactly what they were intended to do. The programs stumble and bumble along and the govt has to keep throwing more and more money and incentives to investors and servicers to get them to use the programs…[/quote]
How can ALL these delinquent home-debtors, (which markmax refers to as “empty houses”) become suddenly “eligible” for a principal reduction? Are they going to sell their late-model luxury vehicles they have sitting in the driveway (purchased with “home equity,” lol) to help settle their (ATM-induced) shortfall as a condition of their new “HAMP” mod/principal reductions??
You know as well as I do that a very large portion of them have ALL recourse loans as well as MORE THAN ONE trust deed currently filed against their delinquent propert(ies).
I saw the proposed “GOV reimbursement figures,” but why do you think the bulk of these institutional lenders and private investors would forgive, in some cases, hundreds of thousands of dollars owed to them and allow a “home-debtor” to keep all the assets they purchased with their “home equity?”
I just don’t see that constellation. This is the function of the BK court.
In all practicality, I see perhaps some “millenium boom” buyers qualifying for a principal-reduction HAMP under this plan on their purchase money mtgs (or non-cash out refis).
The ATM’ers are a different breed entirely.
Participantdupe
Participant[quote=markmax33][quote=sdrealtor]While getting punished by the low rate environment my mothers portfolio returned about 15% last year by investing in stable high dividend fortune 500 companies. I dont know that she will ever recover from that beating….snark off.[/quote]
How much did she lose in 2008? Snark off? Come seriously? I thought I was junior person on this board. I have to tell 60 years olds beginning retirement advice? You are not supposed to be heavily weight in stocks as you get towards retirement. Just because your mother is lucky for a year you call that a trend?[/quote]
IIRC, sdr’s mother is in her eighties and sdr is managing her portfolio, lol. Perhaps I have this incorrect??
Participant[quote=markmax33] . . . As much as I don’t care for what the babyboomers did for this country – sinking us into $16T in debt – I don’t think we should change the rules on them and sink all of their retirement accounts.
Yes Bernanke carried a gun and put it to their head. He price fixed the rate of return on their retirement and made them take a much riskier position to survive then they projected. Who else could have done it?[/quote]
markmax, I will beg to differ with you on this point only. If you are referring to “$16T” as “housing bailout” debt, I don’t think “boomers” were as major of a player (on the consumer end) of this debacle as were “Gen X-ers” with their inordinately high housing expectations (even for their first homes), as well as their overly high expectations for luxury and/or large vehicles and other consumer items.
In 2004, when the “millenium boom” was going into full swing, “boomers” were 40-58 years old. The older half (born 1946 – 1955) were 49-58 years old at that time and the vast majority of this demographic already owned their principal residence PRIOR to the millenium boom taking hold (and may have owned several properties in their lifetimes by then).
Except for two single women (one 64 yo and one 54 yo – both unsophisticated and grossly taken advantage of by mtg brokers), my personal experience during the “millenium boom” has shown me that the vast majority of underwater homeowners were in the very late boomer or “Gen X” demographic. These were the typical “school-attendance-area chasers” and neighborhood chasers who took out all forms of exotic purchase-money financing and ATM’d their principal residences to death (ostensibly to “keep up with the Joneses”), resulting in the level of distress in the RE market we see today.
About half the “early/mid boomers” I am acquainted with own their principal residences outright (read “free and clear”). Another quarter owes less than $150K on their principal residences. These homeowners’ principal residences are located all over SD Metro, East and South County in areas whose values vary wildly from one another.
Boomers, for the most part, did not grow up with many modern conveniences in their family homes and their family vehicles did not have the amenities they did 10-20 years later. Therefore, boomers’ expectations for their first and subsequent homes (as well as consumer goods) was/is far less than it is/was for the more “coddled” Gen-Xers.
Not trying to slam an entire generation here. I’m just stating that there is a vast difference in values between a typical early/mid boomer (now approx 57-66) and a typical Gen X-er (now approx 33-48).
The values difference is generational (mainly due to improvements in technology and urban sprawl), which caused Gen-Xers expectations to be MUCH higher than their predecessors.
“Boomers” (especially older boomers) are being given a “bad rap” by some as being irresponsible buyers/borrowers during the “millenium boom” when they only played a bit part in the “RE crash of 2008,” IMHO.
Participant[quote=temeculaguy]Looks like I’m going to dissapoint everyone, I ended up not going with either the 3 or the G. Like my house, I’m seduced by the deal more than the feel sometimes. An unusual opportunity came up, actually coutesy of anothr pigg. I have strange needs so it won’t make sense to everyone what I did, but it worked for me. Went with a 2010 528i, with ridiculously high miles (over 90k) for 19k incl tax and lic (didn’t buy from a dealer, fairly unconventional method but not a salvage, clean title, no collisions either). It’s freaking gorgeous. It’s the exact car I set out to buy two years go as a personal reward for a promotion that I talked myself out of, black on black, tinted, angel eyes, I envy me now. If it craps out the trade in value is near what I paid so it was low risk, especially for a 2k miles per year guy like myself. I’m a fix it guy, I’m sure I can squeeze 5 years out of it. I know, it has the same engine as the 3, with much more weight, but the relative fun was enough for me . . . [/quote]
Congrats on your wise purchase, TG!
I have a friend who recently bought a ’99 fully-loaded Lexus LX-470 with 143K on it for just over $12K incl tax/lic (after having it fully checked out by a Toyota Certified mechanic). It too is all the things I emphasized in your post PLUS, being an all-time 4WD, glides over ice and snowdrifts and by all “chain-on” areas! Just got back from Tahoe and Mammoth with 350+ lbs of “stuff” plus two people and can tell you that 95 mph feels like it’s sitting still :=}
Also appreciated the two front seat warmers :=D
Gas mileage …. uh, not so good. Depending on speed 12.4 to 15.1 mpg on the road.
I don’t know anything about BMWs but vehicles such as this one (on a heavy Toyota Land Cruiser chassis) which are designed to last up to 500K miles are still quite young with an odometer reading of below 200K. It sold for approx $59K brand new and the 2012’s are approx $92K.
Piggs, NOW is the best time in my lifetime (fairly l-o-o-ong, btw) to buy a used vehicle if you have the cash, IMHO.
I have no idea why vehicle buyers buy new. What’s the incentive to pay “top-dollar” for makes that hold their value (and looks) so well over the years??
Participant[quote=UCGal]Did you ever get served preliminary notices from the subs when they started? By certified mail? If not, you are probably free and clear.
The sub has to serve a 20 day notice… if they serve it after work has started (or stopped) it can only look back 20 days total.
Since your work was complete 12/11, and it is now 1/27/12, it’s probably past the look back period.
When we had issues we got several threats of liens. A quick phone call stating that a prelim notice hadn’t been filed or was filed too late was enough to make the subs liens go away.
Very good advice, (albeit “after the fact”) UCGal!
Participant[quote=booter1]Thx BG-yes I did check his records and history in Riverside and SD county and came back clean and bonding and licensing looked fine
home is in Riverside County.[/quote]
Contact him anyway and tell him you will file suit if he does not pay these subcontractors within 30 days. Better yet, have an attorney write him a letter for you. They will find a way to pay their bills forthwith if they want to continue to get jobs.
Participant[quote=booter1] . . . If we do nothing and let the lien sit on the home, since we just moved in a few months ago and don’t plan on moving for several years, what happens then? . . . should I have done it differently? Contractor had solid references and no prior problems that I could find during the due diligence process.
Thx.[/quote]If a subcontractor in CA who was not paid wishes to foreclose on a mechanics lien, they must avail themselves of judicial foreclosure. In your case, this means they can file a foreclosure suit against you to get a court order to take title to your property to sell it and recover their unpaid mat’ls plus attorneys fees. Whatever is left upon COE (sale) after they and their attorney is paid will be yours.
Your due diligence should have encompassed the contractor’s record with the CSLB AND their record of lawsuits in EVERY county they do business in.
ParticipantAgree with pri_dk here. My experience has been that concrete (sub)contractors, especially, routinely file and serve “lien letters” on every property address their materials were installed in. The recorder’s office keeps those lien letters in a file but does not record them. They are a precursor to a mechanic’s lien if the gen’l who was contracted to do the work does not pay them.
I too feel you will have to sue your general contractor. Contact a real estate attorney to file a limited civil case (if here in SD County). That is the only way to attack this problem and obtain any kind of result, IMHO. If your gen’l does good work and he wants to be able to continue to work, he will not want your lawsuit on his record if it is clean. In the best scenario, perhaps he will be able to settle up with the subs and pay your legal fees in lieu of answering your suit (to make the case go away).
You can also file a complaint with the Contractor’s State License Board (CSLB) simultaneous to suit. They are somewhat inefficient and move very slowly. In the meantime, pursue your suit.
Your refi will likely have to be put on hold.
booter1, did you check this contractor’s record with the CSLB and also his lawsuit record in SD and surrounding counties PRIOR to contracting with him?
If you need a referral to an aggressive RE attorney to handle this matter, please feel free to PM me.
Participant[quote=svelte]Conditional and Unconditional Waiver and Release Forms
General Principles: No lien release is binding unless the claimant executes (signs) and delivers a waiver and release. If signed by the claimant or his or her authorized agent, the signed form is effective to release:
— the owner;
— the construction lender; and
— the surety (in the case of a payment bond).Be careful: paying your contractor (and/or getting a release from your contractor) does not guarantee that other claimants, like subcontractors and suppliers, are paid. A claimant is a person who, if not paid, can file a lien on your home.
Good post for clarification, svelte!
January 18, 2012 at 4:00 PM in reply to: OT- CONTEST!!! Guess public sector household earnings #736280Participant[quote=jstoesz] . . . Fun Fact: Sacramento’s risk of flooding is the greatest of any major city in the country.[/quote]
Yes, ’tis a fact but it is not “fun.” The Sac River Delta is well-known for most of it representing the largest “Type-A” flood plain in CA.
Hence, its lower property values (even though it’s the State Capitol).
January 18, 2012 at 3:56 PM in reply to: OT- CONTEST!!! Guess public sector household earnings #736279Participant[quote=jstoesz]… My next job is more likely to be in MN.[/quote]
Congrats on getting your OC-raised spouse to agree to move to MN, jstoesz!!
Participant[quote=UCGal]fwiw, HOA’s aren’t the only way to get some restrictions on your property. My home in PA was deed restricted by the original subdivision covenant (circa 1890). I was not allowed to have a commercial stable, have a manure pit, run a tannery, or run a boarding house. That last one actually caused me some concern because I did have a roommate paying me rent. Not sure if neighbors were in violation of the covenant when they bought commercial steer manure to augment their veggie garden.
There was no enforcement arm that I’m aware of though.
I have the old covenant docs… They weren’t disclosed to me till settlement so I had to do some speed reading to make sure I could live with the conditions. I’ll have to dig them up and re-read them.[/quote]
LOL, UCGal, the “CC&R’s” of yesteryear were amusing, to say the least (if not both discriminatory and amusing). Obviously, there were no HOA’s in place when they were written but our “forebears” must have thought they were “necessary” (to keep the encumbered area “city-like” and from being “run-down”) ….. :=0
Many older tracts within the City of SD and surrounding cities still have antiquated CC&R’s on title.
-
AuthorPosts
